.jpg){kind=small}
May I present to you images 0:07 and 0:10 ? - What is so spectacular about these photos? Well, very interesting photo images for sure. First of all, 0:10man on the moon has his full gear on. Bulky and he looks like the Goodyear Man - round and ready to head to Ole' Man Winter. It is really cold on the moon and they say that the "surface temperature" is about 200 Degrees Farenheith early lunar morning and about 350 - 400 degrees Farenheith during a lunar day. At least from data that has been gathered so far. But Photo at 0:07 Says otherwise. It says you do not need a helmet to breathe with or in need of a full suit in order to not freeze to death either - or burn from the sun's radiational rays.
What you see on 0:07 is the Interior suit. The orange suit or inner liner suit. You do not see the backpack with the oxygen tanks and you do not see the helmet like you see on 0:10 . What you do see is someone with a set of hair. Not necessarily someone that went to the moon - I'm not saying they didn't either - but someone that has access and took precautionary measures to "veil" any coincidences that would pinpoint to a lunar "side job' for reasons other than "presenting the entire truth".
I do believe we went to the moon. But I also believe that they understood the need to replicate certain areal flyby lunar missions in order to "enhance" the "visible" by making it "invisible". What do I mean by that - "visible" and "invisible"? What is visible is what is seen with the natural "eye lens" - unretouched. What is "invisible" is what is NOT seen with the natural "eye lens", but rather a "Replication" of what they know is there, but "without the undisclosed truth".
A Replication is something that is "reconstructed". A Duplication is something that is made readily available without having to reconstruct. You just simply provide the duplicate. But in this case the "replicate" becomes "their" duplicate. Even on live national television. So I say say to my audience, I do not doubt out trip to the moon. I believe we were there without any reasonable doubt. But I do question the "validty" of many of the images presented here. There are many more where they came from.
The rest of the images are a compilation of moon photos, but some may not be of the real moon. Best way to keep your eyes from the truth is to "divert" the "real" truth by creating "make-believe" scenarios. Create another moon to prove there are no bases on the moon, "shards" and "castles" and other thing that shouldn't be there for the public to see. Or "making" shards and castles for the public to see, creating a distraction form something else. You have to see both sides from opposite views. There is always "TWO SIDES" for every side of "the coin".
And as always, I'm only presenting "that" which has been found and "now" it has "always been left up to you to decide" what the "real" truth is. It doesn't happen overnight, but it begins with an open mind.
What you see on 0:07 is the Interior suit. The orange suit or inner liner suit. You do not see the backpack with the oxygen tanks and you do not see the helmet like you see on 0:10 . What you do see is someone with a set of hair. Not necessarily someone that went to the moon - I'm not saying they didn't either - but someone that has access and took precautionary measures to "veil" any coincidences that would pinpoint to a lunar "side job' for reasons other than "presenting the entire truth".
I do believe we went to the moon. But I also believe that they understood the need to replicate certain areal flyby lunar missions in order to "enhance" the "visible" by making it "invisible". What do I mean by that - "visible" and "invisible"? What is visible is what is seen with the natural "eye lens" - unretouched. What is "invisible" is what is NOT seen with the natural "eye lens", but rather a "Replication" of what they know is there, but "without the undisclosed truth".
A Replication is something that is "reconstructed". A Duplication is something that is made readily available without having to reconstruct. You just simply provide the duplicate. But in this case the "replicate" becomes "their" duplicate. Even on live national television. So I say say to my audience, I do not doubt out trip to the moon. I believe we were there without any reasonable doubt. But I do question the "validty" of many of the images presented here. There are many more where they came from.
The rest of the images are a compilation of moon photos, but some may not be of the real moon. Best way to keep your eyes from the truth is to "divert" the "real" truth by creating "make-believe" scenarios. Create another moon to prove there are no bases on the moon, "shards" and "castles" and other thing that shouldn't be there for the public to see. Or "making" shards and castles for the public to see, creating a distraction form something else. You have to see both sides from opposite views. There is always "TWO SIDES" for every side of "the coin".
And as always, I'm only presenting "that" which has been found and "now" it has "always been left up to you to decide" what the "real" truth is. It doesn't happen overnight, but it begins with an open mind.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário
Escreva, sinta-se à vontade para expor suas idéias.