Huge List of Moon Landing Hoax Evidence

[ericdubay]

An Apollo Hoax analysis by Eric Dubay of AtlanteanConspiracy.com

Photo Evidence: (All this photo evidence is well-documented at www.aulis.com and all available from NASA photo directories)

-There are dozens of photos showing shadows of astronauts, flags, rocks and other objects falling in different directions up to 90 degrees apart; this is impossible without secondary lighting which was not brought to the moon, the only light is the sun coming from one direction which casts all shadows in one direction, not two

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/11lightingproblems.jpg

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/12lightdirsurveyor.jpg

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/14lightsource.jpg

-In consecutive Apollo 17 photos (AS17-135-20588 and 89) the rock’s shadows change almost 180 degrees as if they switched studio-lights between shots

-In one shot (AS14-64-9089) studio-lighting representing the sun is seen reflecting off a black background, a photographic effect that couldn’t happen in the blackness of space, and could only reflect off a background

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/redreflection.jpg

-In one Apollo 17 shot (AS17-140-21370) the moon rover is shown still packed up, not yet unloaded, but there are clear wheel tracks going across the foreground of the entire photo

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/roverstowchap1.jpg

-There is one Apollo 12 shot that shows the reflection of what can only be an overhead studio light, and another (AS12-49-7278) which shows two lens flares from overhead lighting

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/12dinespotlight.jpg

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/12lensflaresstudy.jpg

-There is one shot (15-86-11670) which clearly shows a sneaker-print partially covered by an astronaut boot-print (there were no sneakers on the moon, the astronaut’s boot-prints are otherwise all uniform)

-Many consecutive photos supposedly from astronaut’s hand-held cameras are exactly the same, completely unmoved, to a degree only achieved by a tripod

-Consecutive photos AS11-40-5862 and 63 show the lunar lander with different colored windows, different lettering on the United States sign, and a mysterious disappearing component

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/hatchanomalies1.jpg

-Buzz Aldrin in consecutive Apollo 11 photos changes from white gloves, to dark gray gloves, back to white gloves, and back to dark gray gloves

-There is never a burn print under the lunar lander, nor is there any dust/dirt on the landing pod feet, as if it was just set down gently onto a stage

-There are many pictures which show moon rovers with no wheel tracks in front or behind them (as though they were set down into place) even though there are many footprints all around

-There are pictures of astronauts shown with footprints all around them, but no prints leading to or from where they are, as if they were lowered into place by wire

-There are shots that appear out of sequence in the timetable given

-There are shots which show camera cross-hairs being overlayed onto the original

-Photo AS11-40-5922 close-up of the Apollo 11 Eagle is classic, looks uncannily like cardboard, construction paper, scotch tape and wires

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/11flymetothemoon.jpg

-The video from the Data Acquisition Camera mounted on the Apollo 11 starboard window and the Tripod Mounted TV Camera mounted outside both pan, tilt, reframe, and zoom supposedly while unmanned

-In the 6 moon missions the total time on the moon amounted to 4834 minutes and the total number of photographs taken was 5771; this means they were taking an average of one photo every 50 seconds, covering vast distances, all while supposedly doing many other tasks, collecting rocks, planting flags, making repairs, driving moon rovers etc. Is this even feasible?


General Evidence:

-NASA made all networks record their feed for TV broadcast, so that’s why we only ever see the grainy recording of a recording on TV, and now NASA says they lost the original high-definition video and data telemetry tapes so they can never be verified

-Blueprints and designs of certain machines are missing from both NASA and the companies which supposedly constructed them such as the Apollo Lunar Module and rover

-Van Allen Belt, Russians could never get beyond because of intense radiation that recquires 4 feet of lead shielding too heavy to rocket into orbit; and in 1969-70 the Van Allen Belt was at it’s 11 year cycle peak radiation yet somehow American astronauts and their film was able to survive this without shielding

-There are no stars in any of the moon pictures/video, just complete darkness; they couldn’t make a perfect model in a studio, even a planetarium layout can only be seen in absolute darkness, spotlighting from the “sun” would block out the “star” lighting; so they cover this by saying the sun is SO bright on the moon that the astronauts couldn’t remember seeing stars either

-The moon walk is in half-speed slow-mo; if you speed it up x2 the astronauts are clearly in Earth gravity walking normally with long strides

-The flag in many photos and videos is shown flapping in the wind on the supposedly atmosphere-less moon

-Werner Von Braun took a NASA team to Antarctica in 1967 and was purported to be collecting “moon rocks.” Later Bill Kaysing (author of “We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle”) hired his private investigator friend Paul Jacobs to check with the head of the US Department of Geology in Washington and ask, “did you examine the Moon rocks, and did they come from the Moon?” The geologist simply laughed and insinuated that people high in the US government knew all about the cover-up.

-11 Apollo astronauts were mysteriously killed before making their missions, 3 had oxygen pumped into their test capsule until it exploded, 7 died in 6 separate plane crashes, and 1 died in a car crash, highly unlikely coincidence, points towards a cover-up

-The astronauts rarely give public interviews or take questions at speaking events and were very unconvincing on their first interview back from the moon

-Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel who called him out on the hoax after he wouldn’t place his hand on the Bible and say he went to the moon

-Buzz Aldrin Jr. (Apollo 11), Gordon Cooper Jr., (Mercury 9, Gemini 5), Donn Eisele (Apollo 7), John Glenn Jr., (Mercury 6), Virgil Grissom (Apollo 1&15, Mercury 5, Gemini 3), James Irwin (Apollo 15), Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14), Walter Schirra Jr. (Apollo 7, Sigma 7, Gemini 6, Mercury 8), Thomas Stafford (Apollo 10&18, Gemini 7&9), and Paul Weitz (Skylab 2, Challenger), all these astronauts are Masons

-The first director of NASA was Werner Von Braun one of hundreds of NAZI rocket scientists brought into America through the OSS Project Paperclip

-Nazis and Masons are not the most historically trustworthy folks

-Why didn’t NASA make some sort of light/flare display from the moon that people could see without their TVs to prove they were there?

-Why no color video on Apollo 11 when we know the astronauts had a color camera with them?

Peace,
~Eric
www.atlanteanconspiracy.com
www.ericdubay.blogspot.com

[Anders Lindman]

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/12lightdirsurveyor.jpg

Good research! The different directions of shadows have been explained as caused by curvature in the moon landscape, but in the above image the shadows point in VERY different directions. Could that really be an effect of surface topology?

[hoffy]

This is something I have followed for a while and it is interesting that there is so much 'evidence' on the moon landings being fake.

Don't know if you guys have seen Jay Weidner's article on Stanley Kubricks alleged involvement (http://jayweidner.com/AlchemicalKubrickIId.html) either? REALLY interesting...!

However for me, the jury is still out. I watched an Alex Jones interview with an astronaut who said ' for them to pull off that conspiracy they would have had to fool 450,000 Americans cause that's how many were involved in the mission'. Also someone who spends his time researching NASA, co-author of Dark Mission Mike Bara does not believe the moon landings were faked - listening to an interview with him on red ice creations he said he could easily refute any of the fake moon landing 'evidence'.

Personally, I am still open to both possibilities but think realistically it wasn't faked.

Isn't it more likely that the fake landing story has been intentionally launched to divert attention away from other things like what actually is on the moon...and NASA's activities in general?

[ericdubay]

If you're still on the fence about the Apollo Hoax, take a look at this 45 minute documentary: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2009/08/funny-thing-happened-on-way-to-moon.html)

~Eric
www.atlanteanconspiracy.com
www.ericdubay.blogspot.com

[ibaster]

My personal theory is that much of the footage was faked. That is not to say that there wasn`t perhaps a mission to the moon. Just that perhaps they did not show that mission in case things went wrong. So they had perhaps a real mission and a fake mission. Of course that is just my theory. I have seen convincing evidence that talks about the radiation etc and it made me wonder but I am not a scientist or anything so it is hard for me to say.

[rodin]

OP your 'evidence' is strawman

You are out of your depth

See the shadows? You claim 2 light sources? Where are the second shadows, that would be created with two light sources?

I have been trying to prove one way or another if a hoax. I suspect it is, but if so it was a good one.

[hunkahunka]

NASA's moon plan too ambitious, Obama panel says
A panel reviewing NASA's current plans for human space flight will report that there is no realistic way to return to the moon by 2020 -- or even 2028.

BY JOEL ACHENBACH
Washington Post Service

WASHINGTON -- NASA doesn't have nearly enough money to meet its goal of putting astronauts back on the moon by 2020 -- and it might be the wrong place to go, anyway. That's one of the harsh messages emerging from a sweeping review of NASA's human space flight program.

The Human Space Flight Plans Committee, appointed by President Barack Obama and headed by retired aerospace executive Norman Augustine, has been trying to stitch together some kind of plausible strategy for America's manned space program. The panel has struggled to find options that stay under the current budget and include missions worthy of the cost and effort.

The committee members will meet with administration officials Friday and will report that there is no realistic way to get Americans back on the moon by the target date of 2020, which has been the agency's goal since President George W. Bush signed off on the ``Vision for Space Exploration'' in 2004. Landing on the moon by 2020 would require such drastic budgetary maneuvers as de-orbiting the International Space Station -- crashing it into the South Pacific -- in 2016............

continued

complete story linked here:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation/story/1185467.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=8460549#Comments_Container

***********
btw, going to the moon should be cheap, we purportedly did it several times forty years ago, so what is the big deal?
Why is twenty years not enough time to get back?

[e7304]

Its quite obvious there are "local" light sources. The best examples are the video footage where the astronauts , whose shadows look similar, then they move apart and one astronaust gets his shadow to become at least twice of his mate. I wont post again the clips because I am sick and tired of idiots who believe the "apollo" shots were real.

Apollo was a fake. Period.

That does not mean we didnt go with "actual" ships that could make it. A David Oates reversal on 2 NASA scientists years ago on the "face of Mars" really exposed this. They talked about the face on MARS, and dismissed it. But their reversals clearly stated "we are involved in Cydonia" or somat like that. Well , as Cydonia wasnt mentioned forward but happens to be where the face is, this WAS revealing.

So we have been on Mars, as many researchers have said.

But for Apollo....So we have not been able to replicate an era of transistors, a lunar module that seems to be made out of alfoil (gold plated) with an instruction manual that was half the size of my maintenance manual for my ford escort 1978. I mean, if you cant SEE A PROBLEM HERE well I dont know what to say.

[misterethoughts]

Bumpin'

[ericdubay]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01471/rock_1471511c.jpg

It's not green cheese, but it might as well be. The Dutch national museum said Thursday that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by U.S. astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood.

Read the Yahoo News article (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090827/koddities/eu_netherlands_not_moon_rock_1)

Curators at Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, where the rock has attracted tens of thousands of visitors each year, discovered that the "lunar rock", valued at £308,000, was in fact petrified wood. Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation, said the museum would continue to keep the stone as a curiosity.

Read the London Telegraph article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html)

[ericdubay]

These astronauts are clearly being hoisted on wires: Astronauts on Wires (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2009/09/astronauts-on-wires.html)

~Eric
www.atlanteanconspiracy.com

[francis]

Erics last question Why no color video on Apollo 11 when we know the astronauts had a color camera with them? clearly shows his knowledge of Apollo 11 and its systems is appalling.

[ericdubay]

Care to elaborate on that for us? They took color video inside the ship, but on the moon they took only black and white. Why?

[francis]

www.clavius.org/tvqual.html

Although the question on that page is why NASA did not provide a direct video feed of Apollo 11's lunar surface activities to television stations (even though they did) it will still answer your question of why no colour TV on 11.

As you can see the answer is quite simple.

[ericdubay]

Thanks.

[bigcadaver]

I watched an Alex Jones interview with an astronaut who said ' for them to pull off that conspiracy they would have had to fool 450,000 Americans cause that's how many were involved in the mission'.

The jury is still out for me but this quote from that astronaut is crap. Just because that many people were involved in the program doesn't mean they would all have been involved in the consiracy. These projects are so compartmentalized that the only people needing to be involved in the conspiracy would be the astronauts, the very top echelon of NASA and the very top echelon of the US government and whoever would be involved in the filming....a few hundred people at most. Everyone else would actually think they are going to the moon and since no one would have known what that looks like...they would have been easily wooed into believing something they wanted to believe so badly since they worked so hard on it.

[ericdubay]

I agree. In A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2009/08/funny-thing-happened-on-way-to-moon.html) they address this point among many others very well.

[francis]

So NASA spends billions of dollars getting outside contractors to build them equipment and we have thousands of people working on the LM for example and no one noticed it couldnt fly and was made of toilet roll tubes and sticky back plastic lol. And lets face it if all the gear did work as the thousands of people who made it must have thought it would why fake it? Oh yeah now we go on to they faked it in case something went wrong. Well explain the Apollo 1 fire in that context. Hold on someone on here did and explained there never was a fire and 3 guys faked their own deaths. Madness just fucked up madness the shit a HB will go to to keep this bullshit idea that Apollo was faked going.

I mean look at the shit HB's have come up with below

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/11flymetothemoon.jpg

Ignorance to the max. Oh look it comes from Aulis lol. Did you know Aulis use fake evidence on their site and they know they do? Now why would they have to lie, to sell a video and the book that goes with it could be a reason. Many people have reported to Aulis that photographs they are using have been tampered with and only 2 people that i know of got a response. 1 persons mail was changed so it read like he was praising the site and they posted it up on the web page another was simply told to fuck off. Nice bloke that David Percy.

Aulis actually had a forum but as soon as their little money spinner was up and most on the forum had realised David Percy is full of shit they closed it down to try and ensure they should just a few more books and bullshit videos.

[francis]

I agree. In A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2009/08/funny-thing-happened-on-way-to-moon.html) they address this point among many others very well.

You seem to be a way behind other hoax believers Eric. The word going round is Bart Winfield Sibrel who made that pice of shit video you linked too is actually a government agent. Funny that he says exactly the same stuff as Percy, Kaysing and Ralph Rene.

Sibrel is a liar and a fraud and its easy to prove just watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX7UKH3_xuA

lol easy as pie when you know what you are looking at and listening to. The unfortunate bit is Sibrel like Collier before him have fooled many people with that shit. Sibrel stole it from Collier who was the inventor of that hoax along with Rene and claimed it as his own hoax, sorry work.

Did you see in Sibrels shitty video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" he claims hes showing you unseen pictures of Apollo astronauts faking TV? He says NASA sent him the tape by mistake and until now its never been seen. Bullshit most of it was broadcast live on TV and you have been able to buy it on video and DVD long before sibrel ever got hold of it.

No wonder HB's are distancing themselves from Sibrel hes a fucking fool, but out of all the money makers i can give you similar examples for all of them.

[ericdubay]

S

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/11flymetothemoon.jpg

Ignorance to the max.


I'll tell you ignorance to the max: Looking at that mass of construction paper, gold tape, and pipes, then saying with a straight face that that image was taken on the moon.

Nice try with the typical "debunking" response: "Oh, Sibrel and Percy make up evidence to sell their books." I've heard that response to literally every single conspiracy researcher out there. Alex Jones, David Icke, Alan Watt, Michael Tsarion, Jim Marrs, Anthony Hilder, they're all just making shit up to sell their material. Dan Brown makes shit up like the Da Vinci Code or Angels and Demons and sells better than all of them combined... if they're all making this stuff up for the money, they're in the wrong business.

~Eric
www.atlanteanconspiracy.com
www.ericdubay.blogspot.com

[francis]

So Eric instead of just saying there's no way the picture of the LM was taken on the Moon say why. Is it the tape you have a problem with or the foil what? What do you see that convinces you that LM is not on the Moon?

