Hey, I dont claim to be any kind of an expert, but the apollo news footage shows the earth from over halfway there, and you can see the atmosphere of the earth, the cloud patterns clearly. So, if that's the case then why not get all the radar shots of the weather that day from every country in the world. From 186 or so miles away. Compare the two. If they match, then we did go to the moon, or at least made it that far out...which would make me a believer 100 percent .
LOL like they have radar records of that day from all over the planet 42 years ago, and assuming they did, you'd just find something else to crab about, claim they were fake, etc. It's what moon hoaxers do.
@hughezee, I know this old film. It's been debunked over & over. Bennett, Percy & Sibrel are scientifically challenged. The Apollo footage was never banned! In fact, it was broadcast live in 1969. The entire length of the footage is available to anyone asking the NASA Media Center in Alabama.
This stupid idea would never work. Looking out a window in low earth orbit does not show entire continents! Clouds & land pass at 17,000 mph below! Watch these:
@hughezee Not exactly round, no, but it should look more round than it does here.
I don't know why NASA did this, but this footage is faked. This is a view of a window, not OUT a window, but OF a window. The top part has a masking to make the earth appear to be in the distance.
The video of them faking this video was found in NASA's archives and released, apparently on accident, through a freedom of information request. Just search YouTube for "A Funny thing happened on the way to the moon."
@looncraz, that's a silly idea. If you watched a longer version of this video and broadcasts from the following day, you would clearly see the earth moving within the frame of the CSM window. The Bart Sibrel theory is stupid because if it was shot in low earth orbit, it would have shown clouds and land masses whizzing by at 17,000 mph underneath. Instead, you can see entire continents here. Watch this...
@LunarTuner I guess it's just a similar video, they took quite a few ;-)
My comment made me sound like I believed we didn't go to the moon, which would be false. I strongly believe we did, but poor data handling by NASA meant training video and simulation tapes were released as the real deal ( and likely the inverse is true ).
It has become obvious, however, that many of the photo shoots were completely restaged or altered VERY well.
The photos themselves don't show it, only video vs photos.
@hughezee, Every planet and moon goes through phases. What you see is earth in its waxing gibbous phase. It's always a sphere, but when part of it is not lit by the sun, it has this appearance. You can see almost the exact image but taken by the 70mm Hasselblad camera if you Google search this: AS11-36-5346
Notice that the weather patterns are identical to the hand-held video shot from 133,000 miles from earth.
@hughezee, as I explained, this is exactly the correct way the earth should appear on that date at that time and from the position of Apollo. Talk to an astronomer or watch this video which explains it.
@hughezee when you look at the moon and see a crescent moon at night, do you think the moon is actually shaped like that? It's the transition from the lighted part of the earth to the dark side... geeze.
@ThomasWinn1 Virgin listen up, come back when you have used a condom. There's a good lad. and also you should try going to school, that way you would actually know that the sun doesn't move, then, you would have enough knowledge to get a job and not have to loot shops you skank.
@VideoFreakPresents wow you really are a video freak and besides the moon landing by neil armstrong was FAKE!!! BECAUSE HOW COME THE FLAG WAS BLOWING THERES NO AIR OR WIND ON THE FUCKING MOON!!! AND THE EARTHS RING IS COVERED WITH RADIATION THEY MUST OF NEVER OF LEFT OR THEY WOULD OF DIED OF CANCER..... hmm hmm
@ThomasWinn1 The flag moves because there is no resistance in space it might give the impression of blowing but its not. But there are things besides the flag that have not been answered, stop wasting your time on things that can be answered and look into the unanswered
@BUB142 With YOUR EYES, where there is little light pollution. Capturing that on film and video is another story. Try it sometime. It's not that easy.
Every moron who thinks there should be stars in the images from the moon base their opinion on what they have seen in TV shows and movies. Hey dipshits, THOSE are the fakes that they make pretty for entertainment value. Reality of what a camera can capture is another story. Look at any of the high def footage of the astronauts working outside the ISS. Guess what? No stars!
@TheFACTSRUS Actually it is quite impossible for a camera back then to even capture on screen something smaller then a pencil because it ran off the same power as a light bulb and was portable. Now days you just don't see the stars because all the light that is bouncing off the earth from the sun is directly in the camera's lenses rendering it impossible for the camera to focus on something that has such a small light source.
@Leno1DAC do you even know what kind of camera they are using? if you had enough common sense you'd know its not one of those super duper HD cams we use these days. There, its explained
@Leno1DAC - Go to google images and search for 'Spacewalk' and look at all the photos. Where are the stars? Google 'Voyager Jupiter' and look at the photos, where are the stars? Google 'Hubble Saturn', where are the stars? Google 'Telescope moon', again where are the stars? Astronomical photos have been taken since the 1840s, 170 years ago, and you don't see stars when the camera is setup to correctly photograph brighter objects. Hence we don't see stars in Apollo photos for the same reason :)
@TheFACTSRUS When you can see all the stars in the sky, shine a light over your head. You'll notice that all the stars disappear. In this video the sun is acting just like that light would. The Sun's light is too bright to see stars.
@TheFACTSRUS These idiots always make me laugh! Whenever you see footage on the news from the space shuttle or from sattelites in Earth orbit....no stars either. These numbnuts must think thats fake as well! I bracket these fuckwits in the same gene pool as those who still believe the Earth is flat!
@little0boots I've heard some other people say they see Muhammad's name written in Arabic on the face of the moon. I see something spelled out on the moon too. P - A - R - E - I - D - O - L - I - A
these are the ones the faked, hes describing stuff u cant see out the window at all. its amazing that people still beleive this is genuine. everybody knows neil is a phoney and buzz is an asswipe. they know their fake, and someday so will everyone else. total frauds
Yeah, because you are a super fuckin scientist and astronomer and know more then all those others who have decades of experience and education. You are the same ignorant fuck who prolly thinks 9/11 was a inside job.
@MrToiletface -- He's describing things that the video camera didn't pick up very well, but that are clearly visible in the high-resolution color photos that were taken at the same time in which the cloud patterns match this video. Yes, the astronauts could see those things.
"Oh dear, idiots pretending to be geologists...propagate misinformation."
You're misrepresenting the info I posted because you're trying to sway the people who haven't looked at it with rhetoric. It would take me more than ten posts to post it here so I'm just going to post the link again.
Lmao!! Any being with anykind of advanced intelligence knows normal humans cannot leave our atmosphere past "The Van Alen Belt"!!! Point blank period!! BOOM!!!! There's all the research u need!! fuck what NASA says its all lies! Time to wake uuuuup! Knowledge iz power
When you tell your friends the moon landings were fake, do they get real quiet, then try to politely change the subject? Or do they get a pained expression on their face, then LOL and walk away and never see you again?
@Cosmored, that's not evidence. That's WHINING about evidence! That's people who lack scientific literacy COMPLAINING about evidence they don't understand. The Apollo missions offered mountains of evidence. CT's offer NO evidence. They just offer theories and demonstrations of their imagination.
