Daryl Bradford Smith (http://www.iamthewitness.com (http://www.iamthewitness.com)
Ognir (http://www.theinfounderground.com (http://www.theinfounderground.com))
Recorded 28th June 09
Guests Rafeeg & Ognir
Zio Moon Land Hoax
Hollywood
Programming of the Masses
Chemtrails
Jewish Slavery Business
Police State
7/7 and the BBC
Michel Jackson
and lots more
http://theinfounderground.com/archives/ ... n.Hoax.mp3 (http://theinfounderground.com/archives/TFC-28th.June.09.guests.Rafeeg.and.Ognir.Moon.Hoax.mp3)
ZioMoon :D
---
Here's a fresh one from Jewcy:
http://www.jewcy.com/post/first_jew_moon%E2%80%A6 (http://www.jewcy.com/post/first_jew_moon%E2%80%A6)
When I was incarcerated at Boron aka Watergate Camp, only a couple hours from L.A., there were a few inmates connected to Hollywood. One of them was Seth Jaffe, an actor who had guest starred on TV series like "Cagney & Lacey" and "Remington Steele." He was also a very funny writer. So the warden allowed us to put on a comedy show in front of the 700 inmates. One of our skits went like this...
You all saw the landing on the moon, July 21, 1969. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were the first men to walk on the moon, right? Actually, I, Craig Glazer, was the first man on the moon. Here's how it happened... The lunar module had just touched down when Houston called us: "This is Mission Control, we have a problem. The lunar surface where you have landed may be unstable, too dangerous for you to step down on." We were crushed. All of our work was for nothing! But then Mission Control called again and only spoke to Neil and Buzz: "We have an idea. Send the Jewish kid down first." I go down the stairs onto the surface of the moon. I check things out and everything seems safe. That's when Neil lowers a camera to me and I film him jumping onto the surface.
Don't believe me? Think about it. How the hell do you think they got that film of him coming down the stairs? The cameraman! That was me--the first Jew on the moon!
Even the goyem laughed--and considering this was federal prison that was almost everyone.
Craig Glazer, author of The King Of Sting: The Amazing True Story of a Modern American Outlaw, is guest blogging on Jewcy. Tomorrow he'll publish his parting post. Stay tuned.
The Moon Landing was a massive public brain washing campaign, comparable
with H.G. Wells' "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast done by Orson Wells on October 30, 1938.
But that's actually old stuff, as is the moonlanding. What matters is the Climate Change Hoax.
We must fight the Climate Change Hoax as the consequence of its measures, The Cap and Trade Bill (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24232.html),
will be that human life and nature will disappear from the Earth's surface. Here's my perception of whats
going on with Congress and Obama pushing the Cap and Trade Bill (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/25/proposed-us-environment-legislation) through. What I present here is
an expose of
WHY Al Gore introduced his Global Warming hoax :
Dune for DummiesIt wouldn't surprise me if NASA has been a public P.R. Department of
the CIA/NSA from the day of its inception. Everything concerning Mars
can then be found back under the file OPERATION DUNE. It may sound
silly, but .... In the sixties the public was suddenly presented with a
Dune Buggy on the basis of a Volkswagen Beetle ... with which people
who were totally hyped up of the Moon-landing, could replay this on
their favorite beach. Not much later a complete arsenal of Cult movies
was launched, under the name ... 'Dune' ...
Dune (1973)http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217408/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0217408/)
Dune (1984)http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087182/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087182/)
"Dune" (2000) (TV mini-series)http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0142032/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0142032/)
"Children of Dune" (2003)http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0287839/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0287839/)
Dune (2010)http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1160419/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1160419/)
Well, the story of Dune is indeed happening in the Desert, where a
giant worm is sliding through the sand, and leaves behind a thing
called 'spice' (ehh worm faeces?), which means life and food for the
people trying to survive. This worm is then declared holy inside the 'Dune'
cult series.
Here's the conspiracy : There's two factions : People who promote the
Desert culture, and people who want to see plants and nature and thus
don't need that big worm anymore. My perception is that life on Mars is
determined by these 'Dune' worms (if there is life on Mars), where on
planet Earth we are still independent.
The battle we are waging today is to prevent Desertification from
happening. This looks like a impossible task, most certainly now Al
Gore has started his 'Global Warming' campaign, where CO2 has to
disappear from our atmosphere ...
One of the many innocent victims of todays education is of course
Biology class. Who would know today that in order to grow plants and
crops ABOVE the ground, one needs CO2 in the atmosphere and :
sun-light (or other light ... thousand points of light?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis) :
CO2 + 2H2O ==> CH4 + 2O2 == plants + oxygen
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bc/Photosynthesis.jpg)
If there already are underground life-communities, one can locate these
by localizing its air flows; where air is entering the ground and where
air is flowing out of the ground. What one has todo is to measure the
concentration of CO2 entering the ground and of air which reappears
into the atmosphere.
If the CO2 concentration in the air which enters our atmosphere is
SMALLER as of the air going into the ground, then someone is tanking
CO2 underground, in order to, of course, grow fruits and vegetables there.
What Al Gore is doing now, with his Global Warming campaign, is
to declare that the process of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere
is a normal thing todo. What many don't seem to know or realize is that
CO2 capture from the atmosphere has as hard consequence, that
our nature will disappear from the Earth's surface.
Conclusion, Al Gore seems to be a big fan of Dune worms. But who
has ever seen such a worm slide through the Desert? Not me! So the
entire Gore campaign is in fact meant to transform our planet Earth
into Mars version II. The entire Matrix trilogy is closely dough-tailing
with this, the Nazi Black Sun ideology ditto. Further the observation
that there's quite a number of New Age 'specialists' out there, who
denounce Sun-worshipers as being of the devil.
Robert
PS. the most straight forward explanation: the atmosphere will be
diluted of CO2 to such an extend that crops, fruits and vegetables
will only grow underground inside the underground cities of the
large food corporations. Hence they will control all food on the Earth's
surface.
--
Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE
Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist
crashrecovery.org
stock@stokkie.net
I do not understand why focusing on the moon landing is pivotal to the anti-Zionist movement. In fact, it maybe harmful since so many people believe this as fact and is just one more thing to convince the general public that is not true, when we already have an uphill battle. It is also suspicious that Eric Hufschmidt made the moon landing hoax as so important to his agenda. This maybe counterproductive.
You must not even have LISTENED before making a comment because Noel, Daryl, and Rafeeq DID NOT GO FAR ENOUGH IN THE EVIDENCE FOR THE HOAX.
Listen first--COMMENT LATER.
LINDSEY
NB: I don't give two shits what people advocating the moon landing have to say any longer because the astronauts WERE CAUGHT FAKING BEING HALF-WAY TO THE MOON on the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" newest version, and I don't have to know anything else but THAT--except for the van Allen Radiation Belts that are so deadly that the astronauts in CURRENT DAY can not even get within 400 miles of the belt before their eyes are bombarded with radiation that they can actually see in their corneas! :lol: :roll: :!:
All I can say is that the Money for NASA has been wasted for decades. I'm sure it is "lost accounting" no different from the US military "losing" over a trillion dollars and announcing it just before 9/11. Where did the money go?
From the connection to the US military, you see firms like Texas Instruments (Cecil Green) growing as suppliers to the US Military Industrial complex - NASA.
While it might be hard to convince most people in believing the Moon-Hoax as a conspiracy -- the money dropped on this adventure doesn't make a lot of sense -- in a practical sense, unless you believe a select group is getting a very large chunk of public funds for their Projects as directed by Zio-types. There are a lot of NeoCon-Crypto-Zionist types in the mix surrounding NASA.
Jim Marrs-Joseph P Farrell-Jim Hoagland all believe the weird secrecy around NASA is the devious "Nazi International". I can easily see a "Zionist-Take The Money International" really running things behind the scenes.
Faking it for TV consumption really would not have been that difficult. Faking the working histories of 10,000s of people working on the Moon Projects might be difficult and risky. A lot of people had a Grandfather or Older Uncle who worked at NASA.
It is risky to push this but it could really expose the Zionist Public Cash Fountain (NASA historically) if there is enough evidence to really expose it as largely a Hoax -- missiles launched, satellites launched certainly, but NOT Moon travel . They could have launched empty missiles into space in Florida. The military and intelligence agencies got a huge political boost from it in the Cold War -- NASA's Moon Missions were a "win-win" for the political West and even the US Jew run University industry.
I largely stopped paying much attention to this Moon Hoax theory but will revisit it since Ognir, DBS and Rafeeq have discussed it. There has been a lot of research concerning the Moon Hoax from a lot of respectable people long before the 1970s ended -- long before Hufschmidt brought it up too.
The moon hoax documentary that Rafeeq mentions actually has this line in it's credits;
"No Goy were hurt during the making of this documentary"
no joke.
Quote from: "LordLindsey"You must not even have LISTENED before making a comment because Noel, Daryl, and Rafeeq DID NOT GO FAR ENOUGH IN THE EVIDENCE FOR THE HOAX.
Listen first--COMMENT LATER.
LINDSEY
NB: I don't give two shits what people advocating the moon landing have to say any longer because the astronauts WERE CAUGHT FAKING BEING HALF-WAY TO THE MOON on the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" newest version, and I don't have to know anything else but THAT--except for the van Allen Radiation Belts that are so deadly that the astronauts in CURRENT DAY can not even get within 400 miles of the belt before their eyes are bombarded with radiation that they can actually see in their corneas! :lol: :roll: :!:
Listened...no change in my comment. Although, CrackSmoke makes a good point about NASA being a money pit. We already have plenty of relevant evidence to go directly after the Jewish criminal network instead of this roundabout manner. Also, we need to stop focusing speaking to the 'conspiracy' subculture and start aiming at the general public.
I had no idea of the topic prior to the recording, but directly afterwards I said WTF :lol: EH will now make headlines about this :lol:
Satya, I don't disagree with your points, please understand...but the PROOF that we never went to the moon is more than enough--just watch the documentary "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" and you will understand what I am saying. If THIS lie was perpetraed upon the American people, THEN WHY IN THE HELL DIDN'T THE ENEMIES OF AMERICA TELL THE TRUTH AND DESTROY THE CREDIBILITY OF THEIR ENEMY? NOW do you understand why this is so important? It shows that this entire "nation states-at-conflict" worldview IS A LIE!
The moon hoax shows more clearly than anything else that the entire world in which we live is THEATER, and if you can't see the reason for showing that the moon landing was a hoax and WHY IT IS SO CRITICIAL--I have just given it to you.
LINDSEY
NB: You can find the video in full if you go to the right places to find it online.
Quote from: "LordLindsey"Satya, I don't disagree with your points, please understand...but the PROOF that we never went to the moon is more than enough--just watch the documentary "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" and you will understand what I am saying. If THIS lie was perpetraed upon the American people, THEN WHY IN THE HELL DIDN'T THE ENEMIES OF AMERICA TELL THE TRUTH AND DESTROY THE CREDIBILITY OF THEIR ENEMY? NOW do you understand why this is so important? It shows that this entire "nation states-at-conflict" worldview IS A LIE!
The moon hoax shows more clearly than anything else that the entire world in which we live is THEATER, and if you can't see the reason for showing that the moon landing was a hoax and WHY IT IS SO CRITICIAL--I have just given it to you.
LINDSEY
NB: You can find the video in full if you go to the right places to find it online.
I understand your point but here is mine: 1) Most people do not even think about the moon landing anymore, 2) How many steps do you have to take to connect to the Zionists?, and 3) 9/11 is a direct connection to Zionists with tons of evidence and the public is already skeptical of the official story. This is a much better topic to expose the theater.
didn't Daryl always used to refuse to discuss the moon hoax?
I can't beleive this shit till I see it form the horses mouth.
Wheres the Kissenger video, can't seem to locate it?
Nope that was the other Hoax he doesn't talk about
I'm still waiting for the name of the Docu from Rafeeg or Daryl
@crack is there an official story on how they filmed neil going down the stair of the craft for the first time? i too found this killer as well as a billion other things. i think they do have unmanned probes there however but the main budget of nasa is black ops and probably just plain ol stolen. the goal of the zionism is to anti-work you as a form of worship to thier devil-as the devil apparently strives for anti-creation. This is in line with my theory on anti-creation and the destruction of existence via baryon tunnelling. So in fact the wasting/anti-working/stealing going on is entirely relevent to the debate of zionism-propaganda is merely a side benefit. I'm not sure people truly appreciate this and its what i'm researching now in jewish occultism.