Nice try nothing, i provided evidence. You may have heard people do this and that but i provided a direct link to a video which shows Sibrel is a con artist. If you go back to other threads on this forum or ask him you will see that one of the most ardent hoax supporters there is Hagbard Celine has actually contacted David Percy about tampered with photographs on his site and he got the cold shoulder. I think you will find it was frenat who wrote to Percy and got his mail changed to sound like he was bigging the site up. James Collier in his film "was it only a paper Moon" is the one who faked the audio on the video Sibel claims as his own. Collier was a puppet of Ralph Renna. So its not just hearsay Eric its fact that these and others like Kaysing have been shown to lie and manipulated evidence time and time again.

So if you take the time and don't just parrot what these people say you can find the hoax stuff all the time. Now why would they have to do that if they are telling the truth?

How can you doubt Alex Jones makes stuff up when on his millennium eve show he told his audience the Russians were attacking cities with nukes? Come on man that was pure bullshit and for some reason none of his listeners ever brought it up. Well none that were allowed to be aired on the show that is lol.

I could give you a list of many occasions where Icke has spoke crap but that would give tptb a great excuse to ban me so if you want it PM me.

[alexis1111]

@ericdubay:

For some time now I have been pleading with Americans to contact their congressmen and demand they force NASA to place a visual sign on the moon we can see from earth with a cheap telescope within 1 year or face the loss of their 16 billion dollar annual budget and liberty. You should hear the lame-ass excuses the shills shout at me for suggesting this proposal that would force NASA to put up or go to jail.

My favorite is "NASA has nothing to prove to kooks." Another has to do with "poor little NASA has no money for dumb ideas like that" or "the public would be furious about ideas like that where a lot of money is spent to prove a 40+ year claim.

NASA is scared out of their minds at the idea that congress would force this project on them. Scared to death they will go to jail because they can't even send a small powder packed probe to crash on the moon's surface and create a big cloud of powder we can see from earth.

I can just imagine NASA trying to bribe congress into forgetting about the whole thing because the big secret is they can't go there by any means at all (http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=247168&page=55). Begging congress to play along so they can continue to bleed the public treasury for trillions of dollars for bogus deep space exploration. I can see it all now, congress summons NASA to a hearing and the public are asked to leave the room because NASA has a big news to say about the deep space question. Uh,uh,uh, Mr. Congressmen, we never did any of that stuff we charged the public trillions of dollars for (http://davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6097&page=97). P,P,Please don't throw us in jail. Man, that would be the best thing congress ever did. Throw those lying sacks of crap in the clink and give that budget over to the efforts at colonizing the oceans.

[ericdubay]

Keep at it Alexis. I saw your forum posts and you're doing a great service spreading this important information. Any chance you could repost some of that Van Allen belt and other material here? Thanks

[elton]

Apollo was faked. And before anyone starts about the retroreflectors on the surface at the Apollos sites. Yes we all agree they are there, but they were not put there by the Apollo landers. They were put there by robotic craft.

Also the recent LROC photos of the landing sites are also faked. So even to this day NASA staff are fabricating evidence by photoshopping the landers onto the LROC photos.

And the Japanese Kaguya photo is also faked. So the Japs are in on the scam.

And if anyone starts to mention that the Apollo craft radio transmissions were also monitored by the Russians, France, Brits, and Aussies. Its simple, NASA sent robotic craft to the moon then they beamed the radio transmissions to those craft, then the Ruskies et all picked up these transmissions and thought they were originating from humans inside the craft, but actually it was relayed transmissions. NASA are crafty!

[shipoffools]

Apollo was faked. And before anyone starts about the retroreflectors on the surface at the Apollos sites. Yes we all agree they are there, but they were not put there by the Apollo landers. They were put there by robotic craft.

Also the recent LROC photos of the landing sites are also faked. So even to this day NASA staff are fabricating evidence by photoshopping the landers onto the LROC photos.

And the Japanese Kaguya photo is also faked. So the Japs are in on the scam.

And if anyone starts to mention that the Apollo craft radio transmissions were also monitored by the Russians, France, Brits, and Aussies. Its simple, NASA sent robotic craft to the moon then they beamed the radio transmissions to those craft, then the Ruskies et all picked up these transmissions and thought they were originating from humans inside the craft, but actually it was relayed transmissions. NASA are crafty!

Well - That`s all solved then...

[kasalt]

NASA is scared out of their minds at the idea that congress would force this project on them. Scared to death they will go to jail because they can't even send a small powder packed probe to crash on the moon's surface and create a big cloud of powder we can see from earth.

As a matter of fact, NASA is planning to crash a probe on the moon's surface on 9 October 2009 at 07:30 EDT. See here for more:

http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/observation.htm

Here is a quote from the site:

Mission scientists estimate that the Centaur impact plume may be visible through amateur-class telescopes with apertures as small as 10 to 12 inches. The LCROSS mission will actively solicit images of the impact from the public.

[rodin]

How can you doubt Alex Jones makes stuff up when on his millennium eve show he told his audience the Russians were attacking cities with nukes? Come on man that was pure bullshit and for some reason none of his listeners ever brought it up. Well none that were allowed to be aired on the show that is lol.

I could give you a list of many occasions where Icke has spoke crap but that would give tptb a great excuse to ban me so if you want it PM me.

Jones is a mix of truth and misdirection. He is what is called a gatekeeper and a flypaper.

If you think Icke spoke crap I am sure you can start a thread on it - maybe in the rant room or even here. I don't think Mods would ban you for challenging Icke. I have done so myself on certain issues.

Re Moon Hoax - I know better than most how hard it is to really prove it - unlike with 911 - as in going to BAUT with an indestructible case. Something smells about it though - that interview with the 3 astronauts, some of the movements of the astronauts on the Moon, the lift-off of the module etc.

People lay great store by a video alleging that the near Earth was masked to give the illusion of a distant Earth. This seems unlikely, since the image is stable and if we were orbiting in LEO it would be changing quite quickly I think.

If it is a fake more likely it is a transparency held up to the window, backlit by reflected light from the near Earth

[francis]

For some time now I have been pleading with Americans to contact their congressmen and demand they force NASA to place a visual sign on the moon we can see from earth with a cheap telescope within 1 year or face the loss of their 16 billion dollar annual budget and liberty. You should hear the lame-ass excuses the shills shout at me for suggesting this proposal that would force NASA to put up or go to jail.


May be you missed it last time so i will post it again. Soon NASA will crash a spent delivery system into the Moon which will send a cloud of dust and shit 8 miles into the sky. This will be visible from Earth with a cheap telescope.

Alexis is going to get what she wants and she didnt even know it.

[francis]

Apollo was faked. And before anyone starts about the retroreflectors on the surface at the Apollos sites. Yes we all agree they are there, but they were not put there by the Apollo landers. They were put there by robotic craft.

Also the recent LROC photos of the landing sites are also faked. So even to this day NASA staff are fabricating evidence by photoshopping the landers onto the LROC photos.

And the Japanese Kaguya photo is also faked. So the Japs are in on the scam.

And if anyone starts to mention that the Apollo craft radio transmissions were also monitored by the Russians, France, Brits, and Aussies. Its simple, NASA sent robotic craft to the moon then they beamed the radio transmissions to those craft, then the Ruskies et all picked up these transmissions and thought they were originating from humans inside the craft, but actually it was relayed transmissions. NASA are crafty!

Alexis Is of the belief nothing has ever left LEO.

[alexis1111]

Keep at it Alexis. I saw your forum posts and you're doing a great service spreading this important information. Any chance you could repost some of that Van Allen belt and other material here? Thanks

Glad you found that material informative. As for the earth's magnetosphere, the Van Allen belts, you need only realize that they are composed of matter bombarded by the most toxic radiological pulses and high frequency waves produced by our sun since the beginning of time. One need not be a rocket scientist to conclude what effect these ionic fields can have on radio signals, telemetry and the fine copper etching that make up the electrical conduits of computer printed circuit boards.

To understand the effect of these microwave fields on electronic printed circuit boards you can perform a simple experiment here on Earth in your kitchen (you can see the results online without risking damage to your home equipment) by placing a CD or DVD in the microwave oven and turning that on for a few seconds. The same thing that happened to that disk in the oven will occur much more violently in the Earth's magnetosphere.

Simply put, if the circuit boards get fried and radio signals torn to shreds by the radiological fields then how can man, probe or anything get through? Of course the NASA moles are made up mostly of sun's energy deniers that think the belts are just a minor inconvenience with negligable effects on man, radio signals and electronic circuitry because that it the fastest means to line their pockets with public treasure. Now observe the desperation of the moles as they twist this post and it's meaning every which way they can. It's worth a good laugh observing them at work denying elementary physics.

[kasalt]

I should add that there are allegedly 3 retroreflector arrays on the moon which were put in place by astronauts during the Apollo 11, 14 and 15 missions. The Soviets also put at least two such reflectors on the moon via unmanned missions. These reflectors are used to bounce back laser signals sent from earth in order to determine the moon's precise distance. Read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment

[francis]

If you think Icke spoke crap I am sure you can start a thread on it - maybe in the rant room or even here. I don't think Mods would ban you for challenging Icke. I have done so myself on certain issues.

In March 1991 Icke held a press conference in which he said:

By Christmas 1991, Cuba, Greece, the Isle of Arran, the cliffs of Kent, and Teeside would be hit by a great earthquake (8.0 on the Richter scale) that would submerge them.

They are all still there and christmas 1991 has come and gone. So can we put that down as speaking crap?

[alexis1111]

A few lunar probe claims by the masters of deep space fallacy:

Ranger 1
Ranger 2

Ranger 2 was of the Ranger Block 1 design and was almost identical to Ranger 1.

Ranger 3
Ranger 4
Ranger 5

Ranger 5 was a Block II Ranger spacecraft similar to Rangers 3 and 4.

Ranger 6
Ranger 7
Ranger 8
Ranger 9

Rangers 6, 7, 8, and 9 were the so-called Block 3 versions of the Ranger spacecraft.

Those pathetic liars kept sending up empty payload bays on the rocket tops, re-using the same model to fake new missions and barely earning the public treasure they consumed in the process. Price tag for that mess of deception: (Ranger 1-9) $170,000,000 dollars (billions in 2009 dollars) Both hands firmly in the public purse.

[rodin]

In March 1991 Icke held a press conference in which he said:



They are all still there and christmas 1991 has come and gone. So can we put that down as speaking crap?

I think he was in favour of an inhabited hollow Earth once also.

Mind you a hollow Earth is not so far fetched

During my research into the (IMO correct) Expanding Earth theory I looked into the notion that the Earth might be hollow. My reasoning was that pressure from below spews out material to the surface transferring mass upwards extending crust @ expense of interior. This only works if the spherical hard shell of the crust is self-supporting. Since gravity at the centre = zero, yet decreases as square of distance beyond the surface some interesting mathematics was involved.

The argument continues that as mass is removed from the centre and accumulates in the shell, gravity works in the opposite direction, aiding the process. Trouble is it doesn't. Newton's Shell Theorem is a strange one, but it appears to be valid...

[alexis1111]

As a matter of fact, NASA is planning to crash a probe on the moon's surface on 9 October 2009 at 07:30 EDT. See here for more:

http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/observation.htm

Here is a quote from the site:

Are you saying the probe will produce a visible signal we can see from Earth using a cheap telescope? I didn't think so. Another indicator of NASA's desperation and inability to substantiate the smallest of their outrageous and trans-generational BS.

I counted 71 missions to the moon by the Soviet and US pathological liars since the dawn of the deep space hoax. Of those all those missions not a single one was designed, either by the Soviets, the USA and others, to provide irrefutable proof to substantiate the trillions of dollars, rubles or yen spent to fatten those swine. Now, because the public has had enough of this BS and want solid proof they can verify for themselves NASA is twisting the intent of their latest exercise in BS to appear as if they will provide this proof.


But don't hold your breath folks. NASA will dispatch a million moles over the web to insult, misdirect or dysinform before they provide irrefutable proof of their trillion dollar claims. NASA thinks they can stall us until we pass on and the new crop of thoroughly indoctrinated youth emerge into the adult society and they will exhaust their demands for proof until they pass on too.

[alexis1111]

24 Luna probe missions claimed by those lying shites in the Soviet Union and not a single one designed to install a visual beacon man can clearly see from Earth using a cheap telescope. The Soviets have not published the price tag for those massive ripoffs.

900 billion rubles to try and launch the N1 rockets for manned missions to the moon the Soviets had no intention of launching at all. 300 billion rubles to develop a space shuttle the Soviets launched with nobody onboard and scrapped the project after that maiden flight. The arrogance of those Soviet elites as they dive into the public purse of those poor people that were struggling just to get by at the time. Then to add insult to injury the US NASA moles claim the Soviet Union would have outed NASA on their lies, pathetic. One world-class grifter outing another, fat chance of that ever happening.

[alexis1111]

How about this one folks, Gemini 7. 14 days in orbit around the earth in zero=g conditions and these lying clowns got out of their capsule following re-entry and were bouncing around all over the place as if they just finished playing tennis. I estimate those guys would have suffered massive strokes just from the g-force of re-entry if the claim had been authentic and not faked top-to-bottom.

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/3786/20090911102750.jpg

Just look at these guys standing unassisted when they should have been in wheelchairs and wearing face masks to avoid infection due to the lowered immune response incurred by the long duration of their stay in zero-g conditions:

http://img376.imageshack.us/img376/9909/20090914092412.jpg

Now observe the NASA moles as they tell us that NASA installed a special bio-kit in the astronaut's arteries and circulatory system to compensate, lol. Frank Borman, one of that pair of NOTstronauts on Gemini 7, is said to have thrown up all the way to the moon during Apollo 9 yet he spent 14 days cramped up in zero-g low earth orbit with urine bubbles floating all around due to a ruptured piss sack and he did not throw up at all. NASA can't even lie properly when they commit billion-dollar grand larceny.

[alexis1111]

How many of you readers out there own a globe of the moon? When I was younger and still thoroughly brainwashed by the NASA claims I wanted one so much but never found one. If you gave me one today, delivered it to my home personally I would throw it in the garbage because half of it was faked. Nobody ever saw the far side.

Go ahead and google the far side of the moon or the complete lunar topography and see how the fakery of the far side stinks of forgery. The best image of the farside I could find dates back to the early LUNA missions in the 50s.

Here is an artistic depiction of the farside of the moon from:
http://cseligman.com/text/moons/moonfar.htm

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/6140/20090920163737.jpg

Of course those lying theives at NASA and in Russia know perfectly well that nobody will ever have the means to contradict that BS map.

[frenat]

Glad you found that material informative. As for the earth's magnetosphere, the Van Allen belts, you need only realize that they are composed of matter bombarded by the most toxic radiological pulses and high frequency waves produced by our sun since the beginning of time. One need not be a rocket scientist to conclude what effect these ionic fields can have on radio signals, telemetry and the fine copper etching that make up the electrical conduits of computer printed circuit boards.

To understand the effect of these microwave fields on electronic printed circuit boards you can perform a simple experiment here on Earth in your kitchen (you can see the results online without risking damage to your home equipment) by placing a CD or DVD in the microwave oven and turning that on for a few seconds. The same thing that happened to that disk in the oven will occur much more violently in the Earth's magnetosphere.

Simply put, if the circuit boards get fried and radio signals torn to shreds by the radiological fields then how can man, probe or anything get through? Of course the NASA moles are made up mostly of sun's energy deniers that think the belts are just a minor inconvenience with negligable effects on man, radio signals and electronic circuitry because that it the fastest means to line their pockets with public treasure. Now observe the desperation of the moles as they twist this post and it's meaning every which way they can. It's worth a good laugh observing them at work denying elementary physics.

