Proof that the Moon Mountains were Backdrops to a Movie Set/MOD WARNING

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Scott, Apr 4, 2015.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No,I already know the truth,and it's NOT the garbage you post,and spam is NOT a legitimate question.
     
  2. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    6,080
    Likes Received:
    955
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What utter bull(*)(*)(*)(*). You don't need a high science degree to understand any of those points, it takes a few moments of thought and perhaps a little assistance with some search engine explanations.

    My god man, you are the most delusional of all people I have come across. His reply says it all:-

    "No, you want to try to discredit me by whatever answer I give, or by my refusal to give an answer. Since the outcome will not change no matter what I do, I choose not to participate. You accuse me of lying yet you admit you have no evidence. Withdraw the accusation immediately or substantiate it immediately. I will not submit to your loaded litmus tests and I will most certainly not suffer being called a liar with no evidence."

    No he didn't. Your useless inept opinion is disregarded.

    Your useless inept opinion is disregarded.

    Your useless inept opinion is disregarded.

    What guy? Kindly show me his credentials and some history about him. Then explain how physics and technology gives him credentials to do photogrammetry. We all know you cannot do this.

    The expert. You aren't just a layman, you are a biased deceitful layman.


    As a truther, would you like me to explain the 13 points in terms that a simpleton could understand? Surely your answer is yes?

    How did Apollo 15 take the photograph that JAXA/Selene was able to identically reproduce from topographic data?

    I am not actually trying to convince you, the man who spends 7 years of his life in internet cafes, posting complete hogwash on the internet. Can you tell me why you haven't been silenced or offered a bribe you couldn't refuse by the evil empire? The man who made your simple Chinese faked it video, was "got at" according to you, without ever even mentioning Apollo, whilst you serial forum spam the same identical crap. Go figure.

    No. Elaborate why you think her testimony is truthful, why one instance even if true can be used to explain away all instances that you don't like.

    Then offer some proof as to how I am a "known obfuscator".




    You seem too much of a "layman" to understand one simple explanation. Here it is in terms that even a simpleton would grasp:-

    The author is unable to map the two distant mountains together. It is this that creates the movement! The camera is also wide angled and does a number of things to the image that require not just alignment and resizing of the second picture. It also requires a small rotation and a small stretch caused by the differing camera positions. The unknown Russian expert has completely failed to do this.

    Mr Windley explains this with some pictures that a layman truther would understand.

    http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthr...ysics-moon-hoax-quandries&p=163799#post163799

    "

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    They were taken one step apart. The utility marker is the "foreground". (The white building in the background is where I work, in case it matters.) The mountains are a few miles away.

    Now consider two methods of "registering" the photographs:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Whether it's "right" or "wrong" depends on which feature of the photo you want to consider a priori correct and therefore which other feature is alleged to be anomalous.

    In the first photo the utility pole is considered the "authentic" feature. Note that the backgrounds don't match. The fence posts get farther apart with distance, and the mountain ridgeline in the background is completely disparate. This is the kind of superimposition that a conspiracy theorist would show you if he were trying to argue that the moon "set" was a single set where they just changed the "backdrop" in order to make it appear different.

    In the second photo the ridgeline is the "authentic" feature, and thus the utility pole can't be made to line up. This is what a conspiracy theorist would show you if he were trying to argue that the same "backdrop" had been used for two different foregrounds.

    But neither one is a correct statement. Neither one respects the real relationship between foreground and background if the photographer happens to be moving around. Now the one photo I should have taken to complete this demonstration (but I didn't) is one from, say, across the access road. This would have shown a completely different foreground with an identical background to the other photos. You only have to walk 20 or 30 feet in any direction to have a completely new foreground.

    The fact that we can so easily -- and without fraud or deception -- produce authentic photographs that fail the conspiracy theorists' tests shows that their tests are not effective at distinguishing real photographs from fake ones. But then again, the conspiracists aren't trying to make a rigorous scientific statement. They're trying to make a statement that's just credible enough to just enough people in order to cash in on their books and videos before people realize that the real hoax is these authors and their theories.

    (Addendum: replace the digit '3' in the above file names with '1' and '2' to see the other examples taken in the other directions.) "
     
  3. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    6,080
    Likes Received:
    955
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Without doubt one of the most ridiculous of statements. It implies that you are a truther. You most certainly are not.

    A truther would weigh up all evidence and make an assessment. You bury your head in the sand and spam the same identical crap wherever you go, with not one thing changed, re-assessed or removed.

