posts 82 comments 1859 trackbacks 5
The moon landings. There has been a bit of controversy lately about whether or not NASA actually went to the moon or not in 1969 and the 70's. It occasionally rears its head whenever some broadcaster runs out of show ideas, and decides to bug NASA with this.
I think it's totally bollocks, there is no doubt in my mind, at all, that the Apollo missions where real!
Most of what you read about on the internet and see on those TV shows is so lacking in actual scientific fact that it is laughable. The way it is presented, and if you really don't know a Newton from a meter, then it may confuse you.
I'm not going to sit and debunk all the stupid ideas people have come up with, that apparently prove the landing were fake. But I will mention the one problem most have. That is, they are trying to apply what happens on earth to what happens on the moon! This is why, I think, so many people are fooled by what they say, because people know how items react on earth, and being told that it didn't do the same thing on the moon, seems to make sense?!
Others are just simple physics. You hear a lot about the big powerful main engine on the lander. Then the theorists (I use that term very loosely) go on to show pictures of the landing with very little dust swirling around! How could that be? Where is the big crater the blast would have created? Such a powerful motor, with all the moon dust on the ground and hardly any is unsettled? Obviously the lander was on ropes! Sounds pretty convincing!?
Of course the answer is: the dust won't swirl around to start with, because there is no air on the moon to disrupt the flow of the dust, it simply shoots of in a nice parabolic curve until it hits the moon surface again (you can see this nice parabolic curve of dust in photos of the moon buggy driving around and throwing it up off the wheels). Also, it doesn't matter how powerful the main engine is, it certainly wasn't running at full power! The engine was designed to push the lander off the surface of the moon, if it was at anything but a very low power setting on landing the lander would shoot back up!
Another one they often pull, is that there are no stars in any of the photos, which with no atmosphere or blue sky to interfere, you should be able to see the entire milky way! Of course, as anyone who knows film at all, knows that film has a limited range of light intensities it can capture. So if you have a short exposure to capture the image of the moon's surface, which is quite bright, you cannot expect faint stars to be exposed on the film at all. If you did try and expose the stars correctly, the moon would be an overexposed washout. Try it yourself with your camera, get a lit up building and the sky in the background, how many stars show up?
NASA and the astronauts did fine work doing what they did, a mighty achievement!
Please, don't take my word for it, I've collected a few different sites to look at, and make up your own mind. Just think of how things are different on the moon, and think for yourself!
For Real Landings: http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/ http://www.apollo-hoax.co.uk/ http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/News/2001/News-MoonLanding.asp http://student.fortlewis.edu/~rdgebhardt/moon.htm
For Fake Landings: http://moonhoax1.tripod.com/MoonHoax/index.html http://www.geocities.com/Area51/3543/apia.htm http://www.geocities.com/nasascam/
Multimedia Archives: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/40thann/videos.htm http://lava.larc.nasa.gov/BROWSE/apollo.html
Feedback
27/01/2004 10:30 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
The Moon missions, (all 9 of them), were 100% fake. End of story.
Evidently you have not studied the evidence, and probably weren't around in 1968, I was.
If you believe we went to the Moon, then you are in a very small majority, as well as making yourself look a fool amongst the media majority. Even people who have not studied any evidence, believe they were faked without seeing that evidence, ie, the doctored photo's using Photoshop, and pics of NASA ACTUALLY faking the lunar landing and take off.
visit www.geocities.com/apollofeedback
and its relevant links
maxine_amphlett
28/01/2004 3:08 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
If the moon landings were fake, what would keep the USSR, Japan, France and a host of other countries who do not love the US from speaking out?
28/01/2004 8:26 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Maxine,
It's comments exactly like yours which prove my point!
You make up plausable sounding arguments to prove the hoax. But always the argument is fundamentally wrong!
In your case you mention PHOTOSHOP. Everyone has heard of Photoshop, and everyone knows you can do almost anything to a photo with it, so it sound reasonable. EXCEPT, Photoshop was first released in 1990! How was it used in the 60's by NASA?
Ref:
http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pdfs/adobe_timeline_7_9_02.pdf
If you have valid arguments state them, don't make it up!!
15/04/2004 11:05 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
the photoshop point is pretty good, if it wasn;t invented unitl the 90's then how was it used in the 60's??? Explain that one...MAXINE.....maybe your just getting too old, and going a little crazy
1/05/2004 8:14 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
The majority of NASA's fake Moon pictures did not appear until after 1994. That's when the pictures were faked by Tuttle. Why didn't those pictures appear in books/magazines etc prior to 1994. Answer that?
Better still if you want the full picture go to www.geocities.com/fakemoonpics
20/05/2004 11:40 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
The Lunar landings were not faked. The problem with responding to the skeptics is the approach taken by scientists. They defer to arrogance rather than simple fact. Although I am personally beginning to think that we did land at least once but possibly not more than that. It would have been very difficult and expensive to take so many trips in such a short time. I think it can be proven or disproven by pointing the Hubble at the Moon and taking pictures of the flag and also any rovers left behind.
See the scientific misconduct section of our website.
22/05/2004 12:02 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
1st, The goverment could put this all to bed by just producing ONE picture of the landing site/sites taken from earth.
2nd, the Russians never quit on any race with us. Q:Why,after we "landed" on the moon did they QUIT their manned program to land on the moon?
Show me some LEM'S and footprints from the view from earth!
28/05/2004 5:38 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Eat your face
28/05/2004 5:41 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Pie, Eat it Boy!
28/05/2004 5:44 AM
# Jimmy cracked corn and i dont care
king wienerdog, 61, i need scisorrs, taco grande.
28/05/2004 5:48 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
The world is my burrito, eat cow, mexi nuggets
28/05/2004 5:48 AM
# re: has the moon ever eaten a sandwhich
I love my magic tonail, i keep it on my...FOOT... yeah, foot. thats right. REEEEEEEAAAD
28/05/2004 5:55 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
woo baby monkey cows are yummy kfc is cool so eat and rule the world or fight the ancient rats of the ancient underworld.
10/06/2004 2:13 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
c,mon you don,t really believe that america went to the moon in 1969 i watched the fake landings on tv it sure did,nt look real to me and it probaly was,nt america did,nt have the brains to send anyone to the moon and probaly never will unless they steal it from someone who has sent men there
13/07/2004 2:30 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
why did the flag flutter?
How did the astronauts survive the radiation belt?
Who filmed the shuttle leaving?
Who filmed when they were 'in space' when the other guy had to keep orbitting?
Who does Alex really fancy?
17/07/2004 5:02 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
How the heck did the buggy from the apollo 16 mission got to the moon? if it's the good old saturn V there's no room for it!
21/07/2004 11:45 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
i think man went to the moon
20/10/2004 10:27 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
all of u who think tht NASA landed on moon..
pls answers questioned by Bobrina.
At the start of this page it is written tht dust didnt swirl around coz there was no atmosphere there.. etc
but flag there is alwayz fluttering there..
does atmosphere on moon change very rapidly?
answer this and then support NASA blindly..
vraj
28/10/2004 2:37 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
NASA did land on the moon.
THe flag soesn't need atmosphere to move. According to Newton's theory, anything that is made moving will continue to move. THe astronaughts had to move the flag to get it in the ground, of course it waved and rippled, there was nothing there to stop it.
And as far as who filmed the shuttle leaving...That's completely obvious. It's called cameras. Remote control. If they can build satellites why in the world couldn't they build a camera too?
And your wrong about beleivers being a small majority. YOU are the one who is the small magority, and if you have the lack of brains to side with the media (for godsake) then perhaps you had better come up with some hard core evidence to prove your point. THere's a ton of FACTUAL and LOGICAL evidence supporting NASA's landing, and the most these conspirators can come up with is Photoshop and that the Astronaughts could have never been able to take a freaking photo. For crying outloud.
18/11/2004 6:33 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
NASA landed men on the moon. I was around at the time, and soaked up just about every second of coverage, reports, and information I could at the time.
The flag? As Ness says, knock it, and it continues to wave for some time after. There is NO ATMOSPHERE to damp down the movement. It is held up by a piece of stiff horizontal wire along the top. Flag has been folded or "scrunched up" during transit, therefore in photos it looks "wavy", or creased. It is not moving in any video, except when knocked.
I remember seeing the LIVE video of Apollo 17 taking off (at the time) The return module of the LM took off and was followed all the way up until it became a dot. The video camera on the buggy was remotely controlled by the ground crew, so they could observe what the two were doing during their moon excursions. The buggy has a great big dish aboard (see pictures elsewhere) to allow this communication.
Oh yes, some say "how did the buggy get there?" It was kind of folded up (a bit like the folding bicycles) and was transported on the LM. The LM had a kind of "tail lift" a bit like on the back of many trucks/vans. This was only actually fitted to the LM for the missions with the rover.
Also, I still haven't seen any explaination of how they faked the LIVE (or "live" for the "fakers") video pictures we saw AT THE TIME particularly of Apollo 16 and 17 (these were in 1972). Pixar would struggle to make some of those "effects" look real EVEN NOW, and they certainly weren't around in 1972! They were in colour, although you hardly know it as the moon's surface is fairly featureless grey.
Also there were the movie films which came out soon after. I know I saw quite a bit of the film clips in the early 70's. Again, PixaR??? Not then.... these were obviously shot in a vacuum purely by the way the particles, including the "dust sized" pieces reacted. They didn't get picked up in an atmosphere and then slowly sink like dust does in air on earth. Some of these films included 2 astronauts and the buggy being driven. So NASA had a HUGE studio they could pump to vacuum??? hmmmm....
19/11/2004 3:00 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Oh yes, more about the rover. It was folded up, in a compartment in the side of the LM base (the lander unit). The compartment side folded down (with the lunar rover attached) and the LR was then let down to the ground and unfolded.
The LM base was left behind on takeoff (to make a good takeoff platform) and only the crew module ascended to dock with the Command module. This needed a smaller engine to lift just the 2 astronauts and their samples, instead of the larger lander which included the base, the lunar rover, the experiment packages that were left behind, and of course the flag!!
Interestingly, about the experiment packages. At least some (and I think all) of the experiment packages set out by the Apollo astronauts included a reflective prism. This was so that scientists here on earth could fire a laser to a precise spot on the moon and have it reflected back. This has enabled them to measure VERY PRECISELY the distance to the moon.
If you just fired a laser at the moon it would just get absorbed and partly scattered by the dark rock. It would certainly not get reflected back.
This research (by many scientists across the globe, not just NASA ones) has shown that the moon is in fact moving away from the earth very slowly.
Ok, some would say a robot lander could have landed this. Well, it could have been done, yes. However, in my view much of the video, film, and photographic eveidence shows they did go there. But you are entitled to your opinions.
24/11/2004 4:59 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Why we haven't gone back to the moon.
Before 1969 there were those who thought the moon was made of cheese (type is unspecified)
We went to the moon and found it was made of rock (man went 6 times just to be sure....)
We haven't been back since.....
(Well, it is about as viable a reason as many HBer's use for why we've not been back ....)
24/11/2004 12:16 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Maxine you are a complete nut job.
The Americans, more than likely, have landed on the moon!
Those who deny the fact are out of their minds.
Maxine's point about Photo Shop is just plain stupid. Photoshop wasnt invented until 1990 and i doubt that the massive, room filling computers that scientists had in those days would have been used for that kind doctoring.
I thought Ness's point about Newtons Law is an excellent explanation of the flag.
Someone said that the film footage was fake. If this is so, then tell me why did the moon footage get filtered through an australian radio telescope.(Parkes)
In 1969 cameras had been invented and utilised for decades, and why would Americans have gone to all the trouble, in effort and financially, to launch the rockets or even build working ones any way. Think about the logic of it.