Let's assume you are correct that no craft can survive in the belts and communication is not possible through them. How do you explain then the hundreds of satellites that spend their entire working lives inside the belts? These included satellite television, weather and communications satellites (anything in geostationary orbit, 22,236 miles).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satellites_in_geosynchronous_orbit
Are these all fake?

[alexis1111]

Let's assume you are correct that no craft can survive in the belts and communication is not possible through them. How do you explain then the hundreds of satellites that spend their entire working lives inside the belts? These included satellite television, weather and communications satellites (anything in geostationary orbit, 22,236 miles).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_satellites_in_geosynchronous_orbit
Are these all fake?

It is my understanding that certain satellites whose elliptical orbit takes them into close proximity of the belts must close down their transmissions until back into the portions of their orbits that bring them down closer to earth. Also, most satellite claims are made within 150 miles up into the atmosphere. That is not even half way up to the inner border of the belts estimated to begin somewhere near 350 miles up.

Now, anticipating the usual scripted reply about the geo-meo stationary satellite claims I must remind you that such claims can be hoaxed using low earth orbit satellites arranged in networking configurations mimicking geostationary with high speed switching circuits. To begin refuting this claim on my part involves stating the exact number of satellites in LEO available to orchestrate a deception imitating GEOsynchronous orbit.

You can't have LEO orbiting sats interrupting transmissions when their orbits take them close to the inner bounderies of the belts and have other sats bouncing back signals from within or beyond the belts.

Now, for those readers interested in examining a model of the radiological chaos to be found within the belts can refer to the projects like SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) where the radio noise within the belts is examined round the clock in the hopes that a carrier wave containing intelligence can be isolated from within the radio noise coming from space. Of course hollywood movies are just movies but most are researched according to factual data when they portray events believed to occur in reality. One such portrayal was the audio comming in from the belts as heard through the speakers when the searchers are examining noise samples.

I find it incredible that such well educated professionals as those hired to man these SETI installations fail to understand the collosal barrier of radiological chaos such an anticipated intelligence signal must breach to make it down here on Earth. I am tempted to label these people the kings and queens of wishful thinking. Anyways, the wait keeps their pockets lined with public treasure in the meantime.

Btw Frenat, what is your best evidence that there are satellites parked in geostationary orbit? The pointing of a dish? Have you seen these with a telescope? Have you seen one as you flew by on the way to the moon? Where do you get all this faith in something so easy to fake?

[alexis1111]

For those readers unfamiliar with my claims from other threads here or on other boards I will expose more on the way the deep space hoax works:

First I believe they never launched a rocket from the surface of the earth into low orbit or anywhere beyond with people onboard. The only real part is the rocket lifting off the pad. Empty capsules everytime. How do they do that you may ask justifiably?

Well, they film the crews going into the capsule in a sudio and broadcast this as if it were live. Then they launch the rocket and it gets lost in space so-to-speak while the missions are faked in studio and with pre-recorded audio tracks people are made to believe originate from deep space.

Now, when the time comes for re-entry the hoaxsters load the NOTstronauts in a capsule on earth, load that onto a Starlifter-type high altitude cargo plane and they drop that out of the back of the aircraft to simulate re-entry. This is a good reason why all the nightime re-entries were shifted over to the Pacific ocean from to the Atlantic ocean. The hoaxsters needed to have a firm control over the potential witnesses to this forgery. If they had planned the nightime re-entry over the United States for a splashdown in the Atlantic the gig would have been outed instantly. By placing the nightime e-entry hoax in the middle of the Pacific they could control the potential for masses of eyewitnesses to the deception.

What about that so-called radio silence upon re-entry? We are told this is the effect of ionization caused by the friction of the capsules re-entering the atmosphere. I don't buy it. When did they ever show the public a spectrum analysis of the ionic trail left in the wake of those capsules or any other object burning up in the atmosphere? I estimate the radio silence is caused by the fear the hoaxsters have that the public would hear the rumble of the high altitude aircraft engines in the background.

[francis]

Are you saying the probe will produce a visible signal we can see from Earth using a cheap telescope? I didn't think so. Another indicator of NASA's desperation and inability to substantiate the smallest of their outrageous and trans-generational BS.

I cant respond for the poster you aimed that at but i will say i have answered that question for you at least 3 times. This is the second time today!

The crash will send a cloud up 8 miles and that will be visible from the Earth with a 12 inch telescope. I don't know what you call cheap but look on EBay and a secondhand 12 inch ain't that expensive.

Obviously there's serious science going on here and they are not doing it for the display, but no doubt you will scream i want it bigger.

[alexis1111]

Why is it that the Russians were never able to send a manned mission to the moon or shuttle astronauts into low earth orbit, gave up after the initial failures of the N1 rockets? The answer lies in their innability to create convincing cinema in studio and in a zero-g aircraft. Imagine the Russian manned mission to the moon looking completely different from the studio fakes made by the US. A complete disaster that would have been. Instead the US and the Soviets, playing their convenient Cold War hoax games decided only one of the two, the one with the most cinematic saavy, would fake the exploits while the other would milk her constituents to the brink of collapse claiming fake moon probes and faking manned miisions to the moon attempts and shuttle development ripoff schemes.

[alexis1111]

I cant respond for the poster you aimed that at but i will say i have answered that question for you at least 3 times. This is the second time today!

The crash will send a cloud up 8 miles and that will be visible from the Earth with a 12 inch telescope. I don't know what you call cheap but look on EBay and a secondhand 12 inch ain't that expensive.

Obviously there's serious science going on here and they are not doing it for the display, but no doubt you will scream i want it bigger.

Why don't you save your saliva for the time when the exploit is a fact. Of course all the certified clowns associated with NASA directly or indirectly will swear on a ton of bibles that they saw the plume while most others will wonder why NASA planned the exploit while most of the skies over the areas most likely to observe such a claim were overcast.

I think the reason you keep repeating yourself over and over has more to do with your mistaken belief that I am waiting for a sign only certain affiliates of NASA can see as the brief instant flash on some overcast night. Even Willey Ley, the popular science writer in the 1940s saw the futility of such a brief moment when he proposed something people could see anytime they look up at the moon.

Also, where is the public rush and backorders for telescopes of any kind? I called up a few telescope shops to check if they were innundated with orders and things appeared pretty much business-as-usual humdrum. Why is NASA not droning this upcoming plume on the moon 24/7 on the mainsteam media so everyone can get a telescope and witness this thing? Do you want to know why telescope sales have not gone through the roof and NASA s keeping the publicity and plume position quiet in the mainstream? Because they are lying through their teeth again.

I just can't wait to see the photo fakes of that plume NASA will parrot in the mainstream full steam ahead AFTER the exploit claimed. As usual. I don't buy it and I am not even close to being impressed by this latest act of desperation on the part of the deep space hoaxsters.

[frenat]

It is my understanding that certain satellites whose elliptical orbit takes them into close proximity of the belts must close down their transmissions until back into the portions of their orbits that bring them down closer to earth. Also, most satellite claims are made within 150 miles up into the atmosphere. That is not even half way up to the inner border of the belts estimated to begin somewhere near 350 miles up.

Now, anticipating the usual scripted reply about the geo-meo stationary satellite claims I must remind you that such claims can be hoaxed using low earth orbit satellites arranged in networking configurations mimicking geostationary with high speed switching circuits. To begin refuting this claim on my part involves stating the exact number of satellites in LEO available to orchestrate a deception imitating GEOsynchronous orbit.

You can't have LEO orbiting sats interrupting transmissions when their orbits take them close to the inner bounderies of the belts and have other sats bouncing back signals from within or beyond the belts.

Now, for those readers interested in examining a model of the radiological chaos to be found within the belts can refer to the projects like SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) where the radio noise within the belts is examined round the clock in the hopes that a carrier wave containing intelligence can be isolated from within the radio noise coming from space. Of course hollywood movies are just movies but most are researched according to factual data when they portray events believed to occur in reality. One such portrayal was the audio comming in from the belts as heard through the speakers when the searchers are examining noise samples.

I find it incredible that such well educated professionals as those hired to man these SETI installations fail to understand the collosal barrier of radiological chaos such an anticipated intelligence signal must breach to make it down here on Earth. I am tempted to label these people the kings and queens of wishful thinking. Anyways, the wait keeps their pockets lined with public treasure in the meantime.

Btw Frenat, what is your best evidence that there are satellites parked in geostationary orbit? The pointing of a dish? Have you seen these with a telescope? Have you seen one as you flew by on the way to the moon? Where do you get all this faith in something so easy to fake?

So in other words, handwaving for the explanation and yes you think they are all faked for the question. Exactly how I thought you would respond.

[alexis1111]

So in other words, handwaving for the explanation and yes you think they are all faked for the question. Exactly how I thought you would respond.

Brilliant rebuttal Dr. Weisenheimer. I'm floored.

[george tatum]

Just a short point.

Isn't all the conjecture about light sources a little bit futile when none of us have actually been to the moon? The light from the sun could look like absolutely anything on the moon - even spot lighting.

Unless we have been there isn't a bit ambiguous to suggest we know 'the truth'?

[frenat]

Brilliant rebuttal Dr. Weisenheimer. I'm floored.

I must have missed the part where just restating what you said is somehow trying to rebut you. Perhaps you could point that out? Or perhaps you could tell me why I should go into a detailed rebuttal pointing out the many obvious flaws when you've proven in the past that not only will you not listen to it anyway but you'll also twist my words around at the same time.

I asked a question and got the answer I expected. Why should I bother to take it any further than that?

[alexis1111]

I asked a question and got the answer I expected. Why should I bother to take it any further than that?

Good point, now get lost.

[frenat]

Good point, now get lost.

Why?

[alexis1111]

Why?

Is this another one of those questions you know the answer I will give but like to waste my time asking anyways? You NASA moles should get new scripts. With the money NASA steals from the public treasury you'd think they could afford something better than the economy shill. Bet your rock-bottom standards of evidence would rise sharply if NASA was bleeding your pockets to finance their BS extravaganzas. You'd be the first to cry like a baby in support of the irrefutable variety of proof instead of the lame-ass evidence offered by NASA when they bleed others.

I am reminded of all those bozos that said to me that taxes are important to pay for all the amenities we enjoy. When I ask them if they would pay taxes if they did not fear getting ruined and wasted for refusal to comply they invariably pause for what seems an eternity before saying "it depends." Lol. Precious, eh?

[frenat]

Is this another one of those questions you know the answer I will give but like to waste my time asking anyways? You NASA moles should get new scripts. With the money NASA steals from the public treasury you'd think they could afford something better than the economy shill. Bet your rock-bottom standards of evidence would rise sharply if NASA was bleeding your pockets to finance their BS extravaganzas. You'd be the first to cry like a baby in support of the irrefutable variety of proof instead of the lame-ass evidence offered by NASA when they bleed others.

I am reminded of all those bozos that said to me that taxes are important to pay for all the amenities we enjoy. When I ask them if they would pay taxes if they did not fear getting ruined and wasted for refusal to comply they invariably pause for what seems an eternity before saying "it depends." Lol. Precious, eh?

And back to the accusations of paid shills. Any proof of that? Seems rather paranoid to me. What kind of ego must you have to think that those who oppose you must be paid to do so?

To expand on my earlier question, why should I leave? I'm here for entertainment and you're still entertaining. Your last post is proof of that.

[alexis1111]

And back to the accusations of paid shills. Any proof of that? Seems rather paranoid to me. What kind of ego must you have to think that those who oppose you must be paid to do so?

To expand on my earlier question, why should I leave? I'm here for entertainment and you're still entertaining. Your last post is proof of that.

All I can say is only a nearsighted fool would deny elementary physics for free. You don't strike me as the nearsighted type, so..if the shoe fits.

So, you find issues concerning the massive theft of public funds and murder entertaining? Good for you. Hope you are not offended if I don't share your warped sense of amusement.

[frenat]

All I can say is only a nearsighted fool would deny elementary physics for free. You don't strike me as the nearsighted type, so..if the shoe fits.
Ha! I haven't denied any physics. You though have shown you don't understand physics. Carry on, it is very entertaining.

So, you find issues concerning the massive theft of public funds and murder entertaining? Good for you. Hope you are not offended if I don't share your warped sense of amusement.

When you present it without a shred of proof and with a hefty dose of paranoia, yes, it is very entertaining.

[ytch]

Please add to your No Feeding- list:

Moles & Trolls.

It´s so obvious what these guys are trying to do,
please just ignore them..

I handle these kinds of posts like I handle ad´s.
I just over- read them to get to the info I came for.

And please keep up your good work!

Thanks,

L&L,

y

[asha loka]

To understand the effect of these microwave fields on electronic printed circuit boards you can perform a simple experiment here on Earth in your kitchen (you can see the results online without risking damage to your home equipment) by placing a CD or DVD in the microwave oven and turning that on for a few seconds. The same thing that happened to that disk in the oven will occur much more violently in the Earth's magnetosphere.

Dead convenient for warming up space lasagne though.
It's worth a good laugh observing them at work denying elementary physics.

Nearly as much of a laugh as observing someone with absolutely no clue about elementary physics pretending to be an expert.

It's a bit like watching a hamster trying to water ski.

[ericdubay]

Just a short point.

Isn't all the conjecture about light sources a little bit futile when none of us have actually been to the moon? The light from the sun could look like absolutely anything on the moon - even spot lighting.

Unless we have been there isn't a bit ambiguous to suggest we know 'the truth'?

The light from the Earth or Sun couldn't create a spotlight burn, the light would be uniform throughout the picture. Notice in this picture the halo formed around the astronaut's head-shadow due to spot-lighting:

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/11lightingproblems.jpg

It is very bright on the left side and darkness is creeping in on the right side. Care to explain how Earth or Sun light can create a spot-lighting halo on the moon?

~Eric
www.atlanteanconspiracy.com

[alexis1111]

Please add to your No Feeding- list:

Moles & Trolls.

It´s so obvious what these guys are trying to do,
please just ignore them..

I handle these kinds of posts like I handle ad´s.
I just over- read them to get to the info I came for.

Thanks for the advice.

And please keep up your good work!

Thanks,

You are welcome.

[alexis1111]

It's a bit like watching a hamster trying to water ski.

Reading you is like listening to a degu knaw at the metal nib of his water bottle all night long.

[francis]

Why don't you save your saliva for the time when the exploit is a fact. Of course all the certified clowns associated with NASA directly or indirectly will swear on a ton of bibles that they saw the plume while most others will wonder why NASA planned the exploit while most of the skies over the areas most likely to observe such a claim were overcast.

I think the reason you keep repeating yourself over and over has more to do with your mistaken belief that I am waiting for a sign only certain affiliates of NASA can see as the brief instant flash on some overcast night. Even Willey Ley, the popular science writer in the 1940s saw the futility of such a brief moment when he proposed something people could see anytime they look up at the moon.

Also, where is the public rush and backorders for telescopes of any kind? I called up a few telescope shops to check if they were innundated with orders and things appeared pretty much business-as-usual humdrum. Why is NASA not droning this upcoming plume on the moon 24/7 on the mainsteam media so everyone can get a telescope and witness this thing? Do you want to know why telescope sales have not gone through the roof and NASA s keeping the publicity and plume position quiet in the mainstream? Because they are lying through their teeth again.

I just can't wait to see the photo fakes of that plume NASA will parrot in the mainstream full steam ahead AFTER the exploit claimed. As usual. I don't buy it and I am not even close to being impressed by this latest act of desperation on the part of the deep space hoaxsters.

Fucking hell alexis are you for real, i havent thought so from the start.