Show me a photo of the famed "studio" in Nevada (or was it California or Texas?). Show me an affidavit or testimony from someone in on the conspiracy. THAT would be "evidence."
@Cosmored So eager to shit on the graves of every person who had to die to make this a reality, so eager to say so much, so long, based upon so little. You can keep claiming "evidence" for however long as you wish, however it will not change reality. On July 20th 1969 AD man set foot upon the moon, and no amount of bitching, whining, or trolling will ever change that. It is impossible to help you break your delusion when the delusion is itself based upon a great deal of ignorance.
"So eager to shit on the graves of everyof ignorance."
Rhetoric doesn't make the evidence go away. The evidence shows they faked it. Why don't you come over to this thread... spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487
@Cosmored Again, as I said on the other video, calling something rhetoric does not make it rhetoric, nor does it belittle my point that you do not have evidence. I could bicker with you on the many reasons why you are wrong, but in the end it would make no difference. Someone so ready to call bullshit on the most well documented expedition of the 20th century simply cannot be reasoned with. You simply cannot be helped.
@Cosmored Debunked, static electricity. The outer suit layer of teflon attracted the nylon flag, the static was also increased by the fact they were in a vacuum. This is evident in how their suits were covered head to toe in dust, as you can build up quite a charge from running on silicates. This is the problem with your conspiracy theories, they've been around since the 80s. They've been dis-proven countless times, and you deliberately keep using them to mislead people.
...disproves the static electricity theory. The flag moves away from the astronaut as he approaches the because of the wall of air that hit it. It then moves back as the air flows toward him to fill the void caused by his passing.
...shows that the flag started moving just before the astronaut got close enough to touch it which is consistent with the atmophere explanation. At the beginning of the flag video the astronaut is very close to the flag but not moving fast. The flag is not attracted to him as would be the case if it were static electricity.
@Cosmored It is precisely the case of static electricity. You may wish to propagate it as otherwise, but you will merely be laughed at in the academic arena.
@Cosmored Also, as the burden of evidence lies with the accuser. Please do set up an experiment with a nylon flag and beta cloth suit, and stick it in a vacuum chamber for me. So long as you just keep making guesses, you will continue to be laughed at.
"Also, as the burden of evidence lies with the accuser. Please do set up an experiment with a nylon flag and beta cloth suit, and stick it in a vacuum chamber for me. So long as you just keep making guesses, you will continue to be laughed at."
Anyone can hang a light piece of cloth from a ceiling light and trot by it at about a 40 degree angle and see that the movement is consistent with that in the video.
"I told you, do the experiment. Science does not tolerate guesswork, and neither do I. Until you do the experiment, hush."
I did a more realistic experiment than yours.
Anyone can hang a light piece of cloth from a ceiling light and trot by it at about a 40 degree angle and see that the movement is consistent with that in the video.
@Cosmored Additionally, its very clear in the video that the flag moves toward the astronaut once he has passed it. If it was caused by wind, as you are suggesting, it would have blown away while the astronaut was still in-front of it. The static electricity on the other hand would show exactly the opposite, with the flag being attracted to the astronaut. Bias is a funny thing, when you start looking for things that appear to be wind, you completely delude yourself into thinking it is.
"it would have blown away while the astronaut was still in-front of it."
You're ignoring my post. Here it is again.
This video...
/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0
...disproves the static electricity theory. The flag moves away from the astronaut as he approaches the because of the wall of air that hit it. It then moves back as the air flows toward him to fill the void caused by his passing.
"if the moon landings were faked, could you please explain to me the hundred's of peer reviewed scientific papers from geophysicists, geologists...and some from what was then the USSR."
@Cosmored Oh dear, idiots pretending to be geologists.Theres a reason why "evidence" like that only exists on your forum. It is because your beliefs are not accepted by the scientific consensus anywhere. No amount of belief will ever make something a fact. You want recognition? Submit it to real scientists, who do real work. People who don't spend hours on end looking for tiny "flaws" that are entirely explainable, just to propagate misinformation.
"although a blogsite is the last place...of science lap it up."
You seem to be trying top sway people who haven't looked at the info too. In that post there are two scientists who say we're being lied to about science. You shills know the hoax evidence is too clear to obfuscate so all you can do is try to dissuade people from looking at it. I think most of the viewers know what's going on here.
You seem to be trying to keep the info off of the first page by tap dancing around and making trash posts. This is the link to the info on why we can't believe what we read when we are told that every scientist in the world says the moon missions are real.
"mate, you and i are done. you're clearly going to believe anything you see on conspiracy theory blogsites and youtube videos. you have no chance of me putting aside my intellectto follow along. good luck to you."
Translation-
The evidence of a hoax is so clear that, if I try to obfuscate it, I'll just look silly so the best thing I can do is declare victory and disappear.
I think that info is in the videos. Any serious person will watch them and see for themselves. Here's the link to the summary of hoax evidence again so it doesn't get buried.
You're making some pretty lame posts that would get you laughed out of the debating hall; I guess your underlying strategy is to keep that link off of page one to reduce the number of people who see it.
"This is one of the centrepieces of young earth creationist nonsense"
Those people in the videos don't support the young earth creationist theory. They say the earth is as old as scientists say. Do YouTube searches on "Michael Cremo" and "Forbidden Archeology". I'm not in a position to know if what they say is true or not. I just wanted to post what Virginia Steen-McIntyre said. I think the earth is billions of years old and I'm an agnostic.
He says that, if Apollo had been faked, we'd be able to read articles by scientists in science journals saying it was faked. No science journal would go against the official version of things as they are under strict control.
"There are a lot of geologists and anthropologists much more credentialed than her saying she is dodgy"
The government can always find scientists who will lie to back up the official position. Her speaking out can't be dismissed because a few scientists have disagreed with her. There's more evidence that we're lied to here.
Why are you deleting your posts when I respond to them? Why don't you leave them there and give rebuttals to my responses? You are acting like a cornered sophist.
One tactic that shills use is to play dumb about the evidence put forth and try to bury it to reduce the number of people who see it. The only way to thwart that tactic is to keep posting it.
@Cosmored There is absolutely nothing you can say to me that I do not have an explanation for. Ive heard them all. What next? Van Allen Belts? No exhaust plume? No crater? Some out of context quotes? LRO, LCROSS, Kaguya? Apollo 1? Just face it, you're completely outgunned when you're not preaching to the people who know nothing of Apollo.
@MegaJrod83 Explanation : It was edited in. Video evidence like that holds absolutely no credence in the academic arena today, any idiot with Sony Vegas can do that nowadays. In order for something to be science, it must be physical, it must be repeatable, and it must either comply with already known physics or contribute to a new branch of physics. So long as videos or pictures are the greatest evidence for ghosts, they will simply remain supernatural, and not natural.
