Sarosh wrote on Feb 13
th, 2018 at 1:51pm:
@CA the Zaharoff reminds me of moriarty in a sherlock holmes movie. interesting...
zaharoff was real. Born basileos zacharias.
He started his career as a brothel runner.
His greatest asset was that he was a language prodigy. Could speak at least 8 languages like a native.
No doubt he was a genius, and promoted conflict as a way of making money.
My favourite zaharoff sale is how he sold the first - practically totally useless - 'military' submarines.
He sold 1 to greece, then went to turkey and told them greece had a submarine and sold 3 to turkey. He then went to russia and sold 7 to them.
When maxim produced his machine gun, becuase maxim only spoke english, zaharof convicned those watching the first demos that it was not worth buying. He then purchased controlling interest in the company and proceeded to sell them himself.
When rhodes conquered 'rhodesia' he did so with machine guns supplied by zaharoff.
There is almost no conflict or war during his lifteime that zaharoff did not have a serious influence on.
As far as the moon landings go. Like I said If you start with an open mind and look at the purely physical evidence. There is only one conclusion - nasa lied through their teeth about a lot of it.
If you look at the geopolitical scene at the time, the us desperately needed to put one over on the soviets.
It all ties in very clearly.
Whether they actually went or not - is not something you can say one way or the other.
But certain key aspects are extremely and uncontrovertably certain.
There should have been radiation contamination. Fact
The cameras could not have operated under the physical conditions. Both vacumn welding and near absolute zero would have rendered the mechanical parts unworkable. The cameras need manual focusing and exposure settings. Neither of which were possible for a camera mounted on an astronauts suit.
The you need o look at the film stock. Standard film.
So operating temperature somewhere around -1 - 40c
At -200c and colder, not only would the celluloid become rigid and brittle but the chemical reactions just would not have worked.
So all those perfectly focused and perfectly exposed moon surface pictures - simply could not have been taken with the equipment they claimed to have used.
There's no doubt. Even the man who developed the camera stated it would not work under moon conditions.
So if you start there and look at all the other bits and pieces. At the very least there are considerable doubts that they even went. And if they did go, they lied about a lot of it.