Part 1: *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABxAN8cfiOI <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABxAN8cfiOI>* Part 2: *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9imVp8tlecY <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9imVp8tlecY>* ___ *Stanley Kubrick Confesses To Faking The Moon Landings* A stunning new video has emerged 15 years after Stanley Kubrick’s death in which Kubrick allegedly admits that the NASA moon landings were faked. Filmmaker T. Patrick Murray says he interviewed Kubrick three days before his death in March 1999. He was forced to sign an 88-page NDA to keep the contents of the interview a secret for 15 years. Below is a transcript from the interview with Stanley Kubrick, in which the 2001 Space Odyssey Director admits on camera that, “the moon landings ALL were faked , and that I was the person who filmed it.” We have included a leaked rough cut of the film below the transcript as well as two unedited raw videos of the interview with Kubrick below that: *K: I’m so preoccupied. With my work, innovation, risk-taking, regrets…T: Why are you giving this interview?K: Because, it started to get to me after awhile. Well, this is difficult, because it is the first time I’ve talked about it. (sighs)T: Sure, take all the time you need.K: I’ve always been conflicted by it, but not consciously until years later. I was just blown away by the chance, the opportunity, the challenge of making this, this production, and I went into this like it was a regular film, like another regular film of mine, not thinking too much about uh the long term effects of what it would mean to society if it was ever discovered.T: What are you talking about? I’m dying to know what you’re talking about.K: Well, a confession of sorts. A movie I made, that nobody is aware of – even though they’ve seen it.T: A movie you made, no one knows you made? Is that what you said?K: That’s right. Is that intriguing? Do I have you intrigued?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.K: Nixon want to uh, they were planning, yeah, he want to fake this, this moon landing…T: Are you contending that people DON’T want to know the truth about the world, reality, the moon landings…?K: The government, knowing this, takes advantage of it by perpetrating fraud after fraud after fraud.T: How did you end up giving in? Being complicit with this fraud?K: I didn’t want to do it.T: This is NOT where I thought this interview was going!K: With my help, with my, with my aid, and it is, it is bothering me.T: I only have this certain amount of time with you. And I’ll talk about whatever you want, but…T: You’re not…This isn’t some type of joke, or…K: No. No, it’s not.T: Or a film within a film thing…K: Not joking. NOPE.T: Okay.K: The conspiracy theorists were right, on this occasion.T: I don’t know what to ask you first.K: I thought it was wrong, I just…I didn’t believe in perpetrating a fraud like that.T: But you did.K: It also undermined my artistic integrity to do that.T: Ok, but you ended up saying yes. Why?K: Well, yes, but because basically I was bribed. To put it bluntly, that’s what it was. It was just a plain fucking bribe.T: Why are you telling me?K:A, a, a, massive fraud. An unparalleled fraud perpetrated against them. They SHOULD know! Don’t you think it’s important for people to know the truth?T: Why did they have to fake it? Why? Why would they ever need to do something like that? Why would the government ever want or need to do…K: It’s no secret that NASA always wanted to fulfill this Kennedy prophecy.T: Take it from the beginning…T: I gotta be honest, this is where he (Kubrick) got me. I mean, when I actually put myself in his position, when I actually imagine that he was telling the truth, and that he was presented with this opportunity and if in the one in a billion chance that I lived his life and I was presented with the same opportunity, what would I do?T: Yeah, he wanted his approval points up and he thought nothing could do it better than this.T: What a conflict. I mean, gosh, I can’t imagine being presented with that opportunity. On one hand, I’d really would want to do it, but then I’d probably say I’m committing a crime, and lying…T: It depends, but my guess would be…no, if you’re good, but you would do it.K: Spielberg, (inaudible) Scorsese, even Woody Allen. There isn’t one of them who wouldn’t do this.T: I gotta admit: I’d do it. I’d do it too.T: But they dangled all this power and all this flattery on you, essentially?K: Yeah, it got to me after awhile. You can listen to so much of that stuff before you start to believe it.T: They just said you were the greatest and stuff?K: Yeah, yeah – and I agreed with them.K: Why are you telling the world? Why does the world need to know that the moon landings aren’t real and you faked them?K: Which I consider to be my masterpiece.T: And you can’t take credit, or even talk about…K: Well, I am now..T: Right, so you’ll be dead. In ten years, or 15…K: Right, ten or 15 something like that.T: So, you can’t talk to Roger Ebert about it. Does that frustrate you?T: Why did they have to fake it? Why would they have to do that?K: Because it is impossible to get there.T: Ok, back up, back up, back up….*
On 12/13/15, Александр <afalex169@gmail.com> wrote:
*Stanley Kubrick Confesses To Faking The Moon Landings*
A stunning new video has emerged 15 years after Stanley Kubrick’s death in which Kubrick allegedly admits that the NASA moon landings were faked.
Given that the Russians have in the last year or so announced they are now planning for a real, as in actual, moon landing around 2030, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3344818/Russia-conquer-moon-2... https://www.rt.com/news/157800-russia-moon-colonization-plan/ http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-announces-first-manned-mission-to-moon... http://www.techtimes.com/articles/6769/20140511/russia-wants-to-set-up-moon-... it is perhaps timely that Kubrick's interview was released earlier this year after the NDA expiry. Thanks for posting that interview - really appreciated and I had not seen it before, but again, it makes sense that there was a long NDA. Regards, Zenaan
but again, it makes sense that there was a long NDA.
and it "makes sense" that Kubrik was murdered 3 days after this interview. 2015-12-13 12:49 GMT+02:00 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>:
On 12/13/15, Александр <afalex169@gmail.com> wrote:
*Stanley Kubrick Confesses To Faking The Moon Landings*
A stunning new video has emerged 15 years after Stanley Kubrick’s death in which Kubrick allegedly admits that the NASA moon landings were faked.
Given that the Russians have in the last year or so announced they are now planning for a real, as in actual, moon landing around 2030,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3344818/Russia-conquer-moon-2... https://www.rt.com/news/157800-russia-moon-colonization-plan/
http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-announces-first-manned-mission-to-moon...
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/6769/20140511/russia-wants-to-set-up-moon-...
it is perhaps timely that Kubrick's interview was released earlier this year after the NDA expiry.
Thanks for posting that interview - really appreciated and I had not seen it before, but again, it makes sense that there was a long NDA.
Regards, Zenaan
http://blackbag.gawker.com/did-stanley-kubrick-fake-this-video-of-stanley-ku... On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Александр <afalex169@gmail.com> wrote:
but again, it makes sense that there was a long NDA.
and it "makes sense" that Kubrik was murdered 3 days after this interview.
2015-12-13 12:49 GMT+02:00 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>:
On 12/13/15, Александр <afalex169@gmail.com> wrote:
*Stanley Kubrick Confesses To Faking The Moon Landings*
A stunning new video has emerged 15 years after Stanley Kubrick’s death in which Kubrick allegedly admits that the NASA moon landings were faked.
Given that the Russians have in the last year or so announced they are now planning for a real, as in actual, moon landing around 2030,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3344818/Russia-conquer-moon-2... https://www.rt.com/news/157800-russia-moon-colonization-plan/
http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-announces-first-manned-mission-to-moon...