@MegaJrod83 If you wish to seek more concrete evidence, I would encourage you to find any mathematical basis for ghosts.For example, I believe in black holes. I certainly can't see or touch them, nor do they leave any physical evidence of their existence here on Earth, but we can certainly observe their effects on the cosmos and physics allows them to exist. Ghosts should be much the same, if ghosts have any credibility at all.
@UndeadPizzaGuy How can u say something thats been FILMED has no credibility?! And that orb video was filmed in the mid 90s so they couldn't have used "nowaday" camera tricks, plus u can see the orbs light some of the trees as they float by.
@MegaJrod83 Actually, yes, you can. Please do defer me to a source dating when that documentary/show aired. I will then tell you precisely how it was faked. Filming has absolutely no credibility, neither does audio, nor pictures.
@MegaJrod83 And you avoided my question, I asked you what mathematical basis there is for ghosts. If something cannot be verified by math, you will merely be laughed at in the academic arena.
@UndeadPizzaGuy I dont get what math has to do with ghosts, all I need is realistic video proof of things existing that cant be explained by experts which u didnt make clear to me with yur math gibberish. If u saw a videotape of someone being killed would u need scientific/mathematical proof to believe it happened?
@MegaJrod83 Math has everything to do with everything. If math cannot explain it, it simply does not exist or cannot exist with our current understanding. If it is beyond our understanding, then you cannot simply conclude they are ghosts, as it would be an unknown. And again, that would not be enough. Murder weapons, motives, time of death, fingerprints, body/cloth fibers, past signs of aggression. Murders are reenacted all the time in movies, and can be quite realistic.
@MegaJrod83 Video evidence simply means nothing. And I did not ask you to tell me when the documentary was aired, I asked you to defer me to a direct source saying when it was aired.
@UndeadPizzaGuy I never actually said i think they're ghosts, I just wanted to see you give an explanation of what those orbs in the video were, but u didnt. Even the film-technique expert in the video cant explain it so obviously those orbs really were in the woods and not faked.
@MegaJrod83 I did, I said it was faked. Im dubious of the "Film expert" as well. I also find it rather ridiculous you would suggest we can't make floating orbs with 90's special effects. I suppose floating orbs is far beyond the realm of the Terminator, Apollo 13, Deep Impact, Independence Day, Star Wars, Star Trek, 2001, The Right Stuff, Toy Story, and other great 90s and pre 90's examples of special effects.
@UndeadPizzaGuy your talking million dollar movie effects, these orbs were filmed by a simple surveillance camera some dude in colorado put outside his house.
@MegaJrod83 They look rather cheap to me, I don't see why on earth you would connect the two. If you are still deluding yourself over that though, there are many great television programs with ridiculously superior effects and moderate budgets. "From the Earth to the Moon" "Cosmos" "Stephen Hawking's Universe" just to name a few.
@poised4u2 Try to give a real scientific explanation of what they are without taking the easy way out by saying they were simply faked, if they were, then HOW??
@MegaJrod83 It's quite simple really, you can go with stop motion, which I doubt. You could go with splicing, which I find probable, you can also go to every single frame and simply paste in the image of the orb as well. Special effects existed before Sony Vegas, contrary to what you might believe.
@MegaJrod83 You aren't even considering the possibility it wasn't an expert? This is the problem. You simply assume and believe what you are being told.
@UndeadPizzaGuy No, his names Tim McCue and he was a technical advisor/ film processor type guy on the X-Files and other shows so he knows a thing or two.
@MegaJrod83 Not what Im interested in, what are his credentials? Sure, I loved the X-Files, but it does nothing to add any validity to this man, in much the same way Newtons reputation as a scientist lended no credibility to Alchemy, of which he was also an avid researcher.
@MegaJrod83 Yes according to the TV show. However as I stated earlier, that simply is not enough. Should I honestly believe in Alchemy just because Newton believed in it? Because that is exactly what you are trying to sell to me right now. One man does not a consensus make.
@MegaJrod83 And i'm saying hes not a film expert, thats my point, which you just keep ignoring. No matter how many times you move the goal posts it will still remain that he is not a film expert, in much the same way Newton's opinion on Alchemy lended no credence to the mythical science. Science is governed by pure consensus, and one man claiming something to be true is not enough. One man does not a consensus make.
@MegaJrod83 I know because it's total bunk, like all of the ghost hunter and haunting shows nowadays. If there were any merit to these "Orbs" there would be actual scientists with actual qualifications studying them, there are not. With just him, there is no consensus, which simply means its not science, its a dramatization, like the thousands before it. Nor do I need to prove my expertise - as the evidence lies with the accuser, not I.
@MegaJrod83 Real scientists I said. There are "scientists" who study demons as well, there are ones that study alchemy, even perpetual motion machines. Its all the same. I prefer to call them psuedoscientists, as they are not doing any credible or rational work.
@MegaJrod83 Yes, because they certainly ring a bell. Who cares about real scientists like Feynman, Sagan, Dawkins, Hawking, or Tyson who spend a great portion of their lives and their money to better our standing as a species. I would much rather listen to a psuedoscientist with dubious credentials working with experiments that cannot be repeated and leave absolutely no evidence but eyewitness accounts, the lowest form of evidence. Yeah, why bother with science when you can have that.
@MegaJrod83 Ectoplasm? You've got to be shitting me, this is just too much now. I would encourage you to type in "Is ectoplasm real" into google, and spend a few seconds looking at exactly what you are suggesting.
@MegaJrod83 "Although the term is widespread in popular culture, the physical existence of ectoplasm is not accepted by science. Some tested samples purported to be ectoplasm have been found to be various non-paranormal substances, including chiffon and flakes of human skin.[2][3] Other researchers have duplicated, with non-supernatural materials, the photographic effects sometimes said to prove the existence of ectoplasm"
@MegaJrod83 No such thing has ever happened. I can keep going on and on with this - just because something was on TV does not make it real. I thought this to be obvious, but apparently I must continue to stress it. Do enlighten me on which real scientists accept this reality of yours. I am not talking lone authors, I am not talking psychologists, I am talking about scientists. Richard Dawkins is an oxford professor, and even with those credentials he is still questioned on Evolution.
@UndeadPizzaGuy Just google those last 3 scientists I mentioned, I assure u they completely accept my reality. And they ARE scientists, although Venkman is more like a game show host.
@MegaJrod83 "Hurr, I'm a bible scientists, therefore the bible is true because I have studied the bible all my life. I conclude the Earth is 6000 years old, is the center of the universe, and is flat, Durr." No matter how much time you spend studying a subject, it will all be for naught if the subject you are studying is a load of crap.
@UndeadPizzaGuy Aw come now, their great scientists, they saved new york from a evil sumerian god, a medievel tyrant, and even have a pet ghost named slimer. WHO U GONNA CALL?!!
@MegaJrod83 For it to be science, it must be the widely held consensus, just like every other great idea. Quantum mechanics, evolution, relativity, the big bang, thermodynamics, Newton's laws of motion, newtons laws of optics, all ideas that have withstood the scrutiny of the greatest scientists for centuries. Pray tell, where does the paranormal fit into this? You and I both know the answer to this.