    How about I answer your question as a truther?

    She is lying. She has been "got at" to say what she said.

    Or honestly?

    Most scientists I know are strictly honest at a level that requires tremendous discipline. As with all walks of life there is corruption and dishonest people, I am not surprised there are cases where science takes second place to somebody's hidden agenda or bank balance. It is a very dishonest person who would generalise isolated incidents as the norm. I consider you such a person.
     
  4. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm losing track of all his screen names he uses!
     
  5. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wonder why some people just cannot wrap their minds around the fact that man went to the moon, several times? Why is it so hard to understand?

    I think one of the astronauts once punched one of these loony tune characters out for accusing him of lying about going to the moon. I think any loony tune deserves a good punch in the nose. Done by an astronaut of course, or one of the men who worked to help get man to the lunar surface.

    We did it by god, and if we do not destroy ourselves we will do even greater things.

    If the conspiracy thinkers cannot accept our lunar missions, what will they do when physics proves we are living in basically a virtual reality, that reality as we perceive it is an kind of illusion? Well, they will (*)(*)(*)(*) all over themselves is what they will do. LOL We will have to send them to mental wards. Their minds cannot handle it.
     
  6. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,691
    Likes Received:
    966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I already did. You tried to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=2&p=1064028979#post1064028979

    Go ahead and rant all you want that it was real. You're not going to take in anybody who takes the time to look at the anomalies. You may take in a few of the viewers who don't take the time to look at the anomalies with your rhetoric; there's not much I can do about that.
     
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    6,080
    Likes Received:
    955
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is there something wrong with your cognitive reasoning? I asked for proof that I was a "known obfuscator". Your useless opinion on a matter where you consistently get your butt kicked is not that proof.

    Your pathetic debating skills - always the same. You always avoid major points, rebuttal and questions. As a truther you suck.

    Refuting the OP - ignored because of some moronic litmus test, but in reality because he hasn't a clue about the subject.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A quick summary:-

    1. Step 3 of the proposed process mentions applying transformations in image space, such as perspective distortions, independent x- and y-axis scaling, and rotations. First, some of these would not be projection-preserving, and thus are invalid in rectification. Second, there is no mention made of how the parameters for these transformations are derived. Hence they amount to manual processing and therefore cannot be scientifically reproducible.

    2. The proposed antiprojection, La = Lb b/a, is linear. Most lenses do not implement a linear projection model, and the Zeiss Biogon explicitly does not. Hence the mathematical framework is simplistic and incorrect.

    3. Fig. 7 purports to show a parallax difference between two Apollo photos that include a distant background. The author believes that because a geometric change is apparent in the blink-comparator, this should be attributed to parallax. In fact the method fails.

    4. No values are given for any rotations, distortions, or other transformations applied to the photograph(s). The results are therefore irreproducible and scientifically invalid.

    5. A simple contrast expansion of the "difference" image shows misalignment in the ridge lines consistent with a rotation between raster images roughly coincident with the original line of sight. The author has misapplied his broken method and thus interprets the difference in rotation (and possibly subsequent distortive attempts to correct it) as parallax.

    6. Figs. 10 and 11 are similar. The author applies uncontrolled, arbitrary image-space manipulations that are not projection-preserving, then proceeds to attribute resulting misalignment of the raster to parallax. And again, no method is shown for deterministically deriving the distortion parameters; it is purely subjective and therefore irreproducible.

    7. The author then imagines that the effects he introduces through non projective-preserving manipulations are explicable in affine space by a sort of concave screen. This is pure fantasy: a much simpler explanation exists, that of the ineptitude of the author's image-space manipulation and his fundamental misunderstanding of the actual projective geometry at work here. He has proven absolutely nothing other than his ability to produce in one instance a distortion map that corrects for the distortion he previously applied in another instance. There is absolutely nothing here that is valid or proven to be a method for determining the authenticity of photographs.

    8. He skipped the part where he validates that his method works for parallax at all relative scales (including the miles-long scales alleged in lunar photography).

    9. Parallax does not exhibit linear behavior as distance varies. The ratio of distances from the viewer to two objects, the d1/d2 ratio in the projection math, determines the lateral effect of parallax observed between those objects. Hence if two distant objects are used as references such that the distance ratio approaches 1, little difference will be observed.

    10. He skipped the part where he validates that his method works for determining via parallax whether subject photographs were taken in the field or in a studio, as he alleges the Apollo photographs were. Conspicuously missing is any study of the method as applied to known studio photography.