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/6769/20140511/russia-wants-to-set-up-moon-...
it is perhaps timely that Kubrick's interview was released earlier this year after the NDA expiry.
Thanks for posting that interview - really appreciated and I had not seen it before, but again, it makes sense that there was a long NDA.
Regards, Zenaan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/13/2015 11:53 AM, Veg wrote:
http://blackbag.gawker.com/did-stanley-kubrick-fake-this-video-of- stanley-kubrick-1747558774
OK
I'll bite. Just a couple of questions for starters: They call for speculation, but that seems to be OK in our present context since the position they challenge is itself based on speculation. How is it possible that the Soviet Union did not detect and expose the moon landing hoaxes (there were six successful Apollo missions to the Moon)? How is it possible that simulating the Apollo missions could be less expensive, or in any other way more desirable, than actually doing them? How is it possible that /no/ credible evidence that the Apollo program was a hoax has surfaced by now? All I have seen is speculation, elevated to "evidence" in the eyes of some beholders by confirmation bias. Example: No dust on the faceplate in a very famous photo of an astronaut on the moon. This widely distributed "proof" of a moon landing hoax falls flat when placed in its native context: The propaganda extravaganza around the Apollo program produced and published /lots/ of high quality graphics. Time Magazine used all the photos they really liked, without referencing which were taken in training environments vs. on the Moon OR hesitating to extensively retouch the "real" pictures for maximum artistic quality . :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWbd0VAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LYO8P/149JrPiCQjb9Bnr6icPKBeG DNwAQcmXZggabtLn2H42Q2tWfyZBgZjexYIFXz24k4VUaGFFoZijF4zJ34Cv8Up/ S939sypS0y51jhTrB8n21IvsoedP7SAWoDTZOpTPAvfHMqfvp5tJDt94qswTtkp3 hhh/xamfDOQpnn0jf+23kjpe0GHtm6dv1aLcYG9zxh2m3+SPSDmNVtVrZTx737Ky pUKgEAA3rGlC/42+xN7rPE0SlTue9PS2dlNOve3xM4mkvx+8WzTL7EBToOSrn2ze pMNP/VdI+OQYxrKpiZUKvVytjoGCNpNrNRLsoLQGeDx17+51IBMqh+hUW3h0vSf1 kmdECgm39EhEyda0BB2Wep9/O7E9JjX6wTTHus1eKkdIuLDomDd5aNcWFm7tpfAi UCzBxBQS1izYG9rg8FBkA4lTFw4XCfwvg4XRbZ3J2lwoddEl2fcoTJQstFgXhqh0 uY9IbNXisrBDrrP+m5sDCOLR/iMfuruX0PuRGKECKfjJcQ9tvCfPOg94YCsDtHaG A9sLmOc7qmXYGw9/N1NBHE5UOHi+2qlHdC2kyMv8XcDkJPx9cQZSkmXm5dK3gGZs tyRGJ26laVQZuwKhxLPAzN+8eOQLjQnQzLos8GDR/vBc2a3tOYVFib6K2aXr6SF3 JfNqb2i49Izq4OFjKXBH =fkgY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 04:03:20PM -0500, Steve Kinney wrote:
How is it possible that /no/ credible evidence that the Apollo program was a hoax has surfaced by now? All I have seen is speculation, elevated to "evidence" in the eyes of some beholders by confirmation bias.
I assume you guys are well aware that a number of hams/RF hackers successfully received the downlinks from the Apollo missions at the moon. This includes one well documented case of a guy who built a big enough VHF array to intercept the actual VHF voice link between the LEM and the Command module... and several folks who saw both LEM and Command module S band downlinks and recovered voice. Doing so was well within the capabilities of individual techy hams of the era, at least those who had access to a decent sized dish (not uncommon for EME "moonbounce" back then) ... and some RF engineering background. -- Dave Emery N1PRE/AE, die@dieconsulting.com DIE Consulting, Weston, Mass 02493 "An empty zombie mind with a forlorn barely readable weatherbeaten 'For Rent' sign still vainly flapping outside on the weed encrusted pole - in celebration of what could have been, but wasn't and is not to be now either."
Dnia niedziela, 13 grudnia 2015 16:03:20 Steve Kinney pisze:
How is it possible that the Soviet Union did not detect and expose the moon landing hoaxes (there were six successful Apollo missions to the Moon)?
Well, because they were not hoaxes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs I really like this video. So much so that I do tend to take the bait when I have the chance to use it. :) -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 1:03 PM Subject: Re: The USA Fake Of The Moon Landings -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/13/2015 11:53 AM, Veg wrote:
http://blackbag.gawker.com/did-stanley-kubrick-fake-this-video-of- stanley-kubrick-1747558774
Example: No dust on the faceplate in a very famous photo of an astronaut on the moon. This widely distributed "proof" of a moon landing hoax falls flat when placed in its native context: The propaganda extravaganza around the Apollo program produced and published /lots/ of high quality graphics. Time Magazine used all the photos they really liked, without referencing which were taken in training environments vs. on the Moon OR hesitating to extensively retouch the "real" pictures for maximum artistic quality
One ostensible 'disproof' of the moon landing was the claim that the video camera didn't show any stars in the moon's sky. However, the scenery seen in those shots (lunar soil; equipment; astronauts) was extremely bright, somewhat like a beach in full sunlight. The contrast ratios of (non-silicon) video pickup tubes in that era were not wide, meaning that any star in the sky (other than the sun) couldn't be visible AND show the backgrounds too. Jim Bell
On 12/14/15, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
One ostensible 'disproof' of the moon landing was the claim that the video camera didn't show any stars in the moon's sky. However, the scenery seen in those shots (lunar soil; equipment; astronauts) was extremely bright, somewhat like a beach in full sunlight. The contrast ratios of (non-silicon) video pickup tubes in that era were not wide, meaning that any star in the sky (other than the sun) couldn't be visible AND show the backgrounds too.
Perhaps we can encourage the Russkies in their 2030 moon landing, to take up the same cameras that were (supposedly) used to take those shots, and re-take those shots. You know, to finally get an indisputable definitive answer, since a photo would, you know, provide that and all... :) Z
Dnia poniedziałek, 14 grudnia 2015 06:38:28 Zenaan Harkness pisze:
You know, to finally get an indisputable definitive answer, since a photo would, you know, provide that and all...
Maybe you can instead fond somebody with large and focused enough laser and make an experiment that would, you know, end this absurd discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Point_Observatory_Lunar_Laser-ranging_O... -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:56:08 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 1:03 PM Subject: Re: The USA Fake Of The Moon Landings
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 12/13/2015 11:53 AM, Veg wrote:
http://blackbag.gawker.com/did-stanley-kubrick-fake-this-video-of- stanley-kubrick-1747558774
Example: No dust on the faceplate in a very famous photo of an astronaut on the moon. This widely distributed "proof" of a moon landing hoax falls flat when placed in its native context: The propaganda extravaganza around the Apollo program produced and published /lots/ of high quality graphics. Time Magazine used all the photos they really liked, without referencing which were taken in training environments vs. on the Moon OR hesitating to extensively retouch the "real" pictures for maximum artistic quality
One ostensible 'disproof' of the moon landing was the claim that the video camera didn't show any stars in the moon's sky. However, the scenery seen in those shots (lunar soil; equipment; astronauts) was extremely bright, somewhat like a beach in full sunlight. The contrast ratios of (non-silicon) video pickup tubes
I think the objection is that the stars are missing on ordinary pictures shot using ordinary (super amazing military grade) film.
in that era were not wide, meaning that any star in the sky (other than the sun) couldn't be visible AND show the backgrounds too. Jim Bell
----- Original Message ----- From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org Cc: jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 11:14 PM Subject: Re: The USA Fake Of The Moon Landings On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:56:08 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: [clipped]
One ostensible 'disproof' of the moon landing was the claim that the video camera didn't show any stars in the moon's sky. However, the scenery seen in those shots (lunar soil; equipment; astronauts) was extremely bright, somewhat like a beach in full sunlight. The contrast ratios of (non-silicon) video pickup tubes
I think the objection is that the stars are missing on ordinary pictures shot using ordinary (super amazing military grade) film.