@MegaJrod83 Do tell me now why no scientists like that study the supernatural? It is simply because you cannot test the untestable, and if it cannot be tested, you cannot draw any conclusions from it. If you cannot draw conclusions, then it is an unknown, and therefore you cannot claim it to be factual because it is indeed - an unknown. I appreciate your enthusiasm to defend such things, but it is better spent elsewhere, on real science.
@MegaJrod83 Let me just draw a fine line for you. Real scientists are the people transplant hearts, power our cities, clean our water, network us, put men in space, decode genomes, unravel the cosmos, and so forth. People who actually devote their lives to better mankind. Psuedoscientists merely play with myth and propagate it as science for their own self benefit or to their own self delusion.
@MegaJrod83 Furthermore, easy way out? Skepticism is never the easy way out, it is the entire basis of science, the very fabric of academic consensus and meritocracy relies on skepticism and not relying on people to get something right. As Richard Feynman once said, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
The resolution of the Hubble telescope is unable to resolve objects smaller than 27 meters in diameter, so you would not even see them as clearly as the LRO images.
These guys landed on the moon over 40 years ago and people are STILL uneducated about space -_-
Radhazardman 3 months ago 7
@Radhazardman
Citizens are unedated about space, Nasa and the U.S government knows everything about space though.
DarkosApprentice 2 months ago
id be pretty scared being so far from home
WungTung 3 months ago
Hey, I dont claim to be any kind of an expert, but the apollo news footage shows the earth from over halfway there, and you can see the atmosphere of the earth, the cloud patterns clearly. So, if that's the case then why not get all the radar shots of the weather that day from every country in the world. From 186 or so miles away. Compare the two. If they match, then we did go to the moon, or at least made it that far out...which would make me a believer 100 percent .
amzingjourney 5 months ago
@amzingjourney
LOL like they have radar records of that day from all over the planet 42 years ago, and assuming they did, you'd just find something else to crab about, claim they were fake, etc. It's what moon hoaxers do.
Blahblobify 3 months ago
dis is da true shape of the earth like lemon
211polan 5 months ago
where is the sun if that part of earth is lit ??
Coolguyus123 5 months ago
@Coolguyus123 Behind Armstrong maybe?
alphaevolution 5 months ago
u will be suprised wat youll find out
ThomasWinn1 5 months ago
the moon landing was fake message me back when u want to disagree y
ThomasWinn1 5 months ago
can you lot watch ....Banned in America: Proof of Fake Moonlanding
or is it banned?
hughezee 6 months ago
@hughezee, I know this old film. It's been debunked over & over. Bennett, Percy & Sibrel are scientifically challenged. The Apollo footage was never banned! In fact, it was broadcast live in 1969. The entire length of the footage is available to anyone asking the NASA Media Center in Alabama.
This stupid idea would never work. Looking out a window in low earth orbit does not show entire continents! Clouds & land pass at 17,000 mph below! Watch these:
watch?v=atG1LpLTgwc
watch?v=2OnZwqc-96Y
LunarTuner 6 months ago
eh..i thought the earth was round?
hughezee 6 months ago
@hughezee Not exactly round, no, but it should look more round than it does here.
I don't know why NASA did this, but this footage is faked. This is a view of a window, not OUT a window, but OF a window. The top part has a masking to make the earth appear to be in the distance.
The video of them faking this video was found in NASA's archives and released, apparently on accident, through a freedom of information request. Just search YouTube for "A Funny thing happened on the way to the moon."
looncraz 6 months ago
@looncraz cheers mate
hughezee 6 months ago
@looncraz, that's a silly idea. If you watched a longer version of this video and broadcasts from the following day, you would clearly see the earth moving within the frame of the CSM window. The Bart Sibrel theory is stupid because if it was shot in low earth orbit, it would have shown clouds and land masses whizzing by at 17,000 mph underneath. Instead, you can see entire continents here. Watch this...
watch?v=2OnZwqc-96Y
LunarTuner 6 months ago
@LunarTuner I guess it's just a similar video, they took quite a few ;-)
My comment made me sound like I believed we didn't go to the moon, which would be false. I strongly believe we did, but poor data handling by NASA meant training video and simulation tapes were released as the real deal ( and likely the inverse is true ).
It has become obvious, however, that many of the photo shoots were completely restaged or altered VERY well.
The photos themselves don't show it, only video vs photos.
looncraz 6 months ago
@looncraz, I'd challenge you on all that. The evidence doesn't support such a theory at all. You'll have to demonstrate that.
LunarTuner 6 months ago
@hughezee if yu didnt know .... the sun was pointing the way they were looking? not the other side?
GuitarHeroAddict001 6 months ago
@hughezee it is round it just that half of earth is night and then when the sun moves its day and the other half is night geeze learn some astronomy.
ThomasWinn1 6 months ago 5
@ThomasWinn1 show me some other pictures where the earth is this shape?
hughezee 6 months ago
@hughezee your such a fucking dumbass
powayxc 6 months ago
@hughezee search it up on google
ThomasWinn1 6 months ago
@ThomasWinn1 i have and i get nothing
hughezee 6 months ago
@hughezee, Every planet and moon goes through phases. What you see is earth in its waxing gibbous phase. It's always a sphere, but when part of it is not lit by the sun, it has this appearance. You can see almost the exact image but taken by the 70mm Hasselblad camera if you Google search this: AS11-36-5346
Notice that the weather patterns are identical to the hand-held video shot from 133,000 miles from earth.
LunarTuner 6 months ago
@LunarTuner watch... Banned in America: Proof of Fake Moonlanding
and it will explain why the earth is the wrong shape..5:30
enjoy
hughezee 6 months ago
@hughezee, as I explained, this is exactly the correct way the earth should appear on that date at that time and from the position of Apollo. Talk to an astronomer or watch this video which explains it.
watch?v=8-kycXHTYco
LunarTuner 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LunarTuner Banned in America: Proof of Fake Moonlanding
and it will explain why the earth is the wrong shape..5:30
please do as i say..then we can ..talk ----------- simples
hughezee 6 months ago
@hughezee when you look at the moon and see a crescent moon at night, do you think the moon is actually shaped like that? It's the transition from the lighted part of the earth to the dark side... geeze.
toogood75 6 months ago
@ThomasWinn1 actually the earth orbits the sun, so the sun never actually moves. You just failed son.
VideoFreakPresents 6 months ago
@VideoFreakPresents what like your dads comdom thats why your here
ThomasWinn1 5 months ago
@ThomasWinn1 Virgin listen up, come back when you have used a condom. There's a good lad. and also you should try going to school, that way you would actually know that the sun doesn't move, then, you would have enough knowledge to get a job and not have to loot shops you skank.
