Allancw's World

[allancw]

I've made accusations re why some of you are here. You might ask why I am here.

While researching a story about why my best friend from childhood was killed in Vietnam, I came to the conclusion that a root cause was the JFK assassination. So I looked into that. Aside from the Spotlight Jury Trial (google it), wherein the verdict was (formally) that the CIA killed our president, the evidence of a far-reaching conspiracy that continues to this day (the media cover up) is overwhelming. But, for me, the single most significant piece of evidence was the fabrication of the Zapruder film. Do your own research if you're curious, but you can start here:

Getting to the heart of it: I did the same (more, actually) sort of research on 9/11 and got similar results. In fact, the single most significant piece of evidence was likewise visual. I'll show you that one frame from the Hezarkhani 'amateur' footage of the 2nd strike tells us a lot about the event and who was behind it. Here's the raw footage:

Go about 30 seconds in. That plane is moving fast, isn't it?

I could not attach a high res photo to this post so I made a quick video (and attached a low res jped). Please don't go off on the poor image quality. A good res image of the freeze frame in my video makes my point even more obvious. Here's the video:

Again: The freeze frame in the video is the image I also attached to this post.

Video cameras have a shutter speed of 1/60 of a second. The plane is traveling at about 540 mph (measurements internal to the footage). This means that during the 1/60 sec. the camera registered the image, the 'plane' had to have moved 13.2 feet. (Simple arithmetic.) The engine on a 767 happens to be about 13 feet so you can use that as reference.

You're all pretty intelligent, right? Trust the laws of physics, right? Critical thinkers? Trust your eyes, right?

If the image is genuine there should be - no, HAS to be - motion blur equal to the length of one of those engines, i.e., about 13 feet (yes, along the axis of flight).

There is no motion blur at all in the attached image (or the freeze frame in the video). Or are my eyes deceiving me? (I suspect that as your only 'answer'.)

For the same reason Costella gives for the fabrication of the Zapruder film, this famous footage from 9/11 is a fabrication. The implications re who was behind the 9/11 attacks are significant, in my view.

I figure I'm in the right place to get debunked, if debunking is possible. How about it, science-guys?

Off subject, you say? No, it isn't. Proof of a pattern of visual fabrications by... call it the Deep State... goes right to the heart of the Apollo hoax. Doesn't it?

But my real point is that what goes on here is far from harmless. To say 'shame on you' to those of you who know very well what you're doing would be ridiculous, but I will say that the same power structure who killed JFK and perpetrated 9/11 (which resulted in millions dead, all told) is behind the Apollo hoax and its continuing cover up.

Those of you who are here for 'innocent' reasons, i.e., do believe in the Apollo missions (yes, I exaggerated in accusing you all of being shills), might take a long, close look at JFK and 9/11, and rethink the views expressed here.

OK, I expect a barrage. Fine. But so far, not one answer to the Bean video question: was the LM heated or air conditioned or, somehow, both? I made the mistake of giving you excuses to attack irrelevancies, which those few who replied did. (Actually, I'm doing it again!)

The question: What does the lack of motion blur in the attached frame indicate? Answer that before you go off on irrelevancies. We'll see how science/critical thinking fares on this one...

[gillianren]

And this has what to do with Apollo?

[Echnaton]

I've made accusations re why some of you are here. You might ask why I am here....

Wall o' Text.

You are here because you have either an ignorance of truth or apathy towards truth. Which one? Franky, I don't know and I don't care. 

I figure I'm in the right place to get debunked, if debunking is possible. How about it, science-guys?

Please take your conspiracy rants to the proper place in the forum.

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?board=7.0

[allancw]

I said,

Off subject, you say? No, it isn't. Proof of a pattern of visual fabrications by... call it the Deep State... goes right to the heart of the Apollo hoax. Doesn't it?

Don't agree? Fine, but deal with it.

I thought you all were critical thinkers. Isn't there even one of you who will...

No, too much to ask for.

[JayUtah]

\call it the Deep State... goes right to the heart of the Apollo hoax. Doesn't it?

No, it doesn't.  It's just a failed attempt at guilt by association, following a failed attempt to flounce, following a failed attempt to navigate the historical record of Apollo.

Don't agree? Fine, but deal with it.

I'm dealing with it by not buying into an obviously illogical rant.  Even if someone were to grant you, for the sake of argument, that 9/11 was an inside job or whatever, that doesn't in any prove that Apollo had been faked 30 years previously.  You consider them connected by the presumption that some Evil Powers That Be are responsible for both.  You don't seem to recognize a circular argument.

I thought you all were critical thinkers. Isn't there even one of you who will...

We are critical thinkers, and as such we instantly recognize sad attempts to change the subject.  Posting 9/11 nonsense to an Apollo forum is just another desperate ploy for an illusory victory.  When your off-topic rants are expectedly and naturally ignored or rebuked, you will try to make it sound as if no one wants to engage you.  Then you will claim victory.

You are far too predictable.

[raven]

Even if your proved 9/11 to be the work of the US government, what exactly does that prove regarding Apollo?
I don't think anyone on this board claims the US government has not done some horrendous things, but it would be circumstantial evidence at best. It would be like trying to prove a convicted murderer committed a different murder by only giving evidence for the first. It would be reason to be suspicious of them, but it doesn't prove they did it. For that, you need to actually provide evidence of the crime at hand. Or, to use a less emotionally intense example, we could stop any schmuk on the street and they will have lied at least once in their lives. Does that mean we should assume every word that comes out of their mouths as fraud without providing for any evidence at all?
How is that critical thinking?
On a related note, how come WikiLeaks never found evidence of the moon landing being fake?
Of all the embarrassing secrets uncovered, not a shred of material regarding the moon landings being a hoax?

