/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4372325]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZHoUVn0i8

http://www.moonpublicity.com/mp/


What do?

[Anonymous No.4372335]

">That feel when no gf" most go on there.

[Anonymous No.4372339]

>Never in the history of advertising has the possibility of penetrating every market on Earth, reaching every person on the planet, and touching them at emotional level only possible with the beauty of the moon on a starlit night, been made available. Twelve billion eyeballs looking at your logo in the sky for several days every month for the next several thousand years.

[Anonymous No.4372365]

Would be fucking awesome.
Why aren't we doing this already?
We have the technology and it would be profitable for companies.

[Anonymous No.4372377]

>>4372365

Because this stupid shit is the cancer of humanity.

[Jorden !!G4PRZAuF6i6 No.4372385]

>>4372365
>would be fucking awesome

no, I like my moon just fine the way it's. Last thing i want is a giant fucking billboard on my moon thus removing the night sky

[Anonymous No.4372390]

When i read the The Big picture on the second site i felt retarded. How will advertising get us to other worlds?

>That feel when you advertise on Mars and nobody can see it

[Anonymous No.4372398]

Fucking hell, I hate humanity.

[Anonymous No.4372409]

Moon is just useless desert.
Why shouldn't we use it for advertising?

[Anonymous No.4372424]

>>4372409
For the same reason that we have forest preserves. Preservation of nature.

[Anonymous No.4372426]

This makes me so angry I can't even think straight.

[Anonymous No.4372435]

>>4372409
Because 7 billion years of natural process cleared away in just a few years for something so imbecilic.

[Anonymous No.4372458]

>>4372435
We've seen the moon for long enough as it is now.
And we could still look at pictures of the old moon.
Since I never leave my basement anyways, I don't care.

[Anonymous No.4372468]

>>4372385
>giant fucking billboard on my moon thus removing the night sky
'removing'? What?

>>4372365
why would this be 'awesome'?
Do you really love advertising so much you want to see that logo forever?

As far as 'great for companies' -- who many do you think would do this?
How many would the visible surface accommodate clearly?

I figure only a few could fit, and only two or three have the chutzpah.

Remember, douschie, it cannot be undone.

[Anonymous No.4372480]

No company would do it. The people who would be horrified by it would outnumber the people who would be impressed by it.

[Anonymous No.4372483]

>>4372468
It can be undone. Just overwrite it.

[Anonymous No.4372487]

>>4372365
>"Why aren't we doing this already?"

F'in moron.

>>4372409
You ask like you benefit in some way.
It doesn't benefit you, or anyone you know, to have such a thing.
It would deface the most permanent natural object we all see for the pride of just one company; which very likely would get so much backlash it wouldn't even exist the following year.

You're supporting creating an ad for a company that may not exist -- how stupid will you feel?

[Anonymous No.4372490]

>>4372480
>implying people would stop buying a product of a company big enough to afford moon ads

[Anonymous No.4372491]

>>4372483
Wow; when other people have to do all the work, you certainly throw it around like it is effortless.

OK, you and OP go do this.
Now, Personally.

"omigod, we were actually supposed to learn shit in school? Someone should have told us!"

[Anonymous No.4372499]

>>4372487
The moon is big enough for several different companies.
http://www.moonpublicity.com/mp/regions/guide/guide

[Anonymous No.4372502]

>>4372490
You assume all companies are juggernauts,
and their margins are too huge for regular people to affect?

Lots of big companies have failed just because they didn't meet margins well enough.

[Anonymous No.4372507]

>>4372409
>>4372365

[Anonymous No.4372529]

>>4372499
yes; and how many companies have tried to make anything like a structure or a design over such a large area?

think hard, now, because I want you to really realize how stupid this company expects you to be.
They haven't got a robot, a delivery system, or ANY kind of technology; they wrote a patent.
They haven't got experts to throw up, or expertise, or any funding.
But they expect you to believe they can landscape 1 million square kilometers.

You'll notice in their concept art and statements they express little understanding of how deep furrows would have to be, and none at all of actually changing what is done afterward (an eraser tool). They simply animated a little texturing robot and hope you'll be satisfied with the sparkle.

[Anonymous No.4372576]

Fuck yea, why the fuck not?

[Anonymous No.4372598]

I just wouldn't look at the moon anymore.

[Anonymous No.4372604]

>>4372576
You can always tell the young ones, who have no real sense of time, space, expense, or regret.

And who never care as long as everyone else does the work.

[Anonymous No.4372607]

>>4372604
wat

[Anonymous No.4372620]

Lauda Dianna, luna dea.

[Anonymous No.4372625]

>>4372576
Because some people think the moon is beautiful as a natural object; any design on it would remove that.
Because it reveals humanity's starkly ugly natures:
that we respond to advertising, find comfort in branding, and choose sides over things as unimportant as marketing.
It shows short-sightedness and purposeless competition.
It is as ugly and pointless as tagging, permanent, and would affect everybody on the planet.

[Anonymous No.4372636]

You know what would be less intrusive?
For Pepsi to genetically engineer a logo on the foreheads of every child born for a year, without asking.

Having to deal with this invasive logo that everyone can see, which is new but doesn't add, and reminds people every day of a product, of branding, of competition, price, expenses, of being unable to choose, subject to the whims of some big dumb company.

That is much LESS invasive than what would happen to the moon.

[Anonymous No.4372662]

At first I was like, "no don't fuck with my moooooon!!"

But now I think it would be a good thing.
How many people out there STILL think we never went to the moon?
How many people look at the stars and just see dots that you can connect to make constellations.

Putting something on the moon that is manmade and could be seen with the naked eye would be a constant reminder to people that we have been in space, and that it is not just a beautiful circle in the sky but an actual massive body being held to earth by gravity which is not "heavenly" it is something within our grasp and can be touched by humans.

Basically it would make space seem more real for more people, and would put the idea of space travel into our minds every single night.

[Anonymous No.4372671]

>>4372662

[Anonymous No.4372684]

>>4372662
We could also blow the moon up so people will see the moon was real.

[Anonymous No.4372688]

>>4372662
Wouldn't that be done with just about any visible structure?
Why does it have to be advertising, permanent, and pie-in-the-sky stupid?

[Anonymous No.4372693]

>>4372688

Because money

[Anonymous No.4372745]

>>4372529
> They haven't got a robot, a delivery system, or ANY kind of technology; they wrote a patent.

Precisely. This is an empty proposal. Nobody will do it since it costs too much fucking money. To send any hardware to the moon and then expect it to function enough to re-shape that much lunar surface, would cost so many billions of dollars that earth-based advertising would be chosen instead.

Stop thinking about the science and the outraaaaage and start recognizing instead that IT'S THE MONEY, STUPID. Nobody's gonna spend that much to just make a stupid fucking ad.

