The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

Government and Political Conspiracies

Apollo moon pictures

Throughout time, there have been countless government and political conspiracies that have kept us wondering. This forum is dedicated to that very topic. Got a conspiracy theory of your own? Post it, and try to back it up as best you can!

Postby Cole_Trickle » Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:45 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The guys in question KNOW without a doubt who they are. That flag has been airbrushed into the photo, it's propaganda, it's from NASA, it's bogus, it's someone thumbing their nose at the system. ALL OF IT, yet these clowns call those who question: uneducated lunatic fringe conspiracy theorists idiots, or WTF ever. It's so lame it sucks like a $5.00 whore, it shakes like a big dawg shitting peach seeds.

They brushed it in to justify ( help sell ) the FAKED TAPE of some jackass astronot planting a fake Flag on the surface of the moon. Any first grader willing to put forward the effort of simply looking would agree.

Did anyone see Buzz on Fox today? :lol: :lol: :lol: Ice, snowflakes, frost~~he fucking said frost. I almost pissed myself laughing.

Humans can not survive in space, have NEVER been in space past the Van Allan belts, and never will despite anything these clowns lead, or try to lead :lol: :lol: :lol: people to believe.

Oh it was just 78 million TAX PAYER bucks to crash an object into the MOON :lol: :lol: Sorry our pictures, I mean video, got all fuzzy right at the moment of truth! :lol: :lol:

Sugar TIT you say~~ I concur! Get yo ass sum Sugar teet and suck it until your gars freeze solid. :lol: :lol:

Now as I said::: ENOUGH of this obviously transparent MOON BULLSHIT!

Cole
User avatar
Cole_Trickle
 
Posts: 2703
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby greeney2 » Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:59 pm

Thermite in the WTC picture, puff of smoke in that Computer Guy picture, no shadow in the moon picture, an extention cord in another one. You solved another one all by yourself Cole. :roll:

Martin timmothy is posting all kinds of pictures that are altered, and in one week, he found Hitler in Argentina, found 2 gunman on the grassy knowl and Lee Harvey Oswald watching JFK drive by in Dallas, and still had time to post 25 other solutions solving just about everything. He even has missiles shooting out of several of his pictures, so they must be real. The guy is amazing, an expert on anything jewish, one right after another, who wouldn't beleive everything he comes up with.

Do you wonder why your word, and another picture you come up with, and arguing over a shadow with you, doesn't mean much? You post more pictures and solve more conspiracies, than the FBI adn CIA combined. Is this where you tell us we, are all stupid now?

I wonder if they faked a moon mission, why they had to airbrush anything? Lets just airbrush in a flag we forgot! does that make sence? I'd just say "cut", "stick a flag in the ground so it looks real" "action" and keep filming. Its pretty much no brainer the picture is altered, or maybe the shadow just didn't show. Faked or real, real sunlight or a movie set light, would cast a shadow. Why airbush a flag into a phoney film, when all you have to do is stop filming and stick a flag in the set. The only deduction has to be its real and the shadow was removed and its a hoax, or the shadow simpley did not show in this view. See my next post for a different picture that shows the shadow of the flag, but the pole is very small so the shadow is very small.

Adding the flag later is not logical, and anyone with the ability to artistically do it, would not be dumb enough to forget a shadow, when the focus of the picture so obviously is dominated by the shadows cast. The shadows are the focal point of the shot. Use your head!
Last edited by greeney2 on Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9530
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby greeney2 » Fri Oct 09, 2009 9:31 pm

http://www.baboontalk.com/pictures/neil_armstrong.jpg

Here is a different view and you can see the shadow cast is very small and hard to see, but clearly visible. what is consistant with Cole's picture is the size of the shadow cast by the astronauts leg width, in both pictures. Note the size cast by 2 very wide legs in a spacesuit, compared to a 1 inch flagpole. The Cole picture is a different camera angle and since the shadow in this one is hard to see, its not suprizing some views may not show it at all. Both camera shots appear to be with the camera at about eye level, but the position has been changed a little, but the same height and location, just rotated the base. Obvious in the one picture including the LEM, and this one rotated clockwise where its out of the picture, but its shadow still appears. How many different pictures do you think are available of this landing site, and you are suggesting they airbushed every single one?
greeney2
 
Posts: 9530
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby humphreys » Sat Oct 10, 2009 5:50 am

Cole_Trickle wrote::lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The guys in question KNOW without a doubt who they are. That flag has been airbrushed into the photo, it's propaganda, it's from NASA, it's bogus, it's someone thumbing their nose at the system. ALL OF IT, yet these clowns call those who question: uneducated lunatic fringe conspiracy theorists idiots, or WTF ever. It's so lame it sucks like a $5.00 whore, it shakes like a big dawg shitting peach seeds.

They brushed it in to justify ( help sell ) the FAKED TAPE of some jackass astronot planting a fake Flag on the surface of the moon. Any first grader willing to put forward the effort of simply looking would agree.

Did anyone see Buzz on Fox today? :lol: :lol: :lol: Ice, snowflakes, frost~~he fucking said frost. I almost pissed myself laughing.

Humans can not survive in space, have NEVER been in space past the Van Allan belts, and never will despite anything these clowns lead, or try to lead :lol: :lol: :lol: people to believe.

Oh it was just 78 million TAX PAYER bucks to crash an object into the MOON :lol: :lol: Sorry our pictures, I mean video, got all fuzzy right at the moment of truth! :lol: :lol:

Sugar TIT you say~~ I concur! Get yo ass sum Sugar teet and suck it until your gars freeze solid. :lol: :lol:

Now as I said::: ENOUGH of this obviously transparent MOON BULLSHIT!