Again, not surprising. Take a picture of a (non-sun) star, with a small-lens camera (under 50 inch objective) and that star should appear as a point source of light, if the camera is well-focussed. Even then, the amount of light hitting that analog "pixel" is probably vastly lower than a camera aiming at a nearby surface illuminated by earth's Sun, as would be seen on the Moon by an astronaut taking a picture. http://petapixel.com/2015/05/26/film-vs-digital-a-comparison-of-the-advantag... "A release by Kodak showcased that most film has around 13 stops of dynamic range." That's a factor of about 8000. Jim Bell
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:19:13 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: juan <juan.g71@gmail.com> To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org Cc: jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 11:14 PM Subject: Re: The USA Fake Of The Moon Landings
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:56:08 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote: [clipped]
One ostensible 'disproof' of the moon landing was the claim that the video camera didn't show any stars in the moon's sky. However, the scenery seen in those shots (lunar soil; equipment; astronauts) was extremely bright, somewhat like a beach in full sunlight. The contrast ratios of (non-silicon) video pickup tubes
I think the objection is that the stars are missing on ordinary pictures shot using ordinary (super amazing military grade) film.
Again, not surprising. Take a picture of a (non-sun) star, with a small-lens camera (under 50 inch objective) and that star should appear as a point source of light, if the camera is well-focussed. Even then, the amount of light hitting that analog "pixel" is probably vastly lower than a camera aiming at a nearby surface illuminated by earth's Sun, as would be seen on the Moon by an astronaut taking a picture.
Oh, ok. So in principle the stars were underexposed to the point of not showing up on film. On the other hand, if you point a camera at the sky, on the moon, during the lunar night, shouldn't you be able to get...something? What about radar resolution? Is it possible to track a 5 x 5 x 5 m object from a distance of 350,000 kilometers?
http://petapixel.com/2015/05/26/film-vs-digital-a-comparison-of-the-advantag... "A release by Kodak showcased that most film has around 13 stops of dynamic range." That's a factor of about 8000. Jim Bell
I think the objection is that the stars are missing on ordinary
pictures shot using ordinary (super amazing military grade) film.
Again, not surprising. Take a picture of a (non-sun) star, with a small-lens camera (under 50 inch objective) and that star should appear as a point source of light, if the camera is well-focussed. Even then, the amount of light hitting that analog "pixel" is probably vastly lower than a camera aiming at a nearby surface illuminated by earth's Sun, as would be seen on the Moon by an astronaut taking a picture.
Oh, ok. So in principle the stars were underexposed to the point of not showing up on film.
Exactly correct.
On the other hand, if you point a camera at the sky, on the moon, during the lunar night, shouldn't you be able to get...something?
Suppose you take an old-style film camera, one without any sort of automatic exposure adjustments, to the bright, sunlit beach, and adjusted it to take good pictures with correct exposures. Then you wait 12 hours, and it is nighttime. You do not adjust your camera's settings. If you take a picture of the sky (except possibly for the Moon) you will see...nothing. But if you open up the aperture (a variable-diameter shutter designed to allow more, or less, area for light to come in and expose the film), and perhaps if you increased the shutter-speed from, say, 1/1000 second to maybe 10 seconds (and putting the camera on a tripod to ensure it doesn't move), THEN you will be able to photograph stars.
What about radar resolution? Is it possible to track a 5 x 5 x 5 m object from a distance of 350,000 kilometers?
That should be easy. And it would be far easier if built onto that object are some microwave-sized "corner cubes reflectors" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector , which have the peculiar property of sending radar (or light, etc) directly back in the direction from which it came. Optical corner-cubes are easy to find: They are on the backs of cars, and are used as visual retroreflectors on roads. They are much better than Scotchlite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflective_sheeting , which is made from tiny glass spheres. Jim Bell
http://petapixel.com/2015/05/26/film-vs-digital-a-comparison-of-the-advantag... "A release by Kodak showcased that most film has around 13 stops of dynamic range." That's a factor of about 8000. Jim Bell
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:00:37 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
But if you open up the aperture (a variable-diameter shutter designed to allow more, or less, area for light to come in and expose the film), and perhaps if you increased the shutter-speed from, say, 1/1000 second to maybe 10 seconds (and putting the camera on a tripod to ensure it doesn't move), THEN you will be able to photograph stars.
Truth is I used to take pictures and print/develop them...a long time ago (I still have some b/w paper lying around). I partially overlooked the exposure time issue because I was assuming that the fact that the moon has no atmosphere somehow made a substantial difference. Anyway, the moon pictures that had people or landscapes in them can't show the stars, but it is still possible to take pictures of the stars from the moon, with a little care. Are there any such pictures from the 60s? (then again, pictures of a starry sky wouldn't prove that there were any people on the moon...)
What about radar resolution? Is it possible to track a 5 x 5 x 5 m object from a distance of 350,000 kilometers?
That should be easy. And it would be far easier if built onto that object are some microwave-sized "corner cubes reflectors" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector ,
Yes, interesting objects. I knew that cat's eyes have that property. So putting corner reflectors on an object makes it easier to track it, but it doesn't say anything about how easy it is in absolute terms? A search for "apollo corner reflectors radar" doesn't bring anything as far as I can see. Only references to optical reflectors on the moon.
which have the peculiar property of sending radar (or light, etc) directly back in the direction from which it came. Optical corner-cubes are easy to find: They are on the backs of cars, and are used as visual retroreflectors on roads. They are much better than Scotchlite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflective_sheeting , which is made from tiny glass spheres. Jim Bell
http://petapixel.com/2015/05/26/film-vs-digital-a-comparison-of-the-advantag... "A release by Kodak showcased that most film has around 13 stops of dynamic range." That's a factor of about 8000. Jim Bell
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 16:03:20 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 12/13/2015 11:53 AM, Veg wrote:
http://blackbag.gawker.com/did-stanley-kubrick-fake-this-video-of- stanley-kubrick-1747558774
OK
I'll bite. Just a couple of questions for starters:
A couple of answers below, although I don't have a strong either for or against the fake hypothesis, oh sorry, 'nutcase' 'conspiracy' 'theory'.
They call for speculation, but that seems to be OK in our present context since the position they challenge is itself based on speculation.
How is it possible that the Soviet Union did not detect
I don't know the technical details. Could radar track the the landing of a small object on the moon in 1960? Can it even do it now? ? and expose
the moon landing hoaxes (there were six successful Apollo missions to the Moon)?