QuoteDARK SIDE OF THE MOON - CBC Passionate Eye
How could the flag flutter when there's no wind on the moon? During an interview with Stanley Kubrick's widow an extraordinary
story came to light. She claims Kubrick and other Hollywood producers were recruited to help the U.S. win the high stakes race to
the moon. In order to finance the space program through public funds, the U.S. government needed huge popular support, and that
meant they couldn't afford any expensive public relations failures. Fearing that no live pictures could be transmitted from the
first moon landing, President Nixon enlisted the creative efforts of Kubrick, whose 2001: a Space Odyssey (1968) had provided much
inspiration, to ensure promotional opportunities wouldn't be missed. In return, Kubrick got a special NASA lens to help him shoot
Barry Lyndon (1975). A subtle blend of facts, fiction and hypothesis around the first landing on the moon, Dark Side Of The Moon
illustrates how the truth can be twisted by the manipulation of images.
With use of 'hijacked' archival footage, false documents, real interviews taken out of context or transformed through voice-over
or dubbing, staged interviews, as well as, interviews with astronauts like Buzz Aldrin and others, Dark Side Of The Moon navigates
the viewer through lies and truth; fact and fiction. This is no ordinary documentary. Its intent is to inform and entertain the
viewer, but also to shake him up - make him aware that one should always view television with a critical eye.
Dark Side Of The Moon is written and directed by William Karel and co-produced by Point du Jour Production and ARTE France. IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0344160/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0344160/)
thats the movie i not seen it, getting now.
Im just confused why Rafeeq and Daryl are bringing this up now, its from 2002?
http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/9302 ... ab=summary (http://isohunt.com/torrent_details/93028525/him?tab=summary)
NO ONE has addressed the film that is even much more important than this, "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon." Why is that? WATCH IT and come back and tell me that we went to the moon AT ALL--AT ANY TIME--and how we were able to do it...
LINDSEY
NB: HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS is gone over a pack of lies, and THIS ONE is just as important as all of the others--maybe even more so because the world was supposed to be black-and-white in those days when everyone knew who the "good" guys were, so why didn't the "bad" guys tell what many, many people are now starting to see conclusively?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOMHSgQuuiw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOMHSgQuuiw)
Watch the whole thing, but I think that there may be an updated version, but you will have to find it elsewhere. This movie explains the whole story and even if one or two points can be refuted, THE VIDEO SHOWING THE ASTRONAUTS FAKING GOING HALF-WAY TO THE MOON THAT IS OFFICIAL FOOTAGE FROM NASA--CAN NOT.
LINDSEY
Linsey, I have seen that documentary, and yeah it does seem to blow the story wide open.
I don't get why its of any important now, with the shit going on in Palestine and Iran.
Seems like flogging a dead horse to me.
;)
Quote from: "LordLindsey"I don't have any evidence of Zionist involvement in the cover-up or for the reasons of the cover-up, but it is important because it shows how lies upon lies upon lies are inflicted upon the people, and for THIS to be shown to be a lie--well, if a person can admit that this is a lie then if someone is not open to the BIGGER issues of Zionism, then they would be more than likely to have an open-mind if they were convinced that the moon landing was a COMPLETE LIE.
That is not true at all, i.e. Alex Jones believers.
Quote from: "memory hole"I don't get why its of any important now, with the shit going on in Palestine and Iran.
Seems like flogging a dead horse to me.
I completely agree.
Rafeeg was refferring to the following video :
Opération Lune (c)2002 (dark side of the moon) William Karel
VIDEO: [divx] 480x360 24bpp 29.970 fps 674.8 kbps (82.4 kbyte/s)
AUDIO: 44100 Hz, 2 ch, s16le, 128.0 kbit/9.07% (ratio: 16000->176400)
Runtime 52:14 mins
-rw-r--r-- 1 stock stock 319698972 Jul 5 2006 DarkSideoftheMoon.avi
5df96e595c7823672d1731ad4bd511ee DarkSideoftheMoon.avi
This video documents Stanley Kubricks involvement with the
Moon Landing. "In case something goes wrong on the Moon, You
Stanley will make the best watched footage ever. We cannot afford
to blow this ...."
A lot of crap is circulating on google video and youtube, emulating
this documentary. This is the original with the unmistaken, British
accent [tm] featured, BBC narrator.
http://tracker.conspiracycentral.net/to ... hp?id=7951 (http://tracker.conspiracycentral.net/torrents-details.php?id=7951)
Here it is at Mininova:
http://www.mininova.org/tor/767384 (http://www.mininova.org/tor/767384)
BTW, the criminal Zionist Kissinger made a deal with Arabs in 1970s to force Arabs to borrow from US Banks -- a great interview:
http://www.howestreet.com/audiovideo/in ... layer/1262 (http://www.howestreet.com/audiovideo/index.php?pl=/goldradio/index.php/mediaplayer/1262)
The Neil Armstrong Museum has some good photos to look at if interested:
http://cache.virtualtourist.com/4107591 ... ton_DC.jpg (http://cache.virtualtourist.com/4107591-Apollo_Lunar_Landing_1969_Neil_Armstrong-Washington_DC.jpg)
I'd be interested in knowing how they got this angle shot? I guess it was "after" they "landed":
(http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/imagery/apollo/AS11/images/AS11-40-5867.jpg)
Shot of Lander:
(http://cache.virtualtourist.com/4107591-Apollo_Lunar_Landing_1969_Neil_Armstrong-Washington_DC.jpg)
Some Moon Fakery Charges:
QuoteWERE THE MOON LANDING SHOTS FAKED?
Shocking : See what NASA has done (Long but worth reading)
9 SPACE ODDITIES:
1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.
2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Lander lifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?
3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?
4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.
5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.
6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?
7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?
8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?
9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.
WERE THE MOON LANDING SHOTS FAKED?
In July 1969, more than 600 million people watched in awe, as Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the surface of the moon. The last men to set foot on the moon were the astronauts of Apollo 17, in December 1972. But even before this, a set of conspiracy theories were spreading, the most radical of which claimed that NASA had faked all the lunar landings-that man in fact never landed on the moon. Look at the evidence and decide for yourself.
This shot of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planting the
US flag on the moon's surface was taken by a 16 mm
camera mounted on the lunar module. Aldrin's shadow (A)
is far longer than Armstrong's. Yet the only light on the
moon - and the only light source used by NASA - comes
from the sun, and should not create such unequal
shadows.
Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
Buzz Aldrin stands with the sun shining down across his left shoulder. Although his right side is in shadow, there is too much detail shown on that side of his space suit (B). It should be much darker and less visible because the contrast between light and dark is much greater on the moon. With no atmosphere to pollute the light on the moon, all the photographs should look bright and crisp. But the landscape behind Aldrin (C) gradually fades to darkness. This 'fall-off' effect, hoax theorists say, should not occur on the moon. But the fading effect could have happened because film is less adaptive than the human eye and makes objects seem darker the further they are from the camera. There is a curious object reflected in Aldrin's visor (D). Some theorists think that it is a helicopter, others say that it is a 12-metre glass structure. NASA claims that it is a piece of equipment on the lunar surface.
NASA claims the strange shape (E) - in this shot taken from the Lunar Module while it was 95 km above the moon's surface - is a shadow cast by the Command Module's rocket. But when larger aircraft fly at lower altitudes over the Earth, they do not cast such huge and defined shadows.
As the Lunar Module Antares, from Apollo 14, rests on the moon's surface there is no crater beneath its feet (F), despite the considerable amount of dust that would have been thrown up during its descent. There also appears to be a footprint (G) directly under the module, yet no one walked on this part of the moon before the craft landed. On the left side of the craft, the words, 'United States' (H) are clearly visible, whereas they should be in shadow. Buzz Aldrin himself said that there is no refracted light on the moon, which points to the fact that another source of light was used to take this shot.
These shots of John Young and James Irwin - like many Apollo photos - show a lunar sky without stars (J). Yet with no atmosphere on the moon, stars should be visible - a fact confirmed by Maria Blyzinsky, Curator of Astronomy at the Greenwich Observatory, London. If NASA could not hope to recreate the lunar sky, they may have opted for simple black backdrops. NASA claim that the sunlight was so strong it overpowered the light from the stars. On the shadow side of the landing modules, there are plaques (K) with the American flag and the words 'United States' quite bright and clearly visible, but the gold foil around the plaques is in near darkness. Studio spotlights highlighting these areas, or technicians retouching the prints, could have caused this effect.
As Alan Bean holds up a Special Environmental Sample Container, the top of his head is clearly in view. But the camera taking the shot was fixed on Charles Conrad's chest, and the ground here seems to be level, so the top of the helmet (L) should not be in the photo. Shadows visible in Al Bean's visor should not be in the photo. Shadows visible in Al Bean's visor (M) go off in various directions, not in straight parallel lines, as expected, suggesting that there is more than one light source. The container Bean is holding (N) is brightly lit at the bottom, yet it is facing away from the light. This may be due to the light reflected from Bean's suit on to the container, but the rest of the container is not so brightly lit.
In this photograph of John Young readjusting an antenna next to the Lunar Rover Vehicle (LRV), there is a marker, known as a cross-hair (inset) (P), that goes behind the LRV's equipment. These cross-hairs (Q), which appear on all the lunar photographs, are made by a screen of cross-hairs placed between the shutter and the film. The bright, reflected light may have obliterated the fine line of this one, or it could have happened if the image was retouched. The foreground shows what looks like the letter 'C' on a boulder (R). Is this perhaps an identification letter left on a studio prop? The letter C on the original photo is actually quite well defined and it is hard to imagine what can cause such a well-laid inscription on a boulder in a desolate place such as the moon. The tracks made by the LRV's wheel turn rather oddly at right-angles (S). These tracks could have been caused by studio technicians pushing the buggy into place. Such clear tracks and footprints require moisture to form and should not appear on the dry lunar surface.
http://fake-landing.blogspot.com/2007/0 ... -long.html (http://fake-landing.blogspot.com/2007/09/shocking-see-what-nasa-has-done-long.html)
They found the "missing videos!!!" Now, isn't that just funny...just like the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon." I see that NO ONE has mentioned the evidence in the video.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/110 ... ding-tapes (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/110442/WORLD-EXCLUSIVE-NASA-finds-missing-moon-landing-tapes)
LINDSEY
if they had landed on the moon in the 60's there would be a walmart there by now.
:lol:
for that reason alone, its a scam.
http://www.justin.tv/moonmovies (http://www.justin.tv/moonmovies) some related clips.
Satya's posts here hit the nail on the head.
Welteislehre (World Ice Theory)
, also known as Glazial-Kosmogonie (Glacial Cosmogony) is a cosmological theory proposed by Hans Hörbiger, an Austrian engineer and inventor and respected steam engine designer, whose invention of the Hörbiger valve made him a wealthy man.
Hörbiger did not arrive at his theory through research, but said that he had received it in a "vision" in 1894. According to his theory, ice was the basic substance of all cosmic processes, and ice moons, ice planets, and the "global ether" (also made of ice) had determined the entire development of the universe.
History
By his own account, Hörbiger was observing the Moon when he was struck by the notion that the brightness and roughness of its surface was due to ice. Shortly after, he experienced a dream in which he was floating in space watching the swinging of a pendulum which grew longer and longer until it broke. "I knew that Newton had been wrong and that the sun's gravitational pull ceases to exist at three times the distance of Neptune," he concluded.[1] He worked out his theory in collaboration with amateur astronomer and schoolteacher Philipp Fauth who he met in 1898, and published it as Glazial-Kosmogonie in 1912. Fauth had previously produced a large (if somewhat inaccurate) lunar map and had a considerable following, which lent Hörbiger's theory some respectability.[2]
It did not receive a great deal of attention at the time, but following World War I Hörbiger decided to change his strategy by promoting the new "cosmic truth" not only to people at universities and academies, but also to the general public. Hörbiger thought that if "the masses" accepted his ideas then they might put enough pressure on the academic establishment to force his theory into the mainstream. No effort was spared in popularising the theory: "cosmotechnical" societies were founded, which offered public lectures that attracted large audiences, there were cosmic ice movies and radio programs, and even cosmic ice journals and novels.[3]
The followers of the theory exerted a great deal of public pressure on behalf of the theory. The movement published posters, pamphlets, and books, and even a newspaper, The Key to World Events. A company owned by an adherent would only hire people who declared themselves convinced of the theory's truth. Some followers even attended astronomical meetings to heckle, shouting, "Out with astronomical orthodoxy! Give us Hörbiger!" During this period, the name was changed from the Graeco-Latin Glazial-Kosmogonie to the more Germanic Welteislehre (WEL for short).