[Anonymous No.4372778]

My dream: inscribe a triangle inside one of the near facing craters, as an eternal monument to mankind.

[Anonymous No.4372983]

>>4372778
because, you know, triangles are so emblematic
of mankind


I was waiting for someone to talk about the orientation problems of a logo

[Anonymous No.4373008]

The people crying about how it will deface the moon are missing the point. The guy that mentioned that the majority of people will be horrified by the prospect has it right on the ball.

As cool of an idea it is to actually make such a large structure that's testiment to the ability of mankind, people would hate it. And the company. Stocks would drop like crazy, people will boycott the products, you'd never survive the PR backlash that would occur.

I've got nothing against advertising, in some cases advertising is art. But this would just be crude and garish, in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.4373012]

>yfw when giant Apple logo on the Moon


I think that a peace sign would be nice though.

[Anonymous No.4373050]

There would immediately be a counter movement not to do business with the companies that advertise.

[Anonymous No.4373064]

>>4373008
Here's why we should do it...say humans kill themselves totally and then the next thing like monkeys (new humans), ants, birds, dolphins or whatever become intelligent. They have their Roman period, their Jesus, the middle ages, then as they advance to where we are now they start to wonder if there was ever any intelligent life on the planet like we wonder now. Cause all the cities and roads will not last more than 2000 yearsaccording to that documentary on the history channel a few years ago.

If we put something like a triangle on the moon (btw, to the guy above me triangles ARE symbolic of mankind because of pyrimids. Then the next form of intelligent life will know that we existed. Maybe we should bury some people there cause they won't decay under zero G and they can see what we looked like. Of course...only if their governments don't hide the fact...but the beauty of this is that the governments of ants, dolphins, or even a combination (that would be interesting) could NEVER hide it due to the fact that it has been in the sky for their entire civilization.

[Anonymous No.4373069]

They should just colorize the moon.

[Anonymous No.4373116]

>>4373064

> triangles ARE symbolic of mankind because of pyrimids
>cause they won't decay under zero G

Negroid, I inquire.

[Anonymous No.4373117]

>>4373064
I can't imagine ants forming intelligent civilizations any time soon...

[Anonymous No.4373119]

Reported everyone ITT for cancer.

[Anonymous No.4373125]

>>4373064
Haha. Zero G.

[Anonymous No.4373127]

>>4373116
Im actually mixed, so you can just forget about the racist things youre gonna say next. That's also a hateful word to use but Im not surprised to hear it on this site anymore.

[Anonymous No.4373130]

>>4373125
I dont understand though...Isn't that how they bury people here on earth? They take away all the air so that the oxygen cant make the body rot.

[Anonymous No.4373149]

>>4373130
>>4373127

You must be trolling.

You must. It is impossible for you to be serious.

[Anonymous No.4373155]

>>4373008
>The people crying about how it will deface the moon are missing the point.
The guy that mentioned that the majority of people will be horrified by the prospect has it right on the ball.

How do you find those different?
The people calling it defacement are horrified; the people who are horrified are so because it is defacement.

[Anonymous No.4373178]

>>4373130
zero g means zero gravity. There is not a lack of gravity in a coffin

[Anonymous No.4373179]

>>4373064
>then as they advance to where we are now they start to wonder if there was ever any intelligent life on the planet like we wonder now.
You're saying we should prepare to leave a perpetual signpost, rather than expect to solve our problems, spread outward, or put a monument where it can be reached?

>triangles ARE symbolic of mankind because of pyrimids.
That doesn't make any sense; they are another symbol, but they aren't symnbols about men at all, and they weren't made that way because of a triangle, but because of squares.

>Maybe we should bury some people there cause they won't decay under zero G
The moon isn't zero-g; it's only a sixth of our gravity.
Decay doesn't happen because of gravity.
Maybe you mean the lack of humidity or atmospheric pressure, but then you end up with scrabbly dry husks.

>could NEVER hide it due to the fact that it has been in the sky for their entire civilization.
The triangle. Not the bodies, or any reason to think the triangle was put there by people on this planet.
That civ would know that someone put a triangle on their moon; every other fact would be subject to whoever went to find more evidence.

[Anonymous No.4373181]

>>4373178
I thought it meant no air? Well yeah, I didnt mean no gravity obviously. I know the moon has less gravity on it than the earth but not zero of course. I meant to say that there is no air on the moon, so the people wouldnt decay.

[Anonymous No.4373190]

>>4373179
hey, i think we should still solve our problems right? But sometimes its not a bad idea to do something more fun like this. Maybe the triangle (or something else, doesn'r matter) will even be a reminder of how great we are and how it would be bad to lose what we've done so far. Maybe that could at least help to stop wars.

[Anonymous No.4373191]

>>4373181
Well, if you want a decent symbol about mankind, maybe the Pioneer plaque, without the location stuff?
Would necessarily have to be much larger than the triangle (which could be very small).

[Anonymous No.4373194]

>>4373155
I think that you meant to use a colon rather than a semicolon.

[Anonymous No.4373196]

>>4373190

Why put a triangle? Why not put.... anything else? Why a triangle?

Why would a triangle stop wars? Why would it.... do anything?

killeveryoneinthisthread.jpeg

[Anonymous No.4373199]

>>4373191
yeah thats cool. I was just going along with that other persons example.

[Anonymous No.4373213]

>>4373196
well, id say that a triangle isnt great itself, but its the fact that we went up there and made it thats important. After the moon landing, what evidence do we have that we've been there? Im not saying we haven't been there, but sometimes we forget because we cant see something on the moon from Earth that says, "hey, we actually went there". So I think that humans would be proud no matter what symbol was there and any symbol will tell the human replacements that we were there.

[Anonymous No.4373222]

>>4373213
This better?

[Anonymous No.4373234]

>>4373213

>After the moon landing, what evidence do we have that we've been there?

Well pictures for one. And I dont mean pictures from the surface, I mean pictures from space looking down on the sites.

>So I think that humans would be proud no matter what symbol was there

Why would you be proud of that?

Would you be proud if you cut down a sizeable amount of the forest in the shape of a triangle?

What I dont understand is why you would derive pride from such shallow self-affirming actions. Cant I just pat you on the back? I think inflicting a triangle onto everyone for all of forever is kind of a cost not worth a triangle. Fuck, why would anything be worth a triangle?

[Anonymous No.4373238]

>>4373222

[Anonymous No.4373242]

My first suggestion, if you want to elevate humanity a bit:
a pi symbol with circumference and radius

[Anonymous No.4373247]

>>4373234
what symbl do you think would be worth it then? I wouldnt do anything to the forests though, because it would kill living things. I guess both the forest and the moon people want to conserve but doing things to the moon at least wouldnt kill trees and animals

[Anonymous No.4373249]

WE NEED THIS

[Anonymous No.4373256]

I'm ok with this, provided its done only on the far side.

