5
clemaneuverers 5 points ago +5 / -0

It has quite a few illustrations but nothing that would prevent listening as an audio book. You can always consult the book later to see a described illustration don't know if one is available though. There is also a condensed version of the book available, edited by the authors themselves:

http://library.lol/main/CB6282F334A6AD1A2A09D18FAD9EA24C

8
clemaneuverers 8 points ago +8 / -0

Should be of no surprise to anyone who has read "Forbidden Archeology" by Richard Thompson and Michael Cremo:

http://library.lol/main/93704922E8126096B0D5898D2D844890

The axes are attributed to an "unknown hominid species" in the article since humans like us were not supposed to be around back then. But if you read Forbidden Archeology you'll understand it was probably humans very much like us modern humans. In most respects biologically equivalent.

4
clemaneuverers 4 points ago +4 / -0

Anatoly Fomenko is probably the Russian mathematician you read, or someone talking about his work. He has a whole series of books about this theory, under the collected title "The New Chronology". I downloaded them all once, but never got round to reading any.

Recently there was also a series of long articles talking similar ground, on the Unz Review, by an anonymous author "The First Millennium Revisionist":

https://www.unz.com/author/first-millennium-revisionist/

Something seems a little bit off about the whole thing to me, but there you go.

7
clemaneuverers 7 points ago +7 / -0

Hermann Wieland is a pen name for the school teacher and author Karl Weinländer (1870–1946). I am currently reading this book, which was only made available for the first time in English in 2016 - after being apparently buried and banned by the Allies after the resolution of WW2. You can read a little about him at metapedia (in German):

https://de.metapedia.org/wiki/Weinl%C3%A4nder,_Karl

It's pretty amazing how this book, published almost exactly 100 years ago, tackles the same area as the recent Hancock Netflix series, but actually goes far beyond Hancock's treatment. Sure, Hancock has more recent evidence, but nothing he says really contradicts what is in this book. In fact Hancock is like Wieland-lite!

Audio book:

https://archive.org/details/hermann-wieland-atlantis-edda-bible-audiobook

PDF:

https://archive.org/details/aebhw25

2
clemaneuverers 2 points ago +3 / -1

it is pointless for flat earthers, yes. It's full of facts and compelling evidence.

4
clemaneuverers [M] 4 points ago +5 / -1

The beginning of the documentary has been edited out. The first 3 minutes or so of the documentary has been cut, and a "rain man" logo and a flat earth message added. "Rain Man" had nothing to do with the creation of this documentary, and the real creators are not flat earthers. Please watch the full documenary as intended to be seen here:

What Happened on the Moon? part 1

What Happened on the Moon? part 2

0
clemaneuverers 0 points ago +1 / -1

https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre_menu.php?gen=3

An explanation about why the 9/11 video and radar analysis was undertaken

Rich explains the further research he did - using radar info - after OP's video. VERY IMPORTANT TO WATCH THIS.

9/11 disinfo and lack of evidence of planes

Working out what really happened has been a difficult journey for most honest researchers. This is because there are as many "muddle up merchants" operating in 9/11 research as there are genuine truth seekers. The muddle up merchants have been trying to discredit all of the video footage, some of which provides clues to what really happened. Evidence that passenger jet planes were used in any of the four attacks is slim to non existent. Today Richard is joined by Mark Conlon and Andrew Johnson who dispel some of the dis-information and hence get closer to the truth on the 9/11 plane issue.

4
clemaneuverers [M] 4 points ago +5 / -1

This video by Rich Hall is old. He and Andrew Johnson did further research and no longer fully support much of the theories put forward by Simon Shack / September Clues. In fact most of what Shack says in those films has been completely dismissed by both Rich and Andrew as demonstrable lies and knowing ignorance by Shack.

For example Rich did an analysis of the radar information later and determined the info matches the path of both planes, and the "ball" follows the trajectory of the plane radar too. There of course remains the possibility that the planes are not what they seem, The ball thing has not been explained. But this is not proven by September Clues at all. Live Chroma Key effects were not used on live tv on 9/11 to cover up a "ball". See the videos on this channel about September Clues for detailed debunking:

https://www.bitchute.com/channel/7lgjW62bk5h9/

In fact it is believed by some of these guys that Simon Shack was a paid disinfo operator, due to his fathers connection to the UN and his repeated ignorance of communications that showed his theories to be bunk.

It has been demonstrated that Simon Shack uses creative editing to remove shots or cut them short, which contradict and thus disprove the theory he is propounding on screen. There is convincing analysis of the "nose out" footage, using photographs from other angles, that the "nose" is actually explosive ejaculation from the opposite side of the building. Please look at Mark Conlon's channel above and also Rich Planets website, specifically ALL his 9/11 videos.