VideoFreakPresents 5 months ago
@VideoFreakPresents wow you really are a video freak and besides the moon landing by neil armstrong was FAKE!!! BECAUSE HOW COME THE FLAG WAS BLOWING THERES NO AIR OR WIND ON THE FUCKING MOON!!! AND THE EARTHS RING IS COVERED WITH RADIATION THEY MUST OF NEVER OF LEFT OR THEY WOULD OF DIED OF CANCER..... hmm hmm
ThomasWinn1 5 months ago
@ThomasWinn1 The flag moves because there is no resistance in space it might give the impression of blowing but its not. But there are things besides the flag that have not been answered, stop wasting your time on things that can be answered and look into the unanswered
VideoFreakPresents 5 months ago
@VideoFreakPresents well how come they didnt get cancer when they didnt get cancer
ThomasWinn1 5 months ago
@ThomasWinn1 You are a fucking moron, so STFU. You know nothing turd.
TheFACTSRUS 5 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheFACTSRUS no YOUR A TERD!!!! }:O
ThomasWinn1 5 months ago
@BUB142 I can't see more than 4 or 5 stars and I'm pretty far from downtown Vancouver.
Freak2121GTAF 7 months ago
@BUB142 Only if you are not in a light polluted area like a city.
Freak2121GTAF 7 months ago
@BUB142 With YOUR EYES, where there is little light pollution. Capturing that on film and video is another story. Try it sometime. It's not that easy.
TheFACTSRUS 7 months ago
apparantly they were 150,000 miles out on this video
slimnm1 7 months ago
OMG believe that? i just heard the dead man talking!
pisca2av 7 months ago
Amazing.
askjiir 8 months ago
i expect to see the moon right htere, it looks so wear being the earth hehe i cant explaine
DionDJVJ 8 months ago
Every moron who thinks there should be stars in the images from the moon base their opinion on what they have seen in TV shows and movies. Hey dipshits, THOSE are the fakes that they make pretty for entertainment value. Reality of what a camera can capture is another story. Look at any of the high def footage of the astronauts working outside the ISS. Guess what? No stars!
TheFACTSRUS 9 months ago 31
@TheFACTSRUS Actually it is quite impossible for a camera back then to even capture on screen something smaller then a pencil because it ran off the same power as a light bulb and was portable. Now days you just don't see the stars because all the light that is bouncing off the earth from the sun is directly in the camera's lenses rendering it impossible for the camera to focus on something that has such a small light source.
hottfuzz2 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheFACTSRUS They all get doctored you dumb bastard.
BatmansArse 4 months ago
@TheFACTSRUS so how come we can see them at night by just looking up.
Leno1DAC 2 months ago
@Leno1DAC do you even know what kind of camera they are using? if you had enough common sense you'd know its not one of those super duper HD cams we use these days. There, its explained
TheWofye 2 months ago
@Leno1DAC - Go to google images and search for 'Spacewalk' and look at all the photos. Where are the stars? Google 'Voyager Jupiter' and look at the photos, where are the stars? Google 'Hubble Saturn', where are the stars? Google 'Telescope moon', again where are the stars? Astronomical photos have been taken since the 1840s, 170 years ago, and you don't see stars when the camera is setup to correctly photograph brighter objects. Hence we don't see stars in Apollo photos for the same reason :)
MTMind2 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheFACTSRUS When you can see all the stars in the sky, shine a light over your head. You'll notice that all the stars disappear. In this video the sun is acting just like that light would. The Sun's light is too bright to see stars.
jj1x0 1 month ago
@TheFACTSRUS These idiots always make me laugh! Whenever you see footage on the news from the space shuttle or from sattelites in Earth orbit....no stars either. These numbnuts must think thats fake as well! I bracket these fuckwits in the same gene pool as those who still believe the Earth is flat!
tonyburn 4 weeks ago
It says Allah on the moon in Arabic
little0boots 9 months ago
@little0boots LOL and it says jesus in burn marks on my toasted sandwich
its always amusing how desperate muslims are
proudfemale 9 months ago
@proudfemale LOL 'desperate' and literate are two different things. it's there if you can read Arabic, just saying.
little0boots 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@little0boots of course desperate and literate are two very different things lol
re literate, explain why illiteracy is so appallingly bad in your ummah and worse for females
muslims are DESPERATE when they claim childish nonsense...e.g. it says allah on moon
of course MAJORITY of muslims dont read or speak arabic either....so your nonsense is childish
proudfemale 9 months ago 2
@little0boots I've heard some other people say they see Muhammad's name written in Arabic on the face of the moon. I see something spelled out on the moon too. P - A - R - E - I - D - O - L - I - A
TADahar 8 months ago
these are the ones the faked, hes describing stuff u cant see out the window at all. its amazing that people still beleive this is genuine. everybody knows neil is a phoney and buzz is an asswipe. they know their fake, and someday so will everyone else. total frauds
MrToiletface 9 months ago
@MrToiletface amazing you talk so much shit ,you know we went
tomanyasses 9 months ago
@MrToiletface
Yeah, because you are a super fuckin scientist and astronomer and know more then all those others who have decades of experience and education. You are the same ignorant fuck who prolly thinks 9/11 was a inside job.
normanmj 9 months ago
@MrToiletface Omg another conspiracy nut here we go again
zipper978 9 months ago
@MrToiletface -- He's describing things that the video camera didn't pick up very well, but that are clearly visible in the high-resolution color photos that were taken at the same time in which the cloud patterns match this video. Yes, the astronauts could see those things.
nesokretep 9 months ago
"Oh dear, idiots pretending to be geologists...propagate misinformation."
You're misrepresenting the info I posted because you're trying to sway the people who haven't looked at it with rhetoric. It would take me more than ten posts to post it here so I'm just going to post the link again.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showpost (dot) php?p=4731597&postcount=1090
Those who actually look at the info will know you're full of it.
Cosmored 10 months ago
uhh...
TehReedRacer99 10 months ago
Lmao!! Any being with anykind of advanced intelligence knows normal humans cannot leave our atmosphere past "The Van Alen Belt"!!! Point blank period!! BOOM!!!! There's all the research u need!! fuck what NASA says its all lies! Time to wake uuuuup! Knowledge iz power
supersajinyett 10 months ago
The Apollo moon missions were faked in a studio. Here's a link to some of the evidence.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487
Cosmored 10 months ago
@Cosmored
When you tell your friends the moon landings were fake, do they get real quiet, then try to politely change the subject? Or do they get a pained expression on their face, then LOL and walk away and never see you again?
TheJomogogo 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheJomogogo
Snide remarks don't make the evidence go away. Why don't you come over to this thread...
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487
...and we can discuss the actual evidence?
Cosmored2 10 months ago
@TheJomogogo, Cosmored has friends?
LunarTuner 10 months ago
@Cosmored, that's not evidence. That's WHINING about evidence! That's people who lack scientific literacy COMPLAINING about evidence they don't understand. The Apollo missions offered mountains of evidence. CT's offer NO evidence. They just offer theories and demonstrations of their imagination.
Show me a photo of the famed "studio" in Nevada (or was it California or Texas?). Show me an affidavit or testimony from someone in on the conspiracy. THAT would be "evidence."