One of the early supporters of Hörbiger's theories was Houston Stewart Chamberlain, the leading theorist behind the early development of the National Socialist Party in Germany in 1923.
Two organizations were set up in Vienna concerned with the theory, the Kosmotechnische Gesellschaft and the Hörbiger Institute. The first was formed in 1921 by a group of enthusiastic adherents of the Theory, which included engineers, physicians, civil servants, and businessmen. Most had been personally acquainted with Hörbiger, and had attended his many lectures. Among Hörbiger's followers was Viennese author Egon Friedell, who explained the World Ice Theory in his 1930 Cultural History of the Modern Age.[4]
In the Third Reich
After Hörbiger's death in 1931, the followers of WEL came to the conclusion that given the changing political situation in Germany, aligning the theory with National Socialism would eventually lead to its acceptance; WEL had already been heavily and successfully promoted as the "German antithesis" of the "Jewish" theory of relativity in the late 1920s. And so the movement became more and more pro-Nazi, with WEL supporters saying things like: "Our Nordic ancestors grew strong in ice and snow; belief in the Cosmic Ice is consequently the natural heritage of Nordic Man.", "Just as it needed a child of Austrian culture - Hitler! - to put the Jewish politicians in their place, so it needed an Austrian to cleanse the world of Jewish science.", and "the Führer, by his very life, has proved how much a so-called 'amateur' can be superior to self-styled professionals; it needed another 'amateur' to give us a complete understanding of the Universe."
Heinrich Himmler, one of the most powerful Nazi leaders, became a strong proponent of the theory and he stated that if it were corrected and adjusted with new scientific findings it could very well be accepted as scientific work. However, the Propaganda Ministry felt obliged to state that "one can be a good National Socialist without believing in the WEL."
Adolf Hitler, an enthusiastic follower of the WEL theory, adopted it as the Nazi party's official cosmology. He claimed that Hörbiger was not accepted by the scientific establishment because "the fact is, men do not wish to know."[5] The World Ice Theory was intended to form part of a planetarium Hitler planned to build on Linz's Mount Pöstling. According to the structure's plans, the ground floor was to centre around Ptolemey's universe, the middle floor Copernicus' theory, and the top floor, Hörbiger's theory.[4]
It has been said that the real reason both Hitler and Himmler favored the theory was to counterbalance the perceived Jewish influence on the sciences, similar to the Deutsche Physik movement. Hörbiger's theory was for instance opposed to Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. Dozens of scientific journals, books, and even novels were published on this topic. Hörbiger's theories became generally accepted among the population of Nazi Germany and a German Hörbiger Organization had thousands of members.
The Nazis also considered the World Ice Theory valuable because of its supposed value in weather forecasting. The 1938 Zur Welteismeteorologie ("On World Ice Meteorology") by Dr. E. Dinies, published by the Reichs Office for Weather Service quotes from Hörbiger's Glazial-Kosmogonie and provided tables of data comparing ice and air temperatures for relative humidity values.[6]
A growing group of 'believing scientists' expanded the theory during the last years of World War II.
Following the Anschluss of March 1938, the Kosmotechnische Gesellschaft was liquidated by the Nazis and its funds seized. The Hörbiger Institute, which was a small association which collected funds for research, was left in possession of all Hörbiger's scientific material, including a library and a large collection of valuable drawings covering astronomy, meteorology, and geology as they related to the Hörbiger Theory. The Nazis wanted to close the Institute down as well, but Alfred Hörbiger and the Chairman avoided this by having a Nazi Commission appointed. They also managed to prevent the archives being taken to Berlin and absorbed in Himmler's Ahnenerbe organization, and established that the Institute was the private property of Hörbiger's sons.
Despite the outbreak of World War II, Alfred Hörbiger managed to continue publishing the Institute's Proceedings, in spite of being cut off from all foreign publications and correspondents. Eventually they were contacted by the German Propaganda Ministry, who said they considered that the publications constituted high treason and ordered them to stop circulating their reports.
In February 1945 the Hörbiger engineering works were destroyed, and in March the Institute's premises were hit and were boarded up just before Soviet troops arrived. Alfred Hörbiger died in August 1945 but the Institute hoped to restart publication of its Proceedings by 1949.
Postwar
After World War II, the WEL cult dropped out of sight. But it revived sometime afterwards, and continued to have members in both Germany and England for several years, even though it was quickly discredited again. In the 1950s, a pamphlet supporting the WEL stated that "proof of the theory awaits the conclusion of the first successful interplanetary flight, a matter in which the Institute is greatly interested." A survey conducted in 1953 showed that over a million people in Germany, England, and the U.S. believed that Hörbiger was correct. More recently, some of its supporters have dropped the idea of an icy lunar surface, though they continue to support the view that it was captured and that its capture destroyed Atlantis.
Theory
According to the theory, the solar system had its origin in a gigantic star into which a smaller, dead, waterlogged star fell. This impact caused a huge explosion which flung fragments of the smaller star out into interstellar space where the water condensed and froze into giant blocks of ice. A ring of such blocks formed, which we now call the Milky Way, as well as a number of solar systems among which was our own, but with many more planets than presently exist.
Interplanetary space is filled with traces of hydrogen gas, which cause the planets to slowly spiral inwards, along with ice blocks. The outer planets are large mainly because they have swallowed a large number of ice blocks, but the inner planets have not swallowed nearly as many. One can see ice blocks on the move in the form of meteors, and when one collides with the Earth, it produces hailstorms over an area of many square kilometers, while when one falls into the Sun, it produces a sunspot and gets vaporized, making "fine ice," which covers the innermost planets.
It was also claimed that the Earth had had several satellites before it acquired the Moon; they began as planets in orbits of their own, but over long spans of time were captured one by one and slowly spiralled in towards the Earth until it disintegrated and its debris became part of the Earth's structure. One can supposedly identify the rock strata of several geological eras with the impacts of these satellites.
The last such impact, of the "Tertiary" or "Cenozoic Moon" and the capture of our present Moon, is supposedly remembered through myths and legends. This was worked out in detail by Hörbiger's English follower Hans Schindler Bellamy; Bellamy recounted how as a child he would often dream about a large moon that would spiral closer and closer in until it burst, making the ground beneath roll and pitch, awakening him and giving him a very sick feeling. When he looked at the Moon's surface through a telescope, he found its surface looking troublingly familiar. When he learned of Hörbiger's theory in 1921, he found it a description of his dream. He explained the mythological support he found in such books as Moons, Myths, and Man, In the Beginning God, and The Book of Revelation is History. It was believed that our current Moon was the sixth since the Earth began and that a new collision was inevitable. Believers argued that the great flood described in the Bible and the destruction of Atlantis were caused by the fall of previous moons.
Hörbiger had various responses to the criticism that he received. If it was pointed out to him that his assertions did not work mathematically, he responded: "Calculation can only lead you astray." If it was pointed out that there existed photographic evidence that the Milky Way was comprised of millions of stars, he responded that the pictures had been faked by "reactionary" astronomers. He responded in a similar way when it was pointed out that the surface temperature of the Moon had been measured in excess of 100 C in the daytime, writing to rocket expert Willy Ley: "Either you believe in me and learn, or you will be treated as the enemy."[7]
Astronomers generally dismissed his views and the following they acquired as a "carnival". Although Hörbiger's theories have much in common with those of Immanuel Velikovsky (parallels between the two were drawn by Martin Gardner in Chapter Three of his Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science), the scientific community had a much calmer reaction to Hörbiger's theories than to Velikovsky's, and his publisher was never boycotted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welteislehre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welteislehre)
I finished watching "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" and I have to say that I've never seen a movie so deliberately deceptive. The movie is full of lies and half-assed conclusions based on nonsense. I'm amazed that people here would fall for that. It's a very skillfully made deception... it exceed the BS propaganda that Zios pipe down the airwaves daily.
I've learned a lot from watching that movie — a lot about how to make deceptive movies. I'd recommend everyone to watch it just to see how to make persuasive movies that are based on a lot of lies.
they landed on the moon yet they didn't have the technology 40 years later to monitor, identify and prevent 2 planes from flying in air space into 2 of the largest buildings in one of the most sophisticated cities in the world?
hmmmm
Mike, I think that you really should post what you find to be gross mis-conduct in "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon." The footage showing the astronauts faking going half-way to the moon is real and I don't need to see anything else, except perhaps the facts regarding the Van Allen Radiation Belts--astronauts in shuttles today can not get near the Belts without the radiation being devastatingly powerful to them.
LINDSEY
:lol:
Anti Zionisn Think Tank
Quote from: "LordLindsey"Mike, I think that you really should post what you find to be gross mis-conduct in "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon." The footage showing the astronauts faking going half-way to the moon is real and I don't need to see anything else, except perhaps the facts regarding the Van Allen Radiation Belts--astronauts in shuttles today can not get near the Belts without the radiation being devastatingly powerful to them.
Don't have much free time right now and next two weeks so I don't want to go into this. It took me a while to find some time to watch that movie in peace and it's one of the most deceptive things I've ever seen, like I said. The director of that movie is a master of twisting things and fucking with your logic. But I will find the time in next few months and go step by step and explain the deception that they're using since they're sophisticated.
Van Allen belts radiation... that's a silly argument that hoax proponents use. Did you know that astronauts were in the belt for a veryt short time and that even the scientist who discovered it says that it's nothing that would prevent travel through them?
QuoteEven Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions. Dosimeters carried by the crews showed they received about the same cumulative dosage as a chest X-ray or about 1 milligray. Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years. The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt in a matter of minutes and the low-energy outer belt in about an hour and half. The astronauts were mostly shielded from the radiation by the spacecraft. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.
What's clear is that "Moon Hoax" is a hoax in itself.
Here's a question for hoaxers (and i'm sad to see this thread on a serious forum like TiU is trying to become).
1) Moon landing video transmission was received by Australian astronomers. They pointed their radio antennas to spot on the Moon and recorded transmissions from there. How was this pulled off?
2) Russians too picked up transmissions from the Moon and have tracked the Apollo 11 as it traveled to the Moon. Why didn't they expose this "hoax"?
3) Hundreds of thousands of people worked on the project. Why waste all this money on a fictitious project? If they wanted to steal the money, there are better ways of pulling that off. Don;t they own the Fed and can steal as much as they want? It makes no sense. If you want to see how to steal properly, go look into Goldman Sachs and their latest round of profits.
I'm amazed that so many intelligent people are fooled by the moon hoaxers. Clearly, Moon Hoax was created to smear conspiracy theorists and make them look stupid in the eyes of the public. It was concocted by the same CIA manipulators who introduced little green men and UFO lore into our culture.
It's in the same category as reptilian and UFO bullshit. By making a radio show about it, Og and DBS have now exposed themselves to ridicule for nothing. It's silly that they discussed this. Now whoever starts looking up their Zio info will be greeted with: "these are the guys who also believe that we never landed on the Moon" and will dismiss their other info. It's what people will use when someone mentions McKinney interview. Remember how everyone on this forum is harping on Rense for covering Zionism and then wrapping it into UFO realm? Or David Icke who releases a ton of great info but then shits all over it by talking about morphing reptilians and people with barbed tails and his out of body experiences in which he sees higher beings? How is this any different?
And even if it is a hoax, how does talking about it and siding with hoaxers help our cause when public overwhelmingly believes that we did go to the Moon? It doesn't and it only retards it.
Quote from: "MikeWB"2) Russians too picked up transmissions from the Moon and have tracked the Apollo 11 as it traveled to the Moon. Why didn't they expose this "hoax"?
Apart from the above quote I agree with Mike wholeheartedly, which as Mike knows is rare ;) , We should focus on what matters, this 'Moon hoax or not' crap only makes us look worse in the public's eye. We don't need help in that department, I would think.
As for the above quote, this is 'Red' Russia we'd be talking about, and for them to be in cahoots with the Americans would not be overly surprising to find out. A small point, but should be noted.
Other than that, yeah spot on.