[Anonymous No.4373260]

>>4373242

Here is my idea. I'm just thinking about the children.

>>4373247

>what symbl do you think would be worth it then?

Nothing! Why would you put anything on the moon? Why would you ever inflict that onto everyone? If you have a message you would like to convey certainly there are more efficient ways than carving it into the moon.

[Anonymous No.4373269]

>>4373260
Its just one of many many moons. If the message helps get us off this planet i dont see why not to do it as long as it isn't an advertisement or something stupid.

[Anonymous No.4373280]

>>4373260
Just letting you know the first poster below you is not the guy youve been replying to. I actually gotta go now but its somthing to consider

[Anonymous No.4373284]

>>4373269

> If the message helps get us off this planet

Yeah but you dont know that. You have no idea what the repercussions would be other than that there would be a huge triangle. You have no reason to believe humans, as a whole, will respond in any particular way.

>i dont see why not to do it as long as it isn't an advertisement or something stupid.

Whats the difference between an advertisement, something stupid, and a huge fucking triangle? If you put ANYTHING up there, the purpose is to show the entire human race something, and as far as I am concerned that constitutes an advertisement.

[Anonymous No.4373298]

>>4373284

I am not the one who posted the stupid triangle. I posted this.

>>4373249

[Anonymous No.4373308]

>>4373284
Also you seem to be forgetting that any large structure built on the moon would be visible due to lack of atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.4373316]

>>4373308

Well yes, I recognize that. One structure, like the size of a house wouldnt be visible with the naked eye. I guess if we build an entire city on the moon it might become visible.

But I think at that point people are living there and the purpose of the structure isnt to be a faggot and show off your message to the world, but rather because being visible is just a side effect of living there.

[Anonymous No.4373324]

How about phobos and deimos instead? Those moons are ugly pieces of shit anyway. so no one should care, not even martian colonists.

[Anonymous No.4373360]

>Make huge add on the moon
>People are horrified at that eternal symbol of consumerism and capitalism
>Hippies and luddites gain momentum
>We will never leave the planet

[Lunatic !!IE/X7lbCDOY No.4373408]

>>4372325
>>4372325
The robot isn't going to make a logo that big. It could help characterize lunar regolith. They could potentially add some sensors to it too, and do some real science.

I'm ok with this.

Plus, if we ever develop the moon, it's look is going to change.

[Anonymous No.4373417]

>>4373408
>The robot isn't going to make a logo that big

Just because its not very big doesnt justify its existence.

> it's look is going to change.

That doesnt justify the change.

[Anonymous No.4373438]

>>4373324
they may be ugly

but their names are fucking awesome

[Lunatic !!IE/X7lbCDOY No.4373465]

>>4373417
>>Just because its not very big doesnt justify its existence.
Justify your existence. Plus it could fund lunar science.

>>That doesnt justify the change.
Well, if we ever want to build space colonies or expand into space, we'll need some industrial base on the moon.

[Anonymous No.4373482]

>>4373465

>Justify your existence.

I mean I want to exist. I presume that the purpose of a huge fucking eyesore on the moon appeals to some value less fundamental than my existence.

>Plus it could fund lunar science.

We dont have to fund science at the cost of more stupid advertisements, or at the cost of the moon's surface. I dont even think we need to just throw money at the problem, we could be more efficient now with current science/government spending

>if we ever want to build space colonies or expand into space, we'll need some industrial base on the moon.

Sure, I agree. But that doesnt justify changing the surface of the moon simply because something else would also change the surface of the moon. Its like saying I can kill you because some other process would kill you later.

[Lunatic !!IE/X7lbCDOY No.4373514]

>>4373482
They are basically just drawing figures in the dirt. Figures that aren't very big. Figures that could easily be erased. Figures that won't even be visible from earth with the eye.

>>We dont have to fund science at the cost of more stupid advertisements, or at the cost of the moon's surface.
Doesn't matter, as long as it gets the job done.

Funding for space exploration has been steadily decreasing, if this trend continues, expect to see more stupid adverts.

[Anonymous No.4373516]

>>4373324
and there isn't an emotional attachment in the same way...
but then, they aren't tidally locked, and they are hardly visible from the surface.

Even harder from Earth's surface.

[Anonymous No.4373521]

>>4373514

> Figures that won't even be visible from earth with the eye.

Wait a minute... if its not visible with the eye, than, whats the point in a lunar advertisement? Or was that not what you were referring to?

>Doesn't matter, as long as it gets the job done.

It does matter because I would prefer we pay the price in a different regard.

[Anonymous No.4373547]

>>4373514
>They are basically just drawing figures in the dirt. Figures that aren't very big.
No, they're huge.
One space being sold was a million square kilometers -- that's big.

>Figures that could easily be erased.
No, figures that could be erased, but only with as much work as it takes to create them. There's money to create them; is there any to erase?

>Figures that won't even be visible from earth with the eye.
Now you're not getting it at all.
The entire point is to make them visible with the naked eye; the point is to make them so visible they cannot be ignored.
They will draw furrows (of unspecified depth) over the surface to create shadow pictures.
It's a bit like the images people used to write onto CD surfaces; single-bit depth

[Lunatic !!IE/X7lbCDOY No.4373549]

>>4373521
The point of a lunar advertisement is to trick companies into funding a science mission.

[Anonymous No.4373570]

>>4373547

>No, figures that could be erased, but only with as much work as it takes to create them. There's money to create them; is there any to erase?

Excellent point comrade. Besides, I bet the erased mark would be equally ugly. Like a removed tattoo.

>>4373549

>The point of a lunar advertisement is to trick companies into funding a science mission.

Mon Visage

If you are willing to sort to deceit, why not just steal the money? Or tax it?

I dont even understand how such a thing would fund a science mission. Its like, when you buy milk, most of the cost doesnt go to some arbitrary unrelated enterprise. It goes into paying for milk. Likewise if you are charging companies, you dont just magically get monies because its business. You charge what it costs.

If the company is willing to pay more than its worth then they probably have the compassion for science to begin with that wouldnt warrant an ad to begin with.

[Lunatic !!IE/X7lbCDOY No.4373574]

>>4373547
>>One space being sold was a million square kilometers -- that's big.
Yeah, good luck doing that with one rover in a short period of time. I might have to call 1-800-BULLSHIT on this one

>>No, figures that could be erased, but only with as much work as it takes to create them. There's money to create them; is there any to erase?

There is. Extraction of lunar volatiles(like helium 3) requires moving lots of regolith. At the very least you could do lunar free iron extraction.

[Anonymous No.4373580]

>>4373574

Why would anyone go to the moon to mine helium3?