How is it possible that simulating the Apollo missions could be less expensive,
Well, that's usually the point of simulating something. It's cheaper. Plus, if you actually can't do something then the other option is to 'simulate', aka, faking it.
:o)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWbd0VAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LYO8P/149JrPiCQjb9Bnr6icPKBeG DNwAQcmXZggabtLn2H42Q2tWfyZBgZjexYIFXz24k4VUaGFFoZijF4zJ34Cv8Up/ S939sypS0y51jhTrB8n21IvsoedP7SAWoDTZOpTPAvfHMqfvp5tJDt94qswTtkp3 hhh/xamfDOQpnn0jf+23kjpe0GHtm6dv1aLcYG9zxh2m3+SPSDmNVtVrZTx737Ky pUKgEAA3rGlC/42+xN7rPE0SlTue9PS2dlNOve3xM4mkvx+8WzTL7EBToOSrn2ze pMNP/VdI+OQYxrKpiZUKvVytjoGCNpNrNRLsoLQGeDx17+51IBMqh+hUW3h0vSf1 kmdECgm39EhEyda0BB2Wep9/O7E9JjX6wTTHus1eKkdIuLDomDd5aNcWFm7tpfAi UCzBxBQS1izYG9rg8FBkA4lTFw4XCfwvg4XRbZ3J2lwoddEl2fcoTJQstFgXhqh0 uY9IbNXisrBDrrP+m5sDCOLR/iMfuruX0PuRGKECKfjJcQ9tvCfPOg94YCsDtHaG A9sLmOc7qmXYGw9/N1NBHE5UOHi+2qlHdC2kyMv8XcDkJPx9cQZSkmXm5dK3gGZs tyRGJ26laVQZuwKhxLPAzN+8eOQLjQnQzLos8GDR/vBc2a3tOYVFib6K2aXr6SF3 JfNqb2i49Izq4OFjKXBH =fkgY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/14/2015 02:13 AM, juan wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 16:03:20 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
On 12/13/2015 11:53 AM, Veg wrote:
http://blackbag.gawker.com/did-stanley-kubrick-fake-this-video- of-
stanley-kubrick-1747558774
OK
I'll bite. Just a couple of questions for starters:
A couple of answers below, although I don't have a strong either for or against the fake hypothesis, oh sorry, 'nutcase' 'conspiracy' 'theory'.
It does approach that. One of the proofs offered by Beleivers is that it is impossible for human beings to pass through the Van Allen belts and live. Because they have been called "radiation" belts and as we all know, radiation is deadly.
They call for speculation, but that seems to be OK in our present context since the position they challenge is itself based on speculation.
How is it possible that the Soviet Union did not detect
I don't know the technical details. Could radar track the the landing of a small object on the moon in 1960? Can it even do it now?
1969 and later, actually. :D Not my field, but I do know that ham radio operators using /very/ directional high gain antennas followed the missions from Earth orbit to the surface of the Moon, listening to and recording voice and telemetry signals. The cost of sending transmitters to the Moon, and maintaining a constant stream of 100% believable signals all the way there and back, would have been quite staggering. The odds of this unlikely mission failing would have approached 100% over the course of six missions.
? and expose the moon landing hoaxes (there were six successful Apollo missions to the Moon)?
How is it possible that simulating the Apollo missions could be less expensive,
Well, that's usually the point of simulating something. It's cheaper.
Plus, if you actually can't do something then the other option is to 'simulate', aka, faking it.
Cheaper to build and launch a series of Saturn V launch vehicles with LEMs and command modules on top, than to just go ahead and send them all the way? At minimum it would cost the same as doing the program for real. Also consider that part of the price of simulating an Apollo program would have been the cost of maintaining the illusion from beginning to end, under the watchful eyes of thousands of engineers who thoroughly understood the systems they were working on, documented everything they did in minute detail, and distributed that documentation to other equally well informed engineers working on related systems? It would have cost much more to fake the program than to actually do it. Not to mention the 100% risk of exposure, since /one/ error in the deception would have resulted in a chain reaction leaving the whole deception exposed to dozens, then hundreds, then thousands of very smart, very committed, very pissed off people. Even the Soviets could not have kept a lid on something like that. :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWcZlPAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0Lz/0QAIoG2jup3LbCyojVaNcV3FkD yahR7QVe2qha9cqBzN3gYAZMOQKUzV7rTNnfG2wsJ5Sh8uggeW+2tgirJlvyzzbp ulBprjryA82oTql7ljPo9Ivx6qqh9ZlLhglpS0yG9lvQAWI/srpzv5sTw5c3ZAIS f90JekmZRJ5ySDKpPDDSkE3UFeYw/wPqCH3Ph9047D8yd9Ua4Rb3+6z16wX375Ma e53a1PmHghm9MuLHwAhqHGjzhX43/TsJcRNMvc8+ONJX6ZAoHhsKtKC+3bLYZqa1 uRbxoSc8AIh6NlK9zkzdUj6KA+hVUC10Y1xMxDNk76EjzZMnX0jA6/CTULpN7Ql2 eALFkOsARlmM/0JNBPggtv0MQA+Gb3D8f97UkZgbHKb27SxMJMKPjAMuLExBQzX7 Rl1gParXVZGL4eER840zg8a5fqV+nePoW+k7vhzcjzCNrqzsu/3yMOme/V7UhwoR wsrPWot5xFxIFqVrz+QZwyPonr6raFa3h+3SC/0DPKYObbgNovxs4tvfVYFce6b+ X/V7TuzO74HhyJe73qgJN4bY5cDEXvFYEjFIKEn+PV4WpEg91Xn2R2Z5/EaoZxdM UR5VSF5s/EQ1m4MlOvxZxzX/1xfL1KvZXtcNTwk8shoGsZ4m4I51x3zPfK/IWqDs 96+c5d+n6qH5xfzHKanF =J2Fn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:03:14 -0500 Steve Kinney <admin@pilobilus.net> wrote:
A couple of answers below, although I don't have a strong either for or against the fake hypothesis, oh sorry, 'nutcase' 'conspiracy' 'theory'.
It does approach that. One of the proofs offered by Beleivers is that it is impossible for human beings to pass through the Van Allen belts and live. Because they have been called "radiation" belts and as we all know, radiation is deadly.
Well, radiation certainly *can* be deadly. For instance, if you were to stand near an ordinary wood fire long enough you could easily get burns caused by *infrared radiation* that would kill you in, say, hours. Not a nice death either. Notice that the heat is being transferred by radiation, not direct contact/conduction. Regarding the moon trips, random 'mainstream' source : "There was no shortage of threats facing Apollo astronauts on missions to the Moon. Like radiation. Specifically, the dense radiation environment of the Van Allen belts. NASA...had studied the “Van Allen problem” as it were, knew the risks, and made the decision to go anyway. http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van... Seems to me that asking about radiation is rather sensible whereas dismissing people who ask as not-so-well-educated 'conspiracy theorists' isn't.
They call for speculation, but that seems to be OK in our present context since the position they challenge is itself based on speculation.
How is it possible that the Soviet Union did not detect
I don't know the technical details. Could radar track the the landing of a small object on the moon in 1960? Can it even do it now?