To those whom still believe that these moon landings were faked, i suggest you have a little more evidence to back up your claims.
I live in an era where everything is faked and yet i find it completely plausible that the landings actually happened.
24/11/2004 12:20 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
to scabby skyfire, the reason why they stopped going to the moon, is that they had been there, done that and it would no longer be financially worth it to continue moon landings. There is only so much you can do with the moon, and i'm sure that their original intentions did not involve cheese no matter what type it may have been.
I dont think they had cows on the moon!
But we do on earth, Maxine~!
24/11/2004 12:23 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
GOOD GRAVY!
Maxines a golly wog!
24/11/2004 12:25 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
fully sick!
24/11/2004 12:30 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
i'm having a swell time.
Maxines a nasty twat!
skyfire and maxine sitting in a tree t w a t t i n g. first come comes love, then comes marriage, then comes their mutant children
24/11/2004 12:35 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
who doesnt like twat crutch whore bag maxine?
ME! and several million other people.
Australia salutes you, captain crutch bag
Aye Aye Sir!
24/11/2004 12:45 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
i agree maxines a twat and a half and so is skyfire! and viraj and steve and what kind of name is bobrina?
and andrea how strange are you when we arrived on this website u spelt the web address wrong it was www.andreasrooc.mom!!! skanky moll
bobrina! hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaahahaha im guessing the name belongs to a masculine crutch bag woman with no life
24/11/2004 12:46 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
maxine is a dirty moll!
24/11/2004 12:47 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
maxine has lip fungus.
24/11/2004 12:48 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
skyfire has lip fungus!!!!!1
24/11/2004 12:50 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
I have a 5th sense, its like i have espn or something.
18/12/2004 8:14 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
why hasn't the u.s. gone back???
15/01/2005 7:38 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
NASA is completely FAKE..
23/01/2005 1:11 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Well fake or not.time to pump money in the new space program MAN ON MARS????
6/02/2005 6:26 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Maxine is right. Neither I, or any other astronaught went anywhere near to the Moon. The closest I ever got to the Moon was when I was fitting my outside TV aerial. Yes it's correct that on 20 July 1969 I said "Picking up some dust", but I was vacuuming my automobile at the time.
That damn Nasascam site has totally blown the NASA cover up. I think my pal Buzz met him in a pub some years ago. After downing 16 pints, Buzz told him that the landings were fake, but the guy had known they were fake as far back as 1969.
17/02/2005 6:00 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Maxine, I remember them landing on the moon in 1969.. I watched it on TV. The photos from the Apollo missions were indeed available in the 70's... I have looked at hundreds of them at the time. Also if they were faked, they could have done a much better job. I'm a Photoshop professional, so I know.
21/02/2005 4:18 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
I dunno why they keep on about the Moon landings. Everyone, except a few gullible people, know they were faked. Even the guy who faked the Moon pictures for NASA has owned up to the fact. www.geocities.co/apollofeedback
The game is definately up, as NASA have continually denied the pictures were fake
25/02/2005 6:07 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
No one to this day (2005) has ever conducted a controlled rocket landing...ever...except ONLY during each of the apollo mission landings....or so we are led to believe. I find it very hard to believe it happened on the moon 36 years ago without the aid of an advanced super computer. The avg. mp3 player has thousands of times more memory than the proported total systems on the Lunar Lander(32k). This feat has not been accomplished on earth as of yet, and, while traveling 12000 Mi/per hour, I doubt the Lunar Module would have been able to sustain a rocket landing on the moon without a landing accident or sustaining severe damage to the Lander. Check out the stage creation pics on geocities.com/apolloreality....it all fits....but common sense should already tell u this..why classify documents till 2026 if theres nothing to hide???
25/02/2005 6:22 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Only a fool hides behind a false pretense of patriotism, to protect a lie which has clearly been exposed by the real patriots! give it up! Admit you've been duped and move on with your lives...don't be so shocked that you fell for this "lunacy"....we all did. Now that you know the truth, you can go back to the green pill of acquiesence, or be thankful that your red pill has been served!
13/03/2005 2:53 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
To Derek,
I have been reading the NASASCAM. I have contacted Tuttle who says he digitally altered the photos and insists on not faking them. He also insists that man landed on the moon (his reply on apollofacts). Since my first language is not english and I don't want to ask the author stupid qustions, can you explain it to me how can Nasascam consider his words as admition of fakery and not going to the moon?
thanks
14/03/2005 11:21 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Why does Nasa say we don't have the technology to land on the moon
right now.
I have video of a new rocket trying to land and it tore up the concrete with the jet blast. So dust doesn't hove around in space
why isn't there a speck of dust on the feet.
I also have a Nasa film which shows Buzz and Neil faking the
shot of the earth while they are in orbit and on the beginning
of the tape it states, not for public viewing.
Why would they even attempt that. It was to make it look like
they were miles from the earth while they were still in orbit.
Has anyone listened to the actual moonlanding conversations.
I have over and over again. The astronauts are giving you hints,
yet you don't want to listen.
Why does the Earth look the same size as the moon. The Earth is
much bigger than the moon. If I have a small ball and a large ball
and I walk a hundred yards away, do they both look like they are the
same size?
Why hasn't the shuttle even orbited the moon for a couple days?
Why don't they ever show what it looks like in space from the shuttle? Even if they have to do it on the dark side of the Earth.
Why didn't the astronauts take a panoramic view of the moon with the
cameras?
These are just a few simple questions I want answered.
I wanted to be an astronaut but my vision would not allow me
to fly.
Did we go to the moon? Possibly, but not with the technology that
was shown to us.
Maxx.
15/03/2005 12:46 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Hi Max. Did you read the nasascam update about Michael Tuttle admitting he tampered NASA photos?
www.geocities.com/apollofacts http://www.pixeltricks.com/info/
www.geocities.com/apollofeedback/
I sent Tuttle certain emails, he said he digitally altered the photos: twisted them, filled bottom of photos, altered colors... and insists on not faking them. How can this be a confession of him admitting fakery (although I support the moon hoax theory).
My first language is not English so plz if you understood well explain to me
18/03/2005 10:41 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Hey,
I'm not such an expert on this, but I think that the nasa landings were real. I recently have been looking at a lot of sites that explain how it is all fake. For some reason I dont belieeve them, I belive that NASA did infact got man to the moon.
29/03/2005 5:59 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
moon...is like moony
31/03/2005 2:33 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
i changed my mind the moon landings were real , i cant belive i was so stupid to think otherwise
1/06/2005 11:39 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Here is a further response from me about the Moon Landing controversy as requested by a few SCIFRAUD members.
______________________________________________________________
Greetings Mr. Peterson:
With respect to your previous questions, which were not questions at all but rather a pointing to links on the lunar landing controversy. You accused me of ignoring your posts and the evidence, etc. I mentioned that I was already aware of these links and had read this information. I asked for time to finish reading, "Analysis of Surveyor 3 Material and Photographs Returned by Apollo 12".
I would like to discuss several issues, approximately three, about lunar materials chemical analysis, and public perceptions fueled by comments and information published by the scientific community who hold themselves out as authorities, who demand the public trust and believe them. We do not understand why NASA chose a public relations campaign to assert their position that the landings occurred rather than just hand over documents to the press such as this publication. The reason we rely on early data and information is because these analysis are conducted without the political gyrations of funding sources in complicity with scientists seeking perpetual elitist employment positions for life, while really producing not much of value. Early investigators actually were making discoveries using new, novel, and innovative techniques. The approach to many of the questions posed is both valid and the level of detail is spellbinding. It is my opinion that much of what needed to be learned about the Moon was accomplished by 1984 and everything else since then amounts to trivia, formulated with the concept of a solution seeking a problem. You don't have to take my word for it, just pick up a recent copy of MAPS and see for yourself.
"Analysis of Surveyor 3 Material and Photographs Returned by Apollo 12".
The Assistant Director of engineering writes in the Preface;
Surveyor 3 was one of five automated spacecraft that successfully soft-landed and operated on the lunar surface, acquired a vast amount of new scientific and engineering data, and provided a firm foundation for subsequent manned landings on the Moon.
When we designed and launched these Surveyors, there was no plan for them to be visited by astronauts in subsequent manned missions. Some of us, however, had the quiet hope that, at some later date, astronauts would walk up to a landed Surveyor, examine and photograph it and the surrounding terrain, and remove and return to Earth selected
components for engineering and scientific studies.
Such an opportunity was provided by the Apollo 12 mission. Thirty-one months after Surveyor 3 landed, the crew of Apollo 12 photographed the spacecraft and its landing site, and removed and brought back a number of selected components. These parts, which included the television camera, were analyzed to determine the effects
on the hardware of the long exposure to the lunar environment.
The returned material and photographs have been studied and evaluated by 40 teams of engineering and scientific investigators over a period of more than 1 year. A few tasks are still in process and several proposals for additional studies have been received.
This report represents a compilation of the main engineering and scientific results to date.
Engineering studies of the television camera show that the complex electromechanical components, optics, and solid-state electronics were remarkably resistant to the severe lunar surface environment over 32 lunar day/night cycles with their extremes of temperature and long exposure to solar and cosmic radiation. These results indicate that the state of technology, even as it existed some years ago, is capable of producing reliable hardware that makes feasible long-life lunar and planetary installations.
Scientific studies of the returned Surveyor parts provide new data in many fields and provide further confirmation that specifically designed recoverable experiments should have great value in the study of the space environment.
Benjamin Milwitzky
Assistant Director, Engineering
(Special Projects)
Apollo Program
May 1971
________________________________________________________________________________________
ITEM ONE
The landing(s) most certainly occurred, and we are relying on evidence gathered from the chemical analysis of Surveyor 3 mechanical parts. In addition we are relying on the chemical composition of our lunar sample and other known meteorites as a test comparison by chemical composition.
The conclusions reached by the investigators on [morphological data on individual particles and X-ray diffraction data on individual lunar dust particles], show the following. It seems reasonable to conclude that the dust examined is of extraterrestrial origin. The following points support this statement.
a) Mineralogy indicates a similarity with bulk phases found in lunar rocks and soils.
b) Reasonably high percentages of glassy or amorphous material is typical of lunar solids examined to date.
c) Presence of glass spheres is a feature that is typical of lunar rocks and soils.
d) “Average” chemical composition of the particles approaches that reported for other lunar material. However, there are significant differences among the compositions of individual particles. These differences can only be seen by analysis of the type conducted in this study. The origin of this dust appears to be from fine-grained rock or soil. The X-ray examination shows that the majority of the particulates are complex mixtures of more than one crystalline phase and not merely micrometer-size pieces of single phase material. Therefore, the most logical parent material of this dust is a fine-grained breccia or a soil from such a rock type.
A common rock type, the lunar breccias are produced by a complex process of impact mixing and remixing of surface and subsurface material as well as solar particles and the leftovers of the impacting object. There is no way tell how many impacts produced a single brecciated stone unless one relates several factors. However, our sample, which is pristine in composition and a part of the “original mixture”, provides us with an absolute path to the possible ranges of impact produced material. The possibilities are very narrow at first, however, this narrowness is broadened with the frequency, size, and chemical contribution from the impactor(s). As an investigator, you must come to the realization and accept the fact that high temperature solids from the Moon having formed in a volatile depleted environment under a high vacuum pressure are very small crystallites, very specific in composition, and this is the reason the investigators of the surveyor material did not make any mistakes. An experienced scientist from the US cannot mistake lunar material in thin section for anything terrestrial, unless of course that was the intention from the very beginning. We have seen it done before.