QuoteApart from the above quote I agree with Mike wholeheartedly, which as Mike knows is rare ;) , We should focus on what matters, this 'Moon hoax or not' crap only makes us look worse in the public's eye. We don't need help in that department, I would think.
wtf? who cares about what the public think. what i want is the truth, the conversion of the goyiem comes later and the breaking of this propaganda has propaganda value(not to mention curiosity, isn't this meant to be the information underground or what?).
Quote1) Moon landing video transmission was received by Australian astronomers. They pointed their radio antennas to spot on the Moon and recorded transmissions from there. How was this pulled off?
2) Russians too picked up transmissions from the Moon and have tracked the Apollo 11 as it traveled to the Moon. Why didn't they expose this "hoax"?
irrelevant, the zionists control all countries and could have easily infiltrated the signal.
Quote3) Hundreds of thousands of people worked on the project. Why waste all this money on a fictitious project? If they wanted to steal the money, there are better ways of pulling that off. Don;t they own the Fed and can steal as much as they want? It makes no sense. If you want to see how to steal properly, go look into Goldman Sachs and their latest round of profits.
it wasn't about the stealing mainly but giving the usa public consciousness false hope that they were doing something worthwhile whilst they were being robbed blind by the military/industrial complex fighting the reds. it was a distraction in a time of social unrest.
stop trying to convince people either way mike and let people look into it if they want to and come to their own conclusions. This is a research forum not a cult. Being open-minded and constructive is whats important and i would like to see all the evidence first for both sides of the argument. Maybe on a separate thread tho.
it is obvious the moon landing was a hoax - I still think people need to know about the hoax because if you get people who understand particular areas of study such as science or photography to look at the evidence then, this is one way to bring people over to the truth.
this is how the deceivers deal - they create unrealities like the moon landing or scare people about UFO's - they've tested us all along to see what the masses and sheep will believe - and how far we will go to follow their lies - they now have the masses believing that our environment and eco system will be gone soon because there are too many people using up fossil fuel etc - they are so cunning at using the hegelian dialectic - pretty soon they'll get us to believe that the earth is over-populated and that they should be killing half of us off - actually, there is enough land mass in Canada alone for every single human being on this earth to reside - and aren't they already using the swine flu scare tactics to get countries who have sold their souls to enforce mandatory vaccines that will poison people anyway?
911 was a big eye opener for me but what really brought me to the other side and the truth was a friend and my understanding, although limited, of the investment and banking system - and even though I've questioned many things since I was a kid that didn't seem logical or the natural order of things - it did take a major event such as 911 to wake me up and seek more.
once you start to question one major event then you start to question everything else and if getting people to look at the moon landing as a hoax then, this is just one more piece of arsenal to show people the light and the truth
Quote from: "GordZilla"Quote from: "MikeWB"2) Russians too picked up transmissions from the Moon and have tracked the Apollo 11 as it traveled to the Moon. Why didn't they expose this "hoax"?
Apart from the above quote I agree with Mike wholeheartedly, which as Mike knows is rare ;) , We should focus on what matters, this 'Moon hoax or not' crap only makes us look worse in the public's eye. We don't need help in that department, I would think.
As for the above quote, this is 'Red' Russia we'd be talking about, and for them to be in cahoots with the Americans would not be overly surprising to find out. A small point, but should be noted.
Other than that, yeah spot on.
Red or not you have to admit that US and Russians were at the brink of war more than once. You also have to note that cold war was very strong during this time period and that Russians and US were fighting hot wars through their proxy states around the world. Russians had the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin, and first satellite as well, Sputnik. They missed the chance to go to the Moon first in an accident in which they lost a cosmonaut. So even if this was Red Russia, they were no friends of the US and were looking for any chance to expose 'capitalist pigs' and embarrass us. If we didn't go to the Moon, they would have exposed the lie to the World and gained a lot of points for doing so.
But the fact is that Russians had spies all over NASA (just look at their Buran project which was near-exact copy of Shuttle) and they would have had access to the "hoax" material. They also tracked the progress of Apollo crafts and listened in to transmissions and got the feed of video from the Moon through spying radio stations that they had. My point is that had this been a hoax, Russians would have been all over it and would have exposed it and would have given Americans a huge black eye and would have embarrassed US and all of its allies and would have sent their own team there to show the world how it's done.
I still stand by the fact that this Moon hoax topic is a giant tar baby and that DBS and Og should have known better and should have thought about the implications of them discussing it. They gained nothing by somehow saying that Zios were behind it. They might have gained few conspiracy listeners who believe in the hoax but they lost the credibility since the next time someone tries to debunk quality ZIo info, they'll use their moon hoax views to discredit them and present them as 'conspiracy nutters'. Heck, even Alex Jones doesn't go into UFO/Moon Hoax/Reptilians realm.
Alex Jones says that the moon landings were hoaxes, but he says that "Nazi Eugenicists" and the Queen of England did it, not the Jews. :lol:
Look, Mike is right; we have much bigger issues at stake, and if we are going to discuss this it needs to be in a separate area. I have said what I want to say about this and it is not my job to convince anyone else that this was a hoax; that is for each person to decide based upon the evidence that is easily found--like the NASA video showing the astronauts in Earth's orbit faking going half-way to the moon--a fact.
If any more discussion is wanted to be carried-on by the rest of you, please create a new Topic and do it in the "Off Topics" section. After thinking about this show, I think that Daryl and Rafeeq probably should not have done it, but truth is the most important thing and I can't fault them for bringing-up an issue that had not been broached on Smith's shows previously.
LINDSEY
In a weird way, just hear me out, this kind of mostly discredited Moon-Hoax stuff could actually attract some of the "Rense" types to TIU stuff.
Sometimes, we got to attract them with "Honey" (even if it is B.S. discredited Honey) if the "Rense types" are going to come around. To be honest, my interest in "alternative" stuff brought me around to the Jewish Question over the course of several years and of course the Iraq-war just blew it wide open.
A couple of choice "key words" could bring people in. I don't know if this was prossibly a stunt to root out the Eric Hufschmidt's from TIU? Don't know... ;)
I saw an item on Druge today that NASA admits they erased the original tapes of the Moon Landing. I am starting to think that it was indeed a hoax. Just think about it from this perspective. TV was still relatively new. Don't you think it possible that those in power would just love to see if they could pull something like this off just for the pure sport of it all? I can imagine a meeting where someone might say, "if we can convince the world that we landed a man on the moon, we can convince them of anything".
NASA said they have somehow recovered a live feed and have cleaned it up digitally just in time for the 40th anniversary. And what story knocked the admitted loss of the NASA tapes off of Drudge? Why Uncle Walter died, the man who cheerleaded us through the Apollo program, undermined the Viet Nam conflict, and cried when JFK was gunned-down. Strange indeed. I know he was an old man, 92, but just throwing that out there to generate thought. Found it rather coincidental.
Here's another thing to contemplate. Teddy Kennedy had has driving problem (Chappiquidick) the same weekend that Apollo 11 landed? Dont' you think that odd that no one ever links these two stories? His brother, after all, started the ball rolling for a moon-shot just 8 years earlier. My brother saw G. Gordon Liddy many years ago at a college speaking engagement. The G-Man said that either he, or people he knew, put some kind of LSD on the steering wheel of Teddy's car. And that they were trying to kill him. Whether there is any truth to Liddy's claim or not, I am still somewhat troubled by that coincidence. It almost seems like the same people being bold and trying to tie a nice ribbon around their crimes from the '60s.
Og:
QuoteI had no idea of the topic prior to the recording
Interesting...
QuoteIf we didn't go to the Moon, they (Russia) would have exposed the lie to the World and gained a lot of points for doing so.
Not so fast. Methinks the soap opera was well underway.
The US had Bolsheviks, and was turning red.
QuoteQuote...only makes us look worse in the public's eye. We don't need help in that department, I would think.
wtf? who cares about what the public think?
That is paramount... It's not exactly what the public think that Mike mentioned, as you said Mgt (though I hear you, they're fools), but how we appear in "the public's eye" is a huge part of this game.
(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/8/8a/Soviet.jpg)
QuoteThat is paramount... It's not exactly what the public think that Mike mentioned, as you said Mgt (though I hear you, they're fools), but how we appear in "the public's eye" is a huge part of this game.
hi freetruth;
yeh i'm aware that it's a big part of the propaganda war- however....
1)First and foremost i would actually like to get to the bottom of the whole moon hoax, with concrete proof(a bit like israel did 911 all the proof in the world thread)
2)To do this we must have some open minded critical thinkers, with knowledge on the subject.
3)I hate being dishonest or clandestine in my opinions. I speak my mind albeit a bit bluntly as a yorkshireman.
4)Its quite topical at the moment and i always like to listen to both sides of the argument in forming an opinion.
5)I don't like to see debate stifled for political expediency(just seems dishonest)
6)TiU for me is about getting to the bottom of things, although i accept its all about beating zionism.
7)This does have relevance to zionism and the bigger picture. In my next show i will be looking at von neumon probes for i believe this is the future vision for zionism after the goy are killed. In this context, LAV is right when he says they are pushing the whole "man is space" mythology.
p.s all i think about day and night is zionism zionism zionism and how to beat it. Does my nut in, but i can't help it-I hate losing :)
As the CANCUN, MEXICO Climate Change summit has been concluded [1], I wrote up a small webpage
summarizing a possible scenario of what could happen when the atmosphere gets diluted from CO2.
THE CAP AND TRADE BILL
111TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H. R. 2454 ,
The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
http://crashrecovery.org/ironmountain/capandtrade.html (http://crashrecovery.org/ironmountain/capandtrade.html)
[1] 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference)
Anyone for more moon landing talk?
Yeah I guess Timbo. Keep it clean cuz it's not really that big of a deal for me. I have done some research on this after seeing "hoaxers" get repeatedly schooled in debates. I am pretty certain that there is not one single valid argument for a hoax. I have seen all of them get completely destroyed....So if you wanna post one, I will try to come back with a debunking point. Give me an hour or two though....and I will extend you the same courtesy of a two hour buffer between posts. It is important that we get this sorted out cuz right now it's a distraction of monumental proportions.
You first, Post the first piece of evidence for your case.
Quote from: "Whaler"Yeah I guess Timbo. Keep it clean cuz it's not really that big of a deal for me. I have done some research on this after seeing "hoaxers" get repeatedly schooled in debates. I am pretty certain that there is not one single valid argument for a hoax. I have seen all of them get completely destroyed....So if you wanna post one, I will try to come back with a debunking point. Give me an hour or two though....and I will extend you the same courtesy of a two hour buffer between posts. It is important that we get this sorted out cuz right now it's a distraction of monumental proportions.
You first, Post the first piece of evidence for your case.
Have you seen
A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the Moon?
The photo and video footage tell the tale. Nothing but inconsistency and blowing flags. It was amateur hour at Hollywood studios in Cape Canaveral.
But the clincher is the Van Allen radiation belts.
The moon landing hoax was probably the last conspiracy I came across. I only discovered it in the last few years. But when I finally did examine it, I could not help but see the Jew MO all around it.
This documentary, which is only a few days old, explains how Kubrick filmed the landing:
http://store.sacredmysteriesmarketplace ... 1-dvd.html (http://store.sacredmysteriesmarketplace.com/dvds/kubrick-s-odyssey-part-1-dvd.html)
Interview with the filmmaker in March 2011:
http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/20 ... 110306.php (http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2011/03/RIR-110306.php)
I listened to an interview with the producer, Jay Weidner, in a four-part interview from Red Ice Radio that was posted on youtube. It was a fascinating interview about Kubrick, the fake moon landing, the cult of Saturn, the pedophilia network, and how Kubrick had hidden the secret stories about these things in his movies. And then at part 4, Weidner started talking about the Muslims and how they are so dangerous and are ruining Europe and the US.
Weidner is obviously a Jew: Weidner is a Jewish name; JW looks Jewish; and his wife, Sharron Rose, has this posted on her website:
QuoteWe begin our journey with Sharron, a young Jewish wife and mother, a product of the feminist movement - a career in dance behind her - journeying to India to study sacred dance with the foremost Kathak dancer Sitara Devi. Journeying with her was her three year old son, Ari.
Once again we find a guy who seems to get underneath it all, and find the satanic cult that has all the money and power, but fails to notice the obvious fact that most of the media, banks, and governments are controlled by people who just happen to be Jewish. And not only that, but Weidner has the temerity to claim that Muslims are ruining Europe and his own country, the US.
