SSS-666Wow this is exciting news! I’m all a quiver. Please, please, please Mr not-at-all-religious person who adopts the number of the beast (eh?) tell me now before I burst. What was the biggest conspiracy of the 20th century?
You don’t know David Irving do you?
There you go folks. That is the way to start a discussion. Put down the guy, insult him, attack his “twisted” beliefs; Then ask a question (which you have already deemed as idiotic).
Yeb, that’s the way. This sure makes for a hearty and “open-minded” debate.
One point comes to my mind, over and over from the guesses and expectations I keep hearing, is the expectations of a certain issue to be “it”. Which means you have your own doubts.
Furthermore, is there anybody out there who would form an opinion by reading just a book? Those people are as asinine as the “undecided” voters, who wait for a “debate” or “policy announcement” at the last minute, before the election, to make up their minds. Considering the election year bullsh**ing that is prevalent, I find that totally ignorant.
As I said, the same goes for those who accept a book or an opinion as the foundation of their own.
SSS-666Wow this is exciting news! I’m all a quiver. Please, please, please Mr not-at-all-religious person who adopts the number of the beast (eh?) tell me now before I burst. What was the biggest conspiracy of the 20th century?
You don’t know David Irving do you?
There you go folks. That is the way to start a discussion. Put down the guy, insult him, attack his “twisted” beliefs; Then ask a question (which you have already deemed as idiotic).
Yeb, that’s the way. This sure makes for a hearty and “open-minded” debate.
One point comes to my mind, over and over from the guesses and expectations I keep hearing, is the expectations of a certain issue to be “it”. Which means you have your own doubts.
Furthermore, is there anybody out there who would form an opinion by reading just a book? Those people are as asinine as the “undecided” voters, who wait for a “debate” or “policy announcement” at the last minute, before the election, to make up their minds. Considering the election year bullsh**ing that is prevalent, I find that totally ignorant.
As I said, the same goes for those who accept a book or an opinion as the foundation of their own.
SSS-666You haven’t convinced me of anything if only that you have stated your opinion on a matter which you know very little about. I am sure those you call Astro-nots would have a great deal to say about your claims. The little information you have provided in now way indicates that the moon landings were faked or even worse, a figment of the imagination to the masses. I really believe you should research your vlaims a little more before bringing this type of information here!
It is rather obvious that you are not convinced of anything. But, that doesn’t speak for others who
are reading this and saying to themselves “ Damn this guy SSS-666 just convinced us the Moon
landing was faked” ^_^
Like I said in my previous posts, I did not expect to convince hard core US lovers. Regardless of
any evidence. I can see you have not read anything I wrote, or the sites I referred. You. Like
many alike, base your acceptance of this hoax on faith and blind acceptance. You are attacking
me for not being like you, and THAT says a lot in itself.
The way of discussion should be point to point deciphering of the evidence. SOC has been, so
far, the only person to carry a civilised debate, without resorting to “you must be an idiot
for….man you are stupid for………….you don’t know sh**t”. You see what I mean? Actually
what SOC did was to make me take another good look at the evidence, and, I am now convinced
more than ever that we are looking at the 2nd biggest Hoax of the last century.
Want to take up the debate by presenting your side, bring it on, and I will prove you wrong.
Take another look at this site, with open eyes
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
Otherwise…………….
SSS-666You haven’t convinced me of anything if only that you have stated your opinion on a matter which you know very little about. I am sure those you call Astro-nots would have a great deal to say about your claims. The little information you have provided in now way indicates that the moon landings were faked or even worse, a figment of the imagination to the masses. I really believe you should research your vlaims a little more before bringing this type of information here!
It is rather obvious that you are not convinced of anything. But, that doesn’t speak for others who
are reading this and saying to themselves “ Damn this guy SSS-666 just convinced us the Moon
landing was faked” ^_^
Like I said in my previous posts, I did not expect to convince hard core US lovers. Regardless of
any evidence. I can see you have not read anything I wrote, or the sites I referred. You. Like
many alike, base your acceptance of this hoax on faith and blind acceptance. You are attacking
me for not being like you, and THAT says a lot in itself.
The way of discussion should be point to point deciphering of the evidence. SOC has been, so
far, the only person to carry a civilised debate, without resorting to “you must be an idiot
for….man you are stupid for………….you don’t know sh**t”. You see what I mean? Actually
what SOC did was to make me take another good look at the evidence, and, I am now convinced
more than ever that we are looking at the 2nd biggest Hoax of the last century.
Want to take up the debate by presenting your side, bring it on, and I will prove you wrong.
Take another look at this site, with open eyes
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
Otherwise…………….
SSS-666SSS-666
Suggest you get a copy of this;
SOC has already brought up the Bad Astronomy arguments.
AND
I have proven the Bad Astronomy as BAD ARGUMENT.