    11. He skipped the part where he studied whether any distortions in the image might be caused by the non-linear effects of the Zeiss Biogon lens, a feature for which it is justly famous. In the larger sense, the researcher here has failed to perform any sort of error analysis. He simply attributes all anomalous data to the hypothesis he wants to test: that Apollo photographs were taken indoors.

    12. He skipped the part where he determined that photographs taken in a domed studio, as he alleges, differ from photographs taken in the field in a way that his method can discern. This is pure question-begging. He determines analytically that a certain degree and type of distortion would occur if the backdrop were attached to a concave surface, but fails in any way to validate or confirm that it would produce the effect seen.

    13. In short is a very common story: snappy visuals that seem to illustrate an important scientific point, with absolutely no scientific rigor placed behind it. Pseudoscience. He hopes the viewer will be impressed with his ability to distort photographs seemingly at random and make animated GIFs and assume that he got all the rest of it right.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A simple explanation - ignored:-

    The reason we see movement in the gif is from the "Russian expert" misaligning the pictures, whilst ignoring that a different position from the camera position makes this very difficulty.

    A reply to his moronic litmus test - ignored:-

    The geologists who you use to "prop up" your claim, make two contributions to the argument, neither of which are of help to you. Firstly, they are not qualified to talk about aggregate transport, geology does not cover this, but strangely engineering does. Secondly, the geologists ridiculed your position about the rocks being faked.

    Regarding his so called "Russian expert":-

    What guy? Kindly show me his credentials and some history about him. Then explain how physics and technology gives him credentials to do photogrammetry. We all know you cannot do this.

    A simple question - ignored:-

    How did Apollo 15 take the photograph that JAXA/Selene was able to identically reproduce from topographic data?

    A detailed response with examples - ignored:-

    You seem too much of a "layman" to understand one simple explanation. Here it is in terms that even a simpleton would grasp:-

    The author is unable to map the two distant mountains together. It is this that creates the movement! The camera is also wide angled and does a number of things to the image that require not just alignment and resizing of the second picture. It also requires a small rotation and a small stretch caused by the differing camera positions. The unknown Russian expert has completely failed to do this.

    Mr Windley explains this with some pictures that a layman truther would understand.

    http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthr...ysics-moon-hoax-quandries&p=163799#post163799

    "

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    They were taken one step apart. The utility marker is the "foreground". (The white building in the background is where I work, in case it matters.) The mountains are a few miles away.

    Now consider two methods of "registering" the photographs:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Whether it's "right" or "wrong" depends on which feature of the photo you want to consider a priori correct and therefore which other feature is alleged to be anomalous.

    In the first photo the utility pole is considered the "authentic" feature. Note that the backgrounds don't match. The fence posts get farther apart with distance, and the mountain ridgeline in the background is completely disparate. This is the kind of superimposition that a conspiracy theorist would show you if he were trying to argue that the moon "set" was a single set where they just changed the "backdrop" in order to make it appear different.

    In the second photo the ridgeline is the "authentic" feature, and thus the utility pole can't be made to line up. This is what a conspiracy theorist would show you if he were trying to argue that the same "backdrop" had been used for two different foregrounds.

    But neither one is a correct statement. Neither one respects the real relationship between foreground and background if the photographer happens to be moving around. Now the one photo I should have taken to complete this demonstration (but I didn't) is one from, say, across the access road. This would have shown a completely different foreground with an identical background to the other photos. You only have to walk 20 or 30 feet in any direction to have a completely new foreground.

    The fact that we can so easily -- and without fraud or deception -- produce authentic photographs that fail the conspiracy theorists' tests shows that their tests are not effective at distinguishing real photographs from fake ones. But then again, the conspiracists aren't trying to make a rigorous scientific statement. They're trying to make a statement that's just credible enough to just enough people in order to cash in on their books and videos before people realize that the real hoax is these authors and their theories.

    (Addendum: replace the digit '3' in the above file names with '1' and '2' to see the other examples taken in the other directions.) "


    You would never even be invited to the debating hall, you lack credentials in every single subject and have an opinion that is biased and based on profound ignorance.
     
  8. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    613
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It would be 1 Million Times more difficult to fake a Lunar Lnding than actually do it!!!

    Even the Soviet Union our Cold War Adversary tracked with radar our Apollo Program and Saturn V Rockets.....and they offered CONGRATULATIONS when Apollo 11 with Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the Lunar Surface.

