paul's got wright Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 you. well you are wrong then x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Sorry, forgot you're not strong on evidence-based opinions. And for that reason, I'm out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 how could you forget something that isn't true? that doesn't make any sense bobbie x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted August 30, 2015 Author Share Posted August 30, 2015 Gerry, do you understand that Inmarsat's main business model is shipping? So the rocket just crashes, and what about the satellite which cost around £250 million, is that fake too? Where does the money actually go? All going on in a PLC with audited accounts, tracked by analysts, paying dividends to its shareholders. Why would it do this, at huge expense, for what purpose? Why would its shareholders allow it to get away with this waste? It's a PLC anyone can buy shares in it. This is the trouble with Gerry - he thinks THEY control everything and everyone. Immarsat is not some innocent public listed shipping company its an ex governmental organisation, read from their blurb.. "Our business has grown strongly since 1999 when we became the first intergovernmental organisation to transform into a private company, later floating on the London Stock Exchange (LSE: ISAT.L) in 2005." They will be doing nothing more than what they were doing whilst an intergovernmental organisation and that is installing "land based" technology and claiming the technology it satellite based. Just think about it, if the earth is flat then this is the kind of company that has everything to lose from it being so, they will be exposed as a total fraud. Looking at their activities since 1979 they have been involved in nearly every Government activitiy that people like me have questions about, they have been involved in everything to do with keeping the globe lie alive, they are status quo through and through. I am sure if they were around in 1969 then they would of had a hand in the moon landings. I doubt they will be loading up a 250 million dollar piece of equipment onto the rocket, as I said earlier the rockets hold no payload and no humans, they are empty shells fired into the sea and quickly recovered, as in this case probably the south China sea. Take a look at their launch video here, there are a couple of glaringly obvious problems with it, see anything wrong with it?....anyone....bueller...bueller...bueller. The sea is a great place hundreds of miles from land where no one is around to see the recovery of the shell. Have you noticed how NASA use a similar technique, I particularly like the latest astronauts return to Earth from the ISS, the question when watching the footage was why is the filming done from so far away, why are military helicopters circling the area of "barren" ocean where these actors have just come down from the cargo plane that just dumped them out for the parachute spectacle that we all see here.. I fully understand your point, why would a PLC be involved with such fraud, I agree why would one be, well its not a good example of a PLC being in on the cover-up, its a satellite telecommunications company that was for its first 20 years an intergovernmental organisation. What could be better for a gatekeeper for such a topic than an intergovernmental organisation? They are no doubt developing technology, but just better and more efficient LAND based communications technology, the share holders are going to be none the wiser are they.. Five market-facing business units Our global sales and marketing activities are operated through five market-facing business units: Inmarsat Maritime, focusing on worldwide commercial maritime opportunities Inmarsat U.S. Government, focusing on US government opportunities, both military and civil Inmarsat Global Government, focusing on worldwide (i.e. non-US) civil and military government opportunities Inmarsat Enterprise, focusing on worldwide enterprise, energy, media and M2M opportunities. Inmarsat Aviation, focusing on in-flight voice, data, safety services and cabin connectivity, for both business and commercial air transport. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 So tell us oh expert in fakery and conspiracy what are the glaringly obvious problems with it? Is it that the clouds don't move? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevster Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Have you noticed how NASA use a similar technique, I particularly like the latest astronauts return to Earth from the ISS, the question when watching the footage was why is the filming done from so far away, why are military helicopters circling the area of "barren" ocean where these actors have just come down from the cargo plane that just dumped them out for the parachute spectacle that we all see here..Have you noticed how NASA use a similar technique, I particularly like the latest astronauts return to Earth from the ISS, the question when watching the footage was why is the filming done from so far away, why are military helicopters circling the area of "barren" ocean where these actors have just come down from the cargo plane that just dumped them out for the parachute spectacle that we all see here.. Astronauts returning from the ISS don't land in the sea. They use to use the shuttle (now defunct), but now use Russian craft that have always parachuted onto land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted August 30, 2015 Author Share Posted August 30, 2015 Yes you are correct it was a deserted desert in Kazakhstan and not the sea, I had sea on the mind, due to the recent launch trajectory. The distance and helicopters circling were correct in my memory though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevster Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Yes you are correct it was a deserted desert in Kazakhstan and not the sea, I had sea on the mind, due to the recent launch trajectory. The distance and helicopters circling were correct in my memory though... Gerry, There is not a big X on the ground where the capsule will land - there is a fairly large area of where the actual landing will be, hence them coming down in a large unpopulated area like a desert (or the ocean for older US landings). No big conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al-T Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 I can't understand how someone can believe that we have all the technology to fake this shit, but not have it to actually do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Being able to predict where a landing will be to a 30 km area when you are slowing down from 27,600 kph to zero is pretty impressive, but Gerry just dismisses it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 One for Gerry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted August 31, 2015 Author Share Posted August 31, 2015 I can't understand how someone can believe that we have all the technology to fake this shit, but not have it to actually do it.Have you considered the possibility that faking it may take considerably less resources and technical support than actually doing it. Viz...a film production on an earthly set played back at half speed takes little technology in comparison to the hazards of the journey...the need to send an empty shell, a prop into the sea a couple of thousand miles away in comparison to a complex space journey with living people on board... The view I have is that they cannot actually do it, because it is not actually possible to be done. Reason being and also the theme of the topic is.....the model of the universe, that was planted into our reality is very wrong. You cannot take a rocket to the lights in the sky when you are inside a much bigger version of the Truman show, you could however pretend that you did though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 So is the tiny moon and sun, 5000km up or whatever, inside the glass sphere or outside it? Why can't we send a rocket up to explore these tiny objects? Or do you really think it is impossible to send a rocket even 5000km - you are aware of ICBM tests aren't you? Even North Korea can fire missiles 1000s of km. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Here's a lovely example of lunar parallax. For more details of the Amateur astronomers who took these photos see here. And another even prettier one is here. Gerry has to dismiss these results as fake as they show really clear evidence of how far away the moon is. Gerry (and a friend) could take these measurements themselves just next month. There's a lunar eclipse on the 28th of September . It is a relatively simple exercise to take a photo of the moon at totality with stars visible in the night sky. If you do this with places separated far enough away there is a noticeable shift in the position of the moon. Gerry cannot explain this, and has to pretend it's fake, but it is something anyone could easily do in their back gardens. There is no way a conspiracy could keep the parallax of the moon secret. Any two motivated people could measure it. But Gerry prefers to hide in his conspiracies than actually make some effort to examine real evidence. Gerry's model of the universe is provably wrong, but he simply dismisses any evidence that shows this as fake. Gerry, how could a conspiracy stop you taking a photo of the moon from your garden and comparing it with a photo taken by a friend living in say the US? The moon is hundreds of thousands of kilometers away. Really. Or are you going to keep covering your eyes whenever you are faced with evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.