As of 2010, there are 2 Muslim members of Congress: Reps. Andre Carson and Keith Ellison. Muslims make up somewhere between 1% and 2.6% of the US population. Compare this to Jews, who make up 2% of the population, and claim 39 members of the 112th US Congress: 12 senators and 27 representatives. If anyone could be said to be ruining a country, wouldn't it be the people who are actually controlling that country? And can a group be in control if that group makes up less than 1% of the Congress, and owns none of the banks or the media?
It boggles my mind how an interview can listen to a Jew talk about all these hidden conspiracies without ever once talking about the Protocols that are being played out in front of our eyes. Why doesn't the interviewer call Weidner on his bullsh*t?
I have to commend MSMD for starting a new habit of calling radio people and mentioning the chosen ones. MSMD called up a guy on internet radio who had a good show going on, exposing all of the vaccines/Bill Gates, etc... MSMD started talking about the Jews and the protocols....and the guy agreed with MSMD! I was shocked. But now I know that this guy isn't full of crap.
If you can see all the strings pointing to the moon hoax, JFK, and 9/11, but you can't see the hand of the Jews right in front of your eyes, either you are a liar, or something is wrong with your brain.
If someone says Muslims are ruining Europe in the same sense that mass Mexican immigration to the US is ruining America, I have no problem with it. What was the context? Sharia Law bullshit?
So.... Is the Moon Landing a hoax or not?
Quote from: "Timothy_Fitzpatrick"If someone says Muslims are ruining Europe in the same sense that mass Mexican immigration to the US is ruining America, I have no problem with it. What was the context? Sharia Law bullshit?
He's not talking about mass immigration. He' "the Muslim Brotherhood is one of the most radical organizations possible" and [quoting John Lash(?)] "Islam is the 3rd variation of this disease and it will be the worst". He says Muslims are "fanatics" and "scary" and "they follow a vicious, war-mongering, blood-thirsty god." He refers to the 3 Abrahamic religions as "Jehovian Cults" that are ruled by the Saturnalian Cult.
Basically the same sh*t that you hear on the Jewish television, radios and movies.
QuoteSo.... Is the Moon Landing a hoax or not?
Sorry. I didn't mean to hijack the thread. I just wanted to point out the turd in the punchbowl.
Yes. The Moon Landing is a total piece of sh*t hoax.
Even if you disregard all of the photographic evidence, video mistakes, ignoring all of the exposure to radiation in the van allen belts and from solar flares that took place while they were on the moon. If you just look at what we are expected to believe: that the Soviets led the space race all the way, but could never make it to the moon? That we went to the moon 6 times from '69 to '72, but have never since gone back? That, after all those trips to the moon, the European space agency was able to learn more than we could about the surface of the moon by smashing a rocket into the Lunar surface? That the first guy who ever landed on the moon, who should be the biggest hero ever, is a recluse who never gives interviews? That the US might start going back to the moon, but will have to re-invent all of the technology, including the rocket engine? That NASA lost the original footage?
These are the same types of stories that follow bullsh*t stories like the holohoax. Even recently when Japan sent a rocket flyby to the moon, it didn't show any evidence of Apollo stuff that should be there. Then NASA sent up their own rocket flyby, and it sent back images that purport to show faint pixel images of Apollo craft. Sh*t. We had the technology to do that 50 years ago with celluloid film. With digital imaging, we could have sent up a craft that would have beamed back crystal clear images of the Apollo craft. Why didn't NASA do that? Because then people would have easily spotted their bullsh*t. Every little mistake in the images could be compared to the previous faked footage that they already have from the lunar surface. Instead, they beamed back little pixels of jack-sh*t, and the propagandists are deeply moved and reverent for the hallowed accomplishments of the intrepid space agency.
And just why did NASA have to test the Apollo 1 capsule with 15 psi of pure oxygen? There's just no good excuse for that. The least they could have done is give Gus Grissom some wieners and marsh-mellows.
I am not going to paste pages of info so I will post some links and vids.
Also, FOX did a friggin primetime special in 2001 endorsing the moon hoax theory. Tell me when FOX does a mega ratings special on 911. There is no magic bullet or building 7 in this conspiracy theory. Evey argument can be debunked. Just google all of the theories and look for the counter argument. That is how I came to my conclusion after being a believer in the moon hoax for years.
Also look into some of the 'pioneers' of the Apollo hoax theory and you can see that they are crackpots and not to be trusted.
ENVIRONMENT
radiation and the van allen beltsQuote"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen
http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html (http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html)
Moon Base Claviushttp://www.clavius.org/index.html (http://www.clavius.org/index.html)
The Late Great Apollo Moon Missionshttp://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=158840 (http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=158840)
Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!(not really)
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread566601/pg1 (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread566601/pg1)
White Noise: Marcus Allen -- Pure Genius
[youtube:2w4d5all]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coMGccvTK6g[/youtube]2w4d5all]
[youtube:2w4d5all]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vawJhSnFcQ0[/youtube]2w4d5all]
[youtube:2w4d5all]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc7FLQR92eg[/youtube]2w4d5all]
[youtube:2w4d5all]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2nqyCtnMzE[/youtube]2w4d5all]
[youtube:2w4d5all]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG_skTncFGE[/youtube]2w4d5all]
[youtube:2w4d5all]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VZIwtrDsRQ[/youtube]2w4d5all]
[youtube:2w4d5all]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAfJkYTkQZk[/youtube]2w4d5all]
the Moon landings were hoaxed, then all this is necessary[youtube:2w4d5all]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyVJt857e7Q[/youtube]2w4d5all]
[youtube:2w4d5all]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wdiQ8IvO68[/youtube]2w4d5all]
Yep, CM, and a likely reason why the US has never gone "back" to the moon is because technology wouldn't allow for such a hoax. There would be too many eyes on the whole operation.
Quote from: "Timothy_Fitzpatrick"Yep, CM, and a likely reason why the US has never gone "back" to the moon is because technology wouldn't allow for such a hoax. There would be too many eyes on the whole operation.
Yes, they did have the technology to go to the moon otherwise how do you explain the moon rocks? They would have at least had to send an unmanned vehicle on the moon to collect and take off with 800lbs of rocks....Why not go the extra mile and send 2 men to the moon? The first probe to land on the moon was in 1959 launched by the Soviets. By 1969 the Americans figured out how to send a manned mission. It was highly risky and dangerous but they did it. These weren't just average Joes they were sending to the moon. All of the early astronauts were military fighter pilots turned test pilots... which is considered one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. They needed men that were fearless and used to taking high risks.
Apollo 13 was an example of the actual risk and danger that these ex test pilots were wiling to go through.
[youtube:3f33q07b]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ3Q3kL7jcA[/youtube]3f33q07b]
and...for the moon rocks to be faked, hundreds of expert geologists that have examined the rocks are in on the conspiracy. These aren't just American geologists either. You don't think any of these international scientists would have blown the whistle on NASA if they detected that the rocks were not from the moon?
Quoteand a likely reason why the US has never gone "back" to the moon
The American public lost interest in the Apollo missions. The economy was awful during the mid 70's and congress wasn't willing to shell out the billions of dollars... especially after the "moon race" was won. They switched to the more cost efficient Space Shuttle by 1980 because NASA could no longer get unlimited funds for their space ventures.
Why we've never been back to the moon http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.p ... 02&page=82 (http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=158402&page=82)
[youtube:3f33q07b]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy3i6lUx9Pw[/youtube]3f33q07b]
[youtube:3f33q07b]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJCocXWchPU[/youtube]3f33q07b]
[youtube:3f33q07b]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZca6H2-ao0[/youtube]3f33q07b]
Quote from: "Whaler"Quote from: "Timothy_Fitzpatrick"Yep, CM, and a likely reason why the US has never gone "back" to the moon is because technology wouldn't allow for such a hoax. There would be too many eyes on the whole operation.
Yes, they did have the technology to go to the moon otherwise how do you explain the moon rocks? They would have at least had to send an unmanned vehicle on the moon to collect and take off with 800lbs of rocks....Why not go the extra mile and send 2 men to the moon? The first probe to land on the moon was in 1959 launched by the Soviets. By 1969 the Americans figured out how to send a manned mission. It was highly risky and dangerous but they did it. These weren't just average Joes they were sending to the moon. All of the early astronauts were military fighter pilots turned test pilots... which is considered one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. They needed men that were fearless and used to taking high risks.
Apollo 13 was an example of the actual risk and danger that these ex test pilots were wiling to go through.
[youtube:2xygesls]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ3Q3kL7jcA[/youtube]2xygesls]
and...for the moon rocks to be faked, hundreds of expert geologists that have examined the rocks are in on the conspiracy. These aren't just American geologists either. You don't think any of these international scientists would have blown the whistle on NASA if they detected that the rocks were not from the moon?
Quoteand a likely reason why the US has never gone "back" to the moon
The American public lost interest in the Apollo missions. The economy was awful during the mid 70's and congress wasn't willing to shell out the billions of dollars... especially after the "moon race" was won. They switched to the more cost efficient Space Shuttle by 1980 because NASA could no longer get unlimited funds for their space ventures.
Wait a second here. I didn't mean that technology then didn't allow it. What I meant was that the technology today makes forgery too easy and a moon landing hoax would be harder to pull off--today.
I can't explain away the moon rocks...I know very little about this subject. But I think there is overwhelming evidence that outweighs the moon rocks, cause what else do they have in their defense? Most of the story doesn't add up. I'm no geologist, but couldn't the supposed moon rocks be meteorite debris?
Moon rock that was given to the Netherlands turned out to be fake, but was insured for $500.000 <$>
[youtube:3hnvoh8g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYH3AJDGzMw[/youtube]3hnvoh8g]
QuoteYes, they did have the technology to go to the moon otherwise how do you explain the moon rocks? They would have at least had to send an unmanned vehicle on the moon to collect and take off with 800lbs of rocks....Why not go the extra mile and send 2 men to the moon?
Quotehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html
Telegraph
'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake
A moon rock given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 has turned out to be a fake.
A piece of moon rock was given during a goodwill tour by the three apollo 11 astronauts. Photo: Getty Images
12:12AM BST 29 Aug 2009
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.
"It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," she said. "We can laugh about it."
The rock was given to Willem Drees, a former Dutch leader, during a global tour by Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin following their moon mission 50 years ago.
J. William Middendorf, the former American ambassador to the Netherlands, made the presentation to Mr Drees and the rock was then donated to the Rijksmuseum after his death in 1988.
"I do remember that Drees was very interested in the little piece of stone. But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that," Mr Middendorf said.
Nasa gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries following lunar missions in 1969 and the 1970s.
The United States Embassy in The Hague is carrying out an investigation into the affair.
Researchers Amsterdam's Free University were able to tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be from the moon, a conclusion that was borne out by tests.
"It's a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone," said Frank Beunk, a geologist involved in the investigation.
Quotehttp://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2009-09-14-moon-rock_N.htm
USA TODAY
Apollo moon rocks lost in space? No, lost on Earth
Posted 9/14/2009 10:10 AM | Comments 5 | Recommend 5 E-mail | Save | Print | Subscribe to stories like this
This photo from the Boerhaave Museum in Leiden, Netherlands shows authentic Dutch moon rocks on display. The detection of a fake moon rock in the Netherlands' Rijksmueum should serve as a wake-up call for more than 130 countries who received gifts of lunar rubble from both the Apollo 11 flight in 1969 and Apollo 17 three years later. Experts say the whereabouts are unknown of hundreds of tiny rocks scooped up by U.S. astronauts and given by the Nixon administration to friendly nations.
Enlarge image Enlarge By AP
This photo from the Boerhaave Museum in Leiden, Netherlands shows authentic Dutch moon rocks on display. The detection of a fake moon rock in the Netherlands' Rijksmueum should serve as a wake-up call for more than 130 countries who received gifts of lunar rubble from both the Apollo 11 flight in 1969 and Apollo 17 three years later. Experts say the whereabouts are unknown of hundreds of tiny rocks scooped up by U.S. astronauts and given by the Nixon administration to friendly nations.
By Toby Sterling, Associated Press
AMSTERDAM — Attention, countries of the world: Do you know where your moon rocks are?
The discovery of a fake moon rock in the Netherlands' national museum should be a wake-up call for more than 130 countries that received gifts of lunar rubble from both the Apollo 11 flight in 1969 and Apollo 17 three years later.