______________________________________________________________________________________
ITEM TWO
Statements Made by Trusted Scientists Not Helping NASA in Lunar Controversy.
A scientist from Washington University in St. Louis wrote in response to the non-believers of the lunar landings;
Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied lunar rocks knows that anyone who thinks the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of government conspiracy doesn’t know much about rocks. The Apollo samples are just too good. They tell a self-consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot that’s better than any story any conspirator could have conceived. I’ve studied lunar rocks and soils for 30+ years and I couldn’t make even a poor imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the lab. And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in government labs, no one in “the Government” could do it either, even now that we know what lunar rocks are like.
This conduct is very damaging to the business of research and the matter at hand. It is not credible for a scientist claiming to have thirty plus years of experience and access to all of that material, does not know that the Government material has existed in the form of JSC-1. Rather than issue an apology for this misleading major error, a paper came out indicating that this material no longer exists, as though this is going to be a cure for the exposed scientific misconduct. This is not the way it works and in fact much of the "corrections" to satisfy our claims amount to a scientific makeover utilizing musical chairs setting.
__________________________________________________________________________________
ITEM THREE
Cosmochemistry Group leads public into minefield of potential abuse.
This item deserves mention because it creates a special problem wherein the scientific community is engaged in the employment of meteorite dealers and collectors as gatekeepers or a first line of defense in accessing of lab information. There are numerous problems with using “meteorite dealers” as quote, “established authorities in meteorite identification”. They form a tightly knit boys club (IMCA) intent on control of outsiders, the public, and basically the entire spectrum regarding meteorites. First of all many of them have been warned by Ebay to leave their clients alone. Here we provide an example of a meteorite dealer named Ken Newton who writes something on his web site about meteorite identification, not based on science at all. The Cosmochemistry Group from the University of Arkansas has placed the public in a position facing abuse from these dealers.
The Cosmochemistry group writes;
Do I have a Meteorite?
How to Recognize a Meteorite
Meteorites have a number of characteristics which set them apart from terrestrial rocks. The most obvious is the unusually heavy nature of meteorites. Stony meteorites are one and a half times heavier than equivalent-sized terrestrial rocks whereas iron meteorites can be four times heavier. Meteorites are generally irregular in shape, but with rounded edges. Freshly fallen meteorites have very thin (1-2 millimeters thick) black surfaces. However, freshly fallen meteorites are rare and found usually only after the fall itself has been witnessed. Usually, the meteorite has become brown due to weathering and sometimes may reveal a surface scale. Meteorites are always compact, not porous or hollow. Most meteorites are magnetic and will attract a simple hand magnet. A good test of authenticity is to grind a suspected meteorite on an abrasive wheel. All but a few meteorites contain grains of metal that appear as shining flecks on the abraded surface, or they are made almost entirely of metal, in which case the whole surface appears shiny.
What to do with a suspected meteorite.
If the above description matches a rock you believe may be a meteorite, you can contact private dealers for confirmation, many have websites – search for “meteorites” or “meteorite dealers” with one of the regular search engines) . You will need to either send or take a sample for visual inspection, but usually only a small (walnut-sized) piece is needed. The Cosmochemistry Group at the University of Arkansas is no longer able to offer this service due to the large number of requests and limited resources.
__________________________________________________________________________
This group did not take the time to warn the public of poorly informed meteorite dealers and there are many out there. In addition to his conduct on Ebay, here is one of many reasons why Mr. Newton (a meteorite dealer) is not qualified to counsel the public on meteorites. He write on his web site;
99% of all meteorites are attracted to a strong magnet on a string. (As are metal artifacts and iron ore) Or if the object is small, hang it from a string. This is used as a preliminary test and is recommended to new collectors. However, a few meteorite hunters use a different method. Instead of a magnet, they use a compass needle to determine magnetic attraction. Why? A magnet will corrupt or change the magnetic field of a meteorite. (destroying research info)
Folks, when we read this statement we nearly fell off our chair. You cannot, “corrupt or change the magnetic field of a meteorite (destroying research info)”, simply by attaching a magnet to it. This is impossible. The magnetic properties of all substances, whether in the solid, liquid or gaseous state, are due entirely to the motions of electrons within the atoms, and magnets of all kinds are the result of the lining up of electron loops and spinning electrons. The most modern theory of ferromagnetism and the explanation of a magnetization curve is based upon magnetic domains. If the temperature of a ferromagnetic specimen is heated above a certain temperature, called its curie point, the exchange coupling disappears and the specimen becomes paramagnetic. (This results in changing the magnetism of the substance but not the summation of its chemical composition or info). In the absence of a certain amount of energy applied to the substance (meteorite), just attaching a magnet is not going to do what Mr. Newton claims. (No relation to Isaac). HIs web site below.
http://home.earthlink.net/~magellon/streak.html
Finally, Mr. Peterson, In this area, not to mention biomedicine, energy resources, and other fields, I think we as a nation are losing lots of credibility all over the world, I fear as more and more people join the internet community. The only way we can reverse this I'm afraid is to start holding those we handed authority in science, research, and funding accountable for their actions and inactions. We need a massive house cleaning.
S. Ray DeRusse
www.bccmeteorites.com and
www.meteoritedealers.com (under construction)
29/06/2005 5:46 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
i think its all fake . when they went up there the flag was moving that cant happen if theres no air pn the moon as you say
29/06/2005 6:19 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
srry about the message on top after readingt the sites above it is very obvious that nasa did visit the moon. If not we will see when japan goes up there again soon.
20/07/2005 5:05 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
can i get more informations(cd,video clips etc)?
23/07/2005 2:23 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
its a scary debate really do we trust the people that say they landed on the moon these same people that are looking to the future our future our decendants future we as a race cannot be sustained on this planet forever techknowlegy was not great in 1969 thats what makes the achievment of landing on the moon so great sceptics are a dime a dozen do you need proof look inside yourself i struggle to accept the arrogance ignorance and self indulgance of non moon landing believers as i have struggled to write on my computer for the first time edd 1960
4/08/2005 10:33 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
i want to mention tht when america landed on the moon first of all they dint posses much technology.Ok if i agree tht they did posses then y didnt the russians landed even they were equiped with such space technolagy tht the americans still dont have.Second thing is the shadow of the astraunauts.there are 4 shadows in the video which means tht there are 4 lighting sources which where as there is only 1 sun.i think it is totally fake and shooted in a studio.
19/09/2005 10:17 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
IT's clear what happend, Nixon wanted to score with the USSR back then. The USSR scored the space, Nixon wanted to show them they are better, Bring stanly Kubrick, Hire the actors, go to a remote location and shot the damn thing. Everything is a fake. I can understand when someone tries to hang on to the lies of his/her country government, but come one we're grown ups now.
Cheers
11/10/2005 5:03 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
www.clavius.org has many answers. the issue can be debated at www.apollohoax.net . that would be a better place where ppl of expertise can answer (specially for you, Maxine). If ppl have doubts, I would like that it is shared in the right place. i.e the links I posted
regards
11/10/2005 4:19 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
im not to sure, to think they didnt go to the moon is pretty ridiculous, but why are there alot of mistakes found? and to think that in 1969 when color tv was just created you could make a space ship, fly it up in the sky through the atmosphere and travel ALL the way to the moon, then land, and come back... for me, it sounds WAY to good to be true. guys please reply to this.
also take a look at this video and try to explain it..http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/
15/10/2005 10:37 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
To all the conspiracy groups:
Why don't you stop talking and start acting by sending your crews to the moon (if you are smart enough to do it) and be able to check for our USA land marks (ups!) US moon marks? At that time, you will find out that our moon landing was a true mission. And don't forget, we will do it again!
19/11/2005 8:22 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
hahaha thats funny, you think nasa didnt land on the moon? hahahah the only fake thing around here is your mom
23/11/2005 5:59 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
I think the moon landings were TOTALLY faked by NASA to win the space race against USSR.
We all agree that space shuttles require highly sophisticated computers to control their systems, right ?
But way back in the 60's the most powerful computers were not even as good as pocket calculators, forget managing gravity, temprature, environment, calculating distance, altitude, speed n stuff inside the space shuttle.
A space shuttle is no car/bike/motorboat or for that matter a tiny WW2 plane that has a tiny engine with a gear box or a propeller.
Secondly radiation belts r impossible to survive in just a 2 inch walled space air craft or for that matter even a 10 inch one.
Thirdly if they had visited the moon in the 60's y havent dey done it again till now ? Dont give the budget crap cause NASA is not short of money, the simple answer is that dey dont have the technology yet.
The only thing which is really holds an argument from the NASA's side is the moon rocks... Though i am not really shure as to how they have made them. But i am shure there must b some scientific explaination behind them which will sooner or later b known to mankind.
23/11/2005 6:35 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.
2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?
3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?
4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)
5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.
6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.
7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?
8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).
9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?
10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?
11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.
12) Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?
13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.
14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.
15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.
16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?
17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.
18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.
19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM.
20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did.
21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.
22) With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, 'Hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can't even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.' This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race.
23) Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?
24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.
25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!
26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!
27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."
28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.
29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LEM go?
30) In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.
31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, dated by NASA three days after they left for the moon. It shows the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!".
32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?
24/11/2005 9:11 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
i have only recentily seen the moon landing and didnt tink it was all that real either and havent dne much research(as of yet),but im am curious 2 know why usa did several previous missions 2 the moon and didnt suceed in many ways especially moon landing and then they heard that russia where getting ready 2 suceed dis mission and then funnily enough they went and landed on the moon no problem and very little difficulties(and won the space race)maybe its only me but this is very suspious,and like i said earlier i havent dne much reasearch but i have done enuf to notice this
5/01/2006 9:58 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Does the USA lie about anything
16/01/2006 10:14 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
I remember watching a 1996 TLC program about the DC-X (Delta clipper); The DC-X is a VTOL(vertical take off and landing) rocket. Many websites still list it as being a scaled down test rocket to test the feasability of VTOL technology in a 1 stage reusable rocket. The rocket works; it went up stopped in mid air(approx 1000ft+) hovered, them moved laterally, then decended rocket engines first to the ground, and landed successfuly. They did however show some disasterous previous attempts. I remember distictly the NASA offical stating "THAT ONLY NOW WITH SOPHISTICATED MICROCHIPS THAT ALLOW FOR THE 1000'S OF MANIPULATIONS PER SECOND OF THE ROCKET THRUSTERS CAN VTOL BE DONE by a ROCKET". I never thought anything of the statement at the time, but now it seems odd that he forgot that the Lunar lander did it 25+ years ago 250,000 miles from earth slowing from an approx. speed of 13,000 MPH to land the unproven Lunar lander in a virtually unknown environment with human occupants/pilots aboard, backed up by 27k computer(1969 technology....Think of how cheap and easy it could be done with today's technology!......
They also cooled the LM with a 1969-72 airconditioner that during Appolo 17, resisted 240 F+ for approx 3 days, using only BATTERIES...which had to run the other aspects of life support, lights etc. Batteries? what would be the minimum wattage to run such a system in such a high radiant environment surrounded by a vaccum( thermos bottle)
And they were in direct sunlight the whole time;no Van Allen belts, no magnetic field, no 50 miles of relatively dence atmosphere with an Ozone to shield them; and in a NASA sanctioned book I own, it states that parts of the LM were as thin as 1/5000 of an inch; yes thats 1/5000ths of an inch. They even tell amusing stories of screwdrivers dropped by accident during simulations falling straight through to the floor.
the face of the moon always faces the earth; a lunar month(synodical) is 29+ days ,half being day; the other night. I dont recall seeing any vapour blasts comming from the LM; Im not even sure if an A/C can work in a vacuum. A vacuum is natures best insulator; this is why your coffee stays mostly hot while in a thermos(vacuum bottle). I am a sceptic of the moon landings, but I will not say that it absolutly never happened either. All NASA has to do is show how these systems worked...but apparently they have lost the blueprints for the insignificant machinery used to go to the moon and back...ei. the Saturn V rocket and all its stages aswell as the Lunat modual and lander; I dont know this first hand...but again why can't NASA end this by allowing close scrutiny of these bluprints.. and give demonstrations on how the technology worked.....I'd pay to see it.