LunarTuner 10 months ago
@Cosmored So eager to shit on the graves of every person who had to die to make this a reality, so eager to say so much, so long, based upon so little. You can keep claiming "evidence" for however long as you wish, however it will not change reality. On July 20th 1969 AD man set foot upon the moon, and no amount of bitching, whining, or trolling will ever change that. It is impossible to help you break your delusion when the delusion is itself based upon a great deal of ignorance.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy
"So eager to shit on the graves of everyof ignorance."
Rhetoric doesn't make the evidence go away. The evidence shows they faked it. Why don't you come over to this thread... spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487
...and we can discuss the actual evidence?
Cosmored 10 months ago
@Cosmored Again, as I said on the other video, calling something rhetoric does not make it rhetoric, nor does it belittle my point that you do not have evidence. I could bicker with you on the many reasons why you are wrong, but in the end it would make no difference. Someone so ready to call bullshit on the most well documented expedition of the 20th century simply cannot be reasoned with. You simply cannot be helped.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy
"nor does it belittle my point that you do not have evidence."
Do a YouTube search on "Apollo 15 flag waving". Tell us what you think made the flag move.
Cosmored 10 months ago
@Cosmored Debunked, static electricity. The outer suit layer of teflon attracted the nylon flag, the static was also increased by the fact they were in a vacuum. This is evident in how their suits were covered head to toe in dust, as you can build up quite a charge from running on silicates. This is the problem with your conspiracy theories, they've been around since the 80s. They've been dis-proven countless times, and you deliberately keep using them to mislead people.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy
This video...
/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0
...disproves the static electricity theory. The flag moves away from the astronaut as he approaches the because of the wall of air that hit it. It then moves back as the air flows toward him to fill the void caused by his passing.
Cosmored 10 months ago
This video...
/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg
...shows that the flag started moving just before the astronaut got close enough to touch it which is consistent with the atmophere explanation. At the beginning of the flag video the astronaut is very close to the flag but not moving fast. The flag is not attracted to him as would be the case if it were static electricity.
/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
Cosmored 10 months ago
@Cosmored It is precisely the case of static electricity. You may wish to propagate it as otherwise, but you will merely be laughed at in the academic arena.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@Cosmored Also, as the burden of evidence lies with the accuser. Please do set up an experiment with a nylon flag and beta cloth suit, and stick it in a vacuum chamber for me. So long as you just keep making guesses, you will continue to be laughed at.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy
"Also, as the burden of evidence lies with the accuser. Please do set up an experiment with a nylon flag and beta cloth suit, and stick it in a vacuum chamber for me. So long as you just keep making guesses, you will continue to be laughed at."
Anyone can hang a light piece of cloth from a ceiling light and trot by it at about a 40 degree angle and see that the movement is consistent with that in the video.
/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
Cosmored 10 months ago
@Cosmored I told you, do the experiment. Science does not tolerate guesswork, and neither do I. Until you do the experiment, hush.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UndeadPizzaGuy
"I told you, do the experiment. Science does not tolerate guesswork, and neither do I. Until you do the experiment, hush."
I did a more realistic experiment than yours.
Anyone can hang a light piece of cloth from a ceiling light and trot by it at about a 40 degree angle and see that the movement is consistent with that in the video.
/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487
Cosmored 10 months ago
@Cosmored Additionally, its very clear in the video that the flag moves toward the astronaut once he has passed it. If it was caused by wind, as you are suggesting, it would have blown away while the astronaut was still in-front of it. The static electricity on the other hand would show exactly the opposite, with the flag being attracted to the astronaut. Bias is a funny thing, when you start looking for things that appear to be wind, you completely delude yourself into thinking it is.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UndeadPizzaGuy
"it would have blown away while the astronaut was still in-front of it."
You're ignoring my post. Here it is again.
This video...
/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0
...disproves the static electricity theory. The flag moves away from the astronaut as he approaches the because of the wall of air that hit it. It then moves back as the air flows toward him to fill the void caused by his passing.
Cosmored 10 months ago
Comment removed
uknowispeaksense 10 months ago
@uknowispeaksense
"if the moon landings were faked, could you please explain to me the hundred's of peer reviewed scientific papers from geophysicists, geologists...and some from what was then the USSR."
Here's a link to some info on that.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showpost (dot) php?p=4731597&postcount=1090
(check link for gaps)
Cosmored 10 months ago
@Cosmored Oh dear, idiots pretending to be geologists.Theres a reason why "evidence" like that only exists on your forum. It is because your beliefs are not accepted by the scientific consensus anywhere. No amount of belief will ever make something a fact. You want recognition? Submit it to real scientists, who do real work. People who don't spend hours on end looking for tiny "flaws" that are entirely explainable, just to propagate misinformation.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
Comment removed
MegaJrod83 10 months ago
Comment removed
uknowispeaksense 10 months ago
@uknowispeaksense
"although a blogsite is the last place...of science lap it up."
You seem to be trying top sway people who haven't looked at the info too. In that post there are two scientists who say we're being lied to about science. You shills know the hoax evidence is too clear to obfuscate so all you can do is try to dissuade people from looking at it. I think most of the viewers know what's going on here.
opposingdigits (dot) com/forums/viewtopic (dot) php?t=1222
Cosmored 10 months ago
Comment removed
uknowispeaksense 10 months ago
@uknowispeaksense
You seem to be trying to keep the info off of the first page by tap dancing around and making trash posts. This is the link to the info on why we can't believe what we read when we are told that every scientist in the world says the moon missions are real.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showpost (dot) php?p=4731597&postcount=1090
On page 1 of that thread there's a partial summary of evidence that they faked the moon missions.
continued...
Cosmored 10 months ago
...continued
In this YouTube video there's a scientist who says that science journals are strictly controlled.
/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
"Origins of Man Bonus Evidence II Part 2 "
Do a Google Video search on "GLOBAL NUCLEAR COVER UP part 1" and you'll see a scientist who says that there's a lot of science fraud.
Cosmored 10 months ago
Comment removed
uknowispeaksense 10 months ago
@uknowispeaksense
"She believes the recent japan earthquake was caused by the HAARP nonsense"
Read the comment I posted on that video.
/watch?v=5WxmeOqYtB0
"Scientist Leuren Moret - Japan earthquake and nuclear "accident" are tectonic nuclear warfare.m4v"
Cosmored 9 months ago
Comment removed
uknowispeaksense 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@uknowispeaksense
"mate, you and i are done. you're clearly going to believe anything you see on conspiracy theory blogsites and youtube videos. you have no chance of me putting aside my intellectto follow along. good luck to you."
Translation-
The evidence of a hoax is so clear that, if I try to obfuscate it, I'll just look silly so the best thing I can do is declare victory and disappear.
Here's a link to some hoax evidence.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487
Cosmored 9 months ago
Comment removed
uknowispeaksense 10 months ago
@uknowispeaksense
I think that info is in the videos. Any serious person will watch them and see for themselves. Here's the link to the summary of hoax evidence again so it doesn't get buried.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487
You're making some pretty lame posts that would get you laughed out of the debating hall; I guess your underlying strategy is to keep that link off of page one to reduce the number of people who see it.