[Anonymous No.4373584]

>>4373549
>The point of a lunar advertisement is to trick companies into funding a science mission.
That's a rather paranoid thought; you are suggesting the service is really offered by a government that can't/won't fund it already?

[Anonymous No.4373600]

>>4373574
>>>One space being sold was a million square kilometers -- that's big.
Yeah, good luck doing that with one rover in a short period of time. I might have to call 1-800-BULLSHIT on this one
Well, they don't have to do it very quickly; the progress as they work would amount to publicity as it goes, and develop acceptance.
But, I imagine they'd put a few robots up to do it, since they don't have to be complex and they would wear out anyway.
In fact, they might wear out quite quickly.

>>No, figures that could be erased, but only with as much work as it takes to create them. There's money to create them; is there any to erase?

>There is. Extraction of lunar volatiles
That's good thinking; parallel one service with a different one.

[Anonymous No.4373613]

>>4372325
I say we lagrange these fuckers

[Lunatic !!IE/X7lbCDOY No.4373718]

>>4373580
>>Why would anyone go to the moon to mine helium3?

well, we might get helium-3 fusion working, someday. But there's also hydrogen on the moon, which you could use to make rocket fuel, so you don't need to launch as much fuel from earth.

>>4373570
>>I dont even understand how such a thing would fund a science mission.
the paving rover itself is the science mission. Said rover is going to need cameras in order to navigate. Said rover might be able to characterize the properties of lunar regolith.

Said rover might be able to tell us what happens on the surface during a moonquake and more about the frequency of moonquakes. FUN FACT moonquakes are typically of magnitude 5 and last around 30 minutes to an hour.

It could probably tell us what happens at the terminator. Due to the photoelectric effect, there exists a voltage difference between light and dark areas of the moon, thus there could be weird electrical effects at the terminator(some of which we might already have seen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transient_lunar_phenomenon#Electrostatic_phenomena))

They could also do something similar to cubesats and let universities build sensor packages for their rover.

Then again, said rover could do negative science by disturbing so much pristine regolith or worse, liberate volatiles from the regolith, with out extracting them...

[Anonymous No.4374889]

The moon is beautiful. It would be sad if someone would put a symbol (even if it's a peace symbol) there.

[Anonymous No.4374983]

>suggest triangle
>shitstorm ensues

wow, you guys really will argue about anything!

We've done giant arts projects on earth (mt. rushmore, latex islands, pyramids, mesoamerican figures). Why not the moon, now that it is within grasp?

[Anonymous No.4374988]

>>4374983
>latex islands
wat

[Anonymous No.4375076]

>>4374988
There is a crazy artist who does huge "art" projects. One of them was to surround a series of small islands with gigantic sheets of PINK latex. By comparison, triangles on the moon don't seem too bad, do they?

[Anonymous No.4375086]

>yfw the giant hexagon on saturn's south pole was an art project by the ancient dinosaur civilization

[Anonymous No.4375146]

>The only thing that needs to be on the moon is the American flag, unless another country can land there too. It's been 40 years, come on world. Catch up.

[Anonymous No.4375177]

[Anonymous No.4375226]

>>4375177
>homoon

[Anonymous No.4375250]

>>4375146
Sure, the americans can claim they landed on the moon...if they first tell me why the shadows are not parallel.

[Anonymous No.4375282]

>>4375250

Because it's not Earth. That's a common mistake people make. They use earth physics to try and explain things in the outer-space.

The multiple shade effect is well documented.

[Anonymous No.4375298]

>>4375282
It's sad to hear such stupidity on /sci/.You think light is less likely to be more parallel on the Moon than on Earth.Before you answer with another stupid remark I'd like to point out that NASA agrees that shadows should be parallel but they explained that picture saying that the ground wasn't straight, which is weird because it looks straight to me, if there was a whole there should be a deep shadow in it.
Really, are you twelve or something, was your argument really that the laws of physics are not the same outside the Earth...Jesus fucking Christ.

[Anonymous No.4375309]

>>4375298

Almost every single lunar picture has different angled shadows. And everyone that knows a couple of things can understand how it is done. Also, light is almost always parallel. It's a wave. Only gravity can, possibly, affect it. The explanation for the multi-angled shadows is light refraction.


So, keep your ad hominem for your close friends. You can believe whatever you want.

[Anonymous No.4375313]

too permanent. basically only food service and maybe one or two entertainment companies would be able to get any benefit from it, the rest change logos and branding constantly for a variety of reasons.

[Anonymous No.4375325]

Why not just project a picture on it with Lasers. You could turn that off any time.

[Anonymous No.4375326]

>>4375282
>The multiple shade effect is well documented.
i like how you didn't provide references to any of these documents.

[Anonymous No.4375329]

>>4375326

I like how you can just Google.
Or send an email to Doctor Phil Plait. He might reply.

[Anonymous No.4375331]

>Ron Paul 2012

[Anonymous No.4375338]

>>4375309
>>Almost every single lunar picture has different angled shadows
When objects are close to one another no, not really, this is one of the few pics
>>light is almost always parallel. It's a wave. Only gravity can, possibly, affect it
I'm talking about the light rays being parallel to one another and therefore the shadows being parallel to one another.Light rays become more parallel from one another the further they are from the source of light.You clearly know nothing about the subject.
>>The explanation for the multi-angled shadows is light refraction.
Refraction implies a transparent medium through which the light passes through and that's clearly lacking in this case.
So let's review:you think the laws on physics are different outside of earth, you don't know what refraction is and you don't know that light rays become more parallel the further they are from the light source but you don't think I should call you an idiot, especially since you have the nerve to act so knowledgeable.

[Anonymous No.4375339]

>>4374983
four posts saying a triangle really isn't symbolic or interesting is a shitstorm?

4chan people are VERY easily excited,
or awful at describing things honestly.

[Anonymous No.4375349]

>>4375326
What he's referring to is that in a picture, when the objects are not close to one another, the shadows appear to not be parallel which is just an optical illusion, that's true.The picture I provided clearly shows them close to one another, that's why I picked it.NASA's only explanation was the lame "there was a hole between them" and that's why the shadows are not parallel and that's clearly a lie.

[Anonymous No.4375356]

>>4375338

Explain to me how the rocks at the bottom of the picture have different angled shadows that the ones of the top right, that are less than 5 feet away?

Also, if you suggest that multiple artificial lights where used, please use MS paint to draw me the vectors of those lights.

I will be waiting.

[Anonymous No.4375359]

>>4375298
>they explained that picture saying that the ground wasn't straight,
Flat, not 'straight.' The guy on the left is facing a small upward rise; we see part of the shadow, but

>which is weird because it looks straight to me,
It looks flat? You can hardly see any detail at all, it is almost entirely without texture, and you know it's mostly the same color -- but you're going to argue?

