That looks like an admission of defeat to me.

That looks like an admission of defeat to me.

 

 

Have you tried specsavers?

You haven't watched the footage have you?

 

Lets have a look at their debunking:

Wtf? He doesn't even back this up.

 

Watch the footage before you claim it is debunked. It is undebunkable.

Yes I have and have seen the much of the longer clip too.

 

As for the comment about the window what's not to understand? It's common sense surely? If what is outside your window is pitch blackness (although space is ovbiously not pitch black anyway but that's irrelevant) it doesn't mean that the window will appear to be pitch black also as some of the lighting from inside will illuminate it slightly.

 

That's without even mentioning his errors of window shape - a crescent shape to give the terminator line and the windows edges the rest of the Earth's shape? Except only the interior of the window was round and the exterior section was squared of,and smaller meaning it would have obscured the top and bottom of the Earth preventing a full circle as such.

 

When the camera moves backwards (as shown by the low light in the top left corner the size of the Earth doesn't change beacuse a distant object wouldn't but backing away from a close window would mean it would get noticably smaller. The dialogue about the camera up close to the window by the astronaut is conveniently spoken over and he is also explaining what he has just done not what he is doing now.

 

Read the full page and watch in tandem with the video will probably help you

Yes I have and have seen the much of the longer clip too.

 

As for the comment about the window what's not to understand? It's common sense surely? If what is outside your window is pitch blackness (although space is ovbiously not pitch black anyway but that's irrelevant) it doesn't mean that the window will appear to be pitch black also as some of the lighting from inside will illuminate it slightly.

 

That's without even mentioning his errors of window shape - a crescent shape to give the terminator line and the windows edges the rest of the Earth's shape? Except only the interior of the window was round and the exterior section was squared of,and smaller meaning it would have obscured the top and bottom of the Earth preventing a full circle as such.

 

When the camera moves backwards (as shown by the low light in the top left corner the size of the Earth doesn't change beacuse a distant object wouldn't but backing away from a close window would mean it would get noticably smaller. The dialogue about the camera up close to the window by the astronaut is conveniently spoken over and he is also explaining what he has just done not what he is doing now.

 

Read the full page and watch in tandem with the video will probably help you

 

The light streaming in through that same window at the end is unmistakable.

 

They are clearly in low earth orbit. Their own camera shows it clearly. No amount of "pitch black windows aren't really pitch black" is going to change it.

 

 

 

Sorry, I don't do youtube. I will leave that to the debunkers.

A youtube film debunking a conspiracy theory is no more or less credible than a than a heavily edited set of NASA released clips with a voiceover. Actually in this case probably much more credible.

 

Just because someone with money believes in it and has the funds to gain distribution doesn't make it any more true to life than Braveheart.

Conspiracy theories sell to those that wish to believe them.

 

 

The light streaming in through that same window at the end is unmistakable.

 

They are clearly in low earth orbit. Their own camera shows it clearly. No amount of "pitch black windows aren't really pitch black" is going to change it.

In case you hadn't realised the Earth is relatively close to the Sun and that is very bright. You can clearly see the edges of the Earth in the film with darkness between them and the windows frame. The Moon is pretty bright down here on a cloudless night even though it is less than one sixth the size of Earth and through a hazt atmosphere to diffuse the light. With no atmosphere in Space the much bigger Earth will reflect plenty of light from the sun. This is why the astronauts wear tinted visors or else they would have sufered eye damage on the moon.

 

 

Also if they are in low Earth orbit travelling at around 18,000 miles an hour there is no way a 'close' object like the Earth would show no motion. You would be passing from the bright side to the darkside within minutes and see clouds moving. Have you evr seen a satellite move across the night sky. They don't hang around for an hour you know.

I miss Grimly.

Where the hell is Grimly? Has he decided not to post anymore or what?

Where the hell is Grimly? Has he decided not to post anymore or what?

 

 

Me too. We seem short of a mod now in here. I'd like to apply please. :)

 

At least Perspectives has a few new threads now. :)

Edited September 24, 201212 yr by Common Sense

What is it with all these spam threads clogging up the Perspectives Forum?

 

Could we please have a little bit of quality control? Thank you!

 

They're not spam threads as far as I can see. They're giving Perspectives on subjects like Loch Ness and the moon landings and are in exactly the righ place on BJ.

My reasoning on Grim's absence from Perspectives is that he has realised that there is just sh/te being posted at the moment. And quite rightly ... Grim is above answering to sh/te!

My reasoning on Grim's absence from Perspectives is that he has realised that there is just sh/te being posted at the moment. And quite rightly ... Grim is above answering to sh/te!

 

He's been absent for weeks though so it's nothing to do with these current new threads. :rolleyes:

In case you hadn't realised the Earth is relatively close to the Sun and that is very bright. You can clearly see the edges of the Earth in the film with darkness between them and the windows frame. The Moon is pretty bright down here on a cloudless night even though it is less than one sixth the size of Earth and through a hazt atmosphere to diffuse the light. With no atmosphere in Space the much bigger Earth will reflect plenty of light from the sun. This is why the astronauts wear tinted visors or else they would have sufered eye damage on the moon.

Also if they are in low Earth orbit travelling at around 18,000 miles an hour there is no way a 'close' object like the Earth would show no motion. You would be passing from the bright side to the darkside within minutes and see clouds moving. Have you evr seen a satellite move across the night sky. They don't hang around for an hour you know.

 

Ones in geostationary orbit do.

 

If all satellites moved across the sky i'd be bloody knackered watching sky, wouldn't I?

He's been absent for weeks though so it's nothing to do with these current new threads. :rolleyes:

 

 

Maybe he is off with stress.

Maybe he is off with stress.

 

 

LOL. :D

Ones in geostationary orbit do.

 

If all satellites moved across the sky i'd be bloody knackered watching sky, wouldn't I?

OK, if we allow for geosynchronous orbits you would still see some cloud movements even with footage that short yet there is none evident in the video.

 

In any case I have presented around 8 or so reasons for Sibrel's 'revelation' being disproven. The biggest obstacle to the Apollo missions was passing throught the Van Allen Belt and yet this is both known and proven to be possible. Something clearly went to the moon and back in July 1969 because the Moon Rocks are proof. Unless you're going to tell me the US discovered three previously unknwon elements (one only discovered on Earth last year and then only in Australia) and kept them hidden from the world for years. Luna 15 also attempted a landing at the same time and there's no way the USSR wasn't tracking Apollo 11 and anything else in orbit at the time. They would certainly have picked up a US module in orbit fo 8 days and eagerly blown the lid on it. Independent satellites and lasers have targeted lunar landing sites that exaclty match the photos taken and German astrologers intercepted transmissions from Apollo 17. Was the entire world colluding against us? The Russians gave up on the space programme because they knew they'd lost. They tracked everything. The weight of evidence to support a manned landing is overwhelming. The evidence against is flimsy at bestand fails under any real scrutiny. This is why it's probably the least believable conspiracy ever.

 

All in all it's simply easier and less expensive to go to the Moon than it is to fake it.

 

I doubt you'll take any of this on board anyhow and continue to believe the conspiracy, which actually is a much more fun idea granted, so there's seems little point in repeatedly firing more evidence at you. You are of course entitled to your opinion but I recommend you view the entire downlink film and do a bit more research.

 

Have fun