18/01/2006 4:24 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? 2 more
Some thoughts on the 30th.Anniversary of the "Moon landing"
1. Above 200 to 300 miles altitude, the Radiation of X-Rays, Gamma Rays, and Cosmic Rays are deadly to any and all living organisms. We are protected here on Earth, by the Van Allen Belts (180 -300 miles alltitude), and the atmosphere surrounding the earth. The reason the temperatures at the equator are so much hotter, and almost unbearable at105-120 degrees F, is that the sun's Radiation has less atmosphere to penetrate.
2. The direct sunlight radiation on the Moon's surface without any atmosphere whatsoever ranges between 265 degrees to 300 degrees F., far above the boiling temperature of water here on earth, (with atmospheric pressure of 15 lbs. per square inch). The absence of any atmosphere leaves EVERYTHING subject to deadly Solar radiation, X-Rays, Gamma Rays, Cosmic Rays, and Solar flares. It is a very, very in-hospitable place, to say the least. Even short duration exposure to the deadly radiation would result in Cancer, Leukemia, and Death.
3. The space around the Moon is a total vaccuum. In a vaccuum, the so-called air-conditioning units worn as "backpacks" by the Astro-NOTS had NO WAY TO CONDUCT THE HEAT AWAY. Remember, the radiated surface heat of an object in direct sunlight on the surface of the Moon is 265 to 300 degrees F. A vaccuum is a PERFECT INSULATOR. Heat (molecular motion) must be conducted by molecular motion, transferred from one medium to another medium, for heating or cooling of any kind to be effected.
An example is the familiar automobile cooling system:
The heat generated within the engine is conducted into water circulating within the engine block;
The hot water is pumped from the engine block, into the radiator;
The heat from the water is conducted into the coils and fins of the radiator;
The heat (molecular motion) is transferred to the air passing over coils and fins;
The heat LEAVES the engine in form of heated air moving into the outside atmosphere;
The water, now holding less heat (cooler) is returned back into the engine block;
The cycle is continuous, repeating transfer of heat from the engine block to the outside air.
If the automobile radiator was placed in a vaccuum chamber, no convection could take place from the fins to the air (because there would be no air molecules to EFFECT A TRANSFER of heat away from the radiator); the heat would keep increasing, until the entire water system boiled away, then engine heat would keep rising until the engine self destructed, burning itself up.
On the "Moon", the entire CLOSED SYSTEM of the "air-conditioning backpack" and the Astro-NOT inside the suit, were ALL "WITHIN A TOTAL, COMPLETE VACCUUM". They would have cooked like a burritos in a microwave oven! Ole'.. WHERE DID THE HEAT GO, NASA?
(Or has NASA discovered a NEW PHYSICAL LAW of thermodynamics, and just forgot to tell the rest of the world?)
4. The "Spacesuits" were supposedly pressurized to 5 p.s.i.. At that pressure, the gloves which were integral with the arms of the suits worn by the Astro-Nots would be practically immovable in the fingers. The pictures and film released by NASA shows the men working with the gloves freely moving their fingers and grasping objects with NO DIFFICULTY WHATSOEVER, and apparently no pressure in the gloves!
5. The entrance and exit hatch on the Lunar landing module is dimensionally to small for any Astro-Not to have climbed out of with the bulky suit on. Maybe that is why there are NO PICTURES OF ANYONE EXITING THE TOO SMALL HATCH! When investigators tried to get copies of the original construction drawings of the Lander Module from Grumman Aircraft Corp., of Beth Page New York, they were told that all of the drawings have been destroyed! (Isn't that convenient!) No further detailed analysis can made. The Lander simulator is on view at the Smithsonian Museum. Many areas in the two craft differ from pictures.
6. The Astro-Nots carried standard Hasselblad cameras, fastened to their suit front, supposedly to take the many still photos. According to Kodak Corp., who made the film used in the Moon Landing expeditions, the film melts above 150 degrees F. The camers were not "air-conditioned" with the new "thermodynamics discovery laws" that the NASA seems to have access to!
(How did NASA get the film to withstand the incredible heat, hereto-fore unknown in photography? Maybe they have discovered another law of thermodynamics that is being kept a secret!)
7. The shadows of objects in pictures published by NASA had widely different angles, within the same picture. If the light source was the SUN, all shadows should have been parallel, and also indicating the identical angle of elevation. Surprisingly, some pictures showed different shadow angles, sometimes as much as four or five different light source origins. The picture of Armstrong and Aldrin placing the American flag have radically different shadow lengths, indicating two separate light sources, with resultant different angles of elevation to the light source, most certainly not the SUN!
(staged, movie set lighting??)
8. The angles of elevation of the sun, from the surface of the Moon can be KNOWN for any date, relative to any location on the Moon's surface by the principles of Astronomy and spherical geometry. This embodies the mathematics of Astronomy, and Navigation, which has been perfected during the last two hundred years. The angles of elevation to the Sun, from measurements taken of shadows seen in photographs published by NASA do not agree with calculated actual Sun angles of elevation for the time periods of the published excursions. The only explanation is that the light source in NASA photographs is NOT THE SUN!
(Another case of staged, movie set lighting??)
9. No picture of the Moon's surface, published by NASA, shows any stars in the sky. The "NO ATMOSPHERE" of the surface of the moon, would have been a literally breathtaking sky-view, with MORE stars visible than any living man has EVER SEEN on the earth. Not only would it show in every Moon photo with the horizon and sky in the background, but the Astro-Nots themselves would have been commenting frequently in amazement, and been in absolute awe.
NOT ONE SINGLE COMMENT FROM ANY ASTRO-NOT of the stunning sky and view of the Heavens above!
NOT ONE SINGLE STAR IN ANY PHOTO!
If NASA had decided to put stars or constellations in the "FAKE" sky on their movie set, it wouldn't have take too long for some very clever Astronomers to take the published "Moon landing" dates, done some angle of elevation calculations, and discovered incontrovertible evidence of fraud, because star placement would be either exactly right (which would be so if all photographs were taken on the Moon), or very, very wrong. Star and Planet positions in the heavens are a fixed, and immovable landmark in the sky. So, NASA choose to have a sky with NOTHING WHATSOEVER IN IT, and avoid the chance of being caught with their "pants down"!
(Have you ever been on a camping trip, away from the city lights and atmospheric pollution, and been amazed at the awsome number of stars visible in the night sky?)
10. The one most spectacular, single sight which could EVER BE SEEN by any human in history would be a view of the Earth while standing on the Moon, with the most incredible array of stars and planets ever seen, surrounding the view of Earth. The Earth is approximately fifteen times larger than the Moon, and is bathed in an ever changing myriad of clouds, intense blue oceans, colored land masses, and dramatic lightening flashes arcing beneath the clouds, revealing a startling display, as has been photographed from orbiting space craft about 180 miles above the Earth.
NOT ONE COMMENT BY ANY ASTRO-NOT.
NOT ONE REMARK FROM ANY ASTRO-NOT.
NOT ONE WORD FROM ANY ASTRO-NOT,
ON ANY MOON MISSION,
ABOUT THE EARTH, AT ANY TIME.
NONE! NOT ONE!
NOT ONE PHOTO OF THE EARTH FROM THE MOON PUBLISHED.
Should we even ask, WHY NOT?
(Because the Astro-Nots weren't on the Moon. They were somewhere in the Nevada desert, and such commentary was not in the script!)
11. The soil beneath the Lunar Lander was undisturbed in the published NASA photographs. The Lander supposedly used a powerful rocket engine blasting downwards to prevent the whole module from crashing into the surface. The sustained, many, many seconds long rocket blast of litterally THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of pounds of FORCE, as the module slowly lowered itself to the soft, rocky soil surface of the Moon, would have sent huge clouds of rock, dust and debris blasted out of the ground zero landing spot, onto the surrounding terrain, and the dust would also have fallen back onto the Lander itself. In the published NASA photo's, the soil beneath the Lander is UNDISTURBED, with NO RETRO-BLAST CRATER, the surrounding rocks have NO DUST whatsoever, and the Lander is squeaky clean. One photo even shows a "footprint" beneath the Lander!
(Oh, those clumsy set technicians again!)
12. The moon horizon in the NASA published photo's is not sharp and distinct. The pure vaccuum on the moon would have no atmosphere to cause a fuzzy, indistinct line. However, this is exactly the kind of horizon one gets in an Earth photo.
13. The helmet visors of the Astro-Nots have many unexplained bright light sources (that could not be the Sun), and wierd shapes. No explanations have ever been forthcoming from NASA.
14. The electric vehicle the Astro-Nots used to travel about, was over ten feet long. The storage space in the side of the Lander measures five feet in length. No pictures exist of the vehicle being removed from the Lander.
(I wonder why?)
15. Data is collected daily by NASA, the Naval Observatory, and NOAA, regarding Solar flares of the Sun, and radiation on a systematic and regular basis, for UHF, Radio, Television, Navigation, and Satellite monitoring purposes. High solar activity would produce dangerous, DEADLY RADIATION to any space activity, interrupt radio communications, and be deadly to men working on the Moons suface without any atmospheric protection, or the Van Allen Belts.
ALL SOLAR RADIATION DATA for the exact dates of the Lunar missions is UN-AVAILABLE!
UN-AVAILABLE FROM ANY SOURCE!
16. The photo's supposedly taken inside the Lander while on the Moon, have no rocket engine protruding into the inside area. The Lander on display at the Smithsonian shows the rocket engine nozzle at the bottom of the lander, with the rocket motor itself supposedly protruding up into the INSIDE THE LANDER.
17. The NASA sound track (July 1969), played to audiences around the world, of the Lander descending and the voice of Neil Armstrong reading out the changing altitude to "control", as the Lander "descends", has NO SOUNDS of any rocket engine whatsoever, when he supposedly was within feet of a rocket engine, inside of the very capsule which supposedly also enclosed the main engine, (without mufflers folk's) producing THOUSANDS OF POUNDS OF ROCKET THRUST (RAW POWER)!
A Rocket engine is a CONTROLLED EXPLOSION.
A Rocket engine is one of the HIGHEST DECIBEL SOUND LEVEL DEVICES EVER MADE BY MAN!
18. In one of the published NASA photo's, a rock in the foreground has the letter "C" clearly etched into the surface. Is this a "prop", accidentally turned to expose it's "prop letter"? (could this be a whistle blower, leaving a message for future debunkers)
19. Scientists and Historians have repeatedly asked NASA to aim the multi-$billion$ dollar Hubbel Telescope at the Moon, and take pictures of the landing sites from the Apollo missions. Officials have refused; stating that:
(1) The moon is too bright, and would damage the scope.
(2) The scope cannot focus on an object that close.
Astronomy journals have subsequently published several excellent photo's of the Moon, taken by the Hubbel Telescope. NASA has "no comment"!