If you read my rebuff to the Bad Astronomy claims, you will be convinced as well that the Moon
Landing was indeed the 2nd biggest hoax of the last century.
SSS-666SSS-666
Suggest you get a copy of this;
SOC has already brought up the Bad Astronomy arguments.
AND
I have proven the Bad Astronomy as BAD ARGUMENT.
If you read my rebuff to the Bad Astronomy claims, you will be convinced as well that the Moon
Landing was indeed the 2nd biggest hoax of the last century.
SSS-666You can take steps to make systems EMP hardened, but if I start EMPing everywhere you’re going to have a hard time transmitting as EMP can overload receivers, both radio and radar.
I don’t know. By nature they’re still pretty limited.
We have established that I am not as versed in these fields. But, wouldn’t the ability to jam radio
and radar be used against the MIGs and SUs as well?
What if the country, Iran, employed 1000 existing, but enhanced, UCAVs flown by average Joes
with video game talents. As the main “Air Force” air combat force. At the same time modified a
couple of 747s or TU Bombers from Russia ( or even a MIG-31 with smaller payload ) and put a
few “normally ground-based” long-range missiles on them.
At the time of conflict the Iranians could take the bombers to 70-80 thousand feet and fire at the
satellites doing the EMP work.
OR
Send up dozens of 6-pound satellites and using the simple directional firing, kamikaze the
“jamming” satellites. At the same time disable the enemy’s eyes and ears.
SSS-666if i would chose 1 plane for an air force like belgium for exsample, i think i will have to go with 2 squadrons of Rafale’s, in terms of payload, the gripen would be to light, and the typhoon would be a bit overkill, the rafale on the other hand fits in between the 2.
it might be a bit heavier then the gripen, but its capabilities arent to be underestimated. besides, belgium always had a weak spot for french hardware 😀
NO, I don’t like to use Belgium ^_^
Belgium is too easy, with no restrictions.
Iran is the hottest thing around these days, and she is pissing off the 2 most aggressive and
belligerent governments on this planet the US and Israel big time ^_^ again.
SSS-666UCAVs, to be truly effective, need to be remotely controlled by pilots in air conditioned rooms, as you rightfully suggest. Makes it easy for me. I don’t even have to concern myself with combating them, all I have to do is concern myself with simply screwing with the signal you’re using to transmit your commands to the UCAV. That’s why I personally don’t like the idea. Plus, you’re just asking to relive the stone-age experience. If I had to counter a huge UCAV force, I’d say to hell with it and just EMP the hell out of you.
So, what you are suggesting is that if a country were to take this idea seriously, they should have
counter measures in place to prevent EMPs? Otherwise, wouldn’t this be the way of the future?
Remember the emphasis is on “otherwise”.
SSS-666What can I say, I’m a product of my environment :diablo:
Exposure might not be the correct technical term, since my knowledge of the in’s-and-out’s of photography is still pretty limited. But, by fiddling with the settings which equate to the shutter speed, you can make certain bits either show up, or not show up. That’s the point here: the shutter speed was not slow enough to allow enough of the light through to show (or expose if you use the phrase I tried from the otuset) the stars.
The point is, you don’t HAVE to be moving. If you look at the scenery at one point along your drive and take a photo, and look at it at another point and take a photo, you’ll get different foregrounds and the same background. That’s a simple issue of scale and distance.
Or a single source of light like the surface’s reflection, or the sun. Or a combination of both. Either way shadows are not in any way shape or form restricted to being completely parallel.
Or not.
Stop this 30 second responses, which would take me 15 minutes to put together. Yo are spooking
me ^_^
AND, it seems you and Moggy are giving up on this. I guess I was so convincing that you are
having emotional conflicts !!!!!
I wonder where will we all be when the news breaks about the Moon Landings, all 6 of them
were faked???
SSS-666What can I say, I’m a product of my environment :diablo:
Exposure might not be the correct technical term, since my knowledge of the in’s-and-out’s of photography is still pretty limited. But, by fiddling with the settings which equate to the shutter speed, you can make certain bits either show up, or not show up. That’s the point here: the shutter speed was not slow enough to allow enough of the light through to show (or expose if you use the phrase I tried from the otuset) the stars.
The point is, you don’t HAVE to be moving. If you look at the scenery at one point along your drive and take a photo, and look at it at another point and take a photo, you’ll get different foregrounds and the same background. That’s a simple issue of scale and distance.
Or a single source of light like the surface’s reflection, or the sun. Or a combination of both. Either way shadows are not in any way shape or form restricted to being completely parallel.
Or not.
Stop this 30 second responses, which would take me 15 minutes to put together. Yo are spooking
me ^_^
AND, it seems you and Moggy are giving up on this. I guess I was so convincing that you are
having emotional conflicts !!!!!