You are claiming only affiliates of NASA will be able to see this lol. You aske why sales of telescopes havent gone through the roof and claim this hasnt been all over the MSM. Get out of here your taking the piss you have to be.

[bsmurph83]

The light from the Earth or Sun couldn't create a spotlight burn, the light would be uniform throughout the picture. Notice in this picture the halo formed around the astronaut's head-shadow due to spot-lighting:

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/11lightingproblems.jpg

It is very bright on the left side and darkness is creeping in on the right side. Care to explain how Earth or Sun light can create a spot-lighting halo on the moon?

~Eric
www.atlanteanconspiracy.com

there is no way in hell that is natural sunlight. there are many photos like that but the supporters of the status quo always skip over the most inconvenient facts... still, interesting reading some these posts. interesting viewing might be more apt.

"we lied about everything"

*chuckles*

[alexis1111]

Fucking hell alexis are you for real, i havent thought so from the start.

You are claiming only affiliates of NASA will be able to see this lol. You aske why sales of telescopes havent gone through the roof and claim this hasnt been all over the MSM. Get out of here your taking the piss you have to be.

My fans keep telling me in posts and in PMs to ignore people like you. They keep saying you are a waste of everyone's time. My problem is I keep giving fools like you the benefit of the doubt until it becomes painfully obvious that no amount of evidence will ever distract you from your delusions. So, if you want me to ever talk to you again you will need to be telling me that NASA has placed a sign on the moon that anyone possessing a telescope can see on any clear night where the moon is in plain sight. Until then save your save your NASA BS for someone that gives a damn.

[george tatum]

The light from the Earth or Sun couldn't create a spotlight burn, the light would be uniform throughout the picture. Notice in this picture the halo formed around the astronaut's head-shadow due to spot-lighting.

It is very bright on the left side and darkness is creeping in on the right side. Care to explain how Earth or Sun light can create a spot-lighting halo on the moon?

~Eric
www.atlanteanconspiracy.com

No I've never been there.

[alexis1111]

No I've never been there.

Nobody else has been there. Nobody can get there. The hoaxster's paradise.

[francis]

My fans keep telling me in posts and in PMs to ignore people like you. They keep saying you are a waste of everyone's time. My problem is I keep giving fools like you the benefit of the doubt until it becomes painfully obvious that no amount of evidence will ever distract you from your delusions. So, if you want me to ever talk to you again you will need to be telling me that NASA has placed a sign on the moon that anyone possessing a telescope can see on any clear night where the moon is in plain sight. Until then save your save your NASA BS for someone that gives a damn.

Your fans lol now i know your taking the piss.

When that cloud goes up there will be 10's of thousands of amateurs watching through their cheaply bought equipment. Will you be watching, did you buy a scope to watch? LOL. Your taking the piss you have to be.

You never did answer my question of how big this sign would have to be to be see with what you consider a cheap telescope.

[frenat]

there is no way in hell that is natural sunlight. there are many photos like that but the supporters of the status quo always skip over the most inconvenient facts... still, interesting reading some these posts. interesting viewing might be more apt.

"we lied about everything"

*chuckles*

The phenomenon is known as Heiliginschein.
http://the-moon.wikispaces.com/Retro-Reflection+phenomena
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heiligenschein

[hagbard_celine]

The phenomenon is known as Heiliginschein.
http://the-moon.wikispaces.com/Retro-Reflection+phenomena
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heiligenschein

Yes, I've seen that effect myself on a beach with rippled sand dunes, but the sun has to be quite low in the sky for it to be noticeable.

Also look at the shadow directions. Is that natural perpective?:D:rolleyes:

[rodin]

Photo top of this page was sunlit not spotlit.

But on the Moon or Earth ;)

[george tatum]

Nobody else has been there. Nobody can get there. The hoaxster's paradise.

You don't know that for certain. Nobody does. The hoaxster's paradise.

This whole debate is yet another exercise in futility. People like to think they know everything about space travel. They talk like they were walking around on the surface of the moon only yesterday. On the other side of the fence NASA say they certainly went there and there are tens of thousands of project workers who back the story up.

This is yet another debate based on what people choose to believe. Do we believe NASA or the conspiracy theorists? Personally I couldn't really give a toss. For my part I can say with 100% certainty that I have never walked on the surface of the moon and I have no idea what the light is like up there. These other people can argue till the cows come home, but the only people who know for sure are the astronauts in question.

[graflok]

Why is it that the Russians were never able to send a manned mission to the moon or shuttle astronauts into low earth orbit, gave up after the initial failures of the N1 rockets? The answer lies in their innability to create convincing cinema in studio and in a zero-g aircraft. Imagine the Russian manned mission to the moon looking completely different from the studio fakes made by the US. A complete disaster that would have been. Instead the US and the Soviets, playing their convenient Cold War hoax games decided only one of the two, the one with the most cinematic saavy, would fake the exploits while the other would milk her constituents to the brink of collapse claiming fake moon probes and faking manned miisions to the moon attempts and shuttle development ripoff schemes.

That's a good point.

I believe it's also the reason that they couldn't have faked only a part of the
photo/video record because it would have been too difficult to match the
fake stuff with the real stuff. If some of it was faked, all of it had to be
faked.

Alexis, are you familiar with John Lear's comments about the Apollo missions?
His viewpoint seems very similar to yours.

[alexis1111]

You don't know that for certain. Nobody does. The hoaxster's paradise.

This whole debate is yet another exercise in futility. People like to think they know everything about space travel. They talk like they were walking around on the surface of the moon only yesterday. On the other side of the fence NASA say they certainly went there and there are tens of thousands of project workers who back the story up.

How many people swore they saw jews gassed in the NAZIS camps yet no serious researchers including many jews believe those outrageous claims these days.

These researchers compiled the circumstantial evidence and physical evidence to arrive at their conclusions without the need to have been there onsite when the supposed acts of horror were commited against jews. When you know the first thing about human nature as it applies to money and buying testimonial you don't place much stock in the so-called claims of people that have everything to gain by lying.

When you see a picture of a statue with a robed female holding a pair of scales in one hand and a blindfold over her eyes do you understand what that means? It means judgment by people that were not there when the contentious issue under review occurred. By your own pattern of thinking the courts of law would have no business trying to find justice if they were not there when it happened.

This is yet another debate based on what people choose to believe. Do we believe NASA or the conspiracy theorists?

Like the courts you try to be fair and let reason guide your deliberations. In theory at least.

Personally I couldn't really give a toss. For my part I can say with 100% certainty that I have never walked on the surface of the moon and I have no idea what the light is like up there.

By your own admission your opinion has little value in this case then. Why do you bother posting if you could care less one way or the other?

These other people can argue till the cows come home, but the only people who know for sure are the astronauts in question.

So, transposed into the context of a judicial hearing you would dismiss all charges because only the criminal knows for sure what happened? Does that sound logical to you?

[alexis1111]

That's a good point.

I believe it's also the reason that they couldn't have faked only a part of the
photo/video record because it would have been too difficult to match the
fake stuff with the real stuff. If some of it was faked, all of it had to be
faked.

Right, why bother faking anything when reality should have been so much more exciting and believable. The way NASA faked their exploits gives me the impression they were faced with very serious limitations. So many contradictions that a reasonable person has to ask how the majority of NASA claims can possibly be true.

Alexis, are you familiar with John Lear's comments about the Apollo missions?
His viewpoint seems very similar to yours.

The name is familiar but I have not read his ideas. I am always delighted to find others sharing my passion for these subjects. I think they are great subjects to wrap your mind around and study. Even if the probabilities the liars are never prosecuted exists. It almost like the fun one has reading a good crime mystery book. NASA created a story and we have to find the holes in it. A sort of funny cat and mouse game.

[rodin]

Just a short point.

Isn't all the conjecture about light sources a little bit futile when none of us have actually been to the moon? The light from the sun could look like absolutely anything on the moon - even spot lighting.

Unless we have been there isn't a bit ambiguous to suggest we know 'the truth'?

Shadows should be as on Earth on a clear day

[rodin]

Alexis - what are satellite dishes pointed at? Aligning them does seem to find a signal

[alexis1111]

Alexis - what are satellite dishes pointed at? Aligning them does seem to find a signal

Networked satellites in low earth orbit. Has anyone submitted evidence that this cannot possibly be done? If so I'd certainly be pleased to examine that.

A lot of satellite launches were secret military operations and I have still to find a reliable source to discover the exact number of LEO sats orbiting the earth. If you can show me proof that only 3 or four LEO satellites are up there then I will certainly look deeper into that.

The circumstantial evidence tells me they had no other choice but to use LEO sats to fake GEOstationary orbit. Let me know what you find.

[george tatum]

So, transposed into the context of a judicial hearing you would dismiss all charges because only the criminal knows for sure what happened? Does that sound logical to you?

As if I am going to take NASA to court!

No it most certainly does not sound logical in the context of a judicial hearing, but then I have absolutely no interest in prosecuting NASA. That is plainly absurd. What would I prosecute them for? Faking moon landings? What has that got to do with me? I live in Wales and I wasn't even alive when the alleged incident took place. It certainly hasn't damaged me emotionally, financially, socially, psychologically or otherwise.

In the context of an issue I have to deal with in my everday life, the moon landings are very low on the list of considerations. My fascination with the subject is exactly why an awful lot people have become obsessed with an argument when it is impossible to prove one way or another. The fact that this topic is still debated so long after the moon landings did/didn't take place proves it is impossible.

That is the case with a great many topics on this forum and it draws me back here again and again. In the name of all that is logical why do people spend weeks, months and sometimes years debating these things? I have yet to see any of these arguments resolved. It's like banging your head against a 50 foot thick brick wall.

For my sins however, it makes fascinating reading. Maybe that is why.

[alexis1111]

As if I am going to take NASA to court!

Ok, you don't think world-class grifters and muderers should be tried for their crimes because you don't feel this interfered with your blissful ignorance than fine. But don't expect many other will buy into that rational.

No it most certainly does not sound logical in the context of a judicial hearing, but then I have absolutely no interest in prosecuting NASA.

You deny the implications of your own statements. Maybe you need a reality check.

That is plainly absurd.

Not as absurd as implying one cannot find the truth about the lies of NASA if you can't go to the scene of the crime. That is a patently absurd implication.

What would I prosecute them for? Faking moon landings? What has that got to do with me?

A more relevant question would be why you are in this discussion at all? A reasonable person can't help but wonder about your motives, pal.

I live in Wales and I wasn't even alive when the alleged incident took place. It certainly hasn't damaged me emotionally, financially, socially, psychologically or otherwise.

Then what is your interest in this discussion then? Inciting discord?

In the context of an issue I have to deal with in my everday life, the moon landings are very low on the list of considerations.

Your behaviour in these threads betrays an emotional involvement so maybe you need to look closer at the issues of keeping your stated beliefs in accord with your observable behaviour. You say you don't care yet you appear upset when people examine the facts to get at the truth. How does such a disinterested person become so involved is the real question here. Should you not be posting on things you want to discuss instead?

My fascination with the subject is exactly why an awful lot people have become obsessed with an argument when it is impossible to prove one way or another.

Here you go contradicting yourself again, amigo. You say you could give a rats ass then you expose your emotional involvement.


The fact that this topic is still debated so long after the moon landings did/didn't take place proves it is impossible.

But you don't care one way or the other right, you live in Wales and you did not pay for it. Why are you in this thread one might wonder.

That is the case with a great many topics on this forum and it draws me back here again and again.

Just can't help being drawn to things you don't care about. What a contradictory nature you possess. Not saying you are not a good person and a good neighbor just that you sound a little bit crazy.

In the name of all that is logical why do people spend weeks, months and sometimes years debating these things?

I would expect this pattern of reasoning from those that stand to lose the most by the widespread acceptance of the truth not from some disinterested chap in Wales who says he does not care one way or the other.

I have yet to see any of these arguments resolved.

Oh, so you do have an interest in putting this thing to rest. But you don't care for the merits of any evidence presented. You dismiss that as if those formulating these claims had to be there to make such claims and rebuttals. I'd sure like to see the court systems working like that, every case would be dismissed, lol.


It's like banging your head against a 50 foot thick brick wall.

When you say "50 feet thick" is this a reflection of how thick you perceive our skull cases to be or another gratuitous plunge into exagerration and irrelevance?

For my sins however, it makes fascinating reading. Maybe that is why.

You sound as if you need a hobby, seriously.

[george tatum]

Ok, you don't think world-class grifters and muderers should be tried for their crimes because you don't feel this interfered with your blissful ignorance than fine. But don't expect many other will buy into that rational.



You deny the implications of your own statements. Maybe you need a reality check.



Not as absurd as implying one cannot find the truth about the lies of NASA if you can't go to the scene of the crime. That is a patently absurd implication.



A more relevant question would be why you are in this discussion at all? A reasonable person can't help but wonder about your motives, pal.



Then what is your interest in this discussion then? Inciting discord?



Your behaviour in these threads betrays an emotional involvement so maybe you need to look closer at the issues of keeping your stated beliefs in accord with your observable behaviour. You say you don't care yet you appear upset when people examine the facts to get at the truth. How does such a disinterested person become so involved is the real question here. Should you not be posting on things you want to discuss instead?



Here you go contradicting yourself again, amigo. You say you could give a rats ass then you expose your emotional involvement.




But you don't care one way or the other right, you live in Wales and you did not pay for it. Why are you in this thread one might wonder.



Just can't help being drawn to things you don't care about. What a contradictory nature you possess. Not saying you are not a good person and a good neighbor just that you sound a little bit crazy.



I would expect this pattern of reasoning from those that stand to lose the most by the widespread acceptance of the truth not from some disinterested chap in Wales who says he does not care one way or the other.



Oh, so you do have an interest in putting this thing to rest. But you don't care for the merits of any evidence presented. You dismiss that as if those formulating these claims had to be there to make such claims and rebuttals. I'd sure like to see the court systems working like that, every case would be dismissed, lol.




When you say "50 feet thick" is this a reflection of how thick you perceive our skull cases to be or another gratuitous plunge into exagerration and irrelevance?



You sound as if you need a hobby, seriously.

An obsessive and largely incorrect analysis of my personality.

I don't need to defend myself on most it. The post is obviously designed to hurt my feelings more than make a relevant point. Needless to say I am not exactly reeling in agony.

However I would like to state categorically that I have never said 'world-class grifters & murderers should not be tried for their crimes'. That is all.

[alexis1111]

However I would like to state categorically that I have never said 'world-class grifters & murderers should not be tried for their crimes'. That is all.

Now we are on the same frequency. At least in that respect.

[frenat]

Networked satellites in low earth orbit. Has anyone submitted evidence that this cannot possibly be done? If so I'd certainly be pleased to examine that.

A lot of satellite launches were secret military operations and I have still to find a reliable source to discover the exact number of LEO sats orbiting the earth. If you can show me proof that only 3 or four LEO satellites are up there then I will certainly look deeper into that.

The circumstantial evidence tells me they had no other choice but to use LEO sats to fake GEOstationary orbit. Let me know what you find.