    AboveAlpha
     
  9. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,691
    Likes Received:
    966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Read the part about space radiation in post #1 of this thread.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/347662-apollo-moon-missions-were-faked-studio.html

    Also, read the part about the Soviets.


    There's a ton of proof that the missions were faked.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/362999-air-caused-flag-move-so-obviously-studio.html

    This thread about the backdops isn't about whether they faked it. It's about how they faked it.


    Jay Windley* and his friends from the Clavius forum also tried to obfuscate the proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked**.
    http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/2206

    Notice how they ignore the anomolies that prove the fakery.


    There's more on Jay Windley here.
    http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059062166&postcount=8
    http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125628

    Jay Windley and Betamax are two known obfuscators. They can both be ignored.



    *
    http://www.clavius.org/about.html

    **
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=2&p=1064028979#post1064028979
     
  10. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Linking back to your spam is NOT proof of obfuscation...AND the notion of 'dust free sand' being used is ludicrous,since evidence shows that the moons surface,when not rocks,is akin to talcum powder,which WILL become airborne
     
  11. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,691
    Likes Received:
    966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Watch this video.

    MoonFaker - Project Sandbox
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc
     
  12. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The video is a total fabrication,making stuff up out of whole cloth.

    You're going to have to do Way better than this before you convince anyone that you're not just baying at the moon,so to speak
     
  13. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    6,080
    Likes Received:
    955
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are a very dishonest truther. You start a thread about a subject, get your butt kicked again then change the subject.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=403884&page=4&p=1064906871#post1064906871

    You have done this in every single debate on this forum and it's really quite pathetic.

    Hogwash.

    http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/russia-didnt-expose-hoax.html

    No there isn't. There's a ton of proof that you have no idea what you are doing.

    http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/apollo-15-flag.html

    Now, the viewers are waiting you to enter the debating hall and answer the points raised. I noticed you responded to posts where you can offer your standard cut and paste spam. How very predictable and contemptuous.
     
  14. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,691
    Likes Received:
    966
    Trophy Points:
    113
  15. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    6,080
    Likes Received:
    955
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A professor of mathematics turns his hand to something he is not qualified to do and makes two truly massive errors straight out of the gate. the first error is relying on a topographic map compiled from orbital photographs. Accuracy indeterminable at best, though as a rough guide, useful.

    His second error is the worst though. He assumes the Hadley summit is some straight edged ridge, when in actuality it is comprised of massively variable curves and dips.

    Just based on those two, his whole analysis falls to pieces.

    Do you have any direct reply to this, or is your plan to avoid rebuttal once again, in favour of this moronic gish gallup?


    Just a rehash of other hogwash - debunked to death. One of the points for instance about front screen projection, which on closer analysis is clearly visible on 2001 footage, suggests projection of the background.

    Direct question that you will not be able to answer:- If there is a front screen projector, where is it in the Apollo footage, since the astronauts visors show nothing whatsoever? These visors cover the entire 180 field of view, with mountains behind them!
     
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    6,080
    Likes Received:
    955
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Further to above, it seems this spammer has no concern about conflicts within his sources. On the one hand, his first link has Professor Rourke claiming that variances in the pictures indicate movable sections of the "backdrop", a quite ludicrous conclusion from the available evidence. In his second link, he suggests the "backdrop" is not a physical thing but is in fact a front screen projection. Easily disproven with a camera zooming into the heart of Hadley Rille:-

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeDiCJdUJWE

    Yet again we will await an explanation that never arrives!
     
  17. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,691
    Likes Received:
    966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Betamax also maintains that the idea that the Chinese spacewalk was faked has been debunked to death so he's not to be taken seriously.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=2&p=1064028979#post1064028979


    If anyone doesn't have time to actually look at those anomalies in the Chinese spacewalk that prove fakery, please withhold judgement until you can do so. Don't be swayed by rhetoric.


    Here's a video I just found that talks about who Oleg Oleynik, Ph.D.c is.

    The curious case of Dr. Oleg Oleynik and the Moon and Stereo Parallax
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfjIs_Zof10

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfjIs_Zof10
     
  18. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    5,691
    Likes Received:
    966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At the 8:30 time mark of this video...

    SPACE ODDITY Dark Side of the Moon V.3
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH2_ml_l_90


    ...the guy says that he didn't know any millennials* who believed the moon missions were real. I suppose that since they didn't spend three quarters of their lives believing it, they aren't affected by cognitive dissonance** and are able to be objective about it. I guess in about thirty more years, almost nobody will believe they went to the moon.

