You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Las Vegas shootings
March 28 2024 3.56pm

Las Vegas shootings

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 34 of 34 << First< 30 31 32 33 34

 

jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 29 Oct 17 9.02pm

It would have been impossible, based on the camera shots to have been taken on earth using the technology of the time. Parallel shadowing couldn't be faked until the 90s using computer technology.

To try similar lighting on a studio set physically would require lots of laser lighting, closely packed - and given the number of lasers in existence and their cost ( I.e. not enough and at a cost exceeding the entire Apollo project).

Non divergent shadows mean the footage in 1969 could only have been shot on the moon in natural light

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 29 Oct 17 9.12pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

It would have been impossible, based on the camera shots to have been taken on earth using the technology of the time. Parallel shadowing couldn't be faked until the 90s using computer technology.

To try similar lighting on a studio set physically would require lots of laser lighting, closely packed - and given the number of lasers in existence and their cost ( I.e. not enough and at a cost exceeding the entire Apollo project).

Non divergent shadows mean the footage in 1969 could only have been shot on the moon in natural light

So now you are an expert on the light conditions on the Moon. Is there any end to your talents.

Like I said. We just need to wait for the images of the landing sites. That will clear it up for the skeptics

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (29 Oct 2017 9.13pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
hedgehog50 Flag Croydon 29 Oct 17 10.07pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

I can't accept your spelling of Apollo.

I'm not sure if it ever went to the Moon but any of the other missions could have and not landed on the Moon.

The landing and taking off bit was probably the hardest part and the one you couldn't do for real before he event.

I'm just playing Devil's advocate.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (29 Oct 2017 8.06pm)

They went round the Moon and returned to Earth in the Lunar Module having abandoned the Mother Ship. If it was all a fake, why would they bother to have a Lunar Module, or was that part of the conspiracy?If so, I guess the whole near disaster was fake? Not sure why they would do that, would that make them look better than the Russians or the opposite?! It really is completely nuts to give credence to these moon landing conspiracies.

 


We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 29 Oct 17 10.47pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by hedgehog50

They went round the Moon and returned to Earth in the Lunar Module having abandoned the Mother Ship. If it was all a fake, why would they bother to have a Lunar Module, or was that part of the conspiracy?If so, I guess the whole near disaster was fake? Not sure why they would do that, would that make them look better than the Russians or the opposite?! It really is completely nuts to give credence to these moon landing conspiracies.

By Apollo 13 the public was getting bored with Moon missions so maybe they spiced it up a bit.

That's it. I'm not going to torture you any more by messing with your world view.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 30 Oct 17 1.39pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

So now you are an expert on the light conditions on the Moon. Is there any end to your talents.

Like I said. We just need to wait for the images of the landing sites. That will clear it up for the skeptics

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (29 Oct 2017 9.13pm)

Not me, unlike the conspiracy brigade, I'm referring to an expert. I wouldn't call them skeptics, as skeptics respond to evidence. When in doubt, I read what experts in a field have to say.

[Link]

Popular Mechanics is a reasonable source.


Edited by jamiemartin721 (30 Oct 2017 1.40pm)

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 30 Oct 17 1.41pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by .TUX.

We ''know by now'' as fact, that the sole purpose of the Central Banking system, deliberately forced upon us ALL, is to continually confiscate wealth from the masses to enrich 'the elite' both financially and politically, yet few ever question it and fewer still would ever believe it.
Eisenhower, Kennedy and many many others holding positions of power have throughout the past century+ warned us of a 'Deep State/Global Elite'.
Again, and despite the ''proof'', few choose to believe.
Maybe it's just too painful for many to accept that they are being taken for fools.


I think where we and others depart from this isn't in the reality that there is an elite who control the functions of power....that is self evident. From Kings and Emperors and their mandarins to today's EU and corporations.

The difference is where you believe that they work in coordination with each other towards some global goal....outside of a conspiracy to protect their own power and control I'm not seeing it.

I'm eager to see this 'proof' of a conspiracy. I'm always open to evidence.

What those past presidents were hinting at wasn't collusion but those in power within the state blocking the democratic will and working towards their own ends.
But global conspiracies are way off....It's just the same old same old.

