27 Dec 2019 20:04:59 Doesn’t the moon appear different in size depending on how close it is to the horizon? Could that happen in reverse?
Of course if any of us were on a flight to the moon I expect we would be taking endless shots of the earth both from the space craft and from the lunar surface. But the lack of pictures makes scrutiny of their one that much harder because there’s nothing to compare it to. Unlike the lunar footage photos which seemed to have the same background despite being allegedly taken in different places on different days.
27 Dec 2019 13:54:33 If you were there, the sight would be incredibly overwhelming and yes, you would expect there to be some more references to the amazement of seeing what would probably appear like a super earth. Even so much as speechless moments. But there isn't, that I am aware of.
The only footage I can recall offhand where you can see the earthrise from lunar orbit was some VT on what were these lunar flashes that 2 astronauts describe. On more than one occasion they saw flashes coming from the same lunar location. The footage doesn't show what they see, just voices and lunar landscape which then shows an earthrise. All would be easy to fake if you had the resources.
You could make a case for only a few "apollo" photos of the moon because the cameras were fixed POV apart from one? I believe, which was manual. And what with limited time, they were trained just to get their job done. But to counter argue. They had time to play golf and test Newtons theory of falling objects, but not to film the earth?
27 Dec 2019 07:44:11 I agree with that. The problem is you would need to be standing on the moon to see that, from that point of view (your own eyes) .
I was trying to get the point that, for instance, If I look at the moon with my yes and think i'll take a nice picture of that, then use a cameraphone let's say, to take a pic. Then moon appears a lot smaller than what i expected it too, when I looked at it using my eyes.
Hope you follow me, Ed?
You statement question is valid, but you would need to compare photos using exactly the same equipment. Or we can start a crowd funding page to get you too the moon? :)
I will see if I can find out the Apollo camera specs and take a picture of moon using same specs then we can compare.
Just a quick follow up. As far as I can tell it was taken by the 70mm Hasselblad.
Sadly I have left my camera charger at home and won't be back until the new year. So can not take a 70mm comparable pic just yet. Not that I expect to see the moon anytime soon with this weather we're getting, anyhow.
For the time being here is a photo of the moon someone that is not me has taken at 70mm. It shows the point I am trying to make quite well.
26 Dec 2019 22:31:09 For the moon to be that big in a photo you would have to use a telephoto lens zoomed into a distant horizon. Do you know what lens was used, Ed? . I would think it was probably a lot smaller lens. If you used the apollo equipment to take a photo of the moon it would look at lot smaller than the earth in the above image.
But this is by no way me saying that the photo isn't fake.
26 Dec 2019 10:42:51 Never really delved to these depths of the rabbit hole without the pre-programmed mindset shutting down any unbiased thoughts, before. Very compelling, Ed. Thanks for sharing.
16 Dec 2019 18:59:48 It's still not a balloon. The rocket had something called "balloon tanks" which keep it structurally sound. The tanks failed and the rocket collapsed in on its self.
16 Dec 2019 16:36:08 No, no they are not. I went to watch the launch of the Atlantis from the Kennedy Space Centre in Florida. I've also seen them assembling the rockets during a tour of the facility a week later.
Also, that video doesn't even look like a balloon. It looks like it's thin sheet metal collapsing under its own weight.
Additionally, the uploader is a flat earther, enough said.
15 Dec 2019 00:42:48 There was some old YT videos of a Canadian women/ legal case, where she bought her house using her birth certificate (bond) . She documented it over several months. Using notices to keep people from entering the property etc. She eventually got the house. Lawfully. Can't find anything about it any more.
08 Dec 2019 20:27:15 Yeah, true. But it is too simple to understand that its flawed with the evidence that is currently presented. I think its just too many people just don't care to be honest, Ed. I have spoken to quite a few people about this and after 5 minutes they get on with there self obsessed lives.
"I know this steak doesn't exist. But when I put it in my mouth the matrix will tell me its juicy and delicious. After nine years. You know what I realise. Ignorance is bliss"
08 Dec 2019 07:49:49 OK I understand now. I was generalising about all things in that middle statement. I should have put. How has it taking me this long to realise this when I have actively sort out truth for several decades. There seems to be relatively little information about this glaring hole in the theory of evolution. But yet it only takes a simple paragraph to get someone to seriously question it. I'm asking this more rhetorically just so you get an idea where my minds at. Thanks.