I wonder where will we all be when the news breaks about the Moon Landings, all 6 of them
were faked???
SSS-666Of course you don’t buy it.
It destroys the one element of your silly fantasy that I can use first hand knowledge to disprove.
Now enough of this bollox, let’s get on to ‘the greatest hoax’
Moggy
Patience my dear Moderator, patience.
I also do understand your eagerness to forget about the reality of finding the greatest
achievement by the Americans was faked. And, the Astronauts………….well they are still
astronauts with great capabilities. But, as far as the ones claiming hero status for “landing” on
the Moon, they are fake hero astro-nots, and will eventually bring shame to themselves and NASA.
ANYBODY out there who can dispute my “undisputable” proof????
SSS-666Of course you don’t buy it.
It destroys the one element of your silly fantasy that I can use first hand knowledge to disprove.
Now enough of this bollox, let’s get on to ‘the greatest hoax’
Moggy
Patience my dear Moderator, patience.
I also do understand your eagerness to forget about the reality of finding the greatest
achievement by the Americans was faked. And, the Astronauts………….well they are still
astronauts with great capabilities. But, as far as the ones claiming hero status for “landing” on
the Moon, they are fake hero astro-nots, and will eventually bring shame to themselves and NASA.
ANYBODY out there who can dispute my “undisputable” proof????
SSS-666Ok then, I misunderstood that part. But really, how anyone can be even remotely that stupid, is beyond me.
Anyway, I’ll respond to some of your individual claims. To save time and prevent me from having to quote each and every section, I’ll use the same numbers that you did.
1. There aren’t any stars in the photos due to the exposure used. I can get the exact same effect with my own digital camera.
3 and 12. You can get the same effect yourself using a car and a good stretch of road. Ever notice how when you drive down a highway that’s parallel to, say, a mountain range, the scenery in the foreground outside your window speeds by, scenery a little farther away moves by at a slower rate, and the mountains seem to remain stationary until you’ve gone a good distance? Same principle at work here.
7. You can get the same effect of non-parallel shadows yourself using a variable surface, some items to cast shadows, and a flashlight or some other light source.
Anyway here’s another website for now:
You are not only usually calm, but also funny. As far as your response is concerned.
Notwithstanding the fact that you did not touch any of the important and undisputable point I
made, as for #1, show me. Take a digital pic of the sky and use an “exposure” to make the stars
disappear. Funny !!
3 and 12, Yes I have noticed the effect when I drive. Just one point….what in the hell that has to
do with taking a photo with a camera, attached to your chest, wearing a “pressurised” suit, with
absolute minimal hand and finger usage and NOT going 55mph when snapping the pic??????
AND, don’t get me started on Relativity, either one of them ^_^
7, thank you. Exactly my point. You need a single source light like a flash light to get that effect,
and not a “uniform” reflection from the surface. Which incidentally has a refracting magnitude
of 7%, like asphalt. Errrrrrr……….you didn’t mean to prove my point, did you
kekekekekekekekeke.
Any way you look at it, I think I have put forth a convincing argument that< at the least, the film
and the pics are fake.
SSS-666Ok then, I misunderstood that part. But really, how anyone can be even remotely that stupid, is beyond me.
Anyway, I’ll respond to some of your individual claims. To save time and prevent me from having to quote each and every section, I’ll use the same numbers that you did.
1. There aren’t any stars in the photos due to the exposure used. I can get the exact same effect with my own digital camera.
3 and 12. You can get the same effect yourself using a car and a good stretch of road. Ever notice how when you drive down a highway that’s parallel to, say, a mountain range, the scenery in the foreground outside your window speeds by, scenery a little farther away moves by at a slower rate, and the mountains seem to remain stationary until you’ve gone a good distance? Same principle at work here.
7. You can get the same effect of non-parallel shadows yourself using a variable surface, some items to cast shadows, and a flashlight or some other light source.
Anyway here’s another website for now:
You are not only usually calm, but also funny. As far as your response is concerned.
Notwithstanding the fact that you did not touch any of the important and undisputable point I
made, as for #1, show me. Take a digital pic of the sky and use an “exposure” to make the stars
disappear. Funny !!
3 and 12, Yes I have noticed the effect when I drive. Just one point….what in the hell that has to
do with taking a photo with a camera, attached to your chest, wearing a “pressurised” suit, with
absolute minimal hand and finger usage and NOT going 55mph when snapping the pic??????
AND, don’t get me started on Relativity, either one of them ^_^
7, thank you. Exactly my point. You need a single source light like a flash light to get that effect,
and not a “uniform” reflection from the surface. Which incidentally has a refracting magnitude
of 7%, like asphalt. Errrrrrr……….you didn’t mean to prove my point, did you
kekekekekekekekeke.
Any way you look at it, I think I have put forth a convincing argument that< at the least, the film
and the pics are fake.
Sign In
