I always see this tunnel feature when i look at the moon.
It kinda looks like this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...ps394qseyc.jpg
Now you see it too. :D
Printable View
I always see this tunnel feature when i look at the moon.
It kinda looks like this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...ps394qseyc.jpg
Now you see it too. :D
Thanks for asking this LoBee. I'd like to get an understanding of this too. Anyone out there can help with this question? Seriously, we must look bigger from the moon, surely!Quote:
Posted by LoBEE
Yes this is a good question.Quote:
Posted by ZebraThanks for asking this LoBee. I'd like to get an understanding of this too. Anyone out there can help with this question? Seriously, we must look bigger from the moon, surely!Quote:
Posted by LoBEE
Many researchers now are comparing notes and calling NASA a fraud.
One example of earth from the moon here It looks so small?
Starts around 3 min mark.
The intro by Richard D. Hall is epic!
.
Very important stuff.
The source (summary) article by Jay Weidner is here... do read:
http://jayweidner.com/index.html#KO
What I wanted to point out was that NASA has airbrushed many photos and this one was no exception. It was interesting to see they had done this to the bottom half of the Earth. It got my attention right away. They weren't very good at making the blurr unnoticeable. @ 16:46 exactly on maximized screen, you can see the off-colored blurr. It doesn't match the darkness of space, imo. At first you can see the dark overlay and then you don't.
It just made me wonder (excitedly) what this was hiding about the Earth.... That's all. Maybe there was a huge mothership in the way. Who friggin' knows. None of us common folks have had the opportunity to see Earth from the outside, so all we can do is guess. Or believe what we're being told by lamestream science.
As of now, I know that people who say Earth is sphere are half right. The top half clearly shows a sphere, stretched or not. But the photo definitely shows that the bottom half ISN'T spherical.
I've seen another old black and white photo that showed a jagged edge right where the blurr is on this photo. Sorry, I can't find it now; otherwise I'd post it.
Maybe the blurr is one of those spheres spaced equidistance from each other as Corey Goode said.... :becky:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../nasamoon0.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../nasamoon1.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../nasamoon2.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../nasamoon3.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../nasamoon4.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../nasamoon5.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../nasamoon6.jpg
What I like to know is.. who took the picture of the Satellite of the Moon and Earth in the background?
A view of the Apollo 11 lunar module Eagle as it returned from the surface of the moon to dock with the command module Columbia. A smooth mare area is visible on the Moon below and a half-illuminated Earth hangs over the horizon. The lunar module ascent stage was about 4 meters across. Command module pilot Michael Collins took this picture just before docking at 21:34:00 UT (5:34 p.m. EDT) 21 July 1969. (Apollo 11, AS11-44-6642)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nar_module.jpg
Source: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/ht...h_44_6642.html
Nice.
It's strange that after years of looking at these pictures you always see new things.
A nice picture of our moon, apollo 8 i think.
Did a bit of tinkering, click on the picture to enlarge.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...pseouf96hz.jpg
Another nice one, look for example at the cracks in the crater to the left, they run over each other.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...psyjbnga0k.jpg
Recent weird looking Mars Image from Curiosity.
NRB_501538151EDR_F0510592NCAM07753M_
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...psz8gnek4x.jpg
Is this actually new?
Purportedly, an interview with Kubrick where he confesses the moon landing fakery:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=S3ocNZGOLY0
(Warning: extremely irritatingly sophomoric editing)
Purported partial transcript can be found here: http://www.zengardner.com/stanley-ku...moon-landings/Quote:
K: I perpetrated a huge fraud on the American public, which I am now about to detail, involving the United States government and NASA, that the moon landings were faked, that the moon landings ALL were faked , and that I was the person who filmed it.
T: Ok. (laughs) What are you talking…You’re serious. Ok.
K: I’m serious. Dead serious.
K: Yes, it was fake.
T: Ok. Wait. Wait…
T: I don’t want this to be an R-rated film, but seriously, what the blank, but seriously…
T: I, I, I worked almost eight months to secure this once in a lifetime interview that almost no else could ever get, and instead of talking about his sixteen films that I’ve endured since I was a child…That we didn’t land on the moon, you’re saying?
K: No, we didn’t.
K: It was not real.
T: The moon landings were fake?
K: A, a, a.. fictional moon landing. A fantasy. It was not real.
K: Don’t you think it’s important for people to know the truth?
T: The moon landing in ’69, which was two years before my birth…
K: Is total fiction.
T: Total fiction.
T: Is that?…So, that’s the 15 year thing. So that’s makes sense now. That’s why I can’t release it for 15 years now, that makes total sense now.
T: Did we…we didn’t land on the moon you’re saying?
K: No, we didn’t.
T: Why are you telling me?
K: A, a, a, a massive fraud. An unparalleled fraud perpetrated against them. They SHOULD know
I was watching a NOVA special about the Moon launch and landing. While I was doing this I was surfing the web on the topic. There is still so much pro and con from some very smart people. Why can't this be settled? Why would people adhere to the belief we did not go, if its obvious it has been proven we did? Why can't an iron clad case be made to put this to bed?
what are your thoughts and feelings on all?