1969 and later, actually. :D
Oh, ok. I thoguht the first landing was a bit a earlier. Anyway, so far nobody has provided much detail about radar resolution. Yes, voice comms were allegedly followed, yes, you can bounce microwaves off the moon. I freely admit that my knowledge of em theory is lacking so I wouldn't mind more information to go from "bounce radio off the moon" (big object) to realtime tracking of a small object on the moon, and without any fancy 'dsp' microelectronics.
Not my field, but I do know that ham radio operators using /very/ directional high gain antennas followed the missions from Earth orbit to the surface of the Moon, listening to and recording voice and telemetry signals.
But that's not the same thing as getting an accurate position?
The cost of sending transmitters to the Moon, and maintaining a constant stream of 100% believable signals all the way there and back, would have been quite staggering. The odds of this unlikely mission failing would have approached 100% over the course of six missions.
Cheaper to build and launch a series of Saturn V launch vehicles with LEMs and command modules on top, than to just go ahead and send them all the way? At minimum it would cost the same as doing the program for real.
I never said nor suggested that everything was fake. Just as an hypothesis, the fake part may be the landings, or some of them. If the landings were technically impossible at that time, or at least the first one(s), then they had to be faked.
Also consider that part of the price of simulating an Apollo program would have been the cost of maintaining the illusion from beginning to end, under the watchful eyes of thousands of engineers who thoroughly understood the systems they were working on, documented everything they did in minute detail, and distributed that documentation to other equally well informed engineers working on related systems? It would have cost much more to fake the program than to actually do it.
Well, that's where we certainly differ. You seem to be conveniently overlooking all the incentives all the state parasites and nationalists have to lie.
Not to mention the 100% risk of exposure, since /one/ error in the deception would have resulted in a chain reaction leaving the whole deception exposed to dozens, then hundreds, then thousands of very smart, very committed, very pissed off people. Even the Soviets could not have kept a lid on something like that.
I don't know. That sounds like unfounded 'anti cospiracy' 'theory' based on the dogma/irrational belief that secrets can't be kept.
:o)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWcZlPAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0Lz/0QAIoG2jup3LbCyojVaNcV3FkD yahR7QVe2qha9cqBzN3gYAZMOQKUzV7rTNnfG2wsJ5Sh8uggeW+2tgirJlvyzzbp ulBprjryA82oTql7ljPo9Ivx6qqh9ZlLhglpS0yG9lvQAWI/srpzv5sTw5c3ZAIS f90JekmZRJ5ySDKpPDDSkE3UFeYw/wPqCH3Ph9047D8yd9Ua4Rb3+6z16wX375Ma e53a1PmHghm9MuLHwAhqHGjzhX43/TsJcRNMvc8+ONJX6ZAoHhsKtKC+3bLYZqa1 uRbxoSc8AIh6NlK9zkzdUj6KA+hVUC10Y1xMxDNk76EjzZMnX0jA6/CTULpN7Ql2 eALFkOsARlmM/0JNBPggtv0MQA+Gb3D8f97UkZgbHKb27SxMJMKPjAMuLExBQzX7 Rl1gParXVZGL4eER840zg8a5fqV+nePoW+k7vhzcjzCNrqzsu/3yMOme/V7UhwoR wsrPWot5xFxIFqVrz+QZwyPonr6raFa3h+3SC/0DPKYObbgNovxs4tvfVYFce6b+ X/V7TuzO74HhyJe73qgJN4bY5cDEXvFYEjFIKEn+PV4WpEg91Xn2R2Z5/EaoZxdM UR5VSF5s/EQ1m4MlOvxZxzX/1xfL1KvZXtcNTwk8shoGsZ4m4I51x3zPfK/IWqDs 96+c5d+n6qH5xfzHKanF =J2Fn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 05:50:01PM -0300, juan wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:03:14 -0500 Oh, ok. I thoguht the first landing was a bit a earlier. Anyway, so far nobody has provided much detail about radar resolution. Yes, voice comms were allegedly followed, yes, you can bounce microwaves off the moon. I freely admit that my knowledge of em theory is lacking so I wouldn't mind more information to go from "bounce radio off the moon" (big object) to realtime tracking of a small object on the moon, and without any fancy 'dsp' microelectronics.
It is insanity to reply to this, but then I am quite certifiably insane... Observers saw and timed the osculation of the radio signals from the spacecraft in lunar orbit by the moon, saw correct Doppler for the geometry involved from THEIR site (and correct timing for osculation)... and saw the coherence of the signal consistent with a direct transmission and not scattering from the moons rough surface (which creates a considerable smearing of a wideband signal such as the Unified S band telemetry/voice signals (and especially the video) due to the path length (and thus delay) differences from all the random reflecting points. And during the journey to the moon and back from the moon the angles (and Doppler) observed when the highly directional ground antennas were pointed for maximum signal corresponded to those predicted from the the path of the spacecraft and not the reflective moon - which eventually was not even close to being inside the beamwidth of the antennas used. To simulate all of this realistically for tracking sites in multiple continents would have required actually sending dummy spacecraft to carry out the maneuvers and emit the "fake" signals. And if it isn't obvious, not only did private hams follow radio signals from these missions, but so did various professional intelligence and radio (and optical) astronomy sites, some with substantial dish antennas and sophisticated gear. Many of these folks (some obviously not friendly to the USA) would have to have been very well fooled - or in on the game - not to have called our bluff. -- Dave Emery N1PRE/AE, die@dieconsulting.com DIE Consulting, Weston, Mass 02493 "An empty zombie mind with a forlorn barely readable weatherbeaten 'For Rent' sign still vainly flapping outside on the weed encrusted pole - in celebration of what could have been, but wasn't and is not to be now either."
On 12/18/15, David I. Emery <die@dieconsulting.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 05:50:01PM -0300, juan wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:03:14 -0500 Oh, ok. I thoguht the first landing was a bit a earlier. Anyway, so far nobody has provided much detail about radar resolution. Yes, voice comms were allegedly followed, yes, you can bounce microwaves off the moon. I freely admit that my knowledge of em theory is lacking so I wouldn't mind more information to go from "bounce radio off the moon" (big object) to realtime tracking of a small object on the moon, and without any fancy 'dsp' microelectronics.
It is insanity to reply to this, but then I am quite certifiably insane...
Observers saw and timed the osculation of the radio signals from the spacecraft in lunar orbit by the moon, saw correct Doppler for the geometry involved from THEIR site (and correct timing for osculation)... and saw the coherence of the signal consistent with a direct transmission and not scattering from the moons rough surface (which creates a considerable smearing of a wideband signal such as the Unified S band telemetry/voice signals (and especially the video) due to the path length (and thus delay) differences from all the random reflecting points.
And during the journey to the moon and back from the moon the angles (and Doppler) observed when the highly directional ground antennas were pointed for maximum signal corresponded to those predicted from the the path of the spacecraft and not the reflective moon - which eventually was not even close to being inside the beamwidth of the antennas used.
To simulate all of this realistically for tracking sites in multiple continents would have required actually sending dummy spacecraft to carry out the maneuvers and emit the "fake" signals.
And if it isn't obvious, not only did private hams follow radio signals from these missions, but so did various professional intelligence and radio (and optical) astronomy sites, some with substantial dish antennas and sophisticated gear. Many of these folks (some obviously not friendly to the USA) would have to have been very well fooled - or in on the game - not to have called our bluff.