>if there was a whole there should be a deep shadow in it.
A 'hole?' Yes, if there was a hole, AND it was otherwise entirely flat, you could see a shadow.
If it isn't flat, you may not see a hole or any shadows. Or you may see them drastically exaggerated because of the slat of the ground.

>Really, are you twelve or something, was your argument really that the laws of physics are not the same outside the Earth.
Was yours that the extremely minimal amount of detail YOU perceived contradicted the experts who were there?

[Anonymous No.4375367]

>>4375356
The surface isn't flat?

[Anonymous No.4375368]

>>4375325
>Why not just project a picture on it with Lasers. You could turn that off any time.

The lack of any sense of scale or energy requirements constantly surprises me.

Let me try:
how big is a laser dot?
how big is the moon?
is it very reflective?
how many lasers do you think it would take to make a visible shape of any kind? (over how much surface, with how much energy expended?)

If that still seems too abstracted, imagine a laser pointer pointed at a nearby hill. Would anyone be able to see it?

[Anonymous No.4375379]

>>4375338
Light is not appreciably less parallel on the moon;
we're talking about a very very small difference from Earth, and we haven't even established which side of Earth the moon was on, relative to the sun.

[Anonymous No.4375382]

>>4375367

No. All items in moon receive light from a big number of sources. There is no atmosphere to filter the "small" ones.
The main light source (sun) is on the top right. The astronaut that holds the camera at the bottom also reflects light, which alter the shadows.

It's also the reason why the rover's shade is so tiny. Because the astronaut near it and the rover itself function like lightbulbs.

[Anonymous No.4375386]

>>4375356
That look like a mound so I don't see why we're discussing it and not the picture I provided.
>>4375359
>>we see part of the shadow, but
No we don't, you see part of the shadow
>>You can hardly see any detail at all, it is almost entirely without texture
The position of the shadows are clear and on the Moon, not having an atmosphere, light only 'bounces' once from the surface and than goes into space, that means you have only over exposed areas or filled with a deep shadows.
>>the experts who were there?
So your argument is that if some other guy says so than it must be true, that sounds like a belief and not something that can be proven.

[Anonymous No.4375388]

>>4375349
NASA said the ground was not flat:
I don't understand how you think that is the same as 'there was a hole between them.'

I describe it again: a very small rise of ground in front and toward camera on which the left shadow lay would allow the shadow to look this way.
It would be exaggerated if there were also a slight depression forward and left of the guy on the right.


Since we know, and should never doubt, that the surface isn't flat, anyway, it is hardly difficult or unlikely to imagine this is exactly the case.

[Anonymous No.4375393]

>>4375356
Very, very simple:
the camera is pointed downward, and is slightly higher than the ground at the upper left.
lower central and right is a tiny rise,
that rise curves away to the upper right

Which means that the shadows on upper right are falling on a curved surface; once you perceive the surface, it is quite clear.

More than that, making the picture look this way with any other method would be nearly impossible -- it certainly couldn't be done on a flat stage, regardless of how many or where any lights were.

[Anonymous No.4375395]

>>4375379
It's not a question of position, it's a question of distance from the light source.If you go to the equator or Antarctica shadows from close objects won't be less parallel.Seriously, if you don't understand the simple concept I've already explained please don't enter the conversation.
>>4375382
If that were true we should see 2 shadows of various shades of grey.In the pic I posted there's only one deep shadow per astronaut and they are clearly not parallel.

[Anonymous No.4375396]

>>4375367
The surface of the moon is very much not-flat.
There is no reason it would be flat.
There are mountain ranges, and all your life you have looked at the different textures of the surface.

[Anonymous No.4375398]

>>4375395

See? what's what I meant "by using earth rules".
No, you don't get different grey-patterned shades in the Moon. Or any other celestial body without atmosphere for that matter.

You get a single shade that is outcome of all the lights that have an effect on the item.

[Anonymous No.4375400]

Here's a good shot showing the surface undulations.
It is easy to see rises and contours across the horizon.
Note the astronaut is jumping.

[Anonymous No.4375405]

>>4375379
It's not a question of position, it's a question of distance from the light source.If you go to the equator or Antarctica shadows from close objects won't be less parallel.Seriously, if you don't understand the simple concept I've already explained please don't enter the conversation.
>>4375382
If that were true we should see 2 shadows of various shades of grey.In the pic I posted there's only one deep shadow per astronaut and they are clearly not parallel.
>>4375388
I know what NASA said but the fact remains that the brightness of the ground does not change intensity which would suggest that the ground is flat or if it's not flat it's clearly not steep enough to create that angle between the shadows, look at the pic again.They're very lose to one another to.
>>4375393
Just like others you start from the assumption that the ground isn't flat when I don't see any reason to point to this.
The argument that it couldn't be done is silly, fake landings that looked exactly like the real one have been made by amateurs to prove how easy it is to pull off.

[Anonymous No.4375406]

>>4375400
>you'll never jump on the moon

[Anonymous No.4375409]

>>4375395
>It's not a question of position, it's a question of distance from the light source.If you go to the equator or Antarctica shadows from close objects won't be less parallel.
Right; but the same is true of the moon, because it is not very much different in distance, and half the time is further.

>Seriously, if you don't understand the simple concept I've already explained please don't enter the conversation.
I understand the concept, you are just applying it wrongly.
There is NO APPRECIABLE DISTANCE CHANGE from the source.
And I also reminded you the distance might be closer OR further.

[Anonymous No.4375414]

>>4375395
In the pic you posted the shadows were indeterminate, because we do not know the shape of the surface they are projected upon.

YOU assumed it was flat;
I know the surface is not, so assume that the shadows are lying on curved surfaces (rather than the light is bending or some other laws are broken).

[Anonymous No.4375434]

>>4375396
Of course the moon isn't flat but the area on which they stand in the pic doesn't appear to have a slope, an inclination, call it whatever you like, I'd also like to remind you that there are no secondary "bonces" so if an area is not directly hit be light it should be dark unless there's a close object nearby to reflect light.In the pic I posted the amount of light seems uniform on the ground therefore there's no slope, definitely not one with enough inclination to create that angle between their shadows.
>>4375398
I understand that but if there was a slope light shouldn't pass through it so the ground should be dark.
>>4375400
Can we talk only about the pic I posted, I didn't claim I can prove all pics to be fake so I don't see the reason for this.

[Anonymous No.4375443]

>>4375405
>>4375388
>I know what NASA said but the fact remains that the brightness of the ground does not change intensity which would suggest that the ground is flat
Brightness changes in that way when there is a difference in textures for it to fall upon. Some parts of the moon are covered in dust, which loses all detail regardless of angle.
You are showing us the very worst quality image I have ever seen from the moon for your evidence; what about all the other stuff, and the pictures I showed? Don't they suggest the moon isn't flat?