20. The son of "Gus Grissome", one of the early Astronauts trained for the Apollo Mission, has stated publically, that he believes his father was "murdered", after working many years to determine the cause of the "mysterious Apollo capsule fire" that killed his father during testing. Grissome was known by all as fearless man, very outspoken and unafraid to make his opinion known. He was not a "company man". He was closer to being a rebel, yet highly qualified. (Was his and the other Astronauts terrible "death by fire", a warning to others that their lack of co-operation would be dealt with in the harshest way possible?) 21. No Astro-NOT has ever been diagnosed with Leukemia, Cancer, or effects of radiation sickness, hair loss or physical debilitation, immune system failure, which would result from long exposure to high radiation, and X-Rays, Gamma Rays, or Solar Flare radiation. 22. Billy Kaysing says he would not be inclined to settle his pending lawsuit against former astronaut James Lovell because his "goal is to reveal to the American public that the government lies about important things." "They lie to us, they cheat us, and I want to open the lid to Pandora's box," he said in an early June telephone interview. "I want only to appear in court without any attorney, on my own in front of a jury, and present my complete case." Kaysing, a former technical writer for Rocketdyne, a California corporation that worked on rocket engines for the Lunar Module (known as the LEM) which supposedly landed on the moon six times between 1969-72, and author of "We Never Went To The Moon" filed a malicious libel suit against Apollo astronaut James Lovell last August because Lovell called him a "wacko" in an article which appeared in San Jose's "Metro Weekly Magazine" 23. A Nashville, Tenn. producer is currently working on a video but thus far has been unsuccessful in getting Neil Armstrong to answer some lingering questions, Kaysing said. "The first time he got turned away, and the second time, Neil told him if he came back again he would get arrested." Kaysing said. (If the "Moon landing" were true, why won't Astro-NOTS even allow interviews, except those staged by the "Mainstream Media" (and the pre-arranged questions), after 30 YEARS! If the event actually happened, wouldn't these few men on the earth who supposedly have had the most unique experience in the history of the world, be more than happy to share their memories for professional writers and filmakers, and the general public? The strange facts are that they would rather call the Police, than even speak to "those other" writers, filmmakers or the public. This is akin to the baseball star "Mark McGuire", after hitting 70 homeruns, and smashing the 35 year old record of Rodger Maris and Babe Ruth, giving the fans and admiring kids the finger, refusing to speak to anyone and calling the police! However, McGuire has always been a cheerful, friendly gentleman, giving fans and the press, his time and patience. Haven't you ever wondered how and why "Superhero" Neil Armstrong has remained out of public scrutiny for 30 years? What are you hiding Neil? Is your conscience bothering you, maybe just a little bit? Afraid of questions, Neil?) 24. "Was It Only A Paper Moon?" This 2-hour report by James Collier, author of "VOTESCAM: The Stealing of America" includes new evidence videod in the Johnson Space Center in Houston -- and questions whether NASA was guilty of spending billions of taxpayer money -- to stage the greatest theatrical hoax of all time. This video demands answers from the U.S. Government before we go to Mars. "Was It Only A Paper Moon?" -- $9.95 Grade-A Productions 270 Sparta Ave 104-234 Sparta, NJ 07871 25. These facts regarding the physical problems, radiation problems, light angles, photo incongrueties, Solar radiation missing records, Thermo-dynamics of cooling, sound recording anomalies, common sense questions, observations, and the strange behavoir of the public Astro-NOTS, are only a partial list of questions posed by Physicists, Photographers, Engineers, writers, and the public, for thirty years. Questions, that remain UNANSWERED by NASA, or any of the Astro-NOTS to this day. 26. If the representatives of the United States government, NASA, and the Astro-NOTS have stonewalled for thirty years, the American public DOES INDEED know the true answer to these questions. Truth and lies are not compatible, and by their silence and inability to speak truthfully, directly and clearly to these and other anomalies, U.S. Government once again shows it's true face: lies, lies and more lies. Lies cannot bear the light of scrutiny. The "Moon Landing" was indeed, a giant fraud and deception, executed on film and sound recording equipment, with some very expensive "props". That is all the evidence that exists, to create the "fact" firmly in the public mind. 27. Happy 30th. Anniversary, you posturing, smirking, lying, "Apollo ASTRO-NOTS". 28. "You can fool all of the people, some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time, ......... 29. All names, missions, landing sites, and events in the Apollo Space Program, echo OCCULT METAPHORS, RITUALS, AND SYMBOLOGY OF PAGAN RELIGION. The name "APOLLO", is the sun God "Osiris". 30. Listen up America! It's Thirty Billion $dollar$ down the black hole of NASA and the CIA, for their OCCULT RELIGION, and this RELIGION IS THE NEW WORLD ORDER!
NASA Update!!
I asked by e-mail, my 40 year long friend at NASA, a JPL Pasadena space program engineer, government world travelled official (Russia, England, Germany, Spain, etc. ) a few questions about the "Moon trip!"
Me:
How were the suits cooled, since the atmosphere was a VACUUM, and WHERE and or HOW was the HEAT transferred from the suit? You know, how would you get your refrigerator to work if the radiator was enclosed in a vacuum chamber?
JPL: Good question John, however I don't have a clue. Try some of the official NASA sights.
--
Me: Did NASA ever put animals i.e., monkeys or chimps into orbit to test the danger of passing through the KNOWN High radiation danger of the Van Allen Belt?
JPL: No, never.
---
Me: Did NASA ever put animals i.e., monkeys or chimps into orbit OUTSIDE the Van Allen Belt, to determine the danger of Solar Flares, and cosmic radiation on living organisms?
JPL: No, never.
---
Me: How were the astronaughts able to protect themselves if a SOLAR FLARES or ERUPTION happened while they were on the Moon, or traveling to or from? They made six round trips between 1969 and 1972!
JPL: There have been no flights above the belts with organisms from the U.S. Lots of unmanned flights have taken radiation data (electrons, protons, and ions ("cosmic rays")) inside and outside the belts. So, we understand the nominal environment reasonably well. Probably the largest dose to the astronauts occured when passing through the belts on the way to the moon. This is true only if there are no solar flares or ejections of high energy particles. If there are flares,etc.; people are in big trouble. They were watching the sun closely as part of the launch philosophy and they lucked out. There is still no way to predict well what the sun will do. In fact, the station will have a "safe room" built into it to "hide" if there is a flare. This has also been identified as a big deal for the manned mars missions of the future.
--------------
Here are the answers given to me by a 35 year mechanical engineer (personal friend for 40 years), at JPL, who is sent all over the wold by NASA, has lived in Virginia for two years doing duty on Federal liason work with major world contractors in the US, Spain, Russia, France, England and Germany.
I love it! "as part of the launch philosophy, and they just lucked out"
---------
The more questions I asked, the crazier it gets! Not ONE SINGLE INTELLIGENT answer. Just a lot of blah, blah!
An excerpt from Wm Cooper's site http://www.williamcooper.com/majestyt.htm
[watcher website reposts conspiracy musings but that
does not mean we necessarily endorse the theories presented
we are not affiliated with the author of this article]
To make interstellar travel believable NASA was created. The Apollo Space Program foisted the idea that man could travel to, and walk upon, the moon. Every Apollo mission was carefully rehearsed and then filmed in large sound stages at the Atomic Energy Commissions Top Secret test site in the Nevada Desert and in a secured and guarded sound stage at the Walt Disney Studios within which was a huge scale mock-up of the moon.
All names, missions, landing sites, and events in the Apollo Space Program echoed the occult metaphors, rituals, and symbology of the Illuminati's secret religion. The most transparent was the faked explosion on the spacecraft Apollo 13, named "Aquarius" (new age) at 1:13 (1313 military time) on April 13, 1970 which was the metaphor for the initiation ceremony involving the death (explosion), placement in the coffin (period of uncertainty of their survival), communion with the spiritual world and the imparting of esoteric knowledge to the candidate (orbit and observation of the moon without physical contact), rebirth of the initiate (solution of problem and repairs), and the raising up (of the Phoenix, the new age of Aquarius) by the grip of the lions paw (reentry and recovery of Apollo 13). 13 is the number of death and rebirth, death and reincarnation, sacrifice, the Phoenix, the Christ (perfected soul imprisoned in matter), and the transition from the old to the new. Another revelation to those who understand the symbolic language of the Illuminati is the hidden meaning of the names of the Space Shuttles, "A Colombian Enterprise to Endeavor for the Discovery of Atlantis... and all Challengers shall be destroyed."
Exploration of the moon stopped because it was impossible to continue the hoax without being ultimately discovered. And of course they ran out of pre-filmed episodes.
No man has ever ascended higher than 300 miles, if that high, above the Earth's surface. No man has ever orbited, landed on, or walked upon the moon in any publicly known space program. If man has ever truly been to the moon it has been done in secret and with a far different technology.
The tremendous radiation encountered in the Van Allen Belt, solar radiation, cosmic radiation, temperature control, and many other problems connected with space travel prevent living organisms leaving our atmosphere with our known level of technology. Any intelligent high school student with a basic physics book can prove NASA faked the Apollo moon landings
If you doubt this please explain how the astronauts walked upon the moons surface enclosed in a space suit in full sunlight absorbing a minimum of 265 degrees of heat surrounded by a vacuum. NASA tells us the moon has no atmosphere and that the astronauts were surrounded by the vacuum of space.
Heat is defined as the vibration or movement of molecules within matter. The faster the molecular motion the higher the temperature. The slower the molecular motion the colder the temperature. Absolute zero is that point where all molecular motion ceases. In order to have hot or cold molecules must be present.
A vacuum is a condition of nothingness where there are no molecules. Vacuums exist in degrees. Some scientists tell us that there is no such thing as an absolute vacuum. Space is the closest thing to an absolute vacuum that is known to us. There are so few molecules present in most areas of what we know as "space" that any concept of "hot" or "cold" is impossible to measure. A vacuum is a perfect insulator. That is why a "Thermos" or vacuum bottle is used to store hot or cold liquids in order to maintain the temperature for the longest time possible without re-heating or re-cooling.
Radiation of all types will travel through a vacuum but will not affect the vacuum. Radiant heat from the sun travels through the vacuum of space but does not "warm" space. In fact the radiant heat of the sun has no affect whatsoever until it strikes matter. Molecular movement will increase in direct proportion to the radiant energy which is absorbed by matter. The time it takes to heat matter exposed to direct sunlight in space is determined by its color, its elemental properties, its distance from the sun, and its rate of absorption of radiant heat energy. Space is NOT hot. Space is NOT cold.
Objects which are heated cannot be cooled by space. In order for an object to cool it must first be removed from direct sunlight. Objects which are in the shadow of another object will eventually cool but not because space is "cold". Space is not cold. Hot and cold do not exist in the vacuum of space. Objects cool because the laws of motion dictate that the molecules of the object will slow down due to the resistance resulting from striking other molecules until eventually all motion will stop provided the object is sheltered from the direct and/or indirect radiation of the sun and that there is no other source of heat. Since the vacuum of space is the perfect insulator objects take a very long time to cool even when removed from all sources of heat, radiated or otherwise.
NASA insists the space suits the astronauts supposedly wore on the lunar surface were air conditioned. An air conditioner cannot, and will not work without a heat exchanger. A heat exchanger simply takes heat gathered in a medium such as freon from one place and transfers it to another place. This requires a medium of molecules which can absorb and transfer the heat such as an atmosphere or water. An air conditioner will not and cannot work in a vacuum. A space suit surrounded by a vacuum cannot transfer heat from the inside of the suit to any other place. The vacuum, remember, is a perfect insulator. A man would roast in his suit in such a circumstance.
