Moon landing was def fake. Too many factors but the fact no other country has landed there just doesn't sit well. Not to mention multiple light sources and shadows in different directions.
Printable View
Moon landing was def fake. Too many factors but the fact no other country has landed there just doesn't sit well. Not to mention multiple light sources and shadows in different directions.
Michael, if you look at that footage I posted of the lunar lander "blasting off" and you don't think that's fake as fuck, then you believe what you want to believe rather than what should be obvious to the naked eye.
I'm def no scientist but everything just seemed to convenient. The cold war and the space race... it's like America needed hope and a hero. Why not fake it?
Chances of getting hurt in a tornado here are one in several hundred thousand. You are MUCH more likely to die driving to work. But the media tries to scare you, so you have to learn to avoid that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Steinmetz
What is interesting about that to you? To me, the intersting part is that other nations could observe and prove if we didnt go to the moon.Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonLucca
Wikipedia is extremely liberal. I also have a degree in the sciences and am one semester away from finishing my second degree. I do have access to journals, I was asking how you access them. I have taken geology and three chemistry courses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
It is easy enough to claim that something is incorrect, harder to demonstrate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
I suppose we can have different ideas about what “common” and “significant” mean. It absolutely does not mean that more petroleum was abotically produced, and you know this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
Can you give an example? I know that there are some rare strata that have migrated upward or downward. It seem you are defining where organic deposits are found, according to the notion that they cannot migrate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
That does not seem to be the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
You have oversimplified the issue to the point of dishonesty. You can assure me but the fact is that oil companies operate under the idea that petroleum is biologically produced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
Are we talking about the process that produce the overwhelming majority of petroleum hydrocarbons in earths mantel, on thermodynamic grounds, or are we talking about methane on other planets. You must know the differences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
I do appreciate you bringing this hilarious website to my attention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Murray
Finally for a glimpse into the history of the subject, start here:
http://static.scribd.com/docs/j79lhbgbjbqrb.pdf
Here is an NPR discussion of the subject. Must be a pretty fringe theory to get airtime on NPR.
http://web.archive.org/web/201110251...Kenney-NPR.mp3
Interesting the guest is a guy who owns a company in the US that tells oil companies where to drill. So much for your theory about how US oil companies work.
There's no reason for you to make that incorrect assumtion. I read abstracts on both sides but it is difficult to find anything current supporting your view. You seem to be the one claiming to know everything on the topic. I dont have a point to make here, Im simply offering an opportunity for you to support your assertion.
I dont claim to know the answer to this definitively, as you do. Skepticism should be applied to both sides of any issue. I think this paper is interesting and Im digesting it.
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/17/10976.full
Enjoy your red pill.
Cause they are so light they reach max V almost immediately. If you use slowmotion camera you'll see the velocity curve. When you compare that to the lunar lander it's not the same. It's obviously being lifted by a crane or hoist of some kind. A real launch would not read max V instantly as the lander in the footage does....Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Steinmetz
As far as the "proof" being "verified", no credible scientific institution would even try to verify it. That would be a very expensive way to end your career. It is simply assumed to be true, go on with business as usual. Your comments make it sound you like expect a bunch of professional engineers and scientists to risk their career to prove something that makes no difference one way or another. That tax money was for ICBM technology and satellite technology, who cares if they lied to get the American people to accept the taxes to produce it.... who cares.
This is in contrast to A&E for 911 truth... THAT is considered to be a very serious piece of information and that's why scientists and engineers would come out about it. They killed 3000+ people and started multiple wars that are still ongoing 15 years late. That's not the same as raising taxes to produce a satellite program.
"Id be surprised how approachable many of the world's leading scientists are" ... you realize that answering my questions about a government conspiracy to lie to the American public (and congress) about a fake moon landing program would be the same as talking about it publicly right? Why would they discuss that with me in an email? Why would they discuss that with me at all? They wouldn't, obviously.
There are 100,000 things that show me it's fake. It's obvious.
Often, one of the hardest aspects of taking positions that are counter to a conspiracy theory is pinning down what exactly the position of the other side is, exactly. Sometimes, I argue in favor of conspiracy theories, its just as fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Steinmetz
I think you underestimate my age. It's fairly simple to tell the difference between 60's video footage and state-of-the-art visual effects from the 60's ... I'm very sorry that you cannot see that difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Steinmetz
As far as accepting reality. Moon landing "truth" was my reality for many years. I was born in the early 70's and did not actually start looking into the hoax until well into my 30's probably. And at first I was extremely skeptical. But I've eaten a lot of psychedelic drugs starting at about the age of 14 or so, and I think that helped play a part in my ability to choose the red pill. I wanted to know the truth, and I didn't give a fuck what that meant to my reality. I'd rather live in the real work eating gruel and being cold all the time than live in the matrix believing bullshit... so I investigated. A lot. I've read and studied extensively this subject. The more time I spent the obvious it became. So to me, it's guys like you who can see reality right in front of them in a video and not see the truth... THAT's not accepting reality.