Assuming you are correct, then how is it that one can only get a signal when the dish is correctly alligned with where the geostationary satellite would be? Any satellite in LEO will be in allignment for only minutes at most (seconds more realistically) due to the faster orbit speed necessary. Sure the satellite could be turned off when not alligned for you but what about somebody 20 miles north (or south, east, or west, take your pick) of you? Or 200? Or 2000? The satellite that is on for you would not be alligned correctly for them. This would necessitate hundreds of other active satellites (at least and that's not counting the ones that would be inactive when in their part of the orbit on the other side of the Earth) so that from any point on the ground that should be visible to that geostationary satellite there is a signal available on what should be the correct allignment. With hundreds of active satellites (again at least, depending on how accurate the allignment needs to be it could easily be thousands) all on the same frequency, why can't someone just aim their dish at any random part of the sky and get a signal? Even getting around that, you now have hundreds of satellites to take the place of one. There are supposed to be hundreds of satellites in geostationary orbit. You now need hundreds for each one of these. At a low estimate we're now up to tens of thousands of unaccounted for satellites. Tens of thousands that still have to have been launched and maintained by somebody. Again, this is a low estimate. Why are these not seen? Objects in LEO tend to be visible from time to time. There are plenty of people out there that track satellites for fun. There are at least a few websites devoted to that. Then there is the problem of the multiple countries and universities that have launched satellites into geostationary orbit. Either they are all in on it or their own satellites have been duplicated hundreds of times without their knowledge.
Of course there is also the fact that not a single country, university, or scientist that actually works in space, on or with satellites, etc. would agree that the van allen belts restrict radio communications. Are they all in on it as well? Your "logic" strains credulity.

[alexis1111]

Assuming you are correct, then how is it that one can only get a signal when the dish is correctly alligned with where the geostationary satellite would be?

If you had been paying attention I explained that some satellite is always intersecting the stationary area the dish is pointing at. Look, let me elaborate a bit more. Imagine you know you can't go into or very near the belts. Imagine you know this for a fact. Now, how the hell are you going to get this most important geostationary effect without being physically capable of sending the birds up that far? If you guessed sophisticated networking strategies in LEO then you guessed correctly.

Any satellite in LEO will be in allignment for only minutes at most (seconds more realistically) due to the faster orbit speed necessary.

Please remind me where you posted the number of satellites in LEO back when the GEO hoaxing began up till this present day? Have you posted this or are you guessing there are not enough to do the job of imitating geostationary?

Sure the satellite could be turned off when not alligned for you but what about somebody 20 miles north (or south, east, or west, take your pick) of you? Or 200? Or 2000?

Let me know when you make up your mind.

The satellite that is on for you would not be alligned correctly for them.

Do you know how meaningless that claim is when not accompanied by a summary of the networking architectures in use then and now? Realize the following that you may not be aware of, home landline telephones can be silently switched on "ON HOOK" to listen in to any room. This electronic circuitry is hardwired into the phone at the manufacturing level. The military can force satellite constructors to incorporate seemless relay software to fast switch between any number of satellites in LEO. Not necessarily to hoax geo but more precisely to achieve the practical aspects of a geostationary orbit where it is impractical or impossible to do so otherwise. The hoax maintenance is an added perk that NASA certainly enjoys having to hoax deep space communications abilities.


This would necessitate hundreds of other active satellites (at least and that's not counting the ones that would be inactive when in their part of the orbit on the other side of the Earth) so that from any point on the ground that should be visible to that geostationary satellite there is a signal available on what should be the correct allignment.

But of course you don't know how many and in what configurations their relay software works optimally. You are assuming a lot of stuff there, my curious friend.

With hundreds of active satellites (again at least, depending on how accurate the allignment needs to be it could easily be thousands) all on the same frequency, why can't someone just aim their dish at any random part of the sky and get a signal?

From my point of view it appears to me you are trying to create the illusion that the dishes have the pinpoint accuracy of a sniper at maniacal distances, I don't buy that. The dishes point in the general direction with a vast area of low orbital space to capture the signal. You are attempting to create the illusion that a satellite will always be in precisely the exact location give or take a few microns even in your geostationary models. I don't buy that either. Nothing on earth could aim up that high with pinpoint precision. If that were true you would keep losing the signal just by the vibrations the wind incurs on the building or structure supporting the dish. Just like the snipe rifle will miss the target by a vast margin for the slightest twitch at the sending end. You must start appreciating the distances involved here.


Even getting around that, you now have hundreds of satellites to take the place of one.

How many are up there? How do you know the required number if you ignore the networking architectures implemented? I'm not trying to be difficult here but you are assuming a hell f a lot to keep your head above water at this point.

There are supposed to be hundreds of satellites in geostationary orbit.

I'm sure many people believe that. How many of these people actually rode up with the bird when it was delivered? How are they supposed to know where it is parked exactly? If it works and apears to be where they say it is they could care less, right?

You now need hundreds for each one of these.

I don't mean disrespect but that's just you saying so.

At a low estimate we're now up to tens of thousands of unaccounted for satellites.

What are you talking about, nobody is complaining and the signals are getting through. Nobody is reporting AWOL satellites.

Tens of thousands that still have to have been launched and maintained by somebody. Again, this is a low estimate.

Not knowing the configuration of the networking architectures, the number of satellites required to make the schemes operational I would say you are assuming a veritable crapload of stuff.

Why are these not seen?

Is this your best evidence for geostationary? Because you don't see them? It's pretty thin considering you have no clue how many are required and how the software and harware are designed at the deepest levels.

Objects in LEO tend to be visible from time to time.

They also have a tendancy not to be seen most of the time.

There are plenty of people out there that track satellites for fun.

Let me know when you have compiled an inventory of sightings and people doing the sightings.

There are at least a few websites devoted to that.

What do they know about satellite networking architectures or the total numbers of birds up in LEO? If they had a clue you would not be guessing.

Then there is the problem of the multiple countries and universities that have launched satellites into geostationary orbit.

How many rode up there with the birds when they were deployed?

Either they are all in on it or their own satellites have been duplicated hundreds of times without their knowledge.

How can they possibly be in on it when they have no physical means of authenticating the bird's exact location or whether the birds are fast switching to appear stationary?

Of course there is also the fact that not a single country, university, or scientist that actually works in space, on or with satellites, etc. would agree that the van allen belts restrict radio communications.

How would they know? And those that know are bound to secrecy for trade secrets and military applications. You think these people are just itching to report the first inconsistency they find if the system is operational and they are raking in the bucks?

Are they all in on it as well? Your "logic" strains credulity.

If those are your best arguments I can only suggest you go back to the blackboard and keep working on that Dr. Weisenheimer.

[frenat]

Like I expected, more handwaving with multiple attempts to try to shift the burden of proof. You haven't proved a single thing but your posts try to get others to prove a negative. You're funny and very transparent.

[alexis1111]

A quote from the Pravda Apollo hoax thread:

Here is my actual count of EVA photos of the six missions:

Apollo 11…........ 121 Apollo 12…........ 504 Apollo 14…........ 374 Apollo 15….......1021 Apollo 16….......1765 Apollo 17….......1986

So 12 astronauts while on the Moon’s surface took a TOTAL of 5771 exposures.

That seemed excessively large to me, considering that their TIME on the lunar surface was limited, and the astronauts had MANY OTHER TASKS OTHER THAN PHOTOGRAPHY. So I returned to the Lunar Surface Journal to find how much TIME was available to do all the scientific tasks AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHY. Unlike the number of photos, this information is readily available:

Apollo 11….....1 EVA …..2 hours, 31 minutes…...(151 minutes) Apollo 12….....2 EVAs…..7 hours, 50 minutes…...(470 minutes) Apollo 14….....2 EVAs…..9 hours, 25 minutes…...(565 minutes) Apollo 15….....3 EVAs…18 hours, 30 minutes….(1110 minutes) Apollo 16….....3 EVAs…20 hours, 14 minutes….(1214 minutes) Apollo 17….....3 EVAs…22 hours, 04 minutes….(1324 minutes)

Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes. Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.

Hmmmmm. That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon, REGARDLESS OF OTHER ACTIVITIES. (That requires the taking of ONE PHOTO EVERY 50 SECONDS!) Let’s look at those other activities to see how much time should be deducted from available photo time:

Apollo 11….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment, operate the TV camera (360 degree pan), establish contact with Earth (including ceremonial talk with President Nixon), unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, find/document/collect 47.7 pounds of lunar rock samples, walk to various locations, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 12….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment (spend time trying to fix faulty TV camera), establish contact with Earth, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, walk to various locations, inspect the unmanned Surveyor 3 which had landed on the Moon in April 1967 and retrieve Surveyor parts. Deploy ALSEP package. Find/document/collect 75.7 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 14….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack and assemble hand cart to transport rocks, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, walk to various locations. Find/document/collect 94.4 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 15….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRVLEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph.) electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 17 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions). Find/document/collect 169 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to

Apollo 16….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 16 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions, including new ultraviolet camera, operate the UV camera). Find/document/collect 208.3 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph.)

Apollo 17….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRVLEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph.) electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 30.5 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages. Find/document/collect 243.1 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to

Let’s arbitrarily calculate a MINIMUM time for these tasks and subtract from available photo time:

Apollo 11…subtract 2 hours (120 mins), leaving 031 mins for taking photos Apollo 12…subtract 4 hours (240 mins), leaving 230 mins for taking photos Apollo 14…subtract 3 hours (180 mins), leaving 385 mins for taking photos Apollo 15…subtract 6 hours (360 mins), leaving 750 mins for taking photos Apollo 16…subtract 6 hours (360 mins), leaving 854 mins for taking photos Apollo 17…subtract 8 hours (480 mins), leaving 844 mins for taking photos

So do the math:

Apollo 11…..121 photos in 031 minutes….....3.90 photos per minute Apollo 12…..504 photos in 230 minutes….....2.19 photos per minute Apollo 14…..374 photos in 385 minutes….....0.97 photos per minute Apollo 15…1021 photos in 750 minutes….....1.36 photos per minute Apollo 16…1765 photos in 854 minutes …....2.06 photos per minute Apollo 17…1986 photos in 844 minutes …....2.35 photos per minute

Or, to put it more simply:

Apollo 11….....one photo every 15 seconds Apollo 12….....one photo every 27 seconds Apollo 14….....one photo every 62 seconds Apollo 15….....one photo every 44 seconds Apollo 16….....one photo every 29 seconds Apollo 17….....one photo every 26 seconds

So you decide. Given all the facts, was it possible to take that many photos in so short a time?

Any professional photographer will tell you it cannot be done. Virtually every photo was a different scene or in a different place, requiring travel. As much as 30 miles travel was required to reach some of the photo sites. Extra care had to be taken shooting some stereo pairs and panoramas. Each picture was taken without a viewfinder, using manual camera settings, with no automatic metering, while wearing a bulky spacesuit and stiff clumsy gloves.

The agency wants the world to believe that 5771 photographs were taken in 4834 minutes! IF NOTHING BUT PHOTOGRAPHY HAD BEEN DONE, such a feat is clearly impossible…made even more so by all the documented activities of the astronauts. Imagine…1.19 photos every minute that men were on the Moon - that’s one picture every 50 SECONDS!

The secret NASA tried to hide has been discovered: The quantity of photos purporting to record the Apollo lunar EVAs could not have been taken on the Moon in such an impossible time frame. So why do these photos exist? How did these photos get made? Did ANY men go to the Moon? Or was it truly the greatest hoax ever?

[alexis1111]

Like I expected, more handwaving with multiple attempts to try to shift the burden of proof.

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.
The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.
Dig. 22, 3, 2; Tait on Ev. 1; 1 Phil. Ev. 194; 1 Greenl. Ev. 74; 3 Louis. R. 83; 2 Dan. Pr. 408; 4 Bouv Inst. n. 4411.

[frenat]

You're affirming that a satellite in geostationary orbit is impossible and therefore must be an array of networked LEO satellites. So far you've thrown out wild speculation and suggested others try to prove you wrong.

Networked satellites in low earth orbit. Has anyone submitted evidence that this cannot possibly be done? If so I'd certainly be pleased to examine that.

A lot of satellite launches were secret military operations and I have still to find a reliable source to discover the exact number of LEO sats orbiting the earth. If you can show me proof that only 3 or four LEO satellites are up there then I will certainly look deeper into that.

The circumstantial evidence tells me they had no other choice but to use LEO sats to fake GEOstationary orbit. Let me know what you find.

[alexis1111]

You're affirming that a satellite in geostationary orbit is impossible and therefore must be an array of networked LEO satellites. So far you've thrown out wild speculation and suggested others try to prove you wrong.

Why are you having so much difficulty proving the veracity of the geosychronous orbit claims? So far its always alexis this, burden that, disprove bla,bla, bla. You sound like a scratched vinyl music record skipping over and over and over. Just let me know when you have something to prove the geostationary claim beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't even seem to give a crap how easy making a geo claim is for the hoaxsters, who can go up and check, eh?

Let's say for the sake of argument that you know for a fact that the belts are impossible to approach or breach. Now, how are you going to offer the communication benefits they say geostationary offers in that situation? Are you going to throw in the towel and give up or will the pressures of development and progress force you to apply your mind to the development of networking technologies to fast switch low orbit birds to simulate geostationary and satisfy your customers that way? I say they were really confronted with the impossibility of going into the belts and designed methods of overcoming these limitations within the realm of the things they could do.

[alexis1111]

Reading this gave me the impression that the Soviets were so much more involved in their shuttle development than the US to the extent I started wondering if the Soviet people were unknowingly developing the Us shuttle instead of there own. The US is always quick to insinuate that the Soviets imitated the American shuttle but rarely is it imagined that the Soviets worked the designs cheaper in the Soviet Union to make the profit in America that much more profitable.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0241.shtml

Analog Buran Test Vehicle

Is it true that someone discovered a Russian space shuttle in the Middle East? How did it get there?

- question from Christian Mead

We have written extensively on the history of the Soviet Buran <q0153.shtml> space shuttle in a previous article. Only one spaceworthy orbiter was completed before the program was cancelled in the early 1990s. This orbiter, the only vehicle actually named Buran, made just one unmanned test flight into space in 1988. Buran was later stored in a massive assembly hangar called Site 112 at the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. Unfortunately, Buran was destroyed in 2002 when the roof of Site 112 collapsed under heavy winds.

The vehicle discovered in the Middle Eastern country Bahrain is not an orbiter but a full-scale test vehicle. Several of these prototypes and mock-ups were built during the early 1980s to develop and test the design and operational procedures to be used on the actual spaceworthy orbiters. One of these test vehicles has led a particularly interesting life that has taken it to some rather far off lands. This craft was officially called the 0.02 prototype or the OK-GLI aerodynamic flight test vehicle, but it is better known as the "Analog Buran" or Buran analogue."

The Analog Buran was an aircraft that was not capable of traveling into space. The vehicle was built to fly at low speeds within the atmosphere to conduct landing and taxi tests at a conventional runway. This unique OK-GLI fulfilled a similar purpose as the American orbiter prototype Enterprise <q0288.shtml>. The Enterprise was purely a glider carried to altitude and launched from a Boeing 747 <../../aircraft/jetliner/b747/> carrier. The Analog Buran, on the other hand, was equipped with four jet engines fed by a large fuel tank located in the payload bay.

These engines gave the vehicle the ability to take off and climb under its own power. Once at altitude, the engines could be disengaged and the test vehicle would glide back to Earth to make an unpowered landing. The Analog Buran made these repeated landings to collect data for the development of an autopilot and automated landing system. The automatic landing system was later successfully demonstrated on the spaceworthy Buran orbiter during its unmanned flight.

Analog Buran flew from 1985 to 1988 and completed 25 test flights before the airframe was considered worn out. Once retired, the OK-GLI remained stored at the Zhukovsky flight test center near Moscow where it was rolled out for display at the occasional air show.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the new Russian government retained most remnants of the Buran program. The Buran orbiter, a second orbiter under final assembly, and various test assets had been stored at Baikonur, but these were eventually traded to Kazakhstan to cover unpaid bills Russia owed for continued use of the Baikonur launch facilities. The Analog Buran remained in Russia where it became the property of the NPO Molniya design bureau that had originally built the test vehicle.