Sounds very impressive science - is this documented somewhere, like some old magazine, so we can get someone to find a copy and scan it in for the world to see - something with empirical doppler calculations/ verifications for example? Zenaan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/18/2015 12:45 AM, David I. Emery wrote: [ ... ]
And if it isn't obvious, not only did private hams follow radio signals from these missions, but so did various professional intelligence and radio (and optical) astronomy sites, some with substantial dish antennas and sophisticated gear. Many of these folks (some obviously not friendly to the USA) would have to have been very well fooled - or in on the game - not to have called our bluff.
Illustrating once again the difference between Conspiracy Theory, and Conspiracy Cult Belief. One is an exercise in independent intelligence analysis. The other is an exercise in building rationalizations for paranoid ideation and cult beliefs. When the going gets spooky, the spooks hit the books. Highly recommended: http://cryptome.org/2013/01/aaron-swartz/Psychology-of-Intelligence- Analysis.pdf :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWc7cKAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LHn8P/jeQjOGIu0fYReWeR+Foh342 3bRaWMsDYP2rCkAt9HmnIBhY3cUAuGhclScj3HuOEY+JJXEG4IjjSxVS/XltyFuB 1m7SjQXbQC35mSqwkfy4YL/4JsPsBj+5+OLNgIh6jH43jMc+vfXnMPwqDNaDaS+4 JE2hVRl10Ls/tXOpajeii/aCykm1gs8/mlnCp5RKrRPCQq1KErJwt2fNh3ObB+/m x/gLiScBenEM3F1ZxOZdnLZJBasxVhRc65ckNEzOppCs5uhbmZ2B+E5i7UFnHaj2 UwdEeb0M+nMpkRysRXnBPt9z5hWHCiPbfwNuVCfnITuz/ku3howSpIraFV274/9P WoaaOxEMihvvS1i3EjyLkiResgvV79FQnkz0zm2ELyMspH0AnGZ5An1NHaEP7hNv jndraOhA9T2v07MaQQ2UDZKf6tSZW9D8vn7NhNDRYvQacbW3xjuq270T1Voj5OC/ cVb1YBs0LWDyoEqt1MhHVEiFfwRD8D7hEm9sONmfbcm3Lvjw9rpE/Aj9zBreAvD6 iNPoo13yn6AicE97GoBCFqRqj0PH39QRFd/WiZfX9hI9BoN2rgI4Q4/1OEF6Chxt XCIYItyY3VwDLqSGKvllFot52xsFCBDWsmHu05NHTqA3Zz3HMJTWg31QMy/Pn3dn N6mmMPyVC78NaJbyqTXt =jmQs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dnia piątek, 18 grudnia 2015 00:45:15 David I. Emery pisze:
And if it isn't obvious, not only did private hams follow radio signals from these missions, but so did various professional intelligence and radio (and optical) astronomy sites, some with substantial dish antennas and sophisticated gear. Many of these folks (some obviously not friendly to the USA) would have to have been very well fooled - or in on the game - not to have called our bluff.
But don't you understand -- they're all REPTILIANS! Shape-shifting reptilians! They're in cahoots to kill and eat us, and steal our precious precious gold! That's why the governments cooperate even though it would seem they should not. That's why BitCoin happened -- it wasn't "Satoshi", it was R&D (Reptilianism and Discordia) labs of cooperating governments, creating a shiny gimmick to take over as value store from gold, so that they could steal it all! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!1! They are spraying us with chemtrails, they are stupifying us with adding fluorine to water, they are using mind control rays on us -- they call it "radio links", "WiFi" (WIreless FluorIde!), "bluetooth" (obvious link to fluoride and teeth, putting that poison in our children's mouths is not enough anymore), "streetlights"! Why is there push for the new, more complicated lightbulbs? MIND CONTROL, that's why. My wolfram filament works just fine, thak you very much! Go, look it up![1] The "global warming" stuff? All bollocks, a way to make us suffer, a way to keep us from building an intergalactic fleet that could defend us from MORE REPTILIANS! THANKS, PUTINBAMA! While we're taking about Obama (if that is his real name!), notice how they changed the name of where the military is housed? BARRACKS! That's a level of self-agrandeurising! FIRST STEP FOR DICTATORSHIP! Along with "Obamacare" (notice a naming pattern?), which is there to put even MORE fluride in everything! Want proof that Putin is in there by the way? Easy -- he was trying to be tough on "crime", and guess what happened aroud Sevastopol. ONLY A REPTILIAN WOULD MAKE SUCH A DUMB MISTAKE! Vladimir Reptilianovich! Y O U C A N ' T P R O V E I T ' S N O T S O ! ! ! And the only thing stopping them is Zenaan and Juan, and Александр! Oh, how lucky we are that the Three Musketeers of the Reptilian Revolution are all on this list! And they are TRYING to help you see the light! Why don't you see the light? Now we just need a D'Artagnan, and the POEPHECY[2] will COME TRUE about the four that bring balance back to the Internets. Cari, I am looking at you! We need a First Nations D'Artagnan, as judging by the names the Indian, Spanish, and Russian speaking parts of the world are covered by The Three. [1] http://ow.ly/W3Zrr [2] http://ow.ly/W3ZeJ /pasting shortened URLs so that ADMINS of this LIST won't CENSOR!!1!/ -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
Cynicism, or let me say more accurately 'cynical humor' - is the last resort for human beings who.... try to escape from the Truth. Self-deception i would call it. Self-deception with smiley :) Keep on doing a great job, rysiek. 2015-12-18 11:02 GMT+02:00 rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl>:
Dnia piątek, 18 grudnia 2015 00:45:15 David I. Emery pisze:
And if it isn't obvious, not only did private hams follow radio signals from these missions, but so did various professional intelligence and radio (and optical) astronomy sites, some with substantial dish antennas and sophisticated gear. Many of these folks (some obviously not friendly to the USA) would have to have been very well fooled - or in on the game - not to have called our bluff.
But don't you understand -- they're all REPTILIANS! Shape-shifting reptilians! They're in cahoots to kill and eat us, and steal our precious precious gold!
That's why the governments cooperate even though it would seem they should not. That's why BitCoin happened -- it wasn't "Satoshi", it was R&D (Reptilianism and Discordia) labs of cooperating governments, creating a shiny gimmick to take over as value store from gold, so that they could steal it all! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!1!
They are spraying us with chemtrails, they are stupifying us with adding fluorine to water, they are using mind control rays on us -- they call it "radio links", "WiFi" (WIreless FluorIde!), "bluetooth" (obvious link to fluoride and teeth, putting that poison in our children's mouths is not enough anymore), "streetlights"! Why is there push for the new, more complicated lightbulbs? MIND CONTROL, that's why. My wolfram filament works just fine, thak you very much! Go, look it up![1]
The "global warming" stuff? All bollocks, a way to make us suffer, a way to keep us from building an intergalactic fleet that could defend us from MORE REPTILIANS! THANKS, PUTINBAMA!
While we're taking about Obama (if that is his real name!), notice how they changed the name of where the military is housed? BARRACKS! That's a level of self-agrandeurising! FIRST STEP FOR DICTATORSHIP! Along with "Obamacare" (notice a naming pattern?), which is there to put even MORE fluride in everything!