Nearly 270 rocks scooped up by U.S. astronauts were given to foreign countries by the Nixon administration. But according to experts and research by The Associated Press, the whereabouts of some of the small rocks are unknown.
"There is no doubt in my mind that many moon rocks are lost or stolen and now sitting in private collections," said Joseph Gutheinz, a University of Phoenix instructor and former U.S. government investigator who has made a project of tracking down the lunar treasures.
The Rijksmuseum, more noted as a repository for 17th century Dutch paintings, announced last month it had had its plum-sized "moon" rock tested, only to discover it was a piece of petrified wood, possibly from Arizona. The museum said it inherited the rock from the estate of a former prime minister.
The real Dutch moon rocks are in a natural history museum. But the misidentification raised questions about how well countries have safeguarded their presents from Washington.
Genuine moon rocks, while worthless in mineral terms, can fetch six-figure sums from black-market collectors.
Of 135 rocks from the Apollo 17 mission given away to nations or their leaders, only about 25 have been located by CollectSpace.com, a website for space history buffs that has long attempted to compile a list.
That should not be taken to mean the others are lost — just that the records kept at the time are far from complete.
The AP reviewed declassified correspondence between the State Department and U.S. embassies in 1973 and was able to locate ten additional Apollo 17 rocks — in Switzerland, Belgium, Italy, Barbados, France, Poland, Norway, Costa Rica, Egypt and Nepal.
But the correspondence yielded a meager 30 leads, such as the name of the person who received them or the museum where they were to be initially displayed. Ecuador and Cyprus are among several that said they had never heard of the rocks. Five were handed to African dictators long since dead or deposed.
The outlook for tracking the estimated 134 Apollo 11 rocks is even bleaker. The locations of fewer than a dozen are known.
"NASA turned over the samples to the State Department to distribute," said Jennifer Ross-Nazzal, a NASA historian, in an e-mailed response to questions. "We don't have any records about when and to whom the rocks were given."
"The Office of the Historian does not keep records of what became of the moon rocks, and to my knowledge, there is no one entity that does so," e-mailed Tiffany Hamelin, the State Department historian.
That may seem surprising now, but in the early 1970s, few expected Apollo 17 would be the last mission to the moon. With the passage of time, the rocks' value has skyrocketed.
NASA keeps most of the 382 kilograms (842 lbs) gathered by the Apollo missions locked away, giving small samples to researchers and lending a set of larger rocks for exhibitions.
Apollo 11 gift rocks typically weigh just 0.05 grams, scarcely more than a grain of rice. The Apollo 17 gift rocks weigh about 1.1 grams. Both are encased in plastic globes to protect them and ease viewing.
Each U.S. state got both sets of rocks, and Gutheinz said he and his students have accounted for nearly all the Apollo 17 rocks, though some are in storage and inaccessible. They have only just begun researching Apollo 11 rocks in the states.
In one known legal sale of moon samples, in 1993, moon soil weighing 0.2 grams from an unmanned Russian probe was auctioned at Sotheby's for $442,500.
Gutheinz, the former U.S. investigator, says ignorance about the rocks is an invitation to thieves, and he should know.
In 1998, he was working for the NASA Office of the Inspector General in a sting operation to uncover fake rocks when he was offered the real Apollo 17 rock — the one given to Honduras — for $5 million.
The rock was recovered and eventually returned to Honduras, but not before a fight in Florida District Court that went down in legal annals as "United States vs. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material (One Moon Rock) and One Ten Inch By Fourteen Inch Wooden Plaque."
The case is not unique.
Malta's Apollo 17 rock was stolen in 2004. In Spain, the newspaper El Mundo this summer reported that the Apollo 17 rock given to the country's former dictator, Francisco Franco, is missing.
Franco died in 1975. The paper quoted his grandson as denying the rock had been sold. He said his mother had lost it, but claimed it was the family's personal possession, to sell if it wished.
Gutheinz says Romania's Apollo 17 rock disappeared after the fall and execution of Nicolae Ceausescu in 1989.
According to Gutheinz and other reports, Pakistan's Apollo 17 rock is missing; so is Nicaragua's, since the Sandinistas came to power in 1979. Afghanistan's Apollo 17 rock sat in Kabul's national museum until it was ransacked in 1996.
In fact, the Netherlands is one of the few countries where the location of both the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 gift rocks is known. Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand are others — though none has rocks from both missions on permanent public display and some have been kept in storage for decades.
The Amsterdam case appears to be not fraud but the result of poor vetting by the Rijksmuseum.
Spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder said the museum checked with NASA after receiving the rock in 1992 from the estate of the late Prime Minister Willem Drees. NASA told the museum, without seeing it, that it was "possible" it was a moon rock.
But it weighed a whopping 89 grams (3.1 ounces). In addition, its gold-colored cardboard plaque does not describe it as a moon rock.
The U.S. ambassador gave Drees the rock during an Oct. 9, 1969 visit by the Apollo 11 astronauts to the Netherlands. Drees's grandson, also named Willem, told the AP his grandfather had been out of office for more than a decade and was nearly deaf and blind in 1969, though his mind was still sharp.
"My guess is that he did not hear well what was said," said the grandson. "He may have formed his own idea about what it was."
The family never thought to question the story before donating the rock, to which it had not attached great importance or monetary value.
Quotehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6620370/ns/technology_and_science-space/
Moon rock found in Antarctica
Meteorite-hunting team makes rare discovery
NASA
This moon rock, designated LAP 03632, was found almost a year ago in Antarctica. A ruler marked in centimeters is included for scale.
The Associated Press
updated 11/30/2004 1:59:08 PM ET 2004-11-30T18:59:08
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — University of New Mexico researcher Barbara Cohen now knows for certain that the rock she found while trolling the barren Antarctic landscape is special.
She and a team of geologists picked up a chunk of the moon — one of only about 30 ever found on Earth.
"We found it almost a year ago, but the analysis wasn't finished until last month," she said. "When I found out it was from the moon, I was so elated. The team knew it was something interesting in the field, but we couldn't test there. We just had to wait."
Cohen is an assistant research professor at the University of New Mexico's Institute of Meteoritics.
She and a team of eight geologists collected the fist-sized meteorite on a six-week trip during the Antarctic summer, in December and January. They were trolling the La Paz ice sheet on snowmobiles when they found it.
Finding a meteorite is like finding a puzzle piece to the universe because each chunk tells scientists more about how other planets and asteroids developed, Cohen said.
"It's a real primal thrill of discovery, because no one has ever seen that rock before you," she said. "If you know the rock you found is unusual, your mind just goes crazy wondering what it could be. It could be the first meteorite ever found from Venus, or it could be from the moon or Mars."
Cohen's Antarctica trip was part of a National Science Foundation program to collect meteorites. Scientists from all over the world are chosen each year to search Antarctic ice sheets for new meteorites, which fall on the ice and stick out in the snowy surroundings.
Astronauts collected hundreds of pounds of moon rocks during the Apollo missions of the 1960s and 1970s, but lunar meteorites are important because they give scientists samples from other parts of the moon, Cohen said.
The rock, along with about 1,000 other meteorites collected on the same trip, were sent to NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, which separates the most interesting ones and sends them on to the Smithsonian Institution for analysis.
After analysis, the samples go back to Houston, and the space center sends out notification to scientists who might be interested in the rock. The rocks of interest are broken up and shipped out to the planetary science academic community, Cohen said.
"About 95 percent of the meteorites we find are ordinary chrondites, from asteroids, so of the 1,000 we picked up, about 950 were pretty normal," she said. "This was one of about 50 that were sent on to the Smithsonian — we knew it was something special when we found it."
With the analysis complete, Cohen plans to apply to get a chunk of the rock back from Houston.
QuoteFrom Wikipedia:
During the local summer of 1966–67, [Werner] von Braun participated in a field trip to Antarctica, organized for him and several other members of top NASA management. The goal of the field trip was to determine whether the experience gained by US scientific and technological community during the exploration of Antarctic wastelands would be useful for the manned exploration of space. Von Braun was mainly interested in management of the scientific effort on Antarctic research stations, logistics, habitation and life support, and in using the barren Antarctic terrain like the glacial dry valleys to test the equipment that one day would be used to look for signs of life on Mars and other worlds.
CM, good finds.Did US media even cover the fake moon rock story that the telegraph ran?
Here's a guy who seems to have gotten sick of LYING:
[youtube:3arobqiu]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfCzUuA8M4U[/youtube]3arobqiu]
Here are the jubilant astronauts just after their return from their exciting trip to the moon:
[youtube:3arobqiu]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVQnCVlShCw[/youtube]3arobqiu]
I think the reporter smelled bullsh*t and so he asked a difficult question.
When I say wires, I don't mean the antennas. I mean the long wires, that go up for several yards. I don't mean a momentary flash of light, but a long, thin, straight flash of a wire.
[youtube:449908xr]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23_QdAz2tfY[/youtube]449908xr]
And honestly: Doesn't Astrobrandt annoy the crap out of you? Doesn't he sound like a pedantic old fart? He's the type that thinks he can win an argument by pronouncing the word correctly. And he always squeezes in one extra "smart-sounding" word.
And Phil Plait seems like he would rather be looking at magazines with boys wrestling if he didn't have to do this job for the CIA.
A simple viewing of the Discovery Channel's "When We Left Earth" delivers so much extensive footage of astronauts on the moon from Apollo 11 through Apollo 17 that this entire thread shouldn't have any problem convincing casual lurkers who've seen the series of our capacities for idiotic and asinine theorizing.
So these two clips of supposed final moments on the moon they probably rigged the hammer with wires, right!? and the LEM liftoff was probably crude CGI (nevermind it was 1972), right!?
Astronaut Schmitt throws his hammer (Apollo 17)
[youtube:3e8ocrs2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIvTZLlV4F0[/youtube]3e8ocrs2]
Apollo 17 Lunar Liftoff
[youtube:3e8ocrs2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iziumcklDbM[/youtube]3e8ocrs2]
And in this camera trick they had wires on the ground to pull the feather down as fast as the hammer, riiight!?
Apollo 15 Hammer and Feather Experiment
[youtube:3e8ocrs2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE81zGhnb0w[/youtube]3e8ocrs2]
And Neil Armstrong knows he's a lousy public speaker but a very capable pilot, hence his self-deprecating intro about birds capable of speaking (parrots) incapable of flying well (the irony which appears lost on those construing some sort of hidden confession), but that cryptic comment he made back in 1994 does hold some interesting implications.
Quote from: "Neil Armstrong"Today we have with us a group of students, among America's best. To you we say we've only completed a beginning. We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered. Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truths protective layers. There are places to go beyond belief. Those challenges are yours. In many fields, not the least of which is space because there lies human destiny.
As for the hammer, ahaze, the general theory is that the tapes are slowed down. Slowing down the tapes makes those running appear to be bouncing with little or no gravity, so it makes sense why the hammer throw would be given a similar effect.
What's with you Yanks? Would confessing the moon hoax landing make you feel inferior or something? I don't get it. Patriotism shouldn't be built on such trivialities anyways.
Look what happened when man tried to defy God: man declared that the Titanic was unsinkable, even by the Almighty Himself. God showed man.
Man again tried to defy God by going to the moon, but God had a little trick up his sleeve--the old Van Allen Radiation belts. God showed man. Furthermore, man didn't defy God in the '60s; instead, man defied (deceived) man.
Quote from: "Timothy_Fitzpatrick"What's with you Yanks? Would confessing the moon hoax landing make you feel inferior or something? I don't get it. Patriotism shouldn't be built on such trivialities anyways.
Look what happened when man tried to defy God: man declared that the Titanic was unsinkable, even by the Almighty Himself. God showed man.
Man again tried to defy God by going to the moon, but God had a little trick up his sleeve--the old Van Allen Radiation belts. God showed man. Furthermore, man didn't defy God in the '60s; instead, man defied (deceived) man.
This has nothing to do with being a "yank". This has to do with not believing in an ill conceived, poorly supported/wacky conspiracy theory. I just posted a video of a British guy debunking the moon hoax theory....yet you want to turn it into a "yank" thing. Tim, It's obvious you have a huge bug up your ass about America/Americans. An alarming amount of these gun ho moon hoaxers are products of the British Commonwealth nations. Not any experts or any scientists...just "blokes" pointing out some anomalies.