Did we go to the moon or was it hoaxed in a studio?
People tend to play a tug of war between the two but I think its both.
We DID go to the moon but maybe not for reasons they told us. Also as a insurance policy they filmed parts of it in a studio.
Imagine spending millions of $$ on the moon landing and then the camera breaks down and we get no footage of it. They would no take that risk.
One of the big problems raised on the fakery side... is the radiation shielding required for passing through the Van Allen Belts.
Here is a page that seems to cover that from the 'scientific' side.
But then again, does even one single inch of any of that ----even mean anything at all?:
The answer is apparently.....that the waffle and worry means nothing. Nothing at all.Quote:
One thing is for certain, ‘consciousness,’ or, factors association with consciousness (observation, measurement, thinking, intention) have a direct correlation with what we perceive to be our physical material world.
Max Plack, a physicist who originated quantum theory, regarded consciousness as “fundamental,” and matter as “derivative from consciousness.” He said that “we cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
Eugene Wigner, a physicist and mathematician told the world that “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
R.C. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University said that:
“A fundamental conclusion of the new physics also acknowledges that the observer creates the reality. As observers, we are personally involved with the creation of our own reality. Physicists are being forced to admit that the universe is a “mental” construction. Pioneering physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” (“The Mental Universe” ; Nature 436:29,2005)
This is an important subject, because disbelief in the Moon landings comes even ahead of the JFK assassination as a cause for mirth and derision at the expense of ‘conspiracy theorists’.
For me the Moon landings may as well never have happened inasmuch as I almost never had access to a TV in those days :)
Half-joking aside, what happens where no one else can go is going to end up in a limbo between fact and fake and fiction. You find exactly the same reactions of credulity/incredulity with regard to Marco Polo’s journey to China. Notice how this is not the tinfoil hat brigade doing its usual crazy stuff: it is respectable ‘scholars’ doing respectable mainstream research. http://www.history.com/news/marco-po...study-suggests
In other words, the historians cannot tell us what happened first; they know that someone went to China, because it’s there and in some ways as described; only it was not necessarily Marco Polo as described. The historians can only tell us what happened next: another great stumbler, Christopher Columbus, appeared on the scene and discovered another great landmass. Following this logic, we may surmise that maybe it wasn’t him, and not as described.Quote:
Will we ever know whether Marco Polo traveled to China and attended Kublai Khan? Perhaps not, but the consequences of his real or fictional journey are still felt across the globe. One avid reader of “The Travels of Marco Polo” was Christopher Columbus, who stumbled upon the New World while following in his Venetian idol’s (figurative) footsteps.
My point is that television (or centuries ago recording other people’s stories) is not the same thing as actually accompanying someone. The word television means remote viewing: you must not forget that you are not there but miles away. The principle of embedded reporting of distant warfare is designed to make you forget that, making it fakery as opposed to fiction. The live broadcasts of the JFK and LHO assassinations were an earlier example of the same thing. Remember the old computing slogan WYSIWYG, what you see is what you get: very much not so.
Coming back to the Apollo landings. On the one hand, here is the hardest piece of evidence against the whole thing. I haven’t personally checked it out, but this is one thing that earth-based humans can verify for themselves, yes or no, even now.
On the other hand, something definitely happened to Edgar Mitchell, who experienced an epiphany coming home from the Moon and later invented noetics. Does that mean he went to the Moon? Not necessarily: some people have the same experience without leaving their armchair.Quote:
Posted by araucaria
http://www.noetic.org/directory/person/edgar-mitchell
So just how far would the fakery extend? I forget whether it is a science fiction writer, a scientist, a philosopher, a forum member or a Buddhist monk that would tell you that all the world’s a stage – actually it was Shakespeare, but any of the above will be saying the same thing.
For all intents and purposes, a TV camera and a movie camera are doing the same job; but in both cases, depending on whether you are recording facts or creating fiction, the process is not the same. Hence much of the analysis of the Moon pictures (still and video) revolve around differences in such things as lighting (real or artificial). This makes sense. Back in the old days, with only a tiny handful of channels, the broadcaster got to choose what you saw. Nowadays any couch potato can grab the remote and zap between large quantities of soap and water: it will all come out in the wash :) Some day we will get off the couch and start running our own show ‘for real’, ha ha.
Moon landings are potentially just more show business. For entertainment, back in 1902, film pioneer Georges Méliès presented in comedy form something very similar to one current conspiracy theory whereby, defying the laws of ballistics and rocketry, earthlings go the Moon and get more than they bargained for:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIQw1F5Nzzk
.
Read this (a masterpiece in installments, by Dave McGowan, incisive and also very funny)... it'll tell you all you need to know. :)
Wagging the Moondoggie
http://projectavalon.net/Wagging_the...ve_McGowan.pdf