    I spent three quarters of my life believing it but I was able to modify my opinion with no trouble as soon as I'd seen the hoax proof. What's the problem with these other baby boomers?


    Check out this video.

    Imagine Dragons - On Top Of The World (Official Music Video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5tWYmIOWGk


    another edit...
    -----------------------------------

    I just came across this video.

    Did We Really Go To The Moon? Startling New Evidence & Analysis
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1zze78wvLs

    I just started watching it but it looks promising.


    *
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials

    **
    http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm
     
  19. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    6,080
    Likes Received:
    955
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Argument from stupidity. Only a moron would maintain this was a bubble:-

    [video=youtube;-M1LRSF62cc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M1LRSF62cc[/video]

    Then look at the debunks that a kindergarten attendee would understand:-

    http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html

    Already answered. The "Russian man" has no credentials for photogrammetric analysis and using sites that reference aulis to verify who he is is like asking cosmored what a bubble is!
     
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    6,080
    Likes Received:
    955
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Side distraction yet again. Some random youtube fool who shares your opinion is disqualified.

    They don't have a problem, they are just not gullible, stubborn, ignorant and obsessed.

    Another video about the parallax hogwash that you avoid, because you don't understand it.

    And meanwhile, the viewers await your truthing capabilities to show themselves with informed rebuttal to the 13 points annihilating your "parallax" rubbish. I suspect a long wait, since you have none. That should bother you, but you are so obsessed that you lost the capability to take in all evidence many years ago.
     
  21. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    613
    Trophy Points:
    83
    ABSOLUTE UNADULTERATED B.S.!

    You can't fake a Misile the size of a Saturn V launching and then dropping stages and then having the Lam connect to the Lunar Orbiter and shoot off the main rocket engines AS THE ENTIRE THING WAS TRACKED FROM EARTH BY RADAR WITH EVERY NATION CAPABLE!!

    The Radiation Belts you talk about can be resolved with TIN FOIL!!!

    We placed a refelective LASER MIRROR on the Moon which we use TO THIS DAY.....as this allows us to determine distance.

    AboveAlpha
     
  22. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    6,080
    Likes Received:
    955
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We placed 3 of them actually. But my reason for responding to your post was to pre-empt the OP coming along with his spam response about the Russians doing it unmanned, therefore yada yada yada!

    What he won't do, or ever do is offer any evidence to support the 3 secret missions that did this, the teams that had to have developed them, the teams that secretly launched them in launch windows that actually enabled a fly over of the landing sites, the teams that tracked and remote landed them or worse still respond to the dismantling of his stupid OP claim and subsequent gish gallups. Watch this space, coming soon, spam by numbers.
     
  23. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    613
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Thanks.

    It just makes me wonder how anyone could think something this big with HAM Operators all over the world triangulating signal could think it was a hoax!!

    Like I stated.....it would be a MILLIONS TIMES HARDER TO FAKE IT THAN TO ACTUALLY DO IT!!

    AboveAlpha
     
  24. Miklos

    Miklos New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2014
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why is this guy taken for a Russian? He is a Ukrainian and from Ukraine.
     
  25. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    613
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Your know Neil Armstrong was invited to and went to the Soviet Union and Russia and treated like a HERO!

    When Armstrong had just started walking on the Lunar Surface after all the Pomp and Circumstance.....Neil Armstrong said these words....."GOOD LUCK MR.GORSKY!"

    The Soviet's went into OVERDRIVE trying to figure out what this was about and the KGB ran all sorts of checks on GORSKY'S all over the Soviet Union and the World.

    Armstrong when asked shied away from the questioning.

    On I believe his last visit to Russia a reporter asked him what did Good Luck Mr. Gorsky! actually mean?

    Neil Armstrong decided to explain and said when he was just a little kid one day while playing Baseball the baseball was hit and rolled under one of his neighbors houses windows and as it was summer the window was open and a young Neil Armstrong heard Mrs. Gorsky say to her Husband Mr. Gosrsky....."SEX?? YOU WANT SEX??? WELL I WILL TELL YOU WHAT!! WHEN THAT KID NEIL WHO LIVES NEXT DOOR WALKS ON THE MOON I WILL GIVE YOU SEX!!"

    The Russian media loved it!

    AboveAlpha
     

Share This Page