>or if it's not flat it's clearly not steep enough to create that angle between the shadows, look at the pic again.They're very lose to one another to.
Steep? it would only have to be a rise of a foot or two on the left, less if there is a depression on the right.

This was from video, right? So you have the sequence of shots to show their shadows moving over an irregulat surface?

>>4375393
>Just like others you start from the assumption that the ground isn't flat when I don't see any reason to point to this.
You've looked at the moon all your life, and never realized it had texture? Mountains? various kinds of rocky surfaces?

>fake landings that looked exactly like the real one have been made by amateurs to prove how easy it is to pull off.
No; all that has ever been shown is that the worst photo evidence or low-quality video can be mimicked.
Not the landing or any of the other evidence, and no one has ever come close to mimicking the really great photos.

[Anonymous No.4375446]

>>4375409
Right; but the same is true of the moon, because it is not very much different in distance, and half the time is further.
You're not really disproving what I said so I won't argue.
>>the distance might be closer OR further.
What distance are you talking about?
>>4375414
I can see were this is going, I say that there's nothing showing to be slope so I need to be proved of the contrary where you assume there's a slope so you need a counter argument also and since the light could be falling from an upper angle there's shouldn't be a difference in shade but we don't know how the light was falling.

[Anonymous No.4375448]

>Deface the moon just to sell more worthless shit

If this actually happens I may have no choice but to go on a mass killing spree.

[Anonymous No.4375452]

>>4375434
the pic you posted doesn't show slope, irregular surface or changes in color or shadow much because it's a horrible picture.

Here is one from Apollo 11 during descent; it shows the landing area, many textures and changes across the surface, rises and ridges and small hills.
You'll notice it also shows shadows pointing in different directions: this is because the surface we are looking down on is a curved one.

[Anonymous No.4375458]

>>4375434
Here is another:
you can assume the shadows from Aldrin's legs are straight enough, but the surface behind him is curved; it shows curving shadows.
It doesn't have to be much to show shadows changing shape.

[Anonymous No.4375462]

>>4375458
Ach: there

[Anonymous No.4375471]

>>4375443
>>Don't they suggest the moon isn't flat?
I didn't say the Moon is flat, I said the ground they're on is.
>>Steep? it would only have to be a rise of a foot or two on the left, less if there is a depression on the right.
To make the angle between the shadows, more I would say but we enter a subjective realm here and a proper discussion can not be had, we also don't know the position of the sun.
Also, you think fabricating grey dust, and filming this in the desert on a cloudy night with a huge light would be difficult, common...

[Anonymous No.4375482]

>>4375452
I already said I didn't bring other pics into discussion so I don't know why are you showing it to me.There was another good , high res that showed the exact same situation but I can't find it.
>>4375458
Like I said, we're entering a subjective realm about how much would be enough and there's no point in arguing.

I'll keep looking for that pic, it was a good one.

[Anonymous No.4375486]

>>4375434
Here is one from (I think) Apollo 17, where the rover's tire shadows (again, a known and easily-perceived shape)
fall across a small rise, making the shadows curve oddly.

We don't have to perceive this as a flaw in a hoax; we know shadows do this, and we can see all the familiar elements (textural changes, brightness changes, common surface shapes) present to make them possible.

Honestly, whenever I see claims of problems with shadows it just shows me people don't look carefully around the world they know.
The doubter's explanations for the shadows are either impossibilities or nonsense.

[Anonymous No.4375494]

>>4375471
>I didn't say the Moon is flat, I said the ground they're on is.
yes, that is why I showed you pictures of the actual ground, so you could see just how it was.
You can see texture, rises and hills, ridges, depressions, craters, rilles, gravel and dust -- it's all there, exactly from the Apollo 11 mission shots.

>>Steep? it would only have to be a rise of a foot or two on the left, less if there is a depression on the right.

>To make the angle between the shadows, more I would say but we enter a subjective realm
Mostly because neither of us will go to the effort of making a 3D landscape to test?

>Also, you think fabricating grey dust, and filming this in the desert on a cloudy night with a huge light would be difficult, common...
Again, you're trying to argue that it isn't hard to fake some bad photos: I agreed.
It is much harder to fake the good photos, and please remember, it's not just photos that would have had to be faked.

[Anonymous No.4375502]

>>4375486
pic...?
Also, I said I can't discuss other photos, I never said they all show errors, it's enough for one to shoe to put the whole thing under question.
And another thing:President Nixon gave 135 sovereign states, all 50 US states and the US territories each an Apollo 11 Moon rock and Apollo 17 Goodwill Moon Rock. Many of these Moon rocks have been stolen, destroyed, or are missing.
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/jul/08/moon-rock-discovery-a-false-alarm/
http://enewscourier.com/features/x1907083364/Missouri-State-Museum-doesn-t-have-Apollo-17-rock
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3912829.stm
http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/Misplaced-from-space-1544200.php
What are the odds for these many rock to disappear, seriously.

[Anonymous No.4375511]

You do realize that you are talking about some of the most expensive items per volume that exist in the world, right?

[Anonymous No.4375522]

>>4375494
>>yes, that is why I showed you pictures of the actual ground, so you could see just how it was.
No, you showed the picture of another ground, not the one in my pic, there's no close up of that one from what I know.
>>Mostly because neither of us will go to the effort of making a 3D landscape to test?
I'm glad you mentioned that, I've rendered many images and from my experience the ground has to be pretty steep for the shadow to look like that but I already said that we don't know the position of the sun so arguing is pointless.
>>It is much harder to fake the good photos
If the area is made to look like the moon than the quality of the photo is irrelevant, it will always look natural because there's nothing in the scene to be out of place.The moon is the most simple environment to fake, grey dust, black sky...period.
Look, I have to be perfectly honest, I don't believe 100% that they didn't go to the moon but what I am saying is that there's enough evidence to make us doubt the fact.I would also like to say I appreciate the mature way the conversation was carried, people always get emotional and forget that facts spake louder sentiments.

[Anonymous No.4375528]

>>4375486
Huh; I thought I saw the 'pic uploaded' message...
maybe I'm just remembering a different one.
Thanks for catching that.

[Anonymous No.4375532]

>>4375511
If you're implying that they were all stolen let me tell you why I find that hard to believe.I work for the gov in a EU country and when we want something found, there's nowhere to hide.People underestimate their gov mostly because we try to look idiotic and clumsy on purpose.When people think you're a moron they are less likely to think you have criminal intent.Also, because I work for the gov I know for a fact that lying is not beneath them, regardless how big the lie is.

[Anonymous No.4375564]

>>4375532
>People underestimate their gov mostly because we try to look idiotic and clumsy on purpose. When people think you're a moron they are less likely to think you have criminal intent.
You ought to watch a 'Columbo' episode.

