Who gives a flying f*** about the "agenda"? I'm not asking you to agree (or disagree) with it and in any case the "agenda" didn't film the clip - NASA did.

Personally I can take or leave Rich Hall. But given some of the anomalies which have cropped up in the Mars photographs (which should be considered against a [ipattern of anomalies[/i stretching all the way back to NASA's inception) he's hardly committing some crime against humanity by asking what are pretty important questions.

Science seeks to provide explanations for OBSERVED PHENOMENA. Since NASA, which is a publicly funded body, simply refuses to address them you can hardly blame people for speculating.

Science DOES NOT say that because we are TOLD a photograph is taken on Mars what seems like a DEAD RODENT cannot be a dead rodent. Papers with that kind of flawed logic don't even make it to peer review. Or they shouldn't.

And in any case - NONE OF THIS has any bearing on NASA's press conference. Can you explain why the press seemed on the verge of hysterics when they asked Stelzner about the "landing"? Is he a scientist or a comedian?

Give me strength!

Well if NASA filmed it, they must have been happy for it to go out warts and all.
Ain't that honesty?
I am on about the guys in the rooms afterwards making guesses.
They weren't any better than him.
At least he said he didn't know ... perhaps he is in the first stages of dementia, perhaps he bites his nails, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
I'm watching the Superbowl how about you?
My side is losing .... something is not right somewhere.


Perhaps Cam Newton has been nobbled?

I suspect that NASA, along with just about every other public or private body which is engaged in monkey business no longer gives a fig. Whereas people used to invest considerable time and energy covering up certain events better knowledge of human psychology has led conspirators to conclude that such efforts are largely a waste of effort. People will believe whatever they are told to because it's safer to be with the crowd than against it.

If senses and intuition don't agree with the facts as described to them then those senses and intuition (never the facts) must be in error. Never mind that both are the highly refined products of millions of years of evolution and are chiefly responsible for keeping folk safe and well throughout the duration of their lives.

Again, I'm NOT saying we aren't on Mars. Nor am I saying there isn't a Curiosity rover lurching around out there somewhere (although given the ss of the press club you do have to wonder ...). But if this is the guy who is responsible for creating the supposed "Skycrane" system I'd be hurriedly checking the bill of materials before lift-off.

Great. Got that. So, provide a good example which you argue shows a difference in luminosity, and we can talk. I think I can see your beginner's errors already, but in case I misunderstand, i await a specific example.



Great. So, let's look at an Apollo photograph which you think has such significant differences, and is therefore not genuine.



Bear in mind that in order to achieve the above you have to supply CLOSE TO the same amount of light in the opposite direction in order bring the subject within the tonal range of the camera. Which means you either have to set up a portable flash-unit to fill in the shadow areas - or (maybe) use a very efficient reflector (neither of which the astronauts carried). Without it the subject MUST BE reduced to a pitch-black silhouette. [uThere's simply no room for debate on this question. [/u'"

Hoaxers aren't impervious to evidence, they just haven't got the skills to interpret it correctly.
Or misunderstandings like thinking that there always has to be a flame in a rocket propulsion system.
What is certain is that man went to the moon and left his dirty washing.
It's a damn good job he never tidied up.

[iYeah i've seen this particular clip before. The place NASA faked these Mars pictures is Devon island where [url=https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=do+lemmings+live+in+canadaLemmings[/url and [url=https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=do+walrus+live+in+canadaWalrus's[/url happily habitat. Even with this unequivocal evidence it'll be discarded by the close minded even when the pictures are Nasa's own....... Mars voyages[/i



[iAnd that Nasa comedian evading questions like he'd just got off the boat deserves the title as an ijit. Talk about gullible believing Nasa i don't know whats the funniest. The mars missions or that Nasa ijit[/i.

As I previously stated, I'm not wasting any more time developing RSI over the question of Apollo's suspicious lighting. I think I've already flushed away more of my life than this issue deserves.

If anyone really wants to get to the bottom of it - ignore OTHER PEOPLE'S experiments and perform them [uYOURSELF.[/u It's not difficult to download NASA stock photography. Do a bit of research and then try to approximate the lighting conditions and performance of the astronauts.

A single light setup preferably shot outside on a dark night (that way you don't get any fill drawn in from the sky or bounced. Lunar surface reflectivity is equivalent to bitumen - so there's your substrate.

I mean, there are some differences in format (Hasselblad is usually 4 x 3 as opposed to full-frame or cropped APS-C DSRL sensor) and glass - but it's easy enough to compensate with shutter speed and ISO.

It's an interesting little exercise and you'll learn a few things from it. Have fun.

I'm curious to know, in your opinion, whether you think bitumen is or isn't reflective?

But you are not replicating what happens on the moon .... and has been explained there are more than one light sources ... the surface, the Earth, the other astronaut's white suit ...etc
But you won't have it, which makes you look daft.

Why on Earth (pun intended) would anyone want to replicate your one-dimensional experiment?