After its appearance at the MAKS air show in 2000, NPO Molniya sold Analog Buran to an Australian company called the Buran Space Corporation (BSC). Chaired by Paul Scully-Power, a former Australian astronaut, BSC hoped to turn the 0.02 test vehicle into a tourist attraction. The wings and tail of the Analog Buran were removed from the fuselage and the components transported to Darling Harbour in Sydney. Upon reassembly, OK-GLI was put on display in a temporary enclosure for the 2000 Olympics in Sydney.

BSC also organized an ambitious plan to take the OK-GLI on an extensive tour of cities throughout Australia and southeast Asia. Unfortunately, the craft was on display in Sydney for only a matter of months before poor ticket sales forced BSC into bankruptcy. With BSC unable to complete its payments on the craft, ownership of the Analog Buran reverted back to the Russian company NPO Molniya. Molniya lacked the resources to bring OK-GLI back home to Russia and sought a new owner to take responsibility for the vehicle.

NPO Molniya then approached an American company named First FX that specializes in on-line trading on the Foreign Exchange market. First FX arranged for an auction of Analog Buran through a Los Angeles radio station. Although several bids were received, most turned out to be pranks and no legitimate buyer was willing to pay the $6 million minimum asking price. The Analog Buran was instead stored outdoors in a fenced-in parking lot in Sydney protected by nothing more than a large tarp. There the vehicle remained for a year where it fell into disrepair and was subject to repeated vandalism.

Molniya finally found a new buyer for Analog Buran in 2002 when the craft was purchased by the Singapore company Space Shuttle World Tour (SSWT). SSWT moved the vehicle to Bahrain where it was displayed at Manama Port during the 2002 Summer Festival. After the festival concluded, SSWT planned to move the vehicle to Thailand where it would become a tourist attraction. Unfortunately, SSWT also encountered financial troubles and defaulted on $320,000 in payments to NPO Molniya. Molniya brought a lawsuit against SSWT in the Bahraini courts to prevent the transfer of Analog Buran to Thailand. Pending the outcome of the legal dispute, Molniya requested that the vehicle remain in Bahrain. SSWT negotiated to place the OK-GLI in the Sitra storage yard run by Pico Logistics where it has been kept in disassembled pieces since July 2002.

The wandering craft might have been forgotten there had it not been for a team of German journalists who stumbled upon the hulk in 2004. Their articles on the Analog Buran generated strong interest in the ill-fated Buran program. A wealthy German businessman even proposed using the OK-GLI as a traveling display at world events, but the proposition proved impractical and was dropped. Instead, the Auto & Technik Museum <http://www.technik-museum.de/> in Sinsheim offered a six-figure amount to purchase the forlorn vehicle from NPO Molniya so that it could be moved to Germany and put on display.

Alas, the ongoing legal battles between NPO Molniya and Space Shuttle World Tour have so far blocked the potential deal. Although three years and eight court hearings have passed since the dispute first began, no settlement has yet been reached. The Bahraini High Civil Court ruled in June 2005 that the case cannot be settled in that nation due to a clause in the contract stating that any dispute between the two parties must be referred to the London Court of International Arbitration. The case remained unresolved as of this writing, and the vehicle will remain in Bahrain until the ownership question is finally settled.

Although the condition of the Analog Buran continues to deteriorate, the Auto & Technik Museum has successfully acquired another piece of the Buran program for display. A third spaceworthy orbiter was under construction when the program stopped and remained in storage at NPO Molniya's Tushino factory. The 40% completed orbiter was sold to the Auto & Technik Museum as part of the same deal that included Analog Buran, and the craft has been moved to Germany where it will be exhibited.

- answer by Jeff Scott </about/bios/jeffscott.shtml>, 14 August 2005

Update!
Several visitors have pointed out that the pieces of Analog Buran can be viewed on Google Earth. The coordinates for the craft are approximately 26°11'53"N 50°36'10"E. The imagery can also be seen at Wikimapia <http://www.wikimapia.org/>.

- answer by Greg Alexander </about/bios/gregalexander.shtml>, 31 December 2006

Update!
A visitor named Norhsham Hussin recently provided information that some version of Buran is supposed to be displayed at an exhibition in Malaysia celebrating the nation's 50th anniversary. According to the website of the Malaysia International Aerospace Exhibition 2007 <http://www.mia2007.com/>, Buran will be flown to Malaysia from Bahrain atop the An-225 Mriya <../../aircraft/transport-m/an225/>. Buran will remain on exhibit at the Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport in Subang from 5 June through 7 August 2007.

One piece of information not clear on the MIAE 2007 website is exactly which Buran vehicle will be used in the display. The site implies that it is a Buran spacecraft, but it has been established in our previous article about the Buran program <q0153.shtml> that the only Buran shuttle to fly in orbit was destroyed in 2002. The second orbiter is a possible substitute since it was completed but never flew and is supposed to be in storage in Kazakhstan. However, the fact that the vehicle will be flown from Bahrain suggests it is instead the Analog Buran that will appear in Malaysia. If so, it is unclear whether this development means the legal battle over ownership of Analog Buran has been resolved or what will become of the vehicle after the Malaysian exhibition is over.
Another remaining question is whether any of the remaining Buran shuttles and test articles are in good enough condition to be ferried to Malaysia on the An-225. It is unknown whether the Analog Buran was equipped to be carried externally on the An-225 in the first place, and its condition may now be rather poor given the many years it has sat outdoors in disrepair exposed to the elements. The other remaining Buran vehicles are in a similar state raising the question of whether they are structurally capable of surviving flight loads. Nevertheless, the best information we've located says that the Buran vehicle to be displayed will be flown to Malaysia sometime in March 2007 and prepared for the start of the exhibit in June. We will be on the lookout for photos of this ferry flight in hopes of identifying the specific Buran involved.

- answer by Jeff Scott </about/bios/jeffscott.shtml>, 3 March 2007

Update!
It has been confirmed that the Analog Buran is the craft that will appear in Malaysia, but it will not be flown to the country aboard the An-225. Perhaps because of the reasons speculated upon in the previous update, organizers were unable to obtain flight clearances to carry the Analog Buran atop the An-225 over the various nations along the route. The vehicle will instead be moved to Malaysia by ship.

- answer by Greg Alexander </about/bios/gregalexander.shtml>, 18 March 2007

Update!
The sad saga of the Analog Buran continues! Previous updates described the sale of the vehicle to the Singapore company Space Shuttle World Tour (SSWT) that was later challenged in court by the Russian manufacturer NPO Molniya. In the meantime, the disassembled Buran remained stored outdoors in a Bahraini junkyard. Even as the case dragged on for years in the Bahrain courts, NPO Molniya made a separate deal to sell Analog Buran to the Auto & Technik Museum in Sinsheim, Germany. It appeared the issue was finally resolved in late 2006 when the courts ruled SSWT had defaulted on its payments and NPO Molniya remained the rightful owner of the craft. SSWT appealed the decision in Bahrain's Supreme Civil Appeal Court in March 2007, but the verdict was again upheld. The sales contract was thereby terminated allowing Buran to be moved to Germany.

It now turns out that before the ownership dispute had been decided, SSWT signed a lease with the organizers of the Malaysia International Aerospace Exhibition 2007 to move the Buran to Malaysia for display during the summer. The owner of SSWT, Kevin Tan, brought another lawsuit against NPO Molniya in April claiming that he did complete the sales payments after all and the Russian company transferred ownership of the Analog Buran to him in person during a meeting in Bahrain.

Even though the question of ownership was seemingly settled, this new lawsuit has again put a freeze on any plans to move Analog Buran out of its storage site in Bahrain. The Malaysian Exhibition has been delayed indefinitely and the event's organizer, a company called Best Venue, is reportedly seeking a replacement attraction. NPO Molniya and the Auto & Technik Museum continue to cooperate in fighting the SSWT claims in court, but this latest development makes it unclear when or if Analog Buran will become a permanent display in Germany.

- answer by Jeff Scott </about/bios/jeffscott.shtml>, 14 June 2007

[Anders Lindman]

A new possible evidence for a moon landing hoax is that NASA today finds water everywhere on the moon's surface. They supposedly brought a lot of moon rocks with them from the Apollo missions. If that is true, shouldn't they have discovered the same kind of water content in those moon rocks?!

[francis]

A new possible evidence for a moon landing hoax is that NASA today finds water everywhere on the moon's surface. They supposedly brought a lot of moon rocks with them from the Apollo missions. If that is true, shouldn't they have discovered the same kind of water content in those moon rocks?!

Chandrayaan-1 the Indian probe found it.

If you were up on the subject you would know that years ago when they first started to analyze the Moon rocks Geologists did find water held inside. Geologists thought the water was more likely to be some sort of contamination.

So the finding that the Moon does have water locked in its rocks is more of a conformation that the missions and rocks are real than evidence of a hoax.

Not to worry as the hoax believers will not be impressed as most say the Moon rocks were brought here by robots. All 800 pounds of it lol.

[Anders Lindman]

Chandrayaan-1 the Indian probe found it.

If you were up on the subject you would know that years ago when they first started to analyze the Moon rocks Geologists did find water held inside. Geologists thought the water was more likely to be some sort of contamination.

So the finding that the Moon does have water locked in its rocks is more of a conformation that the missions and rocks are real than evidence of a hoax.

Not to worry as the hoax believers will not be impressed as most say the Moon rocks were brought here by robots. All 800 pounds of it lol.

Contamination? Do the NASA scientists have butterfingers? Amateurish laboratories?

NASA lab chief: Hey, Neil, did you bring any moon rocks with ya?

Neil: Sure. I've got some with me now as a matter of fact [Neil reaches into his pockets, grabs a handful of moon pebbles and pours them out onto the table in front of the lab chief]

[francis]

Contamination? Do the NASA scientists have butterfingers? Amateurish laboratories?

NASA lab chief: Hey, Neil, did you bring any moon rocks with ya?

Neil: Sure. I've got some with me now as a matter of fact [Neil reaches into his pockets, grabs a handful of moon pebbles and pours them out onto the table in front of the lab chief]

Now your just being silly.

Geologists could not explain the water. They did not say it was definitely contamination of some kind but thought that more likely than the Moon rock actually having water in it. Now they know why the water was there. This is how science works. You build a model then do your best to prove it wrong.

I see you skipped over the fact that this is an indicator the rocks are real. They didnt know there was water on the Moon but the rocks indicated there might be. Now its been confirmed there is.

Did NASA produce fake Moon rocks with water in them that puzzled Geologists all round the world knowing that 40 years later the Indians would send a probe confirming that water is held in the rock? I think not. I think its another step forward in understanding.

[Anders Lindman]

I see you skipped over the fact that this is an indicator the rocks are real. They didnt know there was water on the Moon but the rocks indicated there might be. Now its been confirmed there is.


Good point. But I still suspect the moon missions were faked. Just from a political point of view it doesn't make sense. I heard one expert in a video who said that his first thought when the moon mission was announced that it was ludicrous (something like that). Think about it: would the U.S. government really risk having the first moon landing broadcast live on television all over the world? And then when I look at the videos and images from the Apollo mission, I am far from convinced that they are real. What say you about this image for example:

http://www.mypicx.com/uploadimg/2045021045_09252009_1.gif

[francis]

Who was this expert?

There were embarrassing fuck ups along the way. The Apollo 1 fire for one.

The live TV only started once they had landed. Yeah we had TV of them on the way but the landing was not broadcast live.

Did we not see the first shuttle launch live? How embarrassing had it gone pop. Have we not seen shuttles go pop? How tragic and embarrassing. Did Apollo 13 not have an explosion, how embarrassing.

As for the picture, well its been messed about with cropped re sized etc. So without seeing the original its hard to comment. However i see nothing wrong.

[francis]

I will say one thing about that pic though. It shows anyone (and nay do) who says the hatch was to small to get out of wearing a spacesuit its talking rubbish.

[asha loka]

I will say one thing about that pic though. It shows anyone (and nay do) who says the hatch was to small to get out of wearing a spacesuit its talking rubbish.

You don't understand.

That's obviously just a gray in a space suit. :)

[francis]

You don't understand.

That's obviously just a gray in a space suit. :)


Oh thats why he fits, hes only 4 foot tall. Got it now :)

[Anders Lindman]

Who was this expert?


It was from a documentary, can't remember which.....wait, I will check if I can find it...

Yay! I found it. No other than Gene Kranz, NASA flight director. Watch from about 02:40 in the below video and you will also see Lyndon Johnson's expression of contempt and rolling of eyes at JFK's ludicrous moon mission idea (which in fact Lyndon Johnson tricked JFK to order [as a part of the JFK assassination conspiracy]):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhrZ9N0MCHA

[Anders Lindman]

...you will also see Lyndon Johnson's expression of contempt and rolling of eyes at JFK's ludicrous moon mission idea (which in fact Lyndon Johnson tricked JFK to order [as a part of the JFK assassination conspiracy]):


Then some may ask: "Where is the proof that Lyndon Johnson tricked JFK into ordering the moon mission?" Well, get ready for some REAL conspiracy research. :D Hold on to your seat belt. Check this out. From Wikipedia:

"On April 20 Kennedy sent a memo to Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, asking Johnson to look into the status of America's space program, and into programs that could offer NASA the opportunity to catch up. Johnson responded on the following day, concluding that "we are neither making maximum effort nor achieving results necessary if this country is to reach a position of leadership." His memo concluded that a manned moon landing was far enough in the future to make it possible that the United States could achieve it first." [emphasis added]

So why Lyndon Johnson's look of contempt and rolling of eyes when JFK ordered the moon mission? Because it was a part of the conspiracy to have JFK assassinated. JFK was puppet made president, put there to order the moon mission and then to be sacrificed so that nobody no longer could object to the moon mission, because JFK, tragically killed, had promised the American people that they would go to the moon, and the people believed that. The scientists in the know didn't believe that, but they could no longer object. Checkmate!

Here is the memo Lyndon Johnson sent to JFK about the moon mission:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollomon/apollo2.pdf

[Anders Lindman]

The scientists in the know didn't believe that, but they could no longer object.

And now some smartass will ask where is the proof that the experts had scientific doubts. For crying out loud, must I repeat myself over and over? :D Consider this:

The American people and politicians would not easily want to spend fantastical amounts of money and resources on a militarization of space. If they were tricked by a peaceful moon mission however, then that would work (heck, even the hippies would agree to that). The top scientists and engineers etc wouldn't be fooled by that. They would recognize that the moon mission was a pipe dream, so they too had to be controlled. By having JFK ordering the moon mission and then having him killed, the scientists could no longer object, because the American people now already believed in a moon mission and they couldn't afford the loss of credibility and of PR value it would mean to abandon the moon project.

In the below transcript it's clear that those responsible for the moon project knew about the scientific difficulties, and that JFK had been fooled to believe the moon mission was possible (also see memo from Lyndon Johnson to JFK, where he tricks JFK into ordering the moon mission):

-------------------------------------
Part of a transcript of a Presidential Meeting, 21 November 1962:


President Kennedy: Look, I know all these other things and the satellite and the communications and weather and all, they’re all desirable, but they can wait.

James Webb: I’m not putting those…. I am talking now about the scientific program to understand the space environment within which you got to fly Apollo and make a landing on the Moon.

President Kennedy: Wait a minute—is that saying that the lunar program to land the man on the Moon is the top priority of the Agency, is it?

Unknown speaker: And the science that goes with it….

Robert Seamans: Well, yes, if you add that, the science that is necessary….

President Kennedy: The science…. Going to the Moon is the top-priority project. Now, there are a lot of related scientific information and developments that will come from that which are important. But the whole thrust of the Agency, in my opinion, is the lunar program. The rest of it can wait six or nine months.