NASA claims the spacesuits were cooled by a water system which was piped around the body, then through a system of coils sheltered from the sun in the backpack. NASA claims that water was sprayed on the coils causing a coating of ice to form. The ice then supposedly absorbed the tremendous heat collected in the water and evaporated into space. There are two problems with this that cannot be explained away. 1) The amount of water needed to be carried by the astronauts in order to make this work for even a very small length of time in the direct 55 degrees over the boiling point of water (210 degrees F at sea level on Earth) heat of the sun could not have possibly been carried by the astronauts. 2) NASA has since claimed that they found ice in moon craters. NASA claims that ice sheltered from the direct rays of the sun will NOT evaporate destroying their own bogus "air conditioning" explanation.
Remember this. Think about it the next time you go off in the morning with a "vacuum bottle" filled with hot coffee. Think about it long and hard when you sit down and pour a piping hot cup from your thermos to drink with your lunch four hours later... and then think about it again when you pour the last still very warm cup of coffee at the end of the day.
The same laws of physics apply to any vehicle traveling through space. NASA claims that the spacecraft was slowly rotated causing the shadowed side to be cooled by the intense cold of space... an intense cold that DOES NOT EXIST. In fact the only thing that could have been accomplished by a rotation of the spacecraft is a more even and constant heating such as that obtained by rotating a hot dog on a spit. In reality a dish called Astronaut a la Apollo would have been served. At the very least you would not want to open the hatch upon the crafts return.
NASA knows better than to claim, in addition, that a water cooling apparatus such as that which they claim cooled the astronauts suits cooled the spacecraft. No rocket could ever have been launched with the amount of water needed to work such a system for even a very short period of time. Fresh water weighs a little over 62 lbs. per cubic foot. Space and weight capacity were critical given the lift capability of the rockets used in the Apollo Space Program. No such extra water was carried by any mission whatsoever for suits or for cooling the spacecraft.
On the tapes the Astronauts complained bitterly of the cold during their journey and while on the surface of the moon. They spoke of using heaters that did not give off enough heat to overcome the intense cold of space. It was imperative that NASA use this ruse because to tell the truth would TELL THE TRUTH. It is also proof of the arrogance and contempt in which the Illuminati holds the common man.
What we heard is in reality indicative of an over zealous cooling system in the props used during the filming of the missions at the Atomic Energy Commissions Nevada desert test site, where it is common to see temperatures well over 100 degrees. In the glaring unfiltered direct heat of the sun the Astronauts could never have been cold at any time whatsoever in the perfect insulating vacuum of space.
NASA claims that the space suits worn by the astronauts were pressurized at 5 psi over the ambient pressure (0 psi vacuum) on the moon's surface. We have examined the gloves NASA claims the astronauts wore and find they are made of pliable material containing no mechanical, hydraulic, or electrical devices which would aid the astronauts in the dexterous use of their fingers and hands while wearing the gloves. Experiments prove absolutely that such gloves are impossible to use and that the wearer cannot bend the wrist or fingers to do any dexterous work whatsoever when filled with 5 psi over ambient pressure either in a vacuum or in the earth's atmosphere. NASA actually showed film and television footage of astronauts using their hands and fingers normally during their EVAs on the so-called lunar surface. The films show clearly that there is no pressure whatsoever within the gloves... a condition that would have caused explosive decompression of the astronauts resulting in almost immediate death if they had really been surrounded by the vacuum of space.
If you don't believe it try it yourself... it is a very simple experiment and does not require a rocket scientist to perform. These are just two of over a hundred very simple and very easy to prove valid scientific reasons why NASA and the Apollo Space Program are two of the biggest lies ever foisted upon the unsuspecting and trusting People of the world.
In addition most, if not all, of the photos, films, and videotape of the Apollo Moon Missions are easily proven to be fake. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of photography, lighting, and physics can easily prove that NASA faked the visual records of the Apollo Space Program. Some are so obviously fake that when the discrepancies are pointed out to unsuspecting viewers an audible gasp has been heard. Some have actually gone into a mild state of shock. Some People break down and cry. I have seen others become so angry that they have ripped the offending photos to shreds while screaming incoherently.
3/02/2006 7:51 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
something for ness,
you are right that acc to Newton, a body would would continue its motion forever, but you are forgetting that the moon has a gravitational force(approx 1/6th of the earth). so that would, in the absence of a wind cause a flag to stop fluttering and point it towards the ground.
16/02/2006 12:44 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
i no they didnt go for shower
28/02/2006 4:05 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
GAHH! It's all part of the matrix. I say we go get a bite to eat and then pop on to the next dimension. That or be civil.
Toodles
14/03/2006 3:59 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
I am a former member of the U.S. Navy and while i was in the navy I worked as a MISSILE TECHNICIAN (for those uneducated people outh there that means I am schooled in rocketry and guidance technologies that were built in the 80s based on knowledge from the 70s and earlier. the abilitly to launch intercontinental ballistic milssiles thousands of miles from under the sea is quite an amazing thing to do and to witness!! what does this have to do with the moon landings? nothing directly. however it's my belief that if we as a nation can build these technologicaly advanced submarines and theire nuclear weapon delivery systems based on research conducted in the 70s and before, i have no doubt that we were able to break the Earths chains of gravity and land on the moon. The reason we havent gone back since is easy. DEMAND OF THE PUBLIC TO DO SO, AND MONEY!!! For logics sake all you need do is look at how much it costs to launch the shuttle just to go to orbit (roughly $450 million a launch) and it costs more to build the shuttle by almost twice that much. now imagine the research and development, testing and implementation of a new design to reach the moon> That cost would probably run into the trillions of dollars. now, as a taxpayer, do you want to foot the bill for that???
16/05/2006 6:19 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Nah screw that Luke C.
You are all delusional.
You just skip over all the facts of total science.
van allen belt,solar flares.
pigs can fly, as a tax payer id addore to see that.
usa pisses more money away on feeding Lard buckets at mickey D's and taco bell each year.
Surely they could do Proppa round trip to the moon and back!
Cmon its on 240 thousand miles away should be a piece of pis#.
Oh no,no,no we did 1,2,3,4,5 ?? whatever missions back 30 years ago.
We dont need to proove that we can do it again.
I would deffo Pay to see it done just one last time.
Summat for Mr.Bush to think about.
it may just even Wow the towel heads into submission.
did it with the Russa's
8/07/2006 2:44 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
I honestly don't know wheather we put a man on the moon first or not, or if it even matters at this point and time, but i would like to think that it did happen and that we can belive in what our leaders tell us. Because a lot of young hero's gave up there lives so this country could be great. and do great things, there will be many more trips to places just as important as the moon. and i'am sure that we will be first on many of those trips. Have a nice day. Tovey Grissom, Mitchell, IN 7/7/2006
16/08/2006 11:19 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Even if you sent up a robot rover, and took pictures of the landing modules, and even if you brought back a piece of the flag, there would be a select group who still wouldn't believe it, so why bother?
Weve got bigger problems now. I would rather see millions go into alternative fuel development then to try to prove something that doesn't mean squat.
My theory is its part real part fake, they probably did go, but maybe the landings and footage we see aren't from the real missions.
What would happen if you spent billions to send a couple of red necks to the moon, and oh cr*p, the photos look like sh**t! We should have sent Amsel Adams!
And we all know the religous mobs would freak if we found somehtign there that proved there baloney religons wrong, world war III anybody?
Forget it, move on, who cares. Weve got a planet here to clean up and it will sevre us well for millions of years. Isn't that enough?
19/08/2006 3:42 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
the moon landing never happened
20/08/2006 10:47 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Nasa claims that the moon photos do not show the stars
because of the short exposure needed to properly picture the very bright lunar surface....Sofar so good,
except that nothing would have prevented one from excluding the bright lunar surface from the picture composition, simply by aiming the camera to the sky alone. The absence of atmosphere would have ensured perfect results just like the Hubble that is capable of
photography eventhough the relentless rays of sun are bombarding its body during much of its photographic activity. Simple...yet the Apollo geniuses supposedly never thought of this possibility! Fraud...
22/08/2006 5:04 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Quote from Wikipedia on Vallen Allen Belts, go to link to read the whole article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt
Outer Belt
The particle population of the outer belt is varied, containing electrons
and various ions. Most of the ions are in the form of energetic protons, but
a certain percentage are alpha particles and O+ oxygen ions, similar to
those in the ionosphere but much more energetic. This mixture of ions
suggests that ring current particles probably come from more than one
source.
The outer belt is larger than the inner belt, and its particle population
fluctuates widely. Energetic (radiation) particle fluxes can increase and
decrease dramatically as a consequence of geomagnetic storms, which are
themselves triggered by magnetic field and plasma disturbances produced by
the Sun. The increases are due to storm-related injections and acceleration
of particles from the tail of the magnetosphere.
The Inner Van Allen Belt
The inner Van Allen Belt extends from roughly 1.1 to 3.3 Earth radii, and
contains high concentrations of energetic protons with energies exceeding
100 MeV, trapped by the strong (relative to the outer belts) magnetic fields
in the region.
It is believed that protons of energies exceeding 50 MeV in the lower belts
at lower altitudes are the result of the beta decay of neutrons created by
cosmic ray collisions with nuclei of the upper atmosphere. The source of
lower energy protons is believed to be proton diffusion due to changes in
the magnetic field during geomagnetic storms. [4]
The Van Allen Belt's impact on space travel
Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation.
In 1962, the Van Allen belts were temporarily amplified by a high-altitude
nuclear explosion (the Starfish Prime test) and several satellites ceased
operation. Magnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on
spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic
circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as incoming ions
may be as large as the circuit's charge. Electronics on satellites must be
hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope,
among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing
through regions of intense radiation.
An object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum will receive about 2500 rem
(25 Sv) per year.[5]
Proponents of the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax have argued that space travel to
the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or
incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. Van Allen himself, now deceased
(August 9, 2006), dismissed these ideas. In practice, Apollo astronauts who
travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and received a
harmless dose. [6]. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches,
and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over
the equator to minimise the radiation. Astronauts who visited the moon
probably have a slightly higher risk of cancer during their lifetimes, but
still remain unlikely to become ill because of it.
The Soviets once accused the U.S. of creating the inner belt as a result of
nuclear testing in Nevada. The U.S. has, likewise, accused the USSR of
creating the outer belt through nuclear testing. It is uncertain how
particles from such testing could escape the atmosphere and reach the
altitudes of the radiation belts. Likewise, it is unclear why, if this is
the case, the belts have not weakened since atmospheric nuclear testing was
banned by treaty. Thomas Gold has argued that the outer belt is left over
from the aurora while Dr Alex Dessler has argued that the belt is a result
of volcanic activity.
Removing the belts:
The belts are a hazard for artificial satellites and moderately dangerous
for human beings and difficult and expensive to shield against.
There is a proposal by the late Robert L. Forward called HiVolt which may be
a way to drain at least the inner belt to 1% of its natural level within a
year. The proposal involves deploying highly electrically charged tethers in
orbit. The idea is that the electrons would be deflected by the large
electrostatic fields and intersect the atmosphere and harmlessly dissipate.
22/08/2006 1:36 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
wikipedia (please correct me if i am wrong)is never the final authority on any subject matter, simply because practically anyone can contribute...The genius and also the inept...
1/10/2006 1:48 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
I think we can all now honestly admit that those Apollo Moon missions were 100% fake, as anyone with a grain of sense can see it.
1/10/2006 1:51 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings 100% FAKE
Why can't we have a blank cmment?