>Also, because I work for the gov I know for a fact that lying is not beneath them, regardless how big the lie is.
Lying is, in fact, one of the most used techniques of politics. That says something awful; they think of it as a technique, a strategy.
But many people (far too many) also have self-interest; it is hard for them to keep a lie for long. That's part of why we know politicians lie, of course.

The things necessary to fake the moon missions were extreme; huge numbers of people, enormously complex staff and communications and work, and a very very large number of visible consequences.
Conspiracy fans keep arguing about photos; they are less effective about video, the launches, the many thousands of workers and the huge business it all became.
I read one guy who argued that only five people needed to be involved in the compsiracy; that's how narrow-minded their argument can get. He was thinking only about putting out a few fake pictures, and ignored almost the entire rest of the projects.

[Anonymous No.4375580]

>>4375522
>>>yes, that is why I showed you pictures of the actual ground, so you could see just how it was.
No, you showed the picture of another ground, not the one in my pic, there's no close up of that one from what I know.

What I meant is, I showed you the landing region; it has enough context to see a lot of the range of textures and surface variation.
But, if you can come up with the video, I have almost a complete set of the stills, we might be able to find a match.
And, I'd love to have the video

[Anonymous No.4375594]

Can you imagine the political and spiritual chaos this would ensue?

Like, we're talking about insulting the whole fucking world here. Not, just the jet set who travel from New York to Shanghai on a weekly basis, not just the world encapsulated in your little media sphere - we're talking about EVERY FUCKING PERSON and their individual instabilities ranging from vast cultures.

This is globalization at its lowest and most base. You're risking your LIFE trying to own man's most eternal and spiritual romantic icons. It used to be that if I had nothing at least I had the moon, but now, you might not even have that. People will kill whoever tries to do this.

You have to be aware of that.

[Anonymous No.4375597]

>>4375564
>>You ought to watch a 'Columbo' episode.
What I said still remains true, people dismiss a lot of things that happen as being a result of gov stupidity and that's very useful.
>>it is hard for them to keep a lie for long
They don't, people talk a lot, a lot of things they shouldn't talk, I could fill books, the problem is that you have to be near them to hear it, that's why people never find out and this is the answer to that old question:How come they keep the secret, the answer is easy...they don't, you just don't get to hear it.
>>The things necessary to fake the moon missions were extreme; huge numbers of people, enormously complex staff and communications and work, and a very very large number of visible consequences.
But you assume that they knew what they were doing, if a manufacturing firm gets an order for some grey dust a few years before the landing would they realize years later what it was for?Even if they do will they have the guts to say it?No, fear will work it's magic.You need a few people to pull something like this, just the ones that are on the set.
>>the launches, the many thousands of workers and the huge business it all became.
nobody ever said the launches didn't take place, or that no vehicle reached the moon, only that no man walked on it.
If you really want to be convinced how something like this can happen I'll give an example in the following post, one that I have personal knowledge about.

[Anonymous No.4375598]

>>4375594
Liberals get tingles in their pants at the thought of tearing down anything revered and wholesome, so you're just giving them more reason to do it.

[Anonymous No.4375603]

>>4375598
Well, yeah. And this also violates oh so many treaties and laws about owning the moon and space and whatever.

I'm sure there's some law against this.

[Anonymous No.4375628]

>>4375597
>>You ought to watch a 'Columbo' episode.
>What I said still remains true, people dismiss a lot of things that happen as being a result of gov stupidity and that's very useful.
Well, that's why I said it; Columbo's appearance and feigned ignorance belied a sharp mind and careful investigator, and it caught people off-guard at the end of each episode, when he'd ask about 'just one thing' more.

[Anonymous No.4375642]

>>4375603
Maybe, but as far as I know there is only one agreement,
and since this is just drawing on the moon, it isn't ownership or political at all;

It might inflame people, but I don't see how a government can have any problem with it.
And that's why it could be allowed to happen: some huge-ego corporation might actually decide to do something this tasteless.

Look at the beginning of the thread: there were people cheering this on,
perceiving it as something that elevates them, or that they get something from, or jus that they want to see someone 'tag' stuff and enjoy the destruction.

[Anonymous No.4375655]

[Anonymous No.4375670]

The story:
Remember the avian/swine flu that was a few years back, it happened not only once. Well one of those times they were talking about mass vaccinating the country and not only in mine but many others as well. Because I know how the upper layers of society work, suffice to say I felt the need to ask around about this before I let some guys I don't know inject me. I had a friend who worked in the medical field and he had a friend at the countries main center for virus control or however you call it, the one who make and distribute vaccines. My friend goes and asks his old college buddy what gives about the flu. Interesting stuff 1)the vaccines were coming from outside the country, so they didn't actually know what it was in them 2)the cases that were reported as fatalities, at least in my country, died from various causes that had nothing to do with the flu and he was confused and worried at the same time why the media keeps trumpeting about this. The head chief of the center, who was an old guy and very moral, decided to go on TV and say that this was blown out of proportion (he was being kind).From what I remember he resigned soon after but nobody made a big deal out of it. There was actually one case where a person who was vaccinated, a TV star, died right after.

[Anonymous No.4375672]

I also had a friend who was pretty high up in the structure and I called him for a beer one day and asked him if he's taking the vaccine. He looked at me in a very insinuating way, understanding what I was really asking, and said no.So I didn't take it.
No, I don't know what the deal was, I could speculate, but I don't know. But to answer your question about how many people do you need for a conspiracy. Well, the vaccines were coming from god knows where so you don't need people in the country to be in the whole thing, they have their orders anyway so there's no problem. The media...the editor or\and the one who ones the company decides what appears as news for millions of people, you have to remember, that more than 70% I think it was of the world media is run by NewsCorp, I don’t know if there are official figures but from what I know that's about right. And you also need people in the power structure to give the order. So in the end we have the guys who manufactured the vaccine, who we don’t even know, an editor or CEO and somebody in the power structure who gives the order to the proper authorities to carry the vaccination. It’s not really difficult.
Oh and by the way, did you know in Switzerland they had to chose between taking the vaccine and going to prison...yeah.

[Anonymous No.4375705]

We need to put up fans on the moon.

[Anonymous No.4375817]

>>4375672
>Oh and by the way, did you know in Switzerland they had to chose between taking the vaccine and going to prison...yeah
I'm Swiss and live in Switzerland and this is the biggest bullshit I've ever heard.
Everyone in my country can freely decide if they want to take a vaccine or not.
The government can't force you, in the military for example they only vaccinate you if you've signed a consent.

[Anonymous No.4375880]

>>4375817
yes, I think that poster was equating uncertainty of people that don't know biology
with the presence of actual conspiracy.

it's silly; it would be nice to invent a motive and mechanism for subterfuge before deciding vaccinations prove it.