...

James Webb: All right, then let me say this: if I go out and say that this is the number-one priority and that everything else must give way to it, I’m going to lose an important element of support for your program and for your administration.

President Kennedy [interrupting]: By who? Who? What people? Who?

James Webb: By a large number of people.

President Kennedy: Who? Who?

James Webb: Well, particularly the brainy people in industry and in the universities who are looking at a solid base.


http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:YEFrRFlEvpoJ:history.nasa.gov/JFK-Webbconv/pages/transcript.pdf+November+21,+1962+transcript+John+K ennedy,+James+Webb,+Robert+Seamans,+Hugh+Dryden,+J erome+Wiesner&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&lr=lang_en

[rodin]

The recent discovery of ice on the Moon throws a spanner in the works

Now we need some answers from the Never Always Science Administration

1. Does the Moon have an atmosphere dense enough to prevent water evaporation or not?

2. Does it reach 253F. on the sunlit side or not?

If the recent spacecraft data is accurate, then it must have water and some type of atmosphere. The same laws of physics control how water reacts to heat and pressure everywhere in our solar system.

http://www.rense.com/general87/moonwater.htm

[francis]

It was from a documentary, can't remember which.....wait, I will check if I can find it...

Yay! I found it. No other than Gene Kranz, NASA flight director. Watch from about 02:40 in the below video and you will also see Lyndon Johnson's expression of contempt and rolling of eyes at JFK's ludicrous moon mission idea (which in fact Lyndon Johnson tricked JFK to order [as a part of the JFK assassination conspiracy]):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhrZ9N0MCHA

Are i see. May be i got the wrong idea that you were saying this expert said it couldn't be done. He thought it was crazy to announce it would be done before the end of the decade yes but not impossible.

That's when the money really started to flow.

People are saying now that man will not return to the Moon by 2015 as stated because of things like money. In the days Apollo money was no object.

[alexis1111]

http://www.telenorsbc.com/templates/Page.aspx?id=410

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/3567/20090925171443.jpg

How many satellites are operational today?

It is very difficult to say, but the answer is somewhere around 500+. The reasons for this uncertainty:
a) Lots of military satellites, they are difficult to count exactly
b) Depends on what you include, GEO, LEO, MEO and all kinds of scientific satellites (including microsatellites)
c) Satellite systems may have lots of satellites, including flying spares
d) Continuously changing number, satellites die, and new ones are launched
e) The term "operational" is not clear, satellites may remain in orbit waiting for new usage, or to be relocated.

Plenty of satellites to fake geostationary, medium earth orbit and high earth orbit. 500 satellites represents a big web of relayed birds all around the globe.

[alexis1111]

Many of you are familiar with the electronic technology that preceded the solid-state transitor, the vacuum tube:

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/8072/20090925180905.jpg

Let me explain the theory of the operation of a vacuum tube in as simple terms as possible.

The vacuum tube is a glass bottle with electrodes sticking out the base where the tube plugs into a socket on the printed circuit board. Inside the glass we find, at it's most elementary configuration, a cathode and anode. Both sitting in partial vacuum the cathode rises up from the center of the base about three quarters of the way up inside the glass bulb. The anode is a metal sleeve that surrounds the central cathode electrode in the center.

In other words the cathode is in the center and the anode surrounds it while being physically isolated and electronically insulated by the vacuum in the bulb.

Now, the cathode is connected to a wire that is soldered to the base and powered by a negative potential, the anode is soldered to it's own wire connecting into a different pin on the base and it must be polatized with a positive potential.

Ok, so, what happens when you juice both of them up? No current. The vacuum insulates. On the pins of the base there are another another pair of pins that feed a small heater coil inside the cathode. This coil heats up inside the cathode and starts boiling the electrons in the material coating the cathode on the outside. Now, reapply the negative and positive potential at the cathode and anode and a current develops.

The electrons boiled off by the cathode travel through the vacuum to reach the positive anode. Musicians prefer vacuum tubes over solid state in certain amplifiers they use. Doesn't that sound a bit old fashioned? The reason the musicians appreciate the tubes has to do with a problem solid state circuits have with reverse currents and feedback. Solid state chips have what is called reverse leakage caused by the reverse bias breakdown voltages. Because glass tubes are insulated in a vacuum this reverse current is physically impossible, Neat eh?

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/7378/20090925181442.jpg

So, the electrons boiled off by the cathode are collected by the anode after they cross the vacuum barrier, but they can't come back the other way. These electrons travelling through the vaccum create a current. The electrons flow from the polarity where they are abundant to the other where they are not and the current flows.

If you use the vacuum tube for rectification purposes those two electrodes are fine to use like diodes. But if you want to use the tube for amplification you will need at least one more electrode, the control grid. The control grid looks like a rolled miniature mosquito screen and sits in the area of vacuum between the cathode and anode.

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8526/20090925181811.jpg

The grid is physically isolated and electronically insulated from the other pair of electrodes in the vacuum with it. The control grid is wired to the base also.

As the electrons pass through the vacuum of the tube they must now cross the mesh of the control grid to get to the anode. As long as the control grid is potentially neutral the tube will behave as a diode. The control grid sits in the bulb doing nothing at all. Now, lets say you apply a negative potential (relative to the cathode) to the grid you will slow down the electron traffic, put enough negative potential into the grid and you can halt the current. The reverse will happen if a positive potential is applied to the control grid, it will accellerate the flow of electrons creating more current.

If you can conjure up this process in your mind then you are ready to transpose this to the problem of transmitting radio signals into the vacuum of deep spacey. The control grid sitting between the earth and the vacuum of deep space are called the Van Allen belts. A celestial control grid where radiological chaos expresses itself in the worst ways.

Next try and imagine how anyone can pump a telemetry signal through that?

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/3576/20090925185921.jpg

Ludicrous when seen from the perspective of the tube example. Space is a much higher quality vacuum that that found in an electronic vacuum tube. Food for thought, eh?

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/8914/20090925190210.jpg

[alexis1111]

The Soviet Buran space shuttle. Buran means blizzard in Russian, 300 billion rubles to make and the project was scrapped after one unmanned maiden flight.

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/5683/20090925185727.jpg

Were the Soviets the designers of the space shuttle NASA charged billions of dollars to develop for the US space program? How else dones one explain the sudden shutdown of Buran if not that it was the design branch of NASA behind the scenes in those illusions of cold war? Using slave labour in the communist Soviet Union and billing top credentialled dollars back in the US for minimal development costs, a very captive work force (literally), so jewish. Every penny of the stolen booty is accounted by those bean counting jews.

[alexis1111]

The Chinese astronaut prospects exploit a low budget zero-g training technique: :)

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/2801/20090516054931.jpg

[francis]

The whole idea that radio transmissions cannot transverse the Van Allen Belts is total bollocks. I can say this with complete certainty due to personal experience and experimentation.

I am into armature radio and many times i have used whats known as EME, Earth-Moon-Earth Communication or Moon bounce for short (VHF, UHF and microwave frequencies have all been used by myself successfully). You send a transmission through space (including the belts) and you bounce it off the Moon. I do this because i am interested in QRP.

A bag of old scrap equipment that you can cobble together yourself and a 100w of TX power is all that's required.

[francis]

Here's a photograph for you Anders. Its not exactly what you wanted but a good pic all the same.

It was taken during STS-123 on a night time pass using a long exposure.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/shuttle/sts-123/hires/s123e008018.jpg

[alexis1111]

Its not exactly what you wanted but a good pic all the same.

It was taken during STS-123 on a night time pass using a long exposure.


"Not exactly what we wanted" :D What a comedian. That looks like Dumbo the Elephant in orbit, prove me wrong :)

Below, a metaphor symbolizing NASA's annual 16 billion dollar budget:

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/4993/20090926161536.jpg

[alexis1111]

The whole idea that radio transmissions cannot transverse the Van Allen Belts is total bollocks. I can say this with complete certainty due to personal experience and experimentation.

What do the readers care of your certainties and unsubstantiated invitations to a blind faith acceptance of your claims?

I am into armature radio and many times i have used whats known as EME, Earth-Moon-Earth Communication or Moon bounce for short (VHF, UHF and microwave frequencies have all been used by myself successfully). You send a transmission through space (including the belts) and you bounce it off the Moon. I do this because i am interested in QRP.

So now you are a moonbouncer, then next week you will be a laser reflector enthusiast, then the day after that an amateur geologist that juggles moonrocks in nightclub gigs to make ends meet, then the next week you will be photographer to prove stars don't exist at night in the sky.

A bag of old scrap equipment that you can cobble together yourself and a 100w of TX power is all that's required.

Bounces a radio signal off a satellite that delays the return signal to fool him into thinking he bounced it off the moon. :D Unreal.

[rodin]

What do the readers care of your certainties and unsubstantiated invitations to a blind faith acceptance of your claims?



So now you are a moonbouncer, then next week you will be a laser reflector enthusiast, then the day after that an amateur geologist that juggles moonrocks in nightclub gigs to make ends meet, then the next week you will be photographer to prove stars don't exist at night in the sky.

Bunces a radio signal off a satellite that delays the return signal to fool him into thinking he bounced it off the moon. :D Unreal.

Amateur radio (ham) operators utilize EME for two-way communications. EME presents significant challenges to amateur operators interested in working weak signal communications. Currently, EME provides the longest communications path any two stations on Earth can utilize for bi-directional communications.
Amateur operations use VHF, UHF and microwave frequencies. All amateur frequency bands from 50 MHz to 24 GHz have been used successfully, but most EME communications are on the 144, 432, or 1296 MHz bands. Common modulation modes utilized by amateurs are continuous wave with Morse Code, digital (JT65) and when the link budgets allow, voice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EME_(communications)

[alexis1111]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EME_(communications)

Look inside the red box in the picture below, is that the point you were making?

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/5589/20090926182801.jpg

[rodin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EME_(communications)

dunno why CnP didn't work try again

well I'll be darned doesn't work again

OK must be a formatting thing

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EME

Pick the correct section - article is there honest guv

edit

I figured it out is in the way auto tag wrap works @ DI

[alexis1111]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EME_(communications)

dunno why CnP didn't work try again

well I'll be darned doesn't work again

OK must be a formatting thing

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EME

Pick the correct section - article is there honest guv

edit

I figured it out is in the way auto tag wrap works @ DI

Do you have any intention of making some kind of point with that link? Did you have a point?

[francis]

What do the readers care of your certainties and unsubstantiated invitations to a blind faith acceptance of your claims?



So now you are a moonbouncer, then next week you will be a laser reflector enthusiast, then the day after that an amateur geologist that juggles moonrocks in nightclub gigs to make ends meet, then the next week you will be photographer to prove stars don't exist at night in the sky.

http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/3746/chimp.gif



Dumbass bounces a radio signal off a satellite that delays the return signal to fool him into thinking he bounced it off the moon. :D Unreal.

Oh someones sore because someone else knows there talking rubbish. What i posted is a statement of fact and that fact proves to me you talk rubbish. To hell with what others think I'm not playing to a crowd but i think you are.

Now i know why you believe such stupid things. You talk about me and make out you know what i have and have not done when in reality your just making it up.

Off a satellite lol well some do say the Moons Earths satellite.

I know what i bounced my TX off mate.

[francis]

Dumbass bounces a radio signal off a satellite that delays the return signal to fool him into thinking he bounced it off the moon. :D Unreal.

So in the days before satellites when people were using Moon bounce what was it bouncing off then?

Don't tell me satellites we didnt know about there were set up with just the right Time delay for you lol.

You have got to be taking the piss this proves it.

Dumbass bounces a radio signal off a satellite that delays the return signal to fool him into thinking he bounced it off the moon. :D Unreal.

If your not taking the piss you need help.

[rodin]

Do you have any intention of making some kind of point with that link? Did you have a point?

Yes - don't you get it?

It is 'common' knowledge - ie can be verified independently of the Judaic gatekeeping operation - that signals can be received that have been bounced off the Moon, therefore it is extremely unlikely to be a false claim since it could so easily be disproved.

There is no point in pushing the hoax hypothesis into the realms of extreme improbability. Sorry if it disagrees with your thermionic valve hypothesis.

I was wrong about saying E = MV - though I was in good company - Newton also thought this was true I later found out. There may be a deeper mystery about inertia and energy but I have to reconsider.

also consider - light escapes from stars showing redshifted chemical spectral lines. The spectrum retains its structural detail even though it is frequency shifted. The field this light must traverse is incomparably more powerful then that around the Earth.

[hagbard_celine]

I'm currently reading the book One Small Step? by Gerhard Wisnewski. I wondered if anyone could write a new book successfully on the moon hoax. I thought it had been done to death and there was no point unless new evidence or analysis showed up. Well this book does contain new material, not just about Apollo but about the entire space programme, both of the USA and Russia.

Here's just one example: Wisnewski has reignited debate about this photo by staging a reproduction in natural sunlight which he prints in the book and it has different perspective effects:

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/6705/mooncrap.jpg (http://img156.imageshack.us/i/mooncrap.jpg/)

[rodin]

I'm currently reading the book One Small Step? by Gerhard Wisnewski. I wondered if anyone could write a new book successfully on the moon hoax. I thought it had been done to death and there was no point unless new evidence or analysis showed up. Well this book does contain new material, not just about Apollo but about the entire space programme, both of the USA and Russia.

Here's just one example: Wisnewski has reignited debate about this photo by staging a reproduction in natural sunlight which he prints in the book and it has different perspective effects:

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/6705/mooncrap.jpg (http://img156.imageshack.us/i/mooncrap.jpg/)

This debate should have died long ago. Two light sources would produce two shadows.

Not saying to can't have one spot and diffuse lighting for infilling of course

edit

Oh I see you are not arguing two spot sources but a shorter distance between object and source of illumination. Quite hard to prove, ground not flat etc.

[francis]

I'm currently reading the book One Small Step? by Gerhard Wisnewski. I wondered if anyone could write a new book successfully on the moon hoax. I thought it had been done to death and there was no point unless new evidence or analysis showed up. Well this book does contain new material, not just about Apollo but about the entire space programme, both of the USA and Russia.

Here's just one example: Wisnewski has reignited debate about this photo by staging a reproduction in natural sunlight which he prints in the book and it has different perspective effects:

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/6705/mooncrap.jpg (http://img156.imageshack.us/i/mooncrap.jpg/)

Read it last year and laughed all the way through at the stupidity of the man.

[francis]

This debate should have died long ago. Two light sources would produce two shadows.

Not saying to can't have one spot and diffuse lighting for infilling of course

edit

Oh I see you are not arguing two spot sources but a shorter distance between object and source of illumination. Quite hard to prove, ground not flat etc.

Exactly.

How did this plonker guarantee his ground was exactly like the ground in the photograph and the other variables were exactly the same? He couldn't he could only guess even if he bothered to do that. Experiment invalid is all i can say.

[elton]

Heres an analysis of the LRO photos to prove the whole lot was photoshopped.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fDybPDtsrY&feature=channel_page

[elton]

Heres an analysis of the LRO photos to prove the whole lot was photoshopped.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fDybPDtsrY&feature=channel_page

And heres the latest photoshop effort of the Apollo 11 site. Looks like NASA have nothing better to do than release photoshopped images.

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/?archives/101-Apollo-11-Second-look.html

[rodin]

Defo BnW and colour photocomposite

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058292523&postcount=18

[elton]

Defo BnW and colour photocomposite

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058292523&postcount=18

What about that vertical line running from top right to the middle? Some sort of runway?

[rodin]

What about that vertical line running from top right to the middle? Some sort of runway?

on that model of the Moon? What for radio controlled model plane?