1/10/2006 1:53 PM
# re: Armstrong and Myself are mentally ill
Don't believe me check it out
4/10/2006 6:21 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Complete fiction !! ... and the proof that nasa faked the moon landings is everywhere , in every single aspect of their bogus missions .... The web sites of Bad Astronomy and clavius are linked to nasa and the disinformation on those sites comes directly from nasa's think tank ... nasa and their defenders think they can stop the conspiracy information from leaking out , when it has already leaked out all over the planet !
Please check out my moon hoax forum and come join if you are interested ....
http://uk.msnusers.com/Moonhoax
6/12/2006 2:27 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
All you naysayers don't know what you're talking about.
The moon landings happened and nothing you say can prove it wrong.
7/12/2006 9:25 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
There is one simple way to solve this dilemia....Have the hubble take a picture of the lunar buggies and the flag on the moon!
John
8/12/2006 1:08 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
If a high school student can shoot holes in most of your hoax theories with no problem, how will they hold up in the real world? The problem with the hubble taking pics is it's too sensitive and will not work.
22/12/2006 12:51 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Yea we faked those missions and you suckers fell for it. Yea it's true I said "Picking up some dust", but I was vacuuming my automobile at the time.
Fuzz ses the closest he ever got to the Moon was when he fitted his TV aerial on the roof of his house.
We're both mentally ill now as a result of keeping things "bottled up inside our heads", and Fuzz often looks up to the Moon and shakes his fist at it.
26/06/2007 2:14 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Why is it so hard to belive that the government would pull a fast one, to get ahead in the space race? Regan did it again in the 80s with the Star Wars defence system.
19/07/2007 6:39 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Most expensive movie shooted by nasa.....but they were caught in some aspects.
21/07/2007 6:53 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
There are always those who will not believe the evidence. There are those who, incredibly, still believe the Earth is flat! Dreaming is fundamental to success. Those who dream big can, and did, go to the moon. Those without dreams of any sort will never understand or accept the success of the dreamer no matter how irrefutable the evidence.
I am a dreamer.
16/08/2007 3:02 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
I'm reasonably sure the landings were a hoax.The shortcomings and limitations of the AGC rule out a foot first landing successfully seven times in a row.Taking off from an unprepared and uneven surface is very risky.I've never seen a picture of the Lunar Module with the porous plate sublimator clearly identified.Was there one on the ascent stage or two ?How rugged were they ?The crew would very quickly perish if it malfunctioned,and that would be a massive setback to what was a PR exercise with a global audience.The Saturn 5 was barely proven and had technical hitches.Three astronauts perished two years prior and they didn't have the Saturn 5 then.
17/08/2007 4:21 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Ok, I'm going to put my two cents in here. First of all, There is far more evidence that the landing occured than that it did not. Let's use our critical thinking skills here and offer valid arguments either way. That means if you know of evidence, confirm that it is accurate. The statement "most of the pictures only appeared after 1990" is totally false! I saw tons of pictures of the landing, and the video of the landing in the 1970's. Also, the statement that a controlled rocket landing has never been accomplished is also TOTALLY FALSE. Controlled rocket landings have never been successful on the US. They are performed all the time in space. That is, unless the space station is also fake. A controlled rocket landing would be the only way to couple with the station without crushing it. Another thing. I learned in 1978 that the flag had a wire across the top to keep it rigid. From what I see of the arguments against the lunar landing, all of it is based on some sketchy sources or inaccurate information. Sort of like fuzzy pictures of UFO's, Nessie, and Big Foot. One argument that cuts both ways is the question of why the US doesn't prove the landing by taking pictures of the site from Earth. Well, why don't the debunkers get China, Russsia, or Japan to do the same. All are capable. I can assure you that if we had faked it, the Russians would have proved it decades ago during the cold war. The statement that the US doesn't have the technology today - that they would have to get it from somewhere else is also a falacy. On what grounds, sir, do you state this - PROVE it - your opinion doesn't count with out some proof. One last statement. Let's save the name calling and personal attacks for the 5th graders. It doesn't prove or solve anything and it only serves to discount the credibility of the participants.
Again, lets use some critical thinking skills here. If you don't know what critical thinking means - LOOK IT UP!!!
28/11/2007 1:12 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
you suck
28/11/2007 1:21 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
all of you suck do not thinkk you deserve anythang
7/12/2007 3:22 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
I don't think there is any real proof that the manned moon landings took place.The surveyor craft that preceded Apollo to the moon had only a 40 % success rate. The DCX has been struggling for two decades to achieve what the LM did in its final descent.The LM had
absolutely no redundancy built in.The ascent stage couldn't be throttled.As regards the Soviets,we now know that they were just another branch of the NWO.
23/12/2007 11:37 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
The Moon missions were 100% fake. Check out these links
www.nasascam.bravehost.com
www.apolloreality.bravehost.com
www.apollofake.bravehost.com
www.apolloinsider.bravehost.com
www.apollofryup.bravehost.com
www.apollotruth.bravehost.com
www.apollodata.bravehost.com
www.apollofacts.bravehost.com
www.apollolaugh.bravehost.com
www.apollofeedback.bravehost.com
www.apolloscam.bravehost.com
2/01/2008 6:54 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
911 was an inside job.
2/03/2008 2:38 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
My theory is that moon hoaxers are themselves a hoax designed to _irritate_ us into going back to the moon.
If so, good on them. ;)
5/03/2008 11:58 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
All the evidence which suggests the Moon landings were real, has been blown straight out the window at the bottom of webpage www.apollofacts.bravehost.com
This proves once and for all that NASA have lied about the Moon landings
6/04/2008 2:05 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
It seems to have gone awfully quite in this forum. What's the problem? Is the truth to much for some to bear, are you PAN's left in limbo as to how to respond to such hard evidence of blatant fakery by NASA.
8/04/2008 3:37 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
There are way too many problems with the historical record to just write off the hoax.
No astronauts report seeing stars on the dark side of the moon after countless trips around it through 9 manned missions and 27 men. The Apollo 15 flag starts waving with no one near it and an astronaut running by. The Apollo 11 crew is caught faking their distance to the moon.
[url]http://moonmovie.com[/url]
30/04/2008 10:18 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Well since there has been no more comments in support of NASA landing on the Moon, I think we can safely say without any doubt whatsoever MOON MISSIONS FAKED
CASE CLOSED
30/04/2008 10:18 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Well since there has been no more comments in support of NASA landing on the Moon, I think we can safely say without any doubt whatsoever MOON MISSIONS FAKED
CASE CLOSED
19/05/2008 10:44 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
We agree MOON MAN case closed.
18/06/2008 7:58 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
No man has ever ascended much higher than 300 miles, if that high, above the Earth's surface. At or under that altitude the astronauts are beneath the radiation of the Van Allen Belt and the Van Allen Belt shields them from the extreme radiation which permeates space. No man has ever orbited, landed on, or walked upon the moon in any publicly known space program. If man has ever truly been to the moon it has been done in secret and with a far different technology.
The tremendous radiation encountered in the Van Allen Belt, solar radiation, cosmic radiation, Solar flares, temperature control, and many other problems connected with space travel prevent living organisms leaving our atmosphere with our known level of technology. Any intelligent high school student with a basic physics book can prove NASA faked the Apollo moon landings
If you doubt this please explain how the astronauts walked upon the moons surface enclosed in a space suit in full sunlight absorbing a minimum of 265 degrees of heat surrounded by a vacuum... and that is not even taking into consideration any effects of cosmic radiation, Solar flares, micrometeorites, etc. NASA tells us the moon has no atmosphere and that the astronauts were surrounded by the vacuum of space.
Heat is defined as the vibration or movement of molecules within matter. The faster the molecular motion the higher the temperature. The slower the molecular motion the colder the temperature. Absolute zero is that point where all molecular motion ceases. In order to have hot or cold, molecules must be present.
A vacuum is a condition of nothingness where there are no molecules. Vacuums exist in degrees. Some scientists tell us that there is no such thing as an absolute vacuum. Space is the closest thing to an absolute vacuum that is known to us. There are so few molecules present in most areas of what we know as "space" that any concept of "hot" or "cold" is impossible to measure. A vacuum is a perfect insulator. That is why a "Thermos" or vacuum bottle is used to store hot or cold liquids in order to maintain the temperature for the longest time possible without re-heating or re-cooling.
Radiation of all types will travel through a vacuum but will not affect the vacuum. Radiant heat from the sun travels through the vacuum of space but does not "warm" space. In fact the radiant heat of the sun has no affect whatsoever until it strikes matter. Molecular movement will increase in direct proportion to the radiant energy which is absorbed by matter. The time it takes to heat matter exposed to direct sunlight in space is determined by its color, its elemental properties, its distance from the sun, and its rate of absorption of radiant heat energy. Space is NOT hot. Space is NOT cold.
Objects which are heated cannot be cooled by space. In order for an object to cool it must first be removed from direct sunlight. Objects which are in the shadow of another object will eventually cool but not because space is "cold". Space is not cold. Hot and cold do not exist in the vacuum of space. Objects cool because the laws of motion dictate that the molecules of the object will slow down due to the resistance resulting from striking other molecules until eventually all motion will stop provided the object is sheltered from the direct and/or indirect radiation of the sun and that there is no other source of heat. Since the vacuum of space is the perfect insulator objects take a very long time to cool even when removed from all sources of heat, radiated or otherwise.
NASA insists the space suits the astronauts supposedly wore on the lunar surface were air conditioned. An air conditioner cannot, and will not work without a heat exchanger. A heat exchanger simply takes heat gathered in a medium such as freon from one place and transfers it to another place. This requires a medium of molecules which can absorb and transfer the heat such as an atmosphere or water. An air conditioner will not and cannot work in a vacuum. A space suit surrounded by a vacuum cannot transfer heat from the inside of the suit to any other place. The vacuum, remember, is a perfect insulator. A man would roast in his suit in such a circumstance.
NASA claims the spacesuits were cooled by a water system which was piped around the body, then through a system of coils sheltered from the sun in the backpack. NASA claims that water was sprayed on the coils causing a coating of ice to form. The ice then supposedly absorbed the tremendous heat collected in the water and evaporated into space. There are two problems with this that cannot be explained away. 1) The amount of water needed to be carried by the astronauts in order to make this work for even a very small length of time in the direct 55 degrees over the boiling point of water (210 degrees F at sea level on Earth) heat of the sun could not have possibly been carried by the astronauts. 2) NASA has since claimed that they found ice in moon craters. NASA claims that ice sheltered from the direct rays of the sun will NOT evaporate destroying their own bogus "air conditioning" explanation.
Remember this. Think about it the next time you go off in the morning with a "vacuum bottle" filled with hot coffee. Think about it long and hard when you sit down and pour a piping hot cup from your thermos to drink with your lunch four hours later... and then think about it again when you pour the last still very warm cup of coffee at the end of the day.
The same laws of physics apply to any vehicle traveling through space. NASA claims that the spacecraft was slowly rotated causing the shadowed side to be cooled by the intense cold of space... an intense cold that DOES NOT EXIST. In fact the only thing that could have been accomplished by a rotation of the spacecraft is a more even and constant heating such as that obtained by rotating a hot dog on a spit. In reality a dish called Astronaut a la Apollo would have been served. At the very least you would not want to open the hatch upon the crafts return.
NASA knows better than to claim, in addition, that a water cooling apparatus such as that which they claim cooled the astronauts suits cooled the spacecraft. No rocket could ever have been launched with the amount of water needed to work such a system for even a very short period of time. Fresh water weighs a little over 62 lbs. per cubic foot. Space and weight capacity were critical given the lift capability of the rockets used in the Apollo Space Program. No such extra water was carried by any mission whatsoever for suits or for cooling the spacecraft.