Get an engineers for 911 truth type group and I will take your poisonous conspiracy theory seriously. Where are the Canadian/British/German/French/Russian/Chinese scientists and experts debunking the moon landing??? There isn't any...
This has been posted before and has yet to be debunked through a logical argument.
Mythbuster's Proofing Moonlanding Isn't A Hoax(http://i4.ytimg.com/vi/oCNV1hiKpLI/default.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/user/donnei1992# ... 152A4546D8 (http://www.youtube.com/user/donnei1992#g/c/F197E9152A4546D8)
Go ask The Mythbusters who did 911, or about homicidal gas chambers of WWII.
The Mythbusters are useless on talmudic myths.
And on that British guy, he's not convincing me with his fancy formula's and scientific yada-yada.
I'm a simple guy who didn't finish school, and i don't see any simple, straight foreward proof that Man went to the Moon.
What i see is: propaganda, theft and lies.
But, to be honest, i could be to dumb to see the evidence :)
Yes, pas. I am surprised Whaler would use the Kosher mythbusters. You might as well use Wikipedia.
The point is, Whaler, the above videos prove nothing.
QuoteThis has been posted before and has yet to be debunked through a logical argument.
Mythbuster's Proofing Moonlanding Isn't A Hoax
I find it half entertaining how the detractors retreat to ad hominem, and since they can't stick to the rules of cogent debate, I see no point in responding. Just like the official 9/11 story, the ad hominem "counter points" collapse in free fall time. :haha:
The mythbusters moon landing hoax demolishes any shred of the half credible questions denying reality - the non-parallel shadow picture, the illuminated astronaut in the shadow of the LEM photo, the impossibly clear footprint (purportedly sans moisture), the flapping flag (purportedly sans wind), slow motion faking 1/6th gravity - none of it stands up. Plus mythbusters points out the reflectors left on the Moon are still there supporting ongoing astronomical research utilizing laser reflection. Not to mention the volumes of footage showing real time labors on the moon displaying object event flow in the vacuous 1/6th-Earth-gravity environment. But to me the simple demonstration of hammer and feather synchronously dropping in 1/6-Earth-gravity free-fall time makes clear the moon environment, and here's another vid showing incidents of objects thrown on the Moon behaving according to 1/6-Earth-grav while the real time motion of the astronauts demonstrates no camera tricks.
Six clips of objects thrown on the Moon
[youtube:1ocphug7]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isVO9AAAhxM[/youtube]1ocphug7]
So then the question becomes what motivates the ardent denial? Why the refusal to acknowledge scientific achievement? Hmmm, indigenous ideological ignorance? psycho-spiritual mythological defensiveness? racial superiority complex? Maybe, but with all the advanced tech of the current infrastructure, and a century of suppression of scientific breakthrough, could it be the denial of reality stems from an agenda to seize up understanding and prevent perception of current infrastructure exploitation while secretly capitalizing on undisclosed scientific achievement in pursuit of self interested aims? Hmmm, now that sounds more like the J-tribe mindset we know not to love.
There's no question whether mankind explored the Moon, but there're a lot of questions about what's ensued since then, especially since inception and launch of the space shuttle (early '80's) when confidence in space development warranted launching billion dollar satellites and telescopes, and embarking on space station construction. With all the heavy tech space achievements, and all the denial of suppressed science from Tesla's radiant energy on through to T. Townsend Brown's electrogravitics, (along with all these ruse denials of reality), the obvious question becomes what "magical" scientific technological innovations have the PTB withheld while terrorizing and sickening the Earth? Seems like we've got a few advocates endorsing the sick agenda here, maybe they can explain.
QuoteA simple viewing of the Discovery Channel's "When We Left Earth" delivers so much extensive footage of astronauts on the moon from Apollo 11 through Apollo 17 that this entire thread shouldn't have any problem convincing casual lurkers who've seen the series of our capacities for idiotic and asinine theorizing.
Oh no. I want to fit in with the casual lurkers. They are so cool. I am so embarrassed and ashamed. I think I'm getting a zit....
Characterizing the opposing side as asinine does not win the argument. From my perspective, I cannot understand how any reasonable person can see wires leading up several feet from two astronauts at the same time, and not realize that these fellows are being supported by a pulley system. What are we supposed to think? That those are moon wires that grow on the moon?
People wonder how a top secret film could be made with no one squealing, but we have evidence of similar secrets kept. The Soviet Union built a huge rocket to go to the moon, the N-1, but they never used it. That was a huge project, and it was kept secret until Glasnost.
There was a secret underground government film studio right in the middle of Los Angeles that was kept secret.
QuoteIn 1947, the Army Air Corps built its top-secret movie production studio on
> Wonderland Park Avenue. Military training films and Department of Defense
> documentaries were churned out, including a particularly famous series on the
> aboveground nuclear tests in Nevada. The studio was deactivated in 1969, and
> thanks to the efforts of the Laurel Canyon Association, it was prevented from
> being zoned for further commercial activity.
>
> http://www.laurelcanyon.org/Images/20th ... ghttp://ww (http://www.laurelcanyon.org/Images/20th%20History/LookoutMtStudio.jpghttp://ww)
> w.laurelcanyon.org/Images/20th%20History/LookoutMtStudio3.jpg
>
>
> The top secret 1352d Motion Picture Squadron (Lookout Mountain Laboratory)
> hidden in the valley of Wonderland Park Avenue. The studio created
> documentaries on Nevada nuclear tests among other projects and is now a unique
> residence complex.
>
> David Guyatt
> 02-01-2009, 09:32 AM
> http://www.mouseplanet.com/articles.php?art=mg060222eb (http://www.mouseplanet.com/articles.php?art=mg060222eb)
>
> My Family Disney Dynasty, Part 1
>
> After the war he worked as a freelance commercial artist in Los Angeles, and
> in 1951 he joined the animation section at the U.S. Air Force Lookout Mountain
> Laboratory, Hollywood's ³secret² film studio. There he worked as a layout,
> background and story-sketch artist on training and informational films for the
> Air Force and Atomic Energy Commission, traveled to Yucca Flat in Nevada and
> Eniwetok in the Pacific to witness atomic and hydrogen bomb testing.
>
> http://www.sott.net/articles/show/15691 ... ut-Mostly- (http://www.sott.net/articles/show/156913-Inside-The-LC-The-Strange-but-Mostly-)
> True-Story-of-Laurel-Canyon-and-the-Birth-of-the-Hippie-Generation-Part-IV
>
> What would become known as Lookout Mountain Laboratory was originally
> envisioned as an air defense center. Built in 1941 and nestled in
> two-and-a-half secluded acres off what is now Wonderland Park Avenue, the
> installation was hidden from view and surrounded by an electrified fence. By
> 1947, the facility featured a fully operational movie studio. In fact, it is
> claimed that it was perhaps the world's only completely self-contained movie
> studio. With 100,000 square feet of floor space, the covert studio included
> sound stages, screening rooms, film processing labs, editing facilities, an
> animation department, and seventeen climate-controlled film vaults. It also
> had underground parking, a helicopter pad and a bomb shelter.
>
>
>
>
> ©Unknown
> Lookout Mountain Laboratory
>
> Over its lifetime, the studio produced some 19,000 classified motion pictures
> - more than all the Hollywood studios combined (which I guess makes Laurel
> Canyon the real 'motion picture capital of the world'). Officially, the
> facility was run by the U.S. Air Force and did nothing more nefarious than
> process AEC footage of atomic and nuclear bomb tests. The studio, however, was
> clearly equipped to do far more than just process film. There are indications
> that Lookout Mountain Laboratory had an advanced research and development
> department that was on the cutting edge of new film technologies. Such
> technological advances as 3-D effects were apparently first developed at the
> Laurel Canyon site. And Hollywood luminaries like John Ford, Jimmy Stewart,
> Howard Hawks, Ronald Reagan, Bing Crosby, Walt Disney and Marilyn Monroe were
> given clearance to work at the facility on undisclosed projects. There is no
> indication that any of them ever spoke of their work at the clandestine
> studio.
>
> http://www.sott.net/image/image/9078/medium/LML.jpg (http://www.sott.net/image/image/9078/medium/LML.jpg)
> ©Unknown
>
> The facility retained as many as 250 producers, directors, technicians,
> editors, animators, etc., both civilian and military, all with top security
> clearances - and all reporting to work in a secluded corner of Laurel Canyon.
> Accounts vary as to when the facility ceased operations. Some claim it was in
> 1969, while others say the installation remained in operation longer. In any
> event, by all accounts the secret bunker had been up and running for more than
> twenty years before Laurel Canyon's rebellious teen years, and it remained
> operational for the most turbulent of those years.
>
> The existence of the facility remained unknown to the general public until the
> early 1990s, though it had long been rumored that the CIA operated a secret
> movie studio somewhere in or near Hollywood. Filmmaker Peter Kuran was the
> first to learn of its existence, through classified documents he obtained
> while researching his 1995 documentary, "Trinity and Beyond." And yet even
> today, some 15 years after its public disclosure, one would have trouble
> finding even a single mention of this secret military/intelligence facility
> anywhere in the 'conspiracy' literature.
There are probably a half dozens ways that the feather drop could be faked, but the easiest way would be to have a metal feather or insert a heavy metal implant. Easy.
The hammer throw is interesting, but I can't really see it very well.
I don't know how they could have faked that LEM shot. They would have needed...a milk carton, some gold paint and some sky rockets. The LEM looks totally fake to me. I don't know what that is supposed to prove.
QuoteThis has been posted before and has yet to be debunked through a logical argument.
Really Whaler? Mythbusters? Really? Doesn't watching that show make you want to scratch you own eyes out? To me, this is the equivalent of NOVA's coverage of the "9/11 conspiracy". Remember that? They misrepresented the structure of the WTC in order to lend credence to the heat-induced collapse.
The mythbusters "busted" the "moon hoax" by showing how the astronaut walks on the moon couldn't have been faked. They compared one mythbuster shabat goyim being held up by wires to the apollo astronaut footage; then they compared that mythbuster shabat goyim filmed in slow motion to the apollo astronaut footage. Both could not duplicate the apollo footage.
But we are supposed to believe that the clever mythbusters never thought to use wires AND slow down the footage at the same time. When this is done, it fairly matches what we see in the Apollo footage. But the mythbusters couldn't think to do this? Here is WhiteJarrah, who does a great job of debunking all of the CIA-NASA hand waving.
Notice that when the Mythbuster guy answers about why he didn't use slow motion and wires at the same time, he rubs his nose. That is body language for conscious lying. He is rubbing his nose because he "nose" he is lying. He sounds the same way that NIST engineer John Gross sounded when he was confronted with the lies about the WTC collapse.
[youtube:9rtvaevf]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TH4BfIwBXs[/youtube]9rtvaevf]
In this video, JW confronts the mythbusters with the fact that: 1) signals can be bounced off the moon WITHOUT any device being planted on the moon; and 2) the fact that the Russians sent up a reflector to the moon without any astronauts. Both of those facts where not in the MIC-friendly mythbusters.
JW also shows how the first apollo crew bungled the question about seeing stars from the surface of the moon. They probably were so amazed at all of the stars they could see, that they forgot they could see any. That's probably what happened. That's like the time I went to the beach, and I forgot there was an ocean.
[youtube:9rtvaevf]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynSL0NpUEBU[/youtube]9rtvaevf]
QuoteTim, It's obvious you have a huge bug up your ass about America/Americans.
Not really. My point is that the patriotism thing--as faux as it is--was a key to ingraining this hoax into the minds of Americans as a real event. Emotionalizing a lie makes the listener more susceptible to embracing it. All I am saying is for people like you to detach yourself from this carefully crafted mechanism; it's an illusion.
Re: 1352d Motion Picture Squadron
CM, I wonder if that is where they make the Bin Laden segments, too.
IN that Plait segment, he not only rubs his nose, but he stumbles and fumbles like Alex Jones when the Jewish question is brought up. He comes off as defeated.
I wonder if that reporter even knows what a strawman theory is.
Oh, the tail end of that last video: Joe Rogan pops up. So he helped Plait set up the strawman...good ole Jewish Joe Rogan, confidante of Alex Judas Goat Jones.
Quote from: "Timothy_Fitzpatrick"QuoteTim, It's obvious you have a huge bug up your ass about America/Americans.