Cosmored 10 months ago
Comment removed
uknowispeaksense 10 months ago
@uknowispeaksense
"i couldn't see the name of the 'scientist'"
Her name is "Dr Virginia Steen-McIntyre". You can find info on her in Google. Here's the video of her speaking again in case anybody missed it.
"Origins of Man Bonus Evidence II Part 2"
/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
Cosmored 10 months ago
Comment removed
uknowispeaksense 10 months ago
@uknowispeaksense
"This is one of the centrepieces of young earth creationist nonsense"
Those people in the videos don't support the young earth creationist theory. They say the earth is as old as scientists say. Do YouTube searches on "Michael Cremo" and "Forbidden Archeology". I'm not in a position to know if what they say is true or not. I just wanted to post what Virginia Steen-McIntyre said. I think the earth is billions of years old and I'm an agnostic.
Cosmored 10 months ago
Comment removed
uknowispeaksense 10 months ago
Comment removed
uknowispeaksense 10 months ago
@uknowispeaksense
You've got the wrong person. At the 00:16 time mark of this video...
"Origins of Man Bonus Evidence II Part 2"
/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
...a woman scientist says that science journals are controlled. Here name is "Virginia Steen-McIntyre".
Tell us whether you think we should give serious consideration to what she says about science journals.
Cosmored 9 months ago
...continued.
uknowispeaksense is trying to discredit the info in this link.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showpost (dot) php?p=4731597&postcount=1090
He says that, if Apollo had been faked, we'd be able to read articles by scientists in science journals saying it was faked. No science journal would go against the official version of things as they are under strict control.
Cosmored 9 months ago
Comment removed
uknowispeaksense 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@uknowispeaksense
"strict control by who?"
By the government. Read the info in this link.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showpost (dot) php?p=4731597&postcount=1090
Cosmored 9 months ago
Comment removed
uknowispeaksense 9 months ago
@uknowispeaksense
"There are a lot of geologists and anthropologists much more credentialed than her saying she is dodgy"
The government can always find scientists who will lie to back up the official position. Her speaking out can't be dismissed because a few scientists have disagreed with her. There's more evidence that we're lied to here.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showpost (dot) php?p=4731597&postcount=1090
Cosmored 9 months ago
"uknowispeaksense
Why are you deleting your posts when I respond to them? Why don't you leave them there and give rebuttals to my responses? You are acting like a cornered sophist.
Cosmored 9 months ago
Comment removed
uknowispeaksense 10 months ago
@uknowispeaksense
"the moment someone comes forward and says the moonrocks are fake with good sciense, it will be published"
You're playing dumb about the info in this link.
spurstalk (dot) com/forums/showpost (dot) php?p=4731597&postcount=1090
One tactic that shills use is to play dumb about the evidence put forth and try to bury it to reduce the number of people who see it. The only way to thwart that tactic is to keep posting it.
Cosmored 9 months ago
@Cosmored There is absolutely nothing you can say to me that I do not have an explanation for. Ive heard them all. What next? Van Allen Belts? No exhaust plume? No crater? Some out of context quotes? LRO, LCROSS, Kaguya? Apollo 1? Just face it, you're completely outgunned when you're not preaching to the people who know nothing of Apollo.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy Watch the video Forrest Orbs on you tube and give an explanation, and no their not fireflies.
MegaJrod83 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 Explanation : It was edited in. Video evidence like that holds absolutely no credence in the academic arena today, any idiot with Sony Vegas can do that nowadays. In order for something to be science, it must be physical, it must be repeatable, and it must either comply with already known physics or contribute to a new branch of physics. So long as videos or pictures are the greatest evidence for ghosts, they will simply remain supernatural, and not natural.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 If you wish to seek more concrete evidence, I would encourage you to find any mathematical basis for ghosts.For example, I believe in black holes. I certainly can't see or touch them, nor do they leave any physical evidence of their existence here on Earth, but we can certainly observe their effects on the cosmos and physics allows them to exist. Ghosts should be much the same, if ghosts have any credibility at all.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy How can u say something thats been FILMED has no credibility?! And that orb video was filmed in the mid 90s so they couldn't have used "nowaday" camera tricks, plus u can see the orbs light some of the trees as they float by.
MegaJrod83 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 Actually, yes, you can. Please do defer me to a source dating when that documentary/show aired. I will then tell you precisely how it was faked. Filming has absolutely no credibility, neither does audio, nor pictures.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 And you avoided my question, I asked you what mathematical basis there is for ghosts. If something cannot be verified by math, you will merely be laughed at in the academic arena.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy I dont get what math has to do with ghosts, all I need is realistic video proof of things existing that cant be explained by experts which u didnt make clear to me with yur math gibberish. If u saw a videotape of someone being killed would u need scientific/mathematical proof to believe it happened?
MegaJrod83 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 Math has everything to do with everything. If math cannot explain it, it simply does not exist or cannot exist with our current understanding. If it is beyond our understanding, then you cannot simply conclude they are ghosts, as it would be an unknown. And again, that would not be enough. Murder weapons, motives, time of death, fingerprints, body/cloth fibers, past signs of aggression. Murders are reenacted all the time in movies, and can be quite realistic.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 Video evidence simply means nothing. And I did not ask you to tell me when the documentary was aired, I asked you to defer me to a direct source saying when it was aired.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy Google steve lee ghosts, Jrod's right its from the 90s.
poised4u2 10 months ago
@poised4u2 Even if he is, are you seriously insinuating that it would be impossible in the 90's to fake such cheap looking ghosts?
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy I never actually said i think they're ghosts, I just wanted to see you give an explanation of what those orbs in the video were, but u didnt. Even the film-technique expert in the video cant explain it so obviously those orbs really were in the woods and not faked.
MegaJrod83 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 I did, I said it was faked. Im dubious of the "Film expert" as well. I also find it rather ridiculous you would suggest we can't make floating orbs with 90's special effects. I suppose floating orbs is far beyond the realm of the Terminator, Apollo 13, Deep Impact, Independence Day, Star Wars, Star Trek, 2001, The Right Stuff, Toy Story, and other great 90s and pre 90's examples of special effects.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy your talking million dollar movie effects, these orbs were filmed by a simple surveillance camera some dude in colorado put outside his house.
MegaJrod83 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 They look rather cheap to me, I don't see why on earth you would connect the two. If you are still deluding yourself over that though, there are many great television programs with ridiculously superior effects and moderate budgets. "From the Earth to the Moon" "Cosmos" "Stephen Hawking's Universe" just to name a few.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@poised4u2 Try to give a real scientific explanation of what they are without taking the easy way out by saying they were simply faked, if they were, then HOW??
MegaJrod83 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 It's quite simple really, you can go with stop motion, which I doubt. You could go with splicing, which I find probable, you can also go to every single frame and simply paste in the image of the orb as well. Special effects existed before Sony Vegas, contrary to what you might believe.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy maybe, but the film expert probably ruled those ways out.