On the tapes the Astronauts complained bitterly of the cold during their journey and while on the surface of the moon. They spoke of using heaters that did not give off enough heat to overcome the intense cold of space. It was imperative that NASA use this ruse because to tell the truth would TELL THE TRUTH. It is also proof of the arrogance and contempt in which the Illuminati holds the common man.
What we heard is in reality indicative of an over zealous cooling system in the props used during the filming of the missions at the Atomic Energy Commissions Nevada desert test site, where it is common to see temperatures well over 100 degrees. In the glaring unfiltered direct heat of the sun the Astronauts could never have been cold at any time whatsoever in the perfect insulating vacuum of space.
As proof examine the Lunar Lander on display in the Smithsonian Institute and notice the shrouded and encased cone of the rocket engine INSIDE the Lander which is attached above the rocket nozzle at the bottom center of the Lander. It is this rocket engine which supposedly provided the retro thrust upon landing on the moon and the takeoff thrust during takeoff from the moon. In the actual Lunar Lander this engine is present but in the film and pictures of the inside of the Lunar Lander that was "said" to be on the moon the engine is absent. Then examine the Lunar Lander simulator and you will see exactly where the fake footage was filmed.
It would also be a good idea for you to measure the dimensions of the astronauts in their spacesuits and then measure the actual usable dimensions of the hatch that they had to use to egress and ingress the Lander. Also measure the inside dimensions of the actual Lander and you will see that the astronauts (liars) could not have possibly left or entered in their suits through that hatch. Notice the position of the hinge of the hatch and then examine the Lunar Lander training simulator and measure all the dimensions noted above taking care to note the position of the hinge on the much larger hatch and you may become "illumined"... so to speak.
NASA claims that the space suits worn by the astronauts were pressurized at 5 psi over the ambient pressure (0 psi vacuum) on the moon's surface. We have examined the gloves NASA claims the astronauts wore and find they are made of pliable material containing no mechanical, hydraulic, or electrical devices which would aid the astronauts in the dexterous use of their fingers and hands while wearing the gloves. Experiments prove absolutely that such gloves are impossible to use and that the wearer cannot bend the wrist or fingers to do any dexterous work whatsoever when filled with 5 psi over ambient pressure either in a vacuum or in the earth's atmosphere. NASA actually showed film and television footage of astronauts using their hands and fingers normally during their EVAs on the so-called lunar surface. The films show clearly that there is no pressure whatsoever within the gloves... a condition that would have caused explosive decompression of the astronauts resulting in almost immediate death if they had really been surrounded by the vacuum of space.
18/06/2008 8:13 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
I'm anxious for a point by point refutal of William Coopers assertions, can anybody address these issues with better science? Why didn't the astronauts cook in their suits?
24/02/2009 5:30 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Is there a working model of a porous plate sublimator in a science museum anywhere in the world ?
6/04/2009 10:55 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
There is no need for a point by point refutal of William Cooper's assertions, as there has already been more than enough evidence of fakery by NASA, and the concluding factor is MOON MISSIONS FAKED BY NASA
Forum now closed
26/05/2009 10:16 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
You people need to get a life Neil Armstrong set his foot on the moon and just in case any posted this the only reason that the flag stood striaght is because the peeps who this thought and said we do'nt want the flag hangin so the put 2 sticks in the back sowed it on to the flag to make it lean striaght hello think peace bobrina your quetions make no cents and + maxine get a life I think u do have funguslips
3/06/2009 2:34 AM
# Cheap Airfare Secrets - Travel Experts Expose Insider Discounts. | 7Wins.eu
Cheap Airfare Secrets - Travel Experts Expose Insider Discounts. | 7Wins.eu
1/07/2009 5:52 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
the moon landing is fake, ive studyed it and found hard evidence to prove that the moon landing is indeed fake, for instance they claim that the camera footage is done by mechanical methods, but if u look closely the camera footage has a slight human motion movement.
i could go on,but ill read more post and explain the true theory as it goes by.
1/07/2009 6:10 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
also myth busters have some very good points, i suggest people who still believe the landing is real need to watch myth busters
30/10/2009 5:16 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
if they really had made it, a military base would have been up there in the 70s
3/11/2009 12:27 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKEFAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE Now I have got the message through to you all?
6/11/2009 9:25 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
The LRO pictures are a slam dunk and the argument has been put to rest. The 6% who believed the missions were faked will now have to take up the cause of alien abduction or something.
Wikipedia also has a great site debunking all the idiocy coming from the conspiracy theorists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_conspiracy_theories
20/11/2009 3:21 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Inspired debate.It doesnt make much difference either way to me , but what is absolutely fascinating is the challenge of the debate itself. Given our individuality, and from what I have read of the views of the proponents for either side, and of course those for whom the jury is still out, it seems perfectly reasonable for different people to take for ,or against views, or simply don't know. I'm inclined to the last group.
For the sake of discussion, rather than Did they land or did they fake it, I'm going with...."Could they have faked it". I'm inclined to believe that it is "possible" to have faked it.Which is quite a different thing to suggesting that they did fake it. Hypothetical scenario. NASA has done all the hard yards, built a usefull rocket and got it all together, except....major hitch....[hypothetical} forget the van allen belt, outside of the Earth's magnetosphere the enviroment is discovered to be deadly. Oddly enough no-one thought to send someone out for a just a quick look. Now it is found the weight of material necessary to shield the astronauts is utterly prohibitive.......or maybe you just can't carry enough fuel to slow the LM to a dead stop, take off and dock with the orbiter......or any other of the reasonable queries that have been posited to date in forums. Looks like JFK's boast to the world will be proved an idle one, Honest Richard Nixon is on your case and you can't stand the thought of the great Russian smirk, and golleeeee we sure have spent some money. Time for Plan B, lets face it there must have been a Plan B. You only had till the end of the decade,thanks for that Mr Kennedy, and you must have known there could a major problem. So you approach the President, and he says "What, me, tell a lie?". Or maybe you don't. So.....hypothetical plan B, instead of taking all that extra fuel for landing and taking off from the lunar surface, fix the guys up with a few tons of lead shield and send them off for a loop around the moon, or two or three. You do, after all, have a proven rocket.The Russians won't know you didn't land, and surprisingly few people will actually know. And after all the guys will actually go to the moon. They'll always be able to look you in the eye and say "I went to the moon", rather than "Well...when I was on the Apollo programne........." Alternatively, just send the rocket, it knows how to get there and come back.It will make the right noises when it hits the earths atmosphere. In that case you will need to drop the boys out of a helicopter or a B52 or whatever.Provided the photos and videos are halfway believable, "Who's to know?" No-one else is going there soon. As to the Moon rocks , well maybe you already have some, or at least hope to get some by a remote lander in the near future. Is it plausible? Clearly if the U.S. had the smarts to get a lander to, and off the moon,no debate there, covering the "manned" part of it would be relatively simple. You've achieved a triumph for Nation and a victory over Godless communism, without nuking or invading anyone.Or risking the astronauts lives with some very new technology. As for the few in the know keeping a secret, If I had been one of the relative few to sign the Official Secrets Act, and been vividly appraised of the consequences of failing in my duty, and been paid a handsome pension, I can't think of a reason not to keep my pledge. Who would believe me anyway......"always thought that guy was a bit crazy". Just a thought. Hypotheitically, without projecting your own high ethics onto it.........would zealous patriots of a more pragmatic disposition actually be able pull this one off?"
25/11/2009 4:38 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Alwin,
We certainly knew enough about radiation in 1969 to know that the astronaut suits had to protect astronauts from radiation. However, they were also a bit lucky. We didn’t know much about the intensity and frequency of solar flares then. The odds of an astronaut on an Apollo moon mission getting caught in the storm from an X-class flare were less than 1% but had it happened they likely would not have survived. Now that we know about X-class flares and the like we know we need to design more capable suits and shielding. Even our suits today are not adequate and the astronauts move to more shielded sections of the ISS when a major flare goes off.
22/01/2010 12:39 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
To NASA 1 Morons O. Never count your money while you're stitting at the table, reference your scoresheet. We certainly did know enough about radiation in 1969, enough not to go there, and the very reason we won't be going there for a long time yet. Apart from other difficulties. In answer to my own question from a previous post, after some further rigorous investigation, they've certainly pulled off the greatest hoodwink in the history other than mythology. Unless NASA developed some astonishing technology in 1969 that we are unaware of, what looked like a fabulous achivement in 69 is looking just downright silly now. Sorry to sound a little sarcastic, but to label people morons simply because they have it in them to challenge an authority is really very unreasonable. To not be able to see the why the Apollo programne has raised so many questions, and seriously, not appreciate that the questions remain unanswered, brings up doubts about the detractors of the challengers, capacity for critical thinking. Theres an elephant in the room. Good luck.
23/01/2010 3:19 PM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
1969 to 2010 and the argument is undiminished. How long does it take to establish fact of this scale? Time is the ultimate advocate of truth.
19/05/2010 3:29 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
Check out the simulated gravity video at www.apolloreality.bravehost.com
Check out the plaster paris model of Hadley Rille at www.apolloreality2.bravehost.com
Check out "Pans on the Run" video at www.apollotruth.bravehost.com
Moon missions 100% fake. End of story.
20/05/2010 12:21 AM
# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?
The vast majority of the moon's craters are formed by the impact of meteoroids, asteroids, and comets. Craters on the moon are named for famous scientists. For example, Copernicus Crater is named for Nicolaus Copernicus, a Polish astronomer who realized in the 1500's that the planets move about the sun. Archimedes Crater is named for the Greek mathematician Archimedes, who made many mathematical discoveries in the 200's B.C.
The shape of craters varies with their size. Small craters with diameters of less than 6 miles (10 kilometers) have relatively simple bowl shapes. Slightly larger craters cannot maintain a bowl shape because the crater wall is too steep. Material falls inward from the wall to the floor. As a result, the walls become scalloped and the floor becomes flat.
Still larger craters have terraced walls and central peaks. Terraces inside the rim descend like stairsteps to the floor. The same process that creates wall scalloping is responsible for terraces. The central peaks almost certainly form as did the central peaks of impact craters on Earth. Studies of the peaks on Earth show that they result from a deformation of the ground. The impact compresses the ground, which then rebounds, creating the peaks. Material in the central peaks of lunar craters may come from depths as great as 12 miles (19 kilometers).
Surrounding the craters is rough, mountainous material -- crushed and broken rocks that were ripped out of the crater cavity by shock pressure. This material, called the crater ejecta blanket, can extend about 60 miles (100 kilometers) from the crater.
Farther out are patches of debris and, in many cases, irregular secondary craters, also known as secondaries. Those craters come in a range of shapes and sizes, and they are often clustered in groups or aligned in rows. Secondaries form when material thrown out of the primary (original) crater strikes the surface. This material consists of large blocks, clumps of loosely joined rocks, and fine sprays of ground-up rock. The material may travel thousands of miles or kilometers.
Crater rays are light, wispy deposits of powder that can extend thousands of miles or kilometers from the crater. Rays slowly vanish as micrometeoroid bombardment mixes the powder into the upper surface layer. Thus, craters that still have visible rays must be among the youngest craters on the moon.
This is really interesting topic, I'll write a paper on it or probably use the <a href="http://www.bookwormlab.com/essay-writing">essay writing</a> service.
Craters larger than about 120 miles (200 kilometers) across tend to have central mountains. Some of them also have inner rings of peaks, in addition to the central peak. The appearance of a ring signals the next major transition in crater shape -- from crater to basin.
|