[allancw]

As I expected, none of you will rise to the intellectual challenge of the motion-blur anomaly. Fine, but 9/11 is surely related to the moon hoax in exactly the way you say it wasn't. that someone has committed a heinous crime surely is relevant if he is suspected of another. would be relevant in court, should be here.

[RAF]

As I expected, none of you will rise to the intellectual challenge of the motion-blur anomaly.

Your attempt at being insulting is ineffectual.

Fine, but 9/11 is surely related to the moon hoax...

Only in that they are both lies perpetuated by ignorant people.

[JayUtah]

As I expected, none of you will rise to the intellectual challenge of the motion-blur anomaly.

Because you posted it in the wrong section.

As predicted, you lobbed a red herring and are now trying to parlay it into reluctance to engage you.  As does practically every conspiracy troll who relies on silly high school debate tricks instead of education and reason.  If you hadn't been so eager to poison the well, you'd notice there is an "Other Conspiracy Theories" section to this forum.  Trying to present 9/11 theories here, as opposed to there, and telling us we're afraid to engage is you is the height of absurdity, ignorance, and desperation.

Fine, but 9/11 is surely related to the moon hoax in exactly the way you say it wasn't.

No.  The two are not related just because you say they are.  Nor are we unaccustomed to conspiracy theorists who cannot prevail on topic desperately trying to change the subject one another one they think they can have better luck on.

that someone has committed a heinous crime surely is relevant if he is suspected of another. would be relevant in court, should be here.

Wrong on three points.

First: this isn't a court of law; it's a discussion forum for a particular historical question.  Historical validity and legal defensibility are not the same thing, nor are legal rules of evidence versus the historical method.

Second:  there actually is a limit under American criminal law for trying to argue that a person is guilty in one instance because he was guilty in a past instance.  Past behavior is not per se evidence that a person has committed a subsequent crime.

Third:  you haven't proven guilt in the previous instance.  Your logic is sadly based not on the premise of prior guilt, but on accusations of prior guilt.  You don't get to say someone is suspicious just because you incessantly accuse him of something.

Acquaint yourself with the certainty that the regulars on this forum are well attuned to all the modes of conspiracy-related fallacy and will catch you every time you try illogical shenanigans like this.  You will not prevail using sophomoric debate tactics.

[gwiz]

As I expected, none of you will rise to the intellectual challenge of the motion-blur anomaly.

No challenge, it's very simple.  You ignore the geometry of the direction of motion of the aircraft relative to the camera view direction. 

As with your Apollo arguments, you do not have the necessary technical background to appreciate the situation.

[Mag40]

For the same reason Costella gives for the fabrication of the Zapruder film, this famous footage from 9/11 is a fabrication. The implications re who was behind the 9/11 attacks are significant, in my view.

In my view, no-planers make normal 911 conspiracy theorists look like geniuses. It is the pinnacle of ignorance and sheer arrogance to conclude something so preposterous as being the more likely event, rather than your understanding of it being at fault.

The question: What does the lack of motion blur in the attached frame indicate? Answer that before you go off on irrelevancies. We'll see how science/critical thinking fares on this one...

Shutter speed is not the same as frames per second. Plus the plane is not sideways on and is travelling mainly away from the camera. Here's a video of supposedly another fake plane:

[frenat]

Just because a camera films at 60 frames per second doesn't mean it takes 1/60 of a second to capture the frame.  Do 1 frame per second security cameras take an entire second to capture each frame?

[Noldi400]

I've made accusations re why some of you are here. You might ask why I am here.

While researching a story about why my best friend from childhood was killed in Vietnam, I came to the conclusion that a root cause was the JFK assassination.

I personally would tend to agree with that provisionally; if JFK had lived, I don't believe our involvement in SE Asia would have ever reached the level it did.

The question: What does the lack of motion blur in the attached frame indicate? Answer that before you go off on irrelevancies. We'll see how science/critical thinking fares on this one...

First, see how many videos of airliners taken from that distance with similar equipment you can find which  show blurred frames.  "Thought experiments" are all well and good, but the "should be blurred" proposition fails without some empirical evidence.

And what about the hundreds (thousands?) of people who were there and saw it happen live?  How is it that their accounts match the video evidence within the limits of human memory?

Oh, and Costella? As in John P. Costella?  Ranks right up there with Jack White as a photographic analyst.

[gillianren]

I personally would tend to agree with that provisionally; if JFK had lived, I don't believe our involvement in SE Asia would have ever reached the level it did.

Interestingly, that's almost certainly wrong.  Had Kennedy lived that day, he would have given a speech that included a statement reinforcing the fact that he believed the US needed to intervene in Vietnam.  RFK said until he died that he believed that his brother believed the US needed to prevent the Communist takeover of Vietnam.

[ka9q]

Had Kennedy lived that day, he would have given a speech that included a statement reinforcing the fact that he believed the US needed to intervene in Vietnam.

To be sure, JFK was as cold a cold warrior as they come, Oliver Stone's mythmaking notwithstanding. Remember his OK of the Bay of Pigs invasion? Or that he beat Nixon in 1960 partly by proclaiming a "missile gap" that didn't exist? He also came close to getting us all killed during the Cuban Missile Crisis just so he could beat his chest on national TV.

But even if he had won re-election in 1964 we simply have no way to know how he would have reacted when the nightly TV news brought the carnage of Vietnam into everyone's living rooms and the coffins really started flowing back home.