Want proof that Putin is in there by the way? Easy -- he was trying to be tough on "crime", and guess what happened aroud Sevastopol. ONLY A REPTILIAN WOULD MAKE SUCH A DUMB MISTAKE! Vladimir Reptilianovich!
Y O U C A N ' T P R O V E I T ' S N O T S O ! ! !
And the only thing stopping them is Zenaan and Juan, and Александр! Oh, how lucky we are that the Three Musketeers of the Reptilian Revolution are all on this list! And they are TRYING to help you see the light! Why don't you see the light?
Now we just need a D'Artagnan, and the POEPHECY[2] will COME TRUE about the four that bring balance back to the Internets. Cari, I am looking at you! We need a First Nations D'Artagnan, as judging by the names the Indian, Spanish, and Russian speaking parts of the world are covered by The Three.
[1] http://ow.ly/W3Zrr [2] http://ow.ly/W3ZeJ
/pasting shortened URLs so that ADMINS of this LIST won't CENSOR!!1!/
-- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak
Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
Dnia piątek, 18 grudnia 2015 02:30:19 Jason McVetta pisze:
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:02 AM, rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
Y O U C A N ' T P R O V E I T ' S N O T S O ! ! !
YOU CAN'T PROVE IT'S NOT NOT SO!!?!
But what if the Three Mouseketeers can? If they hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes should fall like a house of cards! Checkmate.
Now pass the spliff..
Duuuuuuude... -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
Jason McVetta wrote:
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:02 AM, rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl <mailto:rysiek@hackerspace.pl>> wrote:
Y O U C A N ' T P R O V E I T ' S N O T S O ! ! !
YOU CAN'T PROVE IT'S NOT NOT SO!!?!
Now pass the spliff..
No bogarting either... -- RR "You might want to ask an expert about that - I just fiddled around with mine until it worked..."
rysiek wrote:
But don't you understand -- they're all REPTILIANS! Shape-shifting reptilians! They're in cahoots to kill and eat us, and steal our precious precious gold!
My dad was working for NASA during the Apollo missions. Simply, anyone who doesn't think Armstong walked on the moon is a nutjob. One of the things my dad bequeathed me was an Omega "Moon Watch"... at least that's the way Omega advertised them. What was unique about the one I had vs the advertised store variety was the fact that it was an old fashioned wind-up, as opposed to the retail version, a self-winder. Why the difference? As my dad put it "We didn't know if a self-winder would work in zero-gravity", and they weren't willing to take the risk. If the moon landing was a hoax, it was such an intricate one it would have cost more to execute then actually landing someone on the moon. -- RR "You might want to ask an expert about that - I just fiddled around with mine until it worked..."
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:53:29 -0800 Rayzer <Rayzer@riseup.net> wrote:
rysiek wrote:
But don't you understand -- they're all REPTILIANS! Shape-shifting reptilians! They're in cahoots to kill and eat us, and steal our precious precious gold!
My dad was working for NASA during the Apollo missions. Simply, anyone who doesn't think Armstong walked on the moon is a nutjob.
priceless.
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:02:51 +0100 rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
But don't you understand -- they're all REPTILIANS! Shape-shifting reptilians! They're in cahoots to kill and eat us, and steal our precious precious gold!
Yeah. But at least they provide ample funding for 'non' government organizations pretending to 'fight' for 'privacy' eh.
That's why the governments cooperate even though it would seem they should not.
Why shouldn't governments cooperate? Wait rysiek, are you seriously mocking people who know that governments are criminal organizations that exist for the benefit of the criminal organization, not the subjects? And given the above fact, why shouldnt diferent nation states cooperate to better opress their subjects? Do you have any clue about the history of 'international' european monarchies? Ever looked at the history book? How bad was your brainwashing in your little public school? Ah no. Nation states don't cooperate and there isn't a single example of international bureaucracy out there. As to the rest of your stupid rant...well, you keep showing your true colors.
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 00:45:15 -0500 "David I. Emery" <die@dieconsulting.com> wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 05:50:01PM -0300, juan wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:03:14 -0500 Oh, ok. I thoguht the first landing was a bit a earlier. Anyway, so far nobody has provided much detail about radar resolution. Yes, voice comms were allegedly followed, yes, you can bounce microwaves off the moon. I freely admit that my knowledge of em theory is lacking so I wouldn't mind more information to go from "bounce radio off the moon" (big object) to realtime tracking of a small object on the moon, and without any fancy 'dsp' microelectronics.
It is insanity to reply to this, but then I am quite certifiably insane...
So there's no reason to pay attention to what you say? =)
Observers saw and timed the osculation of the radio signals from the spacecraft in lunar orbit by the moon, saw correct Doppler for the geometry involved from THEIR site (and correct timing for osculation)... and saw the coherence of the signal consistent with a direct transmission and not scattering from the moons rough surface
I know my command of the english language is far from perfect, so maybe that's why you misunderstood what I said. I'm asking if the moon *landing* was tracked using radar 'illuminating' the target from the earth. I realize that signals *directly* transmitted by transmitters on an object can be used to track the object, but that isn't strictly speaking radar is it? I also can ask : when relying only on triangulation and doppler measurements, what kind of *resolution* do you get? How can you tell if the object actually landed on the moon?
(which creates a considerable smearing of a wideband signal such as the Unified S band telemetry/voice signals (and especially the video) due to the path length (and thus delay) differences from all the random reflecting points.
And during the journey to the moon and back from the moon the angles (and Doppler) observed when the highly directional ground antennas were pointed for maximum signal corresponded to those predicted from the the path of the spacecraft and not the reflective moon
Like I said, you misunderstood. I didn't mean that the signals received on earth were somehow all just reflections from the moon. That would be absurd.
- which eventually was not even close to being inside the beamwidth of the antennas used.
To simulate all of this realistically for tracking sites in multiple continents would have required actually sending dummy spacecraft to carry out the maneuvers and emit the "fake" signals.
Again, you don't seem to be following what I'm saying. I didn't mean that the whole thing was fake.
And if it isn't obvious, not only did private hams follow radio signals from these missions,
That's historical data. It isn't 'obvious' to me at all. Your hams may have had first hand access to the evidence bu the direct evidence isn't available today. At best there is some kind of record of it.
but so did various professional intelligence and radio (and optical) astronomy sites, some with substantial dish antennas and sophisticated gear. Many of these folks (some obviously not friendly to the USA) would have to have been very well fooled - or in on the game - not to have called our bluff.
horseshit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment --dan
On December 19, 2015 6:38:31 PM dan@geer.org wrote:
horseshit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
--dan
The sentiment and the subject of the link are the best responses I've seen to this nonsense. -S
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 18:50:17 -0800 Shelley <shelley@misanthropia.org> wrote:
The sentiment and the subject of the link are the best responses I've seen to this nonsense.