Also Andrew Johnsons website - neither Andrew or Rich support Simon Shack any more and have determined him to be a liar, unserious researcher or even a disinfo plant:

https://www.richplanet.net/

https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpress/

0
clemaneuverers 0 points ago +1 / -1

Yes it's worth the watch. A bit long for one sitting but you can split it into sections. The highlights are the his tackling of historical context at the start where he establishes the reasons why NASA would almost be compelled to fake the missions if they could not do them for real. He also makes a convincing argument for why the Russians would play along. He does some good research.

And then section at the end where he presents the photos to various professional photographers who have never before studied the images with the intention of seeing if they were real or not.

The director's story is he was a big fan of the moon landings when young and had some big poster of one image in his room. He became a professional photographer himself and later rediscovered his poster and noticed hotspots and light fall-off that he was by then familiar with in studio photography with artificial light source.

0
clemaneuverers 0 points ago +1 / -1

Sorry buddy, I believe in objective truth. You guys construct a fantasy built from "FE proofs". But don't worry, that's it from me. I'm not engaging with this stuff again.

0
clemaneuverers 0 points ago +2 / -2

For anyone else who might be reading these comments, I don't agree with even one sentence 925thejoyisgone has typed above. But I'm not wasting any more time or mental effort engaging with this delusional wrong-headedness.

0
clemaneuverers 0 points ago +1 / -1

The diagram here shows potentially why the earth would not appear to be spinning in the footage (whether is was real, or faked to look real):

https://curiosmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Artemis-I-NASA-The-Trajectory-scaled.jpg

Artemis doesn't approach the earth in a straight line, it follows an arched trajectory gradually getting lower/closer to the earth. If it is travelling in the same direction as the rotation of the planet, then depending on artemus speed the planet's spin would be relatively imperceptible . Also the compressed nature of the footage needs to be taken into account. Perhaps some small movement is detectable in the raw footage.

Like I said, even if the footage is fake they would be likely to account for this and have the footage show it - ie. have it show the planet hardly moving, if at all.

2
clemaneuverers 2 points ago +3 / -1

might need to take a muscle relaxant of some kind first before they get a tesla up there.

1
clemaneuverers 1 point ago +2 / -1

You assume 50km up you should see the earth spinning. An arbitrarily chosen distance. Why? Of course there is no such thing as magically floating to that height to check, free from need for energy to get there and insulated from physical influence. You have to name how you get up there to see. lets take 2 examples: Let's take a light drone first. Why would a drone, say, flying straight upwards only, not at the same time be moving (dragged) in the same rotational direction as the incredibly massive body it is gravitational linked to? It would appear to us on the ground to be flying straight upwards all the way. The planet would not spin away from it, it drags the thing with it.

And in the case where there is enough force to at least partially overcome the gravity force, like with a rocket: why then when Rockets are seen to shoot upwards into the sky with massive explosive force; why does their trail form a parabolic arc instead of just a straight line up into the sky? They only have one source of directional force, on the bottom. By your "logic", the trail should be seen to go straight upwards from the perspective of a person on the ground. But they don't.

As to pixelated artifacts and photoshop layers - I presume you are using the compressed OP video? Which is itself a copy of a compressed video WHICH IS a sped up version of ANOTHER compressed video - All that compression and manipulation renders the argument null. If you are going to start arguing about layers and such you need to use the rawest files available - youtube uploads are subject to automatic compression. The video was also probably compressed before it was uploaded too.

And even then, evidence that editing software was used to render a video or image is not evidence that the footage is completely fake. I can film something, open it in adobe pro, compress it, render it, export it and show you the video. If you examine it you will find artifacts - evidence the video has been through editing software. But this is not evidence the footage filmed was faked. It is only evidence it has been opened and saved and exported from editing software.

1
clemaneuverers 1 point ago +2 / -1

keep telling yourself you have presented evidence

1
clemaneuverers 1 point ago +2 / -1

I don't have the time to waste on arguing with you, and I know it's pointless. Anyone can go through your comment and pick out the assumptions you claim as fact.

1
clemaneuverers 1 point ago +2 / -1

The topic is not manually being suppressed. The majority of people either don't vote on them, then the rest down-vote them and a dedicated bunch of FE users upvote absolutely anything FE related no matter how shit.

They only have a lot of comments because some naive users here think it's possible to engage FE people in good faith discussion or that they may be reasoned with.

When you or any other FE type present some actual proof of the Artemis hoax I will be the first to congratulate you. So far, you've presented only ignorance and vague assumptions.

0
clemaneuverers 0 points ago +1 / -1

That's not what I am arguing at all. I'm arguing that you are not proving anything simply by saying how you assume it should look. You claimed the video was proof. It's not, just some guy watching another video picture in picture and reacting to it.

-2
clemaneuverers -2 points ago +1 / -3

How do you know the movement of the shadow would register at that distance and resolution over the period of time the video lasts? How far away is that shot supposed to be from? You simply don't know what it should look like at all. Everything is assumption.

view more: Next ›