You see, I don't believe human beings are good at conspiracies in large numbers.

It's like that old 'Jewish conspiracy' thing...Which I hasten to add I'm not accusing you of here. But it's an interesting thing to comment on in light of this....conspiracy point.

The reason that Jews are on top in many important professions is that, as a group, they are smarter than other groups. Their average IQ is ten points higher than the average of one hundred.

The Jews were prosecuted more than any other group in history. Not for them the silly counter productive 'protection' from so called allies on the left. They were butchered and excluded. They developed strategies that ensured that stopped happening.

So, to counter this they fitted into the cultures they inhabited but still kept their cultures internally. They concentrated on education and by working together collected enough money to gain positions in finance...which means you have to be needed.

If there was a 'conspiracy' that was what it was.

Hard work.
Taking on and becoming the host culture.
Massive focus upon education and 'switched on' professions (environment affects genes..genes are passed on...affects aggregate over generations)
Focusing upon pivotal societal professions.

Result success.

Sub sections of Asians and the Chinese are also showing that all or part of these cultural mindsets push you ahead of cultures with lower expectations.

What happens when you end up with more of the pie than others....You get demonised by less successful cultures and individuals who believe in equality of outcome.

I'm often accused by the gormless of these boards that I'm a racist or whatever other insult they want to apply....but essentially I'm happy to have people like the Jews here in high numbers. They fit in and become the culture, they work hard and they generally improve standards.

Any person like that is welcome here.


Edited by Stirlingsays (30 Oct 2017 1.45pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 30 Oct 17 1.48pm

Originally posted by elgrande

Well why if they had that sort of know then to do that,why has it not evolved to take man further...1969,get your head round that,almost 50 years ago..I was 10 and as gobsmacked as any kid watching it on tv(or was I).

Edited by elgrande (29 Oct 2017 4.14pm)

The next step is a very big one. The moon is ridiculously close (at 250,000 or so miles) - Apollo 11 was in flight for 8 days.

The next feasible step would be Mars - Which would take about five years to get to.

Both NASA and the Soviet effectively wasted money on man space flights, realistically, when most of the important discoveries are produced by unmanned missions.

 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Yellow Card - User has been warned of conduct on the messageboards View Hrolf The Ganger's Profile Hrolf The Ganger Flag 30 Oct 17 1.49pm Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger Add Hrolf The Ganger as a friend

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Not me, unlike the conspiracy brigade, I'm referring to an expert. I wouldn't call them skeptics, as skeptics respond to evidence. When in doubt, I read what experts in a field have to say.

[Link]

Popular Mechanics is a reasonable source.


Edited by jamiemartin721 (30 Oct 2017 1.40pm)

Despite the chatter, I think most would be astonished if we didn't go. You couldn't risk being caught out in such a complex lie. It would be way more damaging than killing a President.
From what I have been told, the Moon landings are a triviality compared to some of the good stuff. TV has to have something to fill all those channels with.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Ray in Houston's Profile Ray in Houston Flag Houston 30 Oct 17 5.00pm Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston Add Ray in Houston as a friend

Originally posted by matthau

For starters they can abolish income tax. Taxes for everything out there. Forego that one and if anything raise vat. Let people choose to buy a can of coke for 3 quid if they want. But let people earn decent money even in the lower paid jobs.

Sales tax-based revenue is incredibly regressive. Lower income families spend almost every penny they earn, whereas higher income families don't. So the tax rates paid by the wealthy will be a fraction of the tax rate paid by the poor.

It's one of the reasons why tax cuts don't stimulate the economy and/or "trickle down". If you give a tax cut to a person who spends every penny they earn, they will feed that extra cash directly back into the economy by spending it or using it to pay down debt (which increases that person's spending power over time). If you give a tax cut to a person who already has more money than they can spend, they just toss it on the pile of unspent money they already have.

It has been shown over various efforts at this over the years - particularly since the 1980s - that a dollar of tax cuts adds about 30 cents to the economy, because 70 cents just gets banked. Conversely, a dollar of stimulus adds about a dollar-forty to the economy, because it gets injected into the economy at the bottom and percolates up generating more value as it goes.