Fa-la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la! - -- The Doctor [412/724/301/703/415] [ZS] PGP: 0x807B17C1 / 7960 1CDC 85C9 0B63 8D9F DD89 3BD8 FF2B 807B 17C1 WWW: https://drwho.virtadpt.net/ "Where's the duty to what's right/Intentions end with empty words/And chaos replaces order!" --VNV Nation, Nemesis -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJWeE9AAAoJED1np1pUQ8RkFmsP/2bxmzoOgFvbwnnRpUIqXzoF s8YarfzwJO0OttGtZYtHmCo20XhHU2wXn2lbtRmm1Bduwzx9+6nJCdDVkBoHt8IV xNcGEHoIy6KLOw0C3C4Qs/IqVZWQ/F26FKjRU2o9e2G81wEQP4QOnMNjgJFs+4Qv YKRGd6hLkgtO+QwR3TZWtUTvbQ8IjqEiWOaSxZMCyENOWRBiKByasfrKqtJXztlt ig6eoLhUwPCc3Vu/iaQ496frBl6NgblQqRLVhY5pTo7xnH15JIOJPQuFEDxNtd8B IQQIUqtA9oHnCAePBNeEKejj3/D/ezEjqhAdniO2d8PrOS2VIMGKsZbhxVckiyTY vf0csWljnyp7dTubXTHLo3QkJIucQhDubjLl2mS74VQm5o1lwfqRKfXFGeiWvVfv mV3zjdJPfdsZe3CRSpXFd+vP5Zmr8/WFZ/kyzkw3WKjjvNdX1Jcau0ZKsfR+tnQ1 FyQY/XmDtR5NXy2TbpxQKE1D1h/zo0Bt2bvIMNxOTzdicWb7QwM957zmVFBXlICJ sv8I32rnvePEvxJUf6R6dvV6fiRsPlzKzk8Se6545PDzH5YZt091RJdTB2/+Brv+ OyyJnNkGmlsg2og4uT+K1yVzjqSjckCGF8s6TQM1ocYah3FD5nKooeXs9cNSmWgp CxaLP59Wjgseu/Ta0qaz =Hq4u -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 12/20/15, dan@geer.org <dan@geer.org> wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment --dan
Now -that's- compelling. Thanks heaps, Z
Anyone else checked out the footage that surfaced of the Apollo 11 astronauts pretending to be far away when they are really in low Earth orbit? https://youtu.be/Rikfsw835RA The effect they are going for can be seen at 53:14 to make it seem like the camera is up against the window and Earth is small. How they did it is revealed much earlier in the film. You see someone between the camera and the Earth and realize what you thought was the blackness of space is really the inside of the craft and what you though was the entire Earth is just a small window showing part of a huge Earth right outside the window. (This is covered in a doc you can also find on youtube called A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon.) There is other funny business in the rest of this "behind the scenes footage." Not sure what to make of it if the moon landing wasn't faked. On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 5:21 AM, Александр <afalex169@gmail.com> wrote:
Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABxAN8cfiOI
Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9imVp8tlecY ___
Stanley Kubrick Confesses To Faking The Moon Landings
A stunning new video has emerged 15 years after Stanley Kubrick’s death in which Kubrick allegedly admits that the NASA moon landings were faked.
Filmmaker T. Patrick Murray says he interviewed Kubrick three days before his death in March 1999. He was forced to sign an 88-page NDA to keep the contents of the interview a secret for 15 years.
Below is a transcript from the interview with Stanley Kubrick, in which the 2001 Space Odyssey Director admits on camera that, “the moon landings ALL were faked , and that I was the person who filmed it.”
We have included a leaked rough cut of the film below the transcript as well as two unedited raw videos of the interview with Kubrick below that:
K: I’m so preoccupied. With my work, innovation, risk-taking, regrets… T: Why are you giving this interview? K: Because, it started to get to me after awhile. Well, this is difficult, because it is the first time I’ve talked about it. (sighs) T: Sure, take all the time you need. K: I’ve always been conflicted by it, but not consciously until years later. I was just blown away by the chance, the opportunity, the challenge of making this, this production, and I went into this like it was a regular film, like another regular film of mine, not thinking too much about uh the long term effects of what it would mean to society if it was ever discovered. T: What are you talking about? I’m dying to know what you’re talking about. K: Well, a confession of sorts. A movie I made, that nobody is aware of – even though they’ve seen it. T: A movie you made, no one knows you made? Is that what you said? K: That’s right. Is that intriguing? Do I have you intrigued? 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. K: Nixon want to uh, they were planning, yeah, he want to fake this, this moon landing… T: Are you contending that people DON’T want to know the truth about the world, reality, the moon landings…? K: The government, knowing this, takes advantage of it by perpetrating fraud after fraud after fraud. T: How did you end up giving in? Being complicit with this fraud? K: I didn’t want to do it. T: This is NOT where I thought this interview was going! K: With my help, with my, with my aid, and it is, it is bothering me. T: I only have this certain amount of time with you. And I’ll talk about whatever you want, but… T: You’re not…This isn’t some type of joke, or… K: No. No, it’s not. T: Or a film within a film thing… K: Not joking. NOPE. T: Okay. K: The conspiracy theorists were right, on this occasion. T: I don’t know what to ask you first. K: I thought it was wrong, I just…I didn’t believe in perpetrating a fraud like that. T: But you did. K: It also undermined my artistic integrity to do that. T: Ok, but you ended up saying yes. Why? K: Well, yes, but because basically I was bribed. To put it bluntly, that’s what it was. It was just a plain fucking bribe. T: Why are you telling me? K:A, a, a, massive fraud. An unparalleled fraud perpetrated against them. They SHOULD know! Don’t you think it’s important for people to know the truth? T: Why did they have to fake it? Why? Why would they ever need to do something like that? Why would the government ever want or need to do… K: It’s no secret that NASA always wanted to fulfill this Kennedy prophecy. T: Take it from the beginning… T: I gotta be honest, this is where he (Kubrick) got me. I mean, when I actually put myself in his position, when I actually imagine that he was telling the truth, and that he was presented with this opportunity and if in the one in a billion chance that I lived his life and I was presented with the same opportunity, what would I do? T: Yeah, he wanted his approval points up and he thought nothing could do it better than this. T: What a conflict. I mean, gosh, I can’t imagine being presented with that opportunity. On one hand, I’d really would want to do it, but then I’d probably say I’m committing a crime, and lying… T: It depends, but my guess would be…no, if you’re good, but you would do it. K: Spielberg, (inaudible) Scorsese, even Woody Allen. There isn’t one of them who wouldn’t do this. T: I gotta admit: I’d do it. I’d do it too. T: But they dangled all this power and all this flattery on you, essentially? K: Yeah, it got to me after awhile. You can listen to so much of that stuff before you start to believe it. T: They just said you were the greatest and stuff? K: Yeah, yeah – and I agreed with them. K: Why are you telling the world? Why does the world need to know that the moon landings aren’t real and you faked them? K: Which I consider to be my masterpiece. T: And you can’t take credit, or even talk about… K: Well, I am now.. T: Right, so you’ll be dead. In ten years, or 15… K: Right, ten or 15 something like that. T: So, you can’t talk to Roger Ebert about it. Does that frustrate you? T: Why did they have to fake it? Why would they have to do that? K: Because it is impossible to get there. T: Ok, back up, back up, back up….
participants (16)
-
dan＠geer.org -
David -
David I. Emery -
grarpamp -
Henry Rivera -
Jason McVetta -
jim bell -
juan -
Rayzer -
rysiek -
Shelley -
Steve Kinney -
The Doctor -
Veg -
Zenaan Harkness -
Александр