You seem pretty smart, so I'm guessing it's not lack of intellect that leaves you blind to what to many of us seems obvious. I suspect it's because you are unable or unwilling to do the work required to assimilate this kind of information into your worldview. It changes too much for you. It forces you to re-evaluate almost everything you think you know. Not only that, but if you tell anyone then you'll be a crazy conspiracy theorist to them, which is a bad move socially.
As far as who I've asked about it? You expect me to give you contact info for personal friends I have made in my many years of schooling and professional work? Uh, how about no... I'm not claiming I am friends with any NASA guys or with anyone who worked on the program. I'm not even claiming I've spoken to guys with PHD's in rocket science. All I'm saying is I've spent a lot of years in colleges, in grad programs, in the professional engineering industry. I've made a few friends in my time who are much more intelligent and educated than me. There is pretty strong consensus with those people. That doesn't prove anything, other than the smartest friends I have agree with me. Shrug, your mileage may vary.
Truth is I just believe whatever Eddie believes. Eddie says moon landing is fake, good enough for me.
I really do think the psychedelics helped (it's no wonder the government doesn't want us using them). Once I got deep enough to realize this entire 3-dimensional world is not exactly real, it med realizing the moon landings were faked much easier. It makes recognizing reality much easier when you've spent enough time with the veil lifted.
The "world" is four dimensional but I agree that psychedelics can be very beneficial and often lead people to skepticism.
Well one thing I can tell you is that I dont put much stock in aliens in spaceships. I'm extremely skeptical. A civilization even 10,000 years ahead of us technologically would be completely invisible to us and beyond our wildest imaginations. Flying saucers isnt very imaginative. Metal spaceships flying them around doing anal probes on humans, give me a break. That's about as believable as the moon landings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Steinmetz
In sure in a hundred years WE will have flying saucers with anti-gravity drives or whatever. So the aliens are using technology we are almost capable of? I think not. That's the thoughts of a mind that has no understanding of what technology is or how it works and grows.
Psychedelics are not detected by standard drug screens. Pot is a mild psychedelic, mostly when eaten, but not really. You cant really compare it to ayahuasca or iboga. They are very different experiences. As far as my experiences, I was using LSD and mushrooms on a regular basis before I was out of highschool. I used LSD and mushrooms at least 100 times between 14 and 24 years old, 100 is probably a low estimate. I use psychedelics less these days at 43 years old, but I have also graduated to more powerful ones. Ayahuasca and Iboga in particular. They can certainly increase creativity, but in my experience that's a side effect. In suitable doses they are a tool for self-improvement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Steinmetz
Crazy shaman and psychonaughts say that they talk to their ancestors or angles or aliens while on high doses of psychedelics.... I'm not going to argue with them. I've spent a lot of time there. I don't know what to call it, or how do describe it, but it's more real that this material work we spend so much time in. Impossible to explain, you simply have to experience it.
I'm not going to try to enumerate the list of conspiracy theories. Just google for them. If you want to ask me about any specific ones, I'll tell you my opinions. In general, I find most of the false flag theories very credible. 911, Kennedy, sandy hook, pearl harbor. Those seem completely packed with fuckery. You know where I stand on moon landings. I'm convinced that a high-technology civilization was living on Earth before the end of the last Ice Age. I find the work of guys like Boval, Hancock, Carlson, and similar to be extremely compelling. Those theories I give very high probabilities to.
I give very low probabilities to things like Bigfoot and Flying Saucers.
I've done a little bit of research into crop circles and chem-trails and for me the jury is still out on those. I'm not really sure one way or the other, I need more information to draw any serious conclusions. I find compelling information on both sides of those subjects.
Crop circles for example seem a little crazy to me, what's that aliens or angels or something, that doesnt make much sense. I believe in shit I have empirical evidence for.. But you know what else doesn't make sense? The size of the Earth and the size of the Moon square the circle... so go fucking figure. At this point I'll at least consider anything no matter how fucking crazy it might sound at first. If you don't know what I'm talking about with squaring the circle it's far too complicated a subject for me to get into in a forum like this. I'd just suggest you watch Secrets in Plain Sight on youtube, somewhere in hour 3 he'll get into those things.
This is at least a taste.... it's not going to explain any of it, for that you'll have to dig. But about 35 seconds in you'll see the diagram I'm referring to. Learn how to square the circle geometrically with an equation. Then use wikipedia to get the size of the earth and moon. Then plug the values in. Magic. The universe is magic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7GYcXDpIBE
The perimeter of the square is equal to the circumference of the circle.... except pi is irrational, so you can never get perfect. That's the metaphore.
It's not a coincidence that the Freemason's primary symbol is the compass and square. Those are the tools to draw the circle and the square, respectively. We, as humans, are in a quest to square the circle, as those before us.
Attachment 3548
lmao you win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Ludington
Its the dose. Try taking a single, small toke.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Steinmetz
"What software are you using to determine if an image is fake?"
The same software one would use to determine Lord Of The Rings uses CGI, it's called "Your Eyes" :)
That's what I thought. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Bravo