The grand age of the US middle class was in the 1950s. At that time, the top rate of tax was 85%. That money was spent on infrastructure, amongst other things - building roads and bridges that benefitted communities and business - and it generated wealth for a brad cross-section of the population. And the rich did very nicely too, thankyouverymuch.

 


We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
hedgehog50 Flag Croydon 30 Oct 17 5.31pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

Sales tax-based revenue is incredibly regressive. Lower income families spend almost every penny they earn, whereas higher income families don't. So the tax rates paid by the wealthy will be a fraction of the tax rate paid by the poor.

It's one of the reasons why tax cuts don't stimulate the economy and/or "trickle down". If you give a tax cut to a person who spends every penny they earn, they will feed that extra cash directly back into the economy by spending it or using it to pay down debt (which increases that person's spending power over time). If you give a tax cut to a person who already has more money than they can spend, they just toss it on the pile of unspent money they already have.

It has been shown over various efforts at this over the years - particularly since the 1980s - that a dollar of tax cuts adds about 30 cents to the economy, because 70 cents just gets banked. Conversely, a dollar of stimulus adds about a dollar-forty to the economy, because it gets injected into the economy at the bottom and percolates up generating more value as it goes.

The grand age of the US middle class was in the 1950s. At that time, the top rate of tax was 85%. That money was spent on infrastructure, amongst other things - building roads and bridges that benefitted communities and business - and it generated wealth for a brad cross-section of the population. And the rich did very nicely too, thankyouverymuch.

I agree with you for once, income tax is far fairer than the likes of VAT and other indirect tax (although petrol tax is probably an exception as the more you use the more you pay).

 


We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Ray in Houston's Profile Ray in Houston Flag Houston 31 Oct 17 3.56pm Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston Add Ray in Houston as a friend

Originally posted by hedgehog50

I agree with you for once, income tax is far fairer than the likes of VAT and other indirect tax (although petrol tax is probably an exception as the more you use the more you pay).

Everyone hates that the tax code is so complicated, but it's necessary to have a series of tax methods because if you pick just one - say, income - then people will quickly figure a way around it.

In the US, we have a hated thing called "Alternative Minimum Tax" which is a crude catch-all that is there to make sure that people don't engineer a whole raft of deductions from "income" and cut their tax bill to below what the IRS thinks is right. I got hit with it once, not because I made a lot of money, but because I paid two years' of property taxes on my home in the same income tax year. That was too large a deduction from income so...boom! AMT. It hurt.

Trump has famously declined to release his tax returns, but one year did "leak", being 2005, in which Trump paid about 36.5 million in taxes on 153 million of income. That's a tax rate of 24%, which is reasonable or robbery depending on your views on taxes.

BUT, what the return showed was that this number was made up almost entirely of AMT, because his computed tax liability was only 5.3 million, or 3.5%. I don't care who you are, paying 3.5% on 153 million of income is wrong. I'm sure you'll be shocked to hear that Trump's tax reform includes eliminating AMT.

AMT is a nightmare, but without it those with money to spend on tax accountants etc. can avoid (not evade) paying taxes, leaving an incrementally larger tax burden on everyone else.

One last comment on using a single tax source: Texas is one of only two states that does not charge a state income tax - that you pay in addition to Federal income tax but which amount is deductible from your income for Federal tax purposes. Putting the entire tax burden on property owners is a nightmare, because the state decides what is the taxable value of your property. So, basically, they make up a number that you have to pay every year, year after year, until you die. Most other states use a combination of income tax and property tax, which is why I shall be leaving Texas the moment I retire.

Example: the property tax rate in the city of Houston (because there are local property taxes as well as state taxes) is 2.5%. That's what you have to pay every year on the value of your home. So if your house is worth 200,000, that's 5,000, or 416/month.

But what if there's a boom in house prices? Next year the state can say your house is now worth 220,000, so your tax bill has gone up 10% even though your income may not have matched that acceleration. So you just got a little poorer. And then next year, the same. And each year after that until you can no longer afford to live in a house that you may have long paid off. It's insidious.

 


We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 34 of 34 << First< 30 31 32 33 34

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Las Vegas shootings