Users Online Now:
1,784
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
609,009
Pageviews Today:
796,230
Threads Today:
231
Posts Today:
3,203
07:01 AM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:mclarek 986233:MV84MTQ3MzlfMTc0NjU2MTNfMjBCQzkzN0U=] [quote:George B] The fact that NASA is associated with a blunder or intentional misinformation is not a surprise. They have long lost their luster as a world class organization through underfunding and brain drain. [/quote] Well, [b]also as a NATIONAL SECURITY APPARATUS MEMBER.[/b] :) For instance, there is now not only Hoagland's, but others' research into an affilitated second space program -- an entirely non-civilian, [u]NAVY space[/u] program from the start -- but there are increasing photos of such members (with Navy insignia but "astronaut" insignia at the same time) and verbal testimonials from persons who are sons of people who supposedly were part of it. [color=red][b]I do not support all of Hoagland's inquiries or flights of fancy arguments or blind spots.[/b][/color] But on the Navy more-secret program and some (SOME) of the lies, he may be right. [ [b]Where is he definitely wrong?[/b] As I mentioned in passing in another post: Wel, at least there is the fact that is so concerned about fakery in long-shot Moon images and what he thinks are lies about discovering UFOs and structures on the Moon, etc. that he insists Apollo went and there was no fakery of the actual moon LANDING images, when there was. -- you can "disagree" but whole shadows are midding on flat land and backpack PLSS flaps are visibly down in TV and up in photos of the "same moment", and so on. Anyway, only in one interview does he pause when reminded [u]there could be Apollo photo fakery AND we still could have gone.[/u] (Note, aside: he may be right about some objects smeared out in early photos of the Moon itself from afar. But that's complicated, so never mind it for now.) Another reason he doesn't think there's any fakery is that he's attached to the "rainbow effects" he sees in the photos and yes, THEY'RE THERE in some. -- They are not ordinary lens artifacts either, guys, though to get into that would be another issue. But he thinks those rainbow prisms are from lage glass domes on the Moon; an interesting theory ... but let's say it's wrong, not just because we're prejudiced against the idea. Rather, it has been proven wat it was -- something I mentioned in passing in another post: these prism effects were part of the faking process for the images! It was the high-tech approach in Hollywood, of which Kubrick was a master and impresario for a while over the secrets on how to do it best, to use a screen with tiny glass beads -- off which to shoot a complicated outdoor background, while live action took place at an angle on a set. They didn't have blue or green screen tech yet, but it was roughly equivalent in SOME ways. Anyway, not every glass bead would be perfect, and could leave a tiny prism in the film final, usually not noticed! (Whatever you think of the [u]other[/u] thoughts in this paper, its analysis is excellent of the prism effects, plus the split-space quality in many images from Apollo, and the criss-crossing in the sky when enhanced, which I'm getting to momentarily. http://www.assassinationscience.com/HowKubrickFakedtheMoonLandings-1.pdf ) As well, the criss-cross effects in the NASA images which Hoagland rightly said are odd and [u]are there,[/u] but which he posits are from huge glass domes, are light scatter from the screen technology used in the real-time compositry of background to foreground in many shots.) By the way, OF COURSE, even though the Apollo photos were partly or all faked (or to defer to you on that, IF some or all photos were faked), [u]it does not necessarily mean that we didn't go.[/u] This was pointed out to Hoagland and stopped him in his tracks for a minute. [u]There could have been many legitimate reasons to fake the images (IF only them):[/u] one being that film tech wasn't trustworthy for the actual trip, and another being guaranteed excellence of (positive?) propaganda motivators for the people about the (if we went) historic event. ] Anyway, Hoagland has good arguments about the secret space program overall and did notice the prisms and criss-cross sky backgrounds (with no stars), and anomalies of airbrushing on parts of the total-Moon pictures, but he doesn't attribute AT LEAST the former two accurately. [/quote]
Original Message
Debunker Talk Live Chat May 15
Feel free to quote
ANY
poster from those silly SOZT...EOZT threads etc etc.
Or just post your thoughts/opinions.
Open Discussion on Zetatalk; Bunkers; and it/their inability, over the last
Six
years to provide
ANY
truthful Facts and Knowledge to support the absurd
Failed
predictions of the "Candy Wrapper Aliens".
Let's see how long the Three "bunker" Amigos can bounce off each other in their little padded room over there on
Zetatalk Jive Turkey Chat!!
PS: If any of you debunkers want to meet in the GLP text/voice chat for some LIVE audio conversation we should set a day/time to meet up in one of the rooms to have a discussion etc.
Would find it a pleasure to converse with some of you guys. I mean there's a wealth of different subjects to talk about besides this silly zetatalk stuff.
Pictures (click to insert)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>