Cole


You've lost it mate.
"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will is an illusion."

- Sam Harris
User avatar
humphreys
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 3:51 pm
Location: Inside your head.

Postby MonarchSmile » Sat Oct 10, 2009 9:21 am

You've lost it mate.

Welcome to America
Please stay

:lol:
MonarchSmile
 
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 11:25 am

Postby jaydeehess » Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:59 pm

Cole, the shadow of the pole is visible in both the smaller and larger photos you now post. It is not in the lo-res photos you previously posted. Get your eyes checked perhaps.

As for answering the question, I have done so several times now. It just happens to be an answer you are ill prepared to accept. That I cannot help you with any more than I can change the fact that you continually prove your own ignorance with every post.
Math, science, history unraveling the mystery, that all started with a Big Bang.....BANG!!
jaydeehess
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:02 pm

Postby jaydeehess » Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:53 am

As for the Van Allen Belts, they are , as described, belts of energetic particles around the Earth. They are most dense about the Earth's geomagnetic equator(not the geometric equator) since they are a function of th e Earth's magnetic feild. An orbit that is not about the equator but instead inclined with reference to the equator will allow you to stay within the less dense areas of the VAB.
A poster on another forum sketched this and it is, I believe, the best representation of this that I have seen.
Image
Math, science, history unraveling the mystery, that all started with a Big Bang.....BANG!!
jaydeehess
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:02 pm

Postby Egadd » Wed Nov 18, 2009 4:01 am

And so here we are, 40 years later and unable to even leave orbit? It sure is becoming easier for the imaginative mind to think that perhaps, maybe they did fake it all those years ago. If they did fake it, it would appear that the only thing they could not anticipate was technology. How can we not expect NASA to be able to fly back to the Moon almost on a whim? Who unlearns how to fly to the Moon?
One link I followed said that G.W.Bush was told "..it would take 11 years to return to the moon". If in fact science believes this right now, how could their fore fathers in the field have done it with the low tech computer of the day? In so little time as well. Hmm. Could it be that we were so simple at the time that we didn't realize how hard it would still be in 40 years to actually do it?
If they did go to the Moon with Astronauts on board a ship that NASA built, why not show the World all over again? Break that bad boy out again. Wrap it in another sheet of aluminum foil or whatever, add a PS3 (after all it does everything) to that thing and fly to the Moon. Simple then, take all of the 1960's technology, add 2010s and wham , should be easy right?
Egadd
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 1:47 am

Postby greeney2 » Wed Nov 18, 2009 2:04 pm

The are using some of the things from the 60's. The J2 rocket engine was the Apollo 2nd stage built by Rocketdyne is now revived into the J2X. NASA specifically wanted Rocketdyne for the engines because of the Apollo sucess. We have learned alot about space and it has gotton a lot more complex. 2 shuttle losses resulted in NASA being a lot more conservative where the 60's were a little more risk taking. 40 years of inflation have not helped in terms of the total cost of these programs.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9530
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby jaydeehess » Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:01 pm

Egadd wrote:And so here we are, 40 years later and unable to even leave orbit? It sure is becoming easier for the imaginative mind to think that perhaps, maybe they did fake it all those years ago. If they did fake it, it would appear that the only thing they could not anticipate was technology. How can we not expect NASA to be able to fly back to the Moon almost on a whim? Who unlearns how to fly to the Moon?


Who has said that we cannot leave earth orbit?
It is quite easy to have something leave earth orbit. NASA has done so dozens of times since the '70s with every exploration mission they have sent up.

One link I followed said that G.W.Bush was told "..it would take 11 years to return to the moon".

That is the time frame for designing a modern MANNED mission with a proposed budget.
If in fact science believes this right now, how could their fore fathers in the field have done it with the low tech computer of the day?

the computers are really only relevent in navigation and as I said, spacecraft have left for more complex missions beyond earth orbit than simply heading for the Moon.
In so little time as well.


You mean like when the USA poured all it had into doing so in 8 years?
Yeah it could be speeded up quite a bit, all you need to do is take all that money being used to fight either one of the two overseas wars and give it to NASA , and tell NASA to cancel all other planned missions and concentrate soley on going back to the Moon.
This is not seen as a viable option.

Hmm. Could it be that we were so simple at the time that we didn't realize how hard it would still be in 40 years to actually do it?

Its always been difficult to send men into space and bring them back alive. It gets more difficult the further you send them away from terra firma.
If they did go to the Moon with Astronauts on board a ship that NASA built, why not show the World all over again? Break that bad boy out again. Wrap it in another sheet of aluminum foil or whatever, add a PS3 (after all it does everything) to that thing and fly to the Moon. Simple then, take all of the 1960's technology, add 2010s and wham , should be easy right?


Sure, and you could also take out a 1960's Cadillac and use it as your family vehicle. It would get horrible gas mileage, it would spew more noxious gasses than a modern automobile, it would require more frequent maintenance and replacement of parts, but it would work.

I used to work on a device that tracked ballon borne weather instruments. It was originally designed in the 1950s and at that time wasall tubes as far as it electronics went.
Sections of it were upgraded to solid state by the time I was working on them in the 1980s but many sections were still tubes. the redesign of each section being replaced with solid state took 1 to 4 years.

No, it is NOT easy to simply renovate old technology. It is actually cheaper to redesign the whole thing. Renovation is often done as it was with the GMD(Ground Meteorlogical Device) in piecemeal fashion because it can be spread out over decades whereas a complete redesign must have a total budget in place at the outset.
Math, science, history unraveling the mystery, that all started with a Big Bang.....BANG!!
jaydeehess
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:02 pm

Previous

Return to Government and Political Conspiracies

  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest