Mystery Neil Armstrong wants you to remove the "protective layer of Truth" if you want to discover anything

[Exe Gesis]

"I was trying to argue this point with Aladin, I compared the chernobyl incident with hiroshima and nagasaki and the solar radiation and how it is thousands of times more powerful than the hiroshima blasts and that killed thousands of people that weren't even near by the initial explosion and on top of that the only sure fire way to protect from radiation like that is with lead, SOLID LEAD. and when we get solar flares ( in our protective bubble mind you) the astronauts could be harmed from the blasts even minuscule flares, and we sent people to the moon with unfiltered radiation? I just don't think you can travel outside of the van allen belts, even in our protective bubble and outside of it (somehow) you still have vast amounts of space radiation and it's not filtered through a magnetosphere or atmosphere.... maybe that is why Von Braun said we can't go in the 50's because he knew you would need TONS of lead and TONS of propulsion to get that lead and astronauts to the moon safely."

 

[Werewolf]

It's possible to fake any of the images, but faking video footage of a low gravity and airless environment would have been near impossible in those days - e.g. the behaviour of dust kicked up. Notice it doesn't form suspended clouds the way it would on Earth:

 

[Duritz]

from the top right of the astronauts visor
???

They look nothing like each other

 

[Exe Gesis]

Two hour video, but there's a ton of photo/video analysis. Gets going soon after the introduction stuff.

Included in it is far better explanation of the Sribel thing....

 

[Werewolf]

What are we looking at here?

 

[Exe Gesis]

Two hour video, but there's a ton of photo/video analysis. Gets going soon after the introduction stuff.

Included in it is far better explanation of the Sribel thing....

Forget hassling me about those pictures i posted, and instead watch this video.
So much damning video/photographic evidence in here. Scientific about the stock itself, etc.

 

[Exe Gesis]

As im watching it, 30 mins in now, im screencapping a couple shots.

This one with proof of an extra and artificial light source reflected in the astronaut's visor.

 

[Exe Gesis]

This shot, clearly shows the ONLY light source (the sun) behind the astronaut, and therefore the picture should look like this...



But the actual nasa photo looks like this....which proves there was an extra artificial light also pointing towards the astronaut's front, to even allow detail to be visible. And something that cannot be doctored in later.

 

[TheKanga]

Interesting photos GG, will watch the video soon.

Thing i always wonder is why haven't we gone back?

 

[Exe Gesis]

Was posted before, but specifically watch from about 32:14 onward which focuses on greater explanation of the Sribel material. Pretty damning stuff.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Ok im going to commit to a side now, and say they faked it.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Dont have time right now to screencap, but another red flag is that the camera used on the moon was a fixed lense camera, with the big main cross-hair in the middle NEVER being able to move, it represents the center of the shot at all times. But, there are so many photographs where the main center cross-hair is not in the center of the shot, which proves that much tampering was done to the shots taken, compositing two or more photos together.

Not only that but another huge red flag is that the cross hairs on the camera lens are always going to be OVER objects being photographed. They are hard-printed into the lens itself. Yet there are many photos where you see objects covering the cross hairs.

 

[TheKanga]

Ok im going to commit to a side now, and say they faked it.

Been leaning that way myself for awhile now.

 

[TheKanga]

 

[Werewolf]

This shot, clearly shows the ONLY light source (the sun) behind the astronaut, and therefore the picture should look like this...

View attachment 213264

But the actual nasa photo looks like this....which proves there was an extra artificial light also pointing towards the astronaut's front, to even allow detail to be visible. And something that cannot be doctored in later.

View attachment 213267

A white surface can never look that dark in the daytime. Look at a full moon and see how bright it is - enough to light the way here at night. Then imagine being on the surface of the moon. Computer simulations produce close results to the images.

The problem with the multiple light sources theory is the absence of multiple shadows. As we see below:

I've seen explanations for most of the stuff in the 2 hour video. It will take a long post. Maybe tomorrow

 

[Exe Gesis]

Another thing, in one of the earliest broadcast video of the moon landing, an astronaut walks across the surface and kicks a coke bottle out of the frame. A person who saw it happen at the time, watched again a later rebroadcast of that video on the day, and suddenly the coke bottle thing was edited out. She thought she was seeing things, and asked others who saw the broadcast earlier, and many people said they also saw that coke bottle. And apparently, a whole newspaper article was written back then asking about the coke bottle, why it was there then not in the next broadcasts. But nothing was ever said about it ever again.

I dont think that earliest footage exists anymore. Doctored forever more.

 

[Exe Gesis]

Seriously, that 2 hr video is fugging awesome, so much pure raw film/photo analysis and science.

Must see, even if it's 2 hrs long. You'll entertain yourself over two hours watching some movie like Hateful Eight, so why not something educational and controversially interesting??