[url=https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/humanresearch/analogs/research_info_analog-haughton.html#.Vri8BFiLQdUThis place?[/url
I should imagine they do a hell of a lot of filming there ... as part of training.
More filming than on Mars probably.

He is anxious to find "anomalies". And proud of himself that he can spot all these "anomalies" in all these images. Which the fakers missed, or weren't half as clever as him, else they wouldn't have made this catalogue of basic easy-to-spot-by-rank-amateurs mistakes.

He has invested so much in his anomaly spotting being correct that he won't hear of the possibility that his amateur experiments don't disprove the veracity of the Apollo moon images.

Given that we can now actually see totally independent images proving the landers landed and are still in place, the logical thing for him to do if actually interested in the facts, is go back to his experiments and analysis to work out why he got what are clearly false result. Work out what mistakes he made.

But he cannot countenance the thought that it is his experiments/analysis that hold the error, so, in classic Black Knight stylee, will resolutely to stick to the position that he and his experiments and analysis cannot possibly be wrong, so therefore, although NASA did land men on the moon, several times, they still faked all the photos. By accurately recreating vast swathes of the Moon's surface in some studios somewhere. And pretending to take real photos. It's a novel variation, but if it makes him happy, then why not?

[iKeeping their bases covered (Pardon the pun) Are you seriously falling for that.....I shouldn't be surprised.[/i

Wow!
You have figured out what they are up to.
They are covering their bases.
They could of course just have gone to Mars with untried equipment and untried procedures.
And they could have filmed it at a secret location, but foolishly they publicised to the world's population ... a subset of which is inhabited by cynical nutjobs.

They are not really trying to test their equipment in readiness, the idle gits just can't be d to go ... oh and yes they haven't got the technology or brains.

[i Check out this smoking gun. This is from Nasa's very own website. They're definitely declaring and not denying this picture was taken on mars.[/i [url=http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/694114main_Watkins-2-pia16204_full.jpgLemming Anyone[/url [iIf you click the photograph at about the Nine O'clock position you'll see the Lemming between two white Earth Rocks bottom left hand corner. Best thing about this anomaly is that Nasa are not denying its from Mars when its really Devon island. Proven by the Lemming. When they could of said it was taken whilst training.

[/i

Why would they deny that there is a rock that looks like a lemming in one of their photos?
Get yourself off to the Lake District and see the Lion and Lamb on Helm Crag. Much more impressive!
I climbed it to rescue the lamb, but it was nowhere to be found.
I reckon the lion had eaten it and p/ssed off when it heard me coming.
I blame NASA for deceiving me.

Nice one Stanley. Send it into That's Life, see if it gets as many laughs as the penis shaped carrot.

And, have you noticed how NASA have started hiding things disguised as clouds for some sinister reason.
I mean think about it ... most of our weather blows in from the States.
Not only are they p/ssing about with our weather to flood us out, they are hiding things in the clouds.
I swear I saw a spaceship and an alligator the other day. And then they were gone ... spooky!

When he says he is fed up and is not going to bother anymore, it usual means he is preparing a salvo.
He won't have to research long .... there is a whole industry devoted to this pursuit.
Possibly the most unproductive industry on the planet.

That is nothing like a Lemming, a groundhog perhaps, lemming nah

More like a ground rock


Mind you I like the idea of groundhog.
Seems like we have been here before ......

It wasn't a voluntary tackle you know...

He went down like Klinsmann in the penalty area.

If anyone is interested, Nick Cook from Janes Defence Weekly wrote an excellent book covering the Nazi "Bell" project titled, [url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hunt-Zero-Point-Nick-Cook/dp/0099414988The Hunt For Zero Point Energy[/url

Following on from that is Professor Joseph. P. Farrell's exhaustively documented [url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/SS-Brotherhood-Bell-Incredible-Technology/dp/1931882614/ref=la_B001KCNKF4_1_15?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1455015203&sr=1-15SS: Brotherhood of the Bell[/url

I think it's safe to say the Bell project existed and was likely smuggled out of Nazi Germany to the custom-built experimental plasma physics laboratory in San Carlos De Bariloche, Argentina using a Junkers JU-390 (which was capable of in-flight refuelling).

After that it's all a bit of a mystery.

I heard a bit about the Bell through Mae Brussell's work but over the years it slipped my mind completely. It was only recently after I read a couple of seemingly innocuous stories about the trafficking of "Red Mercury" by an unnamed band of smugglers that my ears suddenly pricked up because it was precisely the same stuff used by the Bell scientists to generate electrical fields of enormous potential.

Sounds a bit like last nights X-files script.

'Hands Up' all those potential abductees here willing to have their DNA tested to see if they are part alien
(I have my suspicions, and NASA are out to get you)

I would imagine either alien DNA is magically invisible to science, or else all DNA testing labs in the world are part of a megaconspiracy and remove all reference to the alien DNA from every test where it is found, leaving not trace of its existence.