There are agencies that demanded vaccinations against certain threats, and in many, you could lose your job, get demoted, and possibly even be threatened with more if you refused those vaccinations. Agents of the American Homeland Security were expected to at one point (anthrax is what I am thinking about).
But that wasn't sinister; it might have been unnecessary, it might have been just to generate a contract with a pharm company, but it doesn't suggest a means of control or future manipulation.

[Anonymous No.4377301]

>>4375817
>>"In certain cases
there should even be compulsory prophylaxis for these individuals."
http://www.bag.admin.ch/influenza/01120/01134/03058/index.html?lang=en
Click on Part III:Topics pdf , page 187, pic related.
>>Everyone in my country can freely decide if they want to take a vaccine or not.
International treaties, like the one with the WHO, take precedent over national law
>>"With the support of WHO, the 194 States Parties to the International Health Regulations (IHR) have been implementing these global rules to enhance national, regional and global public health security"
http://www.who.int/ihr/en/
>>4375880
I've asked specialists in my country what they think about vaccines and the opinions were divided, many find the current vaccination trend unnecessary to say the least, some even agree that they heavily damage the immune system which can be hazardous at a certain age, especially if you're poor.But I'm not a specialist so I can't argue on the subject.

[Anonymous No.4377318]

>>4377301
>International treaties, like the one with the WHO, take precedent over national law.

How /sci/ has fallen. There are more idiots here than in /b/

[Anonymous No.4377385]

>>4377318
Ad hominem and no explanation.I provided links to what I said, how about you do the same.

[Anonymous No.4377992]

>>4377301
This doesn't mean they had to go to prison if they didn't and it doesn't mean that they were actually forced to do this.
It's reasonable that people working in hospitals etc. get a vaccination for current pandemics.

[Anonymous No.4378091]

>>4377992
First let's take note of the fact the forceful vaccination can occur in Switzerland so you were dead wrong.
Second, you're just splitting hairs at this point, there aren't many ways you can coerce a person, actually there are only 2 ways, through physical force or mental intimidation ( i.e. prison, threats to some one you love ) and neither of them are what I would consider civilized.When you know you could be punished if you didn't do something, agreeing doesn't mean consent, so even if they said yes, they were still forced to do do.
Third, you're assuming that there's a pandemic and I have >>4375670 >>4375672 every reason to believe that, until now, this was false.In the event of a true pandemic I would agree with the measures, however that is not the case so we are left wandering what the hell is going on.

[Anonymous No.4378147]

>>4378091
>the forceful vaccination can occur in Switzerland so you were dead wrong
That's not true. Nobody was forced.

[Anonymous No.4378155]

>ads
>on the moon
How about a nice cup of fuck you.

[Anonymous No.4378188]

>>4378147
You base your opinion on what, that it wasn't on the news, the same news that keeps talking about inexistent pandemics while not mentioning things like ACTA, that, for the first time since the Stone Age, will get rid of the presumption of innocence ( they had it in roman times trust me, I studied roman law )
Even if let's say nobody was forced, that still doesn't change that they can, in other words you don't have rights, you are at their mercy.If none of this worries and you still feel the need to debate me don't bother, you're not doing me a favor if you keep yourself on guard, I'm well taken care off.I know the law very well, I know people who could help me, I'm financially secure, I'm not worried for me, I just thought certain people in society should know some things, that's all.

[Anonymous No.4378240]

>>4378188
That's true, according to our constitution they can.
But there never were compulsory vaccinations yet.

What's also true is that nobody ever mentioned ACTA (Swiss politicians or the news).

[Anonymous No.4378360]

>>4378240
I haven't heard of a single place on this planet where ACTA was on the news in a manner that would inform the population of this fundamental change to our world, let alone have a public debate about it.I watched a documentary made by some old journalists from The Sun and some other english\american publications and they were saying how a few years ago they were replaced with people from Hollywood.Many citizens still don't understand that there are no laws against lying, or if there are, the punishment is pathetic.
I was also reading a few days ago about how 90% of all american cities have their police force suited with armored vehicles that have machines guns mounted ( google Bearcat ).
So let's review, a media that is controlled and is absolute bullshit; Google Analytics is tracking your every movement online even thou in countries like mine ( and many others I'm sure ) you can only give up your privacy right through an express declaration, you can't do it tacitly; ACTA will make everything legal from taking down sites because somebody who isn't even elected ( like that matters ) wants to, to guilty until prove otherwise; the police force is armed to the teeth; we have many reasons to believe that you should think twice before taking a vaccine...I could go on with other things but I think I made my point.

[Anonymous No.4379159]

I really don't think people would protest using the moon for advertising that much, you guys give humans to much credit.

[Anonymous No.4379202]

>>4378091
The forced vaccininations DID NOT occur; you claimed they did.
The WHO note is a set of ethical PRINCIPLES, it does not say they would be or were acted upon.

The other poster agreed with the WHO document, because health workers during times of global health needs should have protections against that health concern: he did not say there WAS a pandemic, so your claim there wasn't means nothing.

[Lunatic !!IE/X7lbCDOY No.4379222]

Man this moon thread just started to get weird, I'm just going to leave this here:
http://www.clavius.org/

[Anonymous No.4381111]

>>4379202
>>The forced vaccininations DID NOT occur; you claimed they did.The WHO note is a set of ethical PRINCIPLES
If you want to keep believing that just because you didn't hear about it go ahead, I don't care and I'm not going to argue.They have made their intentions and methods clear and instead of starting to think about the implications of this you are here trying to convince me of what?Of what I know from people of authority and expertise about the vaccines?Like I said, you're not doing me a favor by believing me, my life will go on just fine.
>>he did not say there WAS a pandemic
I didn't say he said, I said the world wide news said, if you can't pay attention to what I'm saying than don't post.
>>so your claim there wasn't means nothing.
Right, I don't have any evidence, it's my word against them and if you chose to believe a media that, like I said, shows only garbage every day and doesn't even mention things like ACTA than go ahead, I don't care.
I'd also like to say that I dislike your attitude, you're acting as thou I'm your enemy.Understand that I have no interest in anyone believing me, there's nothing in it for me, I just though I should share a story and some info that some people might find informing.

[Anonymous No.4381113]

>>4381111
And as I final note let me ask you something.Media publications are entities that require a serious sum of money to function, if you add to this that their owners are very rich, this would shows us how much many flows in their business but in many cases it's not clear where the money is coming.Take any web based news source, for example like HuffPo.Go to their site and tell me where are the commercials and than tell me where the money comes from for all the journalists, bandwidth and the profits the owners make.I remember talking to some guy who worked for the largest news source in my country and I was surprised to find out that they haven't been making nearly enough money from commercials ever since their inception many years ago but despite this they had no problem paying their bills and they were actually making big profits.When I asked where does the money come from he told it was from donations.The next question is of course who's donating all that money.