 

[Exe Gesis]

ok fugg it. Here's some more damning evidence i had to screencap.

Ok, when wearing convex visors, the reflection of a large light source far away like the sun would result in pin-prick like bright spot on the visor. Whereas a huge artificial super-light stage light would give off a huge reflection on a convex visor.

So, here are all the faked moon-walk images where the reflection on the visor is enormous and tell-tale of a super-light close by.

And following are REAL images where space-station and Gemini astronauts show the pin-prick like reflection of the sun.

The moon-walkers therefore shouldve had all pin-prick like bright spots on the visors.







=================================

 

[BustedWing]

.


it's true it exists.

It would of cost a lot of money getting them through it. If they really went to the moon, you would see records of all the work going into getting through it twice. The astronauts would of been trained extensively with dealing with radiation. This would be etched into their memory.

If you have a look at footage from Chernobyl and what the radiation did to the camera on board helicopters flying there as the emergency was on. You get an idea of what they would of gone through. That radiation eventually brought helicopters down. The astronauts would been trained extensively dealing with on board malfunctions as result of the radiation.

Look at Fukushima and whats happening to robots there

How do you get trained to deal with radiation? Serious question.

And comparing the Fukushima radiation with solar is a bit of a misnomer too. There are lots of different types of radiation.

Ever been sunburned? See how your skin went red, then peeled? Yup, that's radiation burn. Point being that not all radiation is the same.

 

[BustedWing]

Ok im going to commit to a side now, and say they faked it.

Cmon now GG, it was never any doubt which camp you would gravitate to now was it!

 

[CM86]

Dont have time right now to screencap, but another red flag is that the camera used on the moon was a fixed lense camera, with the big main cross-hair in the middle NEVER being able to move, it represents the center of the shot at all times. But, there are so many photographs where the main center cross-hair is not in the center of the shot, which proves that much tampering was done to the shots taken, compositing two or more photos together.

Not only that but another huge red flag is that the cross hairs on the camera lens are always going to be OVER objects being photographed. They are hard-printed into the lens itself. Yet there are many photos where you see objects covering the cross hairs.

GG, I want you to ask yourself this question.
"Did I just watch a two hour youtube video, and believe all of the claims without looking to verify anything myself?"

I don't care what answer you give us, I just want you to think about it for yourself.

If you feel, that you did enough research in the just over two hours it took you to go from not sure one way or the other... to definitively saying it was faked.
Part of which was a two hour youtube video.


I understand we're not allowed to talk to you about the photos you spammed, just the video.
But can we talk to you about the screen-shots you took from the video and posted?

 

[CM86]

Most of what you just said was ok, but then you went and made a massive leap to "like they never went".

Maybe they just don't understand the science of it. Like they said "we were just the passengers".

Maybe it's because they got prostate cancer later in life and can't shake the feeling that the VA belt contributed to the fact that they can no longer get an erection.

Maybe there's a heap of reasons why they'd get nervous that are a lot more likely than "the biggest coverup in the history of mankind".

What about if they've been asked the same question so many times... and they've realised how pointless it is to engage and explain it?
Because I'd say 90% of the people that ask the question don't actually care for an answer. They are making a statement.


If I was the 500th person who interrupted whatever you were doing and said gambling is pure luck, and there is no skill involved.
How would you react?

 

[Exe Gesis]

GG, I want you to ask yourself this question.
"Did I just watch a two hour youtube video, and believe all of the claims without looking to verify anything myself?"

I don't care what answer you give us, I just want you to think about it for yourself.

If you feel, that you did enough research in the just over two hours it took you to go from not sure one way or the other... to definitively saying it was faked.
Part of which was a two hour youtube video.


I understand we're not allowed to talk to you about the photos you spammed, just the video.
But can we talk to you about the screen-shots you took from the video and posted?

Got to start somewhere. The photography stuff holds to reason.

 

[CM86]

Got to start somewhere. The photography stuff holds to reason.

But you've finished.

Which parts of the "photography stuff" have you looked into on your own?

 

[CM86]

I mean...

Look below at two posts of yours from this page that prove that you're wrong about the red flag?

Dont have time right now to screencap, but another red flag is that the camera used on the moon was a fixed lense camera, with the big main cross-hair in the middle NEVER being able to move, it represents the center of the shot at all times. But, there are so many photographs where the main center cross-hair is not in the center of the shot, which proves that much tampering was done to the shots taken, compositing two or more photos together.

Not only that but another huge red flag is that the cross hairs on the camera lens are always going to be OVER objects being photographed. They are hard-printed into the lens itself. Yet there are many photos where you see objects covering the cross hairs.

Do you see all the cross-hairs in the photo?

Did you spend a single minute looking up what the cross-hairs might be? Who might have designed the camera, and what the cross-hairs might be for?

Or

Did the youtube video tell you something, and you just believed it? Despite the contradictory evidence under your nose.