[bealert]

An Apollo Hoax analysis by Eric Dubay of AtlanteanConspiracy.com

Photo Evidence: (All this photo evidence is well-documented at www.aulis.com and all available from NASA photo directories)

-There are dozens of photos showing shadows of astronauts, flags, rocks and other objects falling in different directions up to 90 degrees apart; this is impossible without secondary lighting which was not brought to the moon, the only light is the sun coming from one direction which casts all shadows in one direction, not two

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/11lightingproblems.jpg

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/12lightdirsurveyor.jpg

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/14lightsource.jpg

-In consecutive Apollo 17 photos (AS17-135-20588 and 89) the rock’s shadows change almost 180 degrees as if they switched studio-lights between shots

-In one shot (AS14-64-9089) studio-lighting representing the sun is seen reflecting off a black background, a photographic effect that couldn’t happen in the blackness of space, and could only reflect off a background

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/redreflection.jpg

-In one Apollo 17 shot (AS17-140-21370) the moon rover is shown still packed up, not yet unloaded, but there are clear wheel tracks going across the foreground of the entire photo

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/roverstowchap1.jpg

-There is one Apollo 12 shot that shows the reflection of what can only be an overhead studio light, and another (AS12-49-7278) which shows two lens flares from overhead lighting

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/12dinespotlight.jpg

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/12lensflaresstudy.jpg

-There is one shot (15-86-11670) which clearly shows a sneaker-print partially covered by an astronaut boot-print (there were no sneakers on the moon, the astronaut’s boot-prints are otherwise all uniform)

-Many consecutive photos supposedly from astronaut’s hand-held cameras are exactly the same, completely unmoved, to a degree only achieved by a tripod

-Consecutive photos AS11-40-5862 and 63 show the lunar lander with different colored windows, different lettering on the United States sign, and a mysterious disappearing component

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/hatchanomalies1.jpg

-Buzz Aldrin in consecutive Apollo 11 photos changes from white gloves, to dark gray gloves, back to white gloves, and back to dark gray gloves

-There is never a burn print under the lunar lander, nor is there any dust/dirt on the landing pod feet, as if it was just set down gently onto a stage

-There are many pictures which show moon rovers with no wheel tracks in front or behind them (as though they were set down into place) even though there are many footprints all around

-There are pictures of astronauts shown with footprints all around them, but no prints leading to or from where they are, as if they were lowered into place by wire

-There are shots that appear out of sequence in the timetable given

-There are shots which show camera cross-hairs being overlayed onto the original

-Photo AS11-40-5922 close-up of the Apollo 11 Eagle is classic, looks uncannily like cardboard, construction paper, scotch tape and wires

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/11flymetothemoon.jpg

-The video from the Data Acquisition Camera mounted on the Apollo 11 starboard window and the Tripod Mounted TV Camera mounted outside both pan, tilt, reframe, and zoom supposedly while unmanned

-In the 6 moon missions the total time on the moon amounted to 4834 minutes and the total number of photographs taken was 5771; this means they were taking an average of one photo every 50 seconds, covering vast distances, all while supposedly doing many other tasks, collecting rocks, planting flags, making repairs, driving moon rovers etc. Is this even feasible?


General Evidence:

-NASA made all networks record their feed for TV broadcast, so that’s why we only ever see the grainy recording of a recording on TV, and now NASA says they lost the original high-definition video and data telemetry tapes so they can never be verified

-Blueprints and designs of certain machines are missing from both NASA and the companies which supposedly constructed them such as the Apollo Lunar Module and rover

-Van Allen Belt, Russians could never get beyond because of intense radiation that recquires 4 feet of lead shielding too heavy to rocket into orbit; and in 1969-70 the Van Allen Belt was at it’s 11 year cycle peak radiation yet somehow American astronauts and their film was able to survive this without shielding

-There are no stars in any of the moon pictures/video, just complete darkness; they couldn’t make a perfect model in a studio, even a planetarium layout can only be seen in absolute darkness, spotlighting from the “sun” would block out the “star” lighting; so they cover this by saying the sun is SO bright on the moon that the astronauts couldn’t remember seeing stars either

-The moon walk is in half-speed slow-mo; if you speed it up x2 the astronauts are clearly in Earth gravity walking normally with long strides

-The flag in many photos and videos is shown flapping in the wind on the supposedly atmosphere-less moon

-Werner Von Braun took a NASA team to Antarctica in 1967 and was purported to be collecting “moon rocks.” Later Bill Kaysing (author of “We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle”) hired his private investigator friend Paul Jacobs to check with the head of the US Department of Geology in Washington and ask, “did you examine the Moon rocks, and did they come from the Moon?” The geologist simply laughed and insinuated that people high in the US government knew all about the cover-up.

-11 Apollo astronauts were mysteriously killed before making their missions, 3 had oxygen pumped into their test capsule until it exploded, 7 died in 6 separate plane crashes, and 1 died in a car crash, highly unlikely coincidence, points towards a cover-up

-The astronauts rarely give public interviews or take questions at speaking events and were very unconvincing on their first interview back from the moon

-Buzz Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel who called him out on the hoax after he wouldn’t place his hand on the Bible and say he went to the moon

-Buzz Aldrin Jr. (Apollo 11), Gordon Cooper Jr., (Mercury 9, Gemini 5), Donn Eisele (Apollo 7), John Glenn Jr., (Mercury 6), Virgil Grissom (Apollo 1&15, Mercury 5, Gemini 3), James Irwin (Apollo 15), Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14), Walter Schirra Jr. (Apollo 7, Sigma 7, Gemini 6, Mercury 8), Thomas Stafford (Apollo 10&18, Gemini 7&9), and Paul Weitz (Skylab 2, Challenger), all these astronauts are Masons

-The first director of NASA was Werner Von Braun one of hundreds of NAZI rocket scientists brought into America through the OSS Project Paperclip

-Nazis and Masons are not the most historically trustworthy folks

-Why didn’t NASA make some sort of light/flare display from the moon that people could see without their TVs to prove they were there?

-Why no color video on Apollo 11 when we know the astronauts had a color camera with them?

Peace,
~Eric
www.atlanteanconspiracy.com
www.ericdubay.blogspot.com
just watching a program on this at the moment...no doubt we did go to the moon after all.
drat and i thought it was a conspiracy.

[elton]

just watching a program on this at the moment...no doubt we did go to the moon after all.
drat and i thought it was a conspiracy.

If its that program that shows the retroreflectors working, don't let that fool you. They are indeed there, nobody disputes that, but they were put there by robotic craft, not by Apollo.

[hagbard_celine]

Exactly.

How did this plonker guarantee his ground was exactly like the ground in the photograph and the other variables were exactly the same? He couldn't he could only guess even if he bothered to do that. Experiment invalid is all i can say.

Would the margin of error need to be so small that every rock and hummock would need to be the identical? Wisnewski was demonstrating a principle.:cool: He admits that past hoax therorists were in error when they said that natural sunlight would always produce parallel shadows, but this cannot be countered by saying that the shadows can go in any which way they please and still be concluded to come from natural sunlight.:D

[francis]

No one said shadows can go any way the please and no NASA photographs have them doing so. The shadows follow their path because variables like where the sun is and what the ground is like.

He admits that past hoax theorists were in error when they said that natural sunlight would always produce parallel shadows

Wow man hes admitted something most people with eyes knew anyway. The hoaxers are final making progress. Who knows in years to come they might even understand the shadows.

[rodin]

Defo BnW and colour photocomposite

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058292523&postcount=18

FWIW I took the above image and looked for any trace of colour on the moon using colour and contrast enhancement.

Not a sausage. The picture is a composite ie a lie.

[bealert]

If its that program that shows the retroreflectors working, don't let that fool you. They are indeed there, nobody disputes that, but they were put there by robotic craft, not by Apollo.
the program looked at each conspiracie then debugged them one by one...even the problem of the lighting was dealt with ...

[elton]

the program looked at each conspiracie then debugged them one by one...even the problem of the lighting was dealt with ...

This is the biggest conspiracy of all. The recent LRO photos of the sites are all obviously photoshopped so its not only NASA in the '70s that are liars but also the current NASA people. And also the JAXA and Chandreyaan people too. They have also published photos of the sites. The whole lot is being faked by all these different space agencies.

Something is brewing.

[camreeno]

Does anyone know of some documentaries I can watch? There seem to be millions on 9/11 but few on the Moon Hoax (or supposed hoax, I'm still making my mind).

[toty1994]

Does anyone know of some documentaries I can watch? There seem to be millions on 9/11 but few on the Moon Hoax (or supposed hoax, I'm still making my mind).

Here's 2 youtube channels dedicated to the subject.

Pro-conspiracy
http://www.youtube.com/user/WhiteJarrah

Anti-conspiracy
http://www.youtube.com/user/Astrobrant2

[elton]

If you want to hear all the ramblings of the NASA agents, try the forum at www.clavius.org

Half of the "explanations" they give are impossible to believe.

[francis]

If you want to hear all the ramblings of the NASA agents, try the forum at www.clavius.org

Half of the "explanations" they give are impossible to believe.

Not to me and many other learned people they are not. Guess we must all be thick, payed off sheeple or something ay?

LOL.

[tenzingnorgay]

the program looked at each conspiracie then debugged them one by one...even the problem of the lighting was dealt with ...

No, it didn't. It cherry picked some issues it felt it could deal with and ignored most of them. There are HUNDREDS of problems with the moon hoax.

[hagbard_celine]

No, it didn't. It cherry picked some issues it felt it could deal with and ignored most of them. There are HUNDREDS of problems with the moon hoax.

Hear hear!:cool:

[toseek]

No, it didn't. It cherry picked some issues it felt it could deal with and ignored most of them. There are HUNDREDS of problems with the moon hoax.

There are hundreds of issues people come up with - that's not quite the same thing. No one TV program is going to be able to cover all of them.

[delamo1999]

The "moon landing" would have made a great X Files episode.

:D

[alexis1111]

How many of your readers believe the elites running the space programs in the Soviet Union and in the United States would have told the world the truth if they had discovered they could never travel into space? How many of you believe these pathological liars would have given up all those billions of dollars by telling the truth?

[alexis1111]

If NASA said they were going to blow up a big cannister of powdered glass on the lunar surface and you looked up to the moon with your telescope and saw this bright patch would you say NASA faked it?

[hagbard_celine]

If NASA said they were going to blow up a big cannister of powdered glass on the lunar surface and you looked up to the moon with your telescope and saw this bright patch would you say NASA faked it?

That's a bit like what happened with LCROSS!:D;)

[gort]

May be you missed it last time so i will post it again. Soon NASA will crash a spent delivery system into the Moon which will send a cloud of dust and shit 8 miles into the sky. This will be visible from Earth with a cheap telescope.

Alexis is going to get what she wants and she didnt even know it.

That"soon" never materialized,as it never does when the blowhard Believers proclaim the "final nail in the coffin" is nigh at hand for the heretics of the Cult of Apollo.Nothing was viewed by mice or men..or expensive satellite cameras or telescopes.>>>>>>>>>> Then we have the laughable LRO fiasco: Wagging the Moondoggie, Part II
October 1, 2009
by David McGowan
excerpt: “But I have also heard,” you now say, “that photos have been taken of the equipment left behind by the Apollo astronauts on the surface of the Moon, like the descent stages of the lunar modules. How do you account for that?”



It is certainly true that there have been numerous claims over the years that various satellites or unmanned space probes or space telescopes were going to capture images that would definitively prove that man walked on the Moon, thus settling the controversy once and for all. And in recent years, the ‘debunkers’ have openly gloated whenever such an announcement has been made, boldly proclaiming that all the “hoax believers” will soon be exposed as the ignorant buffoons that they are.



Despite all the promises, however, no such images have ever been produced, a fact that the ‘debunkers’ seem to conveniently overlook while forever rushing to announce that the hoax theories are about to be discredited.



For at least two decades now, since the launch of the Hubble Space Telescope, we have been promised dazzling images of the lunar modules sitting on the surface of the Moon. The Hubble technology, needless to say, never managed to deliver. More recently, in 2002, the European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope (whose inventor apparently coined the name while watching Sesame Street) was also supposed to deliver the promised images. And seven years later, the fabled images have yet to materialize.



In March of 2005, Space.com boldly announced that a “European spacecraft now orbiting the Moon could turn out to be a time machine of sorts as it photographs old landing sites of Soviet robotic probes and the areas where American Apollo crews set down and explored. New imagery of old Apollo touchdown spots, from the European Space Agency’s (ESA) SMART-1 probe, might put to rest conspiratorial thoughts that U.S. astronauts didn’t go the distance and scuff up the lunar landscape. NASA carried out six piloted landings on the Moon in the time period 1969 through 1972. Fringe theorists have said … that NASA never really went to the Moon.”



I’m guessing that most “fringe theorists” will continue to harbor “conspiratorial thoughts” for as long as pompous websites like Space.com continue making arrogant proclamations such as that and then not following them up with so much as a single image in well over four years.



Who knew, by the way, that the European Space Agency had the technology and the budget to send a spacecraft off to orbit the Moon? Who knew that the Europeans even had a space agency? I wonder, given that they obviously have the technology to send spacecraft to the Moon, why they haven’t sent any manned missions there? I would think that it should be fairly easy to send some guys to at least orbit the Moon … right? I mean, all they have to do is add a couple seats to the spacecraft design that they already have and they should be ready to go.



Here is another thing that I sometimes wonder about: why it is that in the 1960s we possessed the advanced technology required to actually land men on the Moon, but in the 21st century we don’t even have the technology required to get an unmanned craft close enough to the Moon to take usable photographs? Or could it be that there’s just nothing there to photograph?



Just this year, NASA itself boldly announced that it’s “Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, or LRO, has returned its first imagery of the Apollo moon landing sites. The pictures show the Apollo missions’ lunar module descent stages sitting on the moon’s surface, as long shadows from a low sun angle make the modules’ locations evident … ‘The LROC team anxiously awaited each image,’ said LROC principal investigator Mark Robinson of Arizona State University. ‘We were very interested in getting our first peek at the lunar module descent stages just for the thrill – and to see how well the cameras had come into focus. Indeed, the images are fantastic and so is the focus.’”



Sounds promising, doesn’t it? The images, however, hardly live up to the billing. They are, in fact, completely worthless. All they depict are tiny white dots on the lunar surface that could be just about anything and that would barely be visible at all without those handy “long shadows from a low sun angle.” And the weird thing about those shadows is that, in the very same NASA article, it says that “because the sun was so low to the horizon when the images were made, even subtle variations in topography create long shadows.” And yet while it is perfectly obvious that there are more than just “subtle variations” in the lunar topography in the images, the alleged lunar modules are the only things casting the long shadows.

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo2.html Maybe we didn't..says Mr Bean here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgmGZlyZObE

[arcyclus]

How many of your readers believe the elites running the space programs in the Soviet Union and in the United States would have told the world the truth if they had discovered they could never travel into space? How many of you believe these pathological liars would have given up all those billions of dollars by telling the truth?

The fairy tale of the moon being made of green Cheeze is sometimes more believable than some of the shit the government tries to feed us.

[huggybear]

My personal theory is that much of the footage was faked. That is not to say that there wasn`t perhaps a mission to the moon. Just that perhaps they did not show that mission in case things went wrong. So they had perhaps a real mission and a fake mission. Of course that is just my theory. I have seen convincing evidence that talks about the radiation etc and it made me wonder but I am not a scientist or anything so it is hard for me to say.

This seems the most likely to me also, I think there were 'things' on the moon which could not be shown. I get the feeling from Buzz that he has seen 'things' also

[dontpushme]

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/83895/Best_Moon_Landing_Secret_Nasa_Video___Real_Footage/

interesting film