07 Dec 2019 22:36:59 Ed, that has got me confused. isn't your statement a double negative?
What do you mean by "no evolutionist"? . people of faith?
I guess the whole double negative thing is your point. You never get to know the truth unless you're there/ involved/ apart of the elite/ agenda. Everyone else is overloaded with conflicting information therefor never finding or seeing the truth.
The missing intermediates in all species is such a massive hole in the theory of evolution, why has it been so uncovered?
07 Dec 2019 11:52:49 Np, I know. But if the statement was true it would pretty much prove evolution was wrong. Which was why I looked into it. But then its down to who you believe unless you do your own experiments.
The whole macro-evolution side of things I am in total agreement that the so called proof of it is just not there. Possibly not found yet, but that doesn't seem plausible. The main "evidence" of it seems to be based on a bird which evolved into 2 species that can no longer mate. But they still look identical. So, to me, that gives this argument very little weight. The other arguments all seem flawed to me too. 1. The whale-hippo link to a common ancestor when the hippo side has no intermediates. 2. The sequoia tree argument 3. The rabbit argument similar to the bird one. Apart from that, there isn't much else that I have found yet. There is one short video showing a living fish learning to walk. But you can't see the whole fish so external manipulation could be at play.
I'll continue to delve. Thanks for your time and work.
Sorry for the delay. I wanted to give this my undivided attention.
Just a bit of info on what I believe. Which is basically I really am unsure what to believe except that, there is more to things than meet the eye. So I try to stay as open-minded as possible with all things, but I guess that leaves me out in the cold when it comes to truly believing in something.
It was at the end of a long day and a few rums in when I watched the first video and I definitely didn't mean to suggest I dismiss everything if I don't believe part to be true.
My mind is racing right now so bear with me if I go off on a tangent. I have been very interested in conspiracies for 30 years and most of what I have learnt is all very believable, and I want to believe. I would love to be able to not have to second guess everything and for things to sit balanced in my mind. But there has never been that bit of proof or truth, that has made me feel 100% confident in thinking that, that's exactly how things are. However, watching this video has BLOWN MY MIND!
I am really surprised I haven't come across this information before, as I am always on the hunt for truth. But, as you and this video stated, there is no examples of macro evolution. Every living thing is perfectly designed. I have never brought Darwinism in to question, to be honest. It has always sat quite nicely as a truth. But I guess that's out the window, now.
I am going to sit here blank faced, deep in though for a while over this. Its been a long time since the fundamentals of my thinking have been rattled quite as much.
Just to clarify why I questioned what you believe. Your opinion is one of a small handful that I do hold highly. Very informed, un biased and trust-worthy. I guess I was confused or shocked, watching the video, and that brought that in to question too. Like I said, I have been rattled, so I can only apologise if I offended you in any way.
Really appreciate what you do. I do think of you as a very wise guide to the very big questions. Which is a massive compliment, mate. So, thank you.
01 Dec 2019 20:48:30 Ed where do you stand on the statement. There is no evidence of the evolution of species?, as stated quite vigorously in this video.
I'm not a non believer but I don't indulged in blind faith other than in those that I love, so the religious parts of the video I take on board, but to say there is no proof of evolution is ridiculous. Besides many other studies, if we where made from fresh beginnings, why infect us with trillions of microorganisms of which keep us healthy? .
When I watch an informative production and then there is something that I logically find deluded, I struggle to find anything plausible in anything said before.
I really appreciate your time and effort in running these pages and I enjoy your insight. It's just that you posting this video has knocked my, I guess trust in you.
This is by no way an insult, and even if you have a different point of view/ beliefs. Its all cool, I just need to know how you sit with this if I may be so bold to ask?
11 Jul 2019 15:21:23 I came across a very good presentation he did last year that ties in really well with the video above and the documentary movie. I really like the way Paulides never tells you what conclusion to come to, he simply provides you with factual information and leaves you to decide for yourself.
10 Jul 2019 16:29:34 Very interesting interview, and I had to watch the film after that.
Really well made, understated, and fascinating film. The audio recordings from 1974, and the photo taken by Jan, were intriguing. I highly recommend it.
Rian · 27 Dec 2019 20:18