MegaJrod83 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 You aren't even considering the possibility it wasn't an expert? This is the problem. You simply assume and believe what you are being told.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy No, his names Tim McCue and he was a technical advisor/ film processor type guy on the X-Files and other shows so he knows a thing or two.
MegaJrod83 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 Not what Im interested in, what are his credentials? Sure, I loved the X-Files, but it does nothing to add any validity to this man, in much the same way Newtons reputation as a scientist lended no credibility to Alchemy, of which he was also an avid researcher.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy Those are his credentials, he works with film equipment and techniques and he couldnt explain how they could of faked it.
MegaJrod83 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 Yes according to the TV show. However as I stated earlier, that simply is not enough. Should I honestly believe in Alchemy just because Newton believed in it? Because that is exactly what you are trying to sell to me right now. One man does not a consensus make.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy If it was faked using filming tricks then the professional film expert should have known how it was done, thats the point.
MegaJrod83 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 And i'm saying hes not a film expert, thats my point, which you just keep ignoring. No matter how many times you move the goal posts it will still remain that he is not a film expert, in much the same way Newton's opinion on Alchemy lended no credence to the mythical science. Science is governed by pure consensus, and one man claiming something to be true is not enough. One man does not a consensus make.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy How do u know hes not an expert, you've done nothing to prove that your an expert on anything either.
MegaJrod83 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 I know because it's total bunk, like all of the ghost hunter and haunting shows nowadays. If there were any merit to these "Orbs" there would be actual scientists with actual qualifications studying them, there are not. With just him, there is no consensus, which simply means its not science, its a dramatization, like the thousands before it. Nor do I need to prove my expertise - as the evidence lies with the accuser, not I.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy On the contray, there are lots of scientists with degrees that study ghosts, Dr. William Roll for example, do yur research more.
MegaJrod83 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 Real scientists I said. There are "scientists" who study demons as well, there are ones that study alchemy, even perpetual motion machines. Its all the same. I prefer to call them psuedoscientists, as they are not doing any credible or rational work.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy I also forgot to mention Dr. Venkman, Dr. Stanz and Dr. Spengler. All are highly skilled professionals, look them up.
MegaJrod83 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 Yes, because they certainly ring a bell. Who cares about real scientists like Feynman, Sagan, Dawkins, Hawking, or Tyson who spend a great portion of their lives and their money to better our standing as a species. I would much rather listen to a psuedoscientist with dubious credentials working with experiments that cannot be repeated and leave absolutely no evidence but eyewitness accounts, the lowest form of evidence. Yeah, why bother with science when you can have that.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy They DO have evidence, they usually always collect the ectoplasmic residue after finishing a job.
MegaJrod83 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 Ectoplasm? You've got to be shitting me, this is just too much now. I would encourage you to type in "Is ectoplasm real" into google, and spend a few seconds looking at exactly what you are suggesting.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 "Although the term is widespread in popular culture, the physical existence of ectoplasm is not accepted by science. Some tested samples purported to be ectoplasm have been found to be various non-paranormal substances, including chiffon and flakes of human skin.[2][3] Other researchers have duplicated, with non-supernatural materials, the photographic effects sometimes said to prove the existence of ectoplasm"
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy Come now, they've also been known to capture ghosts and contain them, dont tell me I have 2 completely give this away.
MegaJrod83 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 No such thing has ever happened. I can keep going on and on with this - just because something was on TV does not make it real. I thought this to be obvious, but apparently I must continue to stress it. Do enlighten me on which real scientists accept this reality of yours. I am not talking lone authors, I am not talking psychologists, I am talking about scientists. Richard Dawkins is an oxford professor, and even with those credentials he is still questioned on Evolution.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy Just google those last 3 scientists I mentioned, I assure u they completely accept my reality. And they ARE scientists, although Venkman is more like a game show host.
MegaJrod83 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MegaJrod83 Not scientists. You may wish to claim they are as many times as you like, but those who pursue the paranormal are not scientists.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 "Hurr, I'm a bible scientists, therefore the bible is true because I have studied the bible all my life. I conclude the Earth is 6000 years old, is the center of the universe, and is flat, Durr." No matter how much time you spend studying a subject, it will all be for naught if the subject you are studying is a load of crap.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy WTF?! did u google those names yet??
MegaJrod83 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 Not.Scientists.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy Aw come now, their great scientists, they saved new york from a evil sumerian god, a medievel tyrant, and even have a pet ghost named slimer. WHO U GONNA CALL?!!
MegaJrod83 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 Not.Scientists.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy I cant believe u still have no idea what the hell I'm talking about, this is 2 much for me I'm out. Later.
MegaJrod83 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 I do, Ghostbusters. It just shows what an imbecile you are and how much time you're wasting.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 For it to be science, it must be the widely held consensus, just like every other great idea. Quantum mechanics, evolution, relativity, the big bang, thermodynamics, Newton's laws of motion, newtons laws of optics, all ideas that have withstood the scrutiny of the greatest scientists for centuries. Pray tell, where does the paranormal fit into this? You and I both know the answer to this.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 Do tell me now why no scientists like that study the supernatural? It is simply because you cannot test the untestable, and if it cannot be tested, you cannot draw any conclusions from it. If you cannot draw conclusions, then it is an unknown, and therefore you cannot claim it to be factual because it is indeed - an unknown. I appreciate your enthusiasm to defend such things, but it is better spent elsewhere, on real science.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 Let me just draw a fine line for you. Real scientists are the people transplant hearts, power our cities, clean our water, network us, put men in space, decode genomes, unravel the cosmos, and so forth. People who actually devote their lives to better mankind. Psuedoscientists merely play with myth and propagate it as science for their own self benefit or to their own self delusion.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 I will repeat myself as many times as I need to - one man does not a consensus make.
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@MegaJrod83 Furthermore, easy way out? Skepticism is never the easy way out, it is the entire basis of science, the very fabric of academic consensus and meritocracy relies on skepticism and not relying on people to get something right. As Richard Feynman once said, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
UndeadPizzaGuy 10 months ago
@UndeadPizzaGuy And the show was from a show called The Unexplained which aired in the 90s I remember it well.
MegaJrod83 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UndeadPizzaGuy
"There is absolutely nothing you can say to me that I do not have an explanation for"
Do a YouTube search on "Apollo 15 flag waving". Tell us what you think made the flag move.
Cosmored 10 months ago
I love when they say Columbia, it seems like Colombia my country. Buaahahahaaa
tutoriales3minutos 11 months ago
funny how it look nothing like what he describes at all.
MrToiletface 11 months ago
The resolution of the Hubble telescope is unable to resolve objects smaller than 27 meters in diameter, so you would not even see them as clearly as the LRO images.
TheFACTSRUS 11 months ago
earth isnot look like circle
amirzubairmughal 11 months ago
the clouds arent moving.
fivedayninja 11 months ago