Not really. My point is that the patriotism thing--as faux as it is--was a key to ingraining this hoax into the minds of Americans as a real event. Emotionalizing a lie makes the listener more susceptible to embracing it. All I am saying is for people like you to detach yourself from this carefully crafted mechanism; it's an illusion.
Re: 1352d Motion Picture Squadron
Your mentioning of the 1352nd Motion Picture Squadron, in particular, and the rest of your post inspires a thought in me. Part of it I had before. Here is what is new. I am reminded of Leni, I forget her last name, who made movies like Triumph of the Will. Patriotic propaganda at its finest. Seems we got the rocket program from the Nazis and also copied their propaganda in our own new form.
It also is just amazing to me, and it must be beyond coincidence, that TV was relatively new in the '60s. What better way to try out this new toy in the hands of the Zionist and Illuminst Engineers than to see how malleable this media could really make us? It was the most exciting series in all of television during this time period. These guys probably just looted the taxpayers, and/or, they used some or a lot of the loot to weaponize space, or create spy sattelites or maybe run their drug business, launder money, who knows?
The Lookout Mtn Studio is supposedly closed now, but I wondered if they might have produced the moon hoax films there. As noted above, Lookout Mtn was completely self-contained. Most studios in Hollywood farm out the post production work to developing labs, sound studios, editing bays, etc...
Leni Riefenstahl. Fr. Brown, you might be interested in reading this very humorous study on the moon hoax: "Wagging the Moon Doggie" by Dave McGowan. He talks about von Braun's connections to an old silent film about a trip to the moon:
QuoteThe first Apollo contract was awarded just two months later, in July of 1961, for the sophisticated navigation system that would allegedly guide the spacecraft to the Moon. In an unusual move, NASA opted not to solicit bids for the guidance system; instead, the contract was handed directly to MIT, generating "immediate controversy," as noted by Moon Machines. As one of the show's talking-heads noted, "There was actually a budding industry out there that had developed guidance systems and people from industry were quite upset. They felt that they should have been given the chance to bid on the contract – and a university is not ordinarily what the government contracts out to build hardware for operational systems."
There was, alas, nothing ordinary about the Apollo project.
The man NASA turned to first, long before awarding any of the other Apollo contracts, was one Charles Draper, who ran MIT's instrumentation lab, which would later carry Draper's name. Draper was generally described as an eccentric, charismatic, colorful gent whose background was in physics and, curiously, psychology. He is widely considered to be the father of the inertial guidance system.
Perhaps significantly, Bill Kaysing, the first Apollo skeptic to gain prominence, has claimed that it was MIT (in conjunction with DARPA) that provided NASA with the blueprint for how to plausibly simulate manned trips to the Moon. If true, then it of course makes perfect sense that NASA would have turned directly and immediately to MIT, and would have done so without taking any outside bids. Until MIT completed their work and provided the space agency with an outline of the project, it would seem, NASA wouldn't have known what other contracts to award.
The fact that the project landed on the desk of Charles Draper is perhaps significant, given that the name 'Draper' is a rather notorious one in twentieth century American history – and one that is closely tied to the name 'Bush.' It is a name that appears more than once on the membership list of everyone's favorite secret society, Skull & Bones (Herbert Draper Gallaudet [1898], Arthur Draper [1937], William Draper III [1950]). It is a name that was prominently featured in the American eugenics movement, with General William Draper, Jr. serving as founder and chairman of the Population Crisis Committee and vice-chairman of the Birth Control League (as Planned Parenthood was originally known). General Draper, a close friend of the Bush family, also helped finance the 1932 International Eugenics Conference. Many years later, during the Apollo era, Draper advised LBJ on population reduction strategies.
........
One final note about General Draper (whose son, Bonesman William Draper III, served as the chief of fundraising for George Bush's 1980 presidential campaign): he was a member of the Society of American Magicians. In other words, William Draper, Jr. considered himself to be something of an expert in the art of illusion. Perhaps the same could be said of Charles Draper of MIT.
According to Moon Machines, Draper and his team got to work on the Apollo guidance system in the spring of 1962. Given that Moon Machines also contends that the contract was awarded to MIT in early summer of 1961, the question that is naturally begged is: why, with the clock ticking and with an absurdly short timeframe to pull the Apollo project together, would the MIT team have waited almost a year to get started? Or did they, in fact, spend that first year working on their real assignment – mapping out the key elements of the simulation?
If so, then they apparently spent a fair amount of time viewing an obscure German silent film by the name of Die Frau im Mond (The Woman in the Moon), as noted in the painfully long documentary, What Happened on the Moon? The German feature film, released by filmmaker Fritz Lang in 1929, provided the blueprint for the heavily ritualized launch procedures that were adopted for the Apollo program. As can be seen in the screen caps below, all of the elements were there: the unnecessary vertical construction of the spaceship in a specially built hangar; the grand opening of the massive hangar doors; the excruciatingly slow roll-out of the upright rocketship from the hangar to the launch pad; the raucous crowds watching the spectacle live; the now ubiquitous countdown; even the shedding of two stages of the ship. In other words, the only elements of the performance that the public ever actually witnessed were all lifted directly from a forty-year-old silent film.
Fritz Lang's technical adviser on the film was Herman Oberth, considered to be one of the three founding fathers of rocketry. Assisting Oberth on the film project, according to the previously quoted Time-Life book To the Moon, was one of his brightest students, nineteen-year-old Wernher von Braun. A decade-and-a-half later, both Oberth and von Braun would be scooped up through the Paperclip project and brought to America to work on, among other things, the Apollo program, whose choreography just happened to very closely match that of the fake Moon launch Oberth and von Braun had crafted forty years earlier.
"Wagging the Moon Doggie" is presented in 13 parts here: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/index.html (http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/index.html)
Here is something new that I learned: Being on the moon makes you transparent.
[youtube:1l4jyc59]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQgWzAXjb4k[/youtube]1l4jyc59]
Quote from: "Christopher Marlowe"Characterizing the opposing side as asinine does not win the argument. From my perspective, I cannot understand how any reasonable person can see wires leading up several feet from two astronauts at the same time, and not realize that these fellows are being supported by a pulley system. What are we supposed to think? That those are moon wires that grow on the moon?
I didn't characterize the opposing side as asinine, I characterized the denial of the public record as asinine, but given your other postings I should've anticipated the difficulty you'd have making that distinction. So spelling out a little more clearly, it seems asinine to deny the volumes of publicly available records on the moon landings demonstrating they happened while exercising isolated scopes of forum postings to pose ruse curiosities. And while I find it difficult to perceive the preciously proclaimed wires, I find it more disconcerting forum participants have difficulty perceiving objects thrown on the moon behaving according to moon gravity concurrent with people moving in real time.
Quote from: "Christopher Marlowe"Quote from: "Whaler"This has been posted before and has yet to be debunked through a logical argument.
Really Whaler? Mythbusters? Really? Doesn't watching that show make you want to scratch you own eyes out? To me, this is the equivalent of NOVA's coverage of the "9/11 conspiracy". Remember that? They misrepresented the structure of the WTC in order to lend credence to the heat-induced collapse.
I think it infinitely appropriate that you're best qualified to chastise others for selectively cherry picking information based on your demonstrated strengths in bias with your Bible study teachings. Nope, nobody sees the Judaic compromises to thinking in orthodox Christian teaching, and nobody notices when personal attacks avoid engaging facts (but since you're not interested in engaging research busting the conspiracy hoax, we can let it rest).
I know too many people like myself who've worked through the material on the "moon landing hoax" canard and come up empty. There's just no substance to any of the so called "pwoof it didn't happen" compared to the volumes of data demonstrating everything from Apollo 11 through to Apollo 17 did happen (sans A-13). Exercising the isolated scope of forum posting may lend itself well to inflaming doubts, but looks pretty idiotic to a lot of people I know that I'm trying to get to take a look at the information out here, so I thought I'd mention the concern.
But don't let me spoil the fun, please feel free to selectively cherry pick curiosities and inflate them into pwoof. :fun:
Ahaze, we may not be able to prove the Apollo's alleged moon landing, but on the other side can you prove it did? There were no third-party witnesses who weren't bought off that can verify the veracity of NASA's, and the MSM's, claims.
I find it interesting that people have the capacity to know of the Jewish conspiracy, yet fall for the obvious Zionist ruse of this "moon landing." Is it a coincidence that the moon deniers on this forum are almost exclusively Americans?
You have nothing to lose by admitting the Jews control the world, but you--being a baby boomer I assume--have a lot to lose by admitting a defining moment in your life is a complete lie. It's understandable. But at the same time, it's time to get over it.
Quote from: "Timothy_Fitzpatrick"Ahaze, we may not be able to prove the Apollo's alleged moon landing, but on the other side can you prove it did? There were no third-party witnesses who weren't bought off that can verify the veracity of NASA's, and the MSM's, claims.
I can't believe my eyes. :shock:
How many credible 'eyewitnesses' were there to the "immaculate conception", Jesus' walk-on-water tale, Jesus' ressurection from the dead tale and his bird-flight into heaven tale, all of which you actually
believe in, huh? How can you maintain this appalling and ludicrous double standard when it comes to "evidence"? :lol: :lol:
I love this. FOX... the maniacal Jew evil empire channel runs a special about the moon landing hoax and takes an obscure and kooky conspiracy theory dreamed by crackpots and launches it into the mainstream...yet you guys are trying to make it seem like Jews are trying to silence you and cover it up. Give me a break. :roll:
Aren't Jews constantly whining about the Nazis and Nasa?? Look at all of the coast to coast conspirotard stuff and there is endless Nasa/Nazi conspiracy nonsense. The moonhoax is Jew disinfo period. It's a trap to lump all believers in a Jewish/banking/media criminal network conspiracy with moonhoaxers. Classic poisoning of the well...yet you guys are willfully running into the ambush.
Again...tell me when Fox does a holohoax special. Also tell me when they will have their primetime special on Israel's role in 911. Tell me when youtube deletes your moonhoax videos and you start getting harassed by JIDF trolls. So basically the argument trying to say that the moonlandings were a Jewish conspiracy is bonkers. :crazy:
Are you guys aware of what the Jewish collective was doing in the 1960's? They blew the guy's head off that made the directive for NASA to go to the moon before the decade ended.(JFK) They were actively engaged in radical communist activities, they were actively involved in morally corrupting the culture through the mass media. I think you guys don't quite get what the Jews goal was during the 60's. They were trying to pull of a Bolshevik style revolution. The Jewish media were the first ones to blow the whistle on the Pentagon papers and criticize the Vietnam war. They were the first to cover Watergate and impeach Nixon. Jews were actively involved in every non 'patriotic'/destabilizing movement during this time. It was certainly not making Americans feel good and patriotic...it was too stir the shit... Saying the moon landings are a hoax would fit into this agenda perfectly.
Jewish Communist
Mass Mind-Control
(Psycho-politics)Text Revised and Edited by: Lt. Col. Gordon "Jack" Mohr U.S. Army, Retired
INTRODUCTION
The booklet you are about to read is an English paraphrase of a Red Communist "textbook" used both in The Soviet Union and in America to train Communist agents in the art of deceiving non-communists with words and with false precepts.
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgov ... party.html (http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgovernments-usa-democratic-party.html)
CHAPTER V
AN EXAMINATION OF LOYALTIES
QuoteIn rearranging loyalties we must have a command of their values. In the animal the first loyalty is to himself. This is destroyed by demonstrating errors to him, showing him that he does not remember, cannot act or does not trust himself. The second loyalty is to his family unit, his parents and brothers and sisters. This is destroyed by making a family unit economically non-dependent, by lessening the value of marriage, by making an easiness of divorce and by raising the children wherever possible by the State. The next loyalty is to his friends and local environment. This is destroyed by lowering his trust and bringing about reporting upon him allegedly by his fellows, or the town or village authorities. The next is to the State and this, for the purposes of Communism, is the only loyalty which should exist once the state is founded as a Communist State. To destroy loyalty to the State all manner of forbidding for youth must be put into effect so as to disenfranchise them as members of the Capitalist state and, by promises of a better lot under Communism, to gain their loyalty to a Communist movement.
Denying a Capitalist country easy access to courts, bringing about and supporting propaganda to destroy the home, creating and continuous juvenile delinquency, forcing upon the state all manner of practices to divorce the child from it will in the end create the chaos necessary to Communism. Note: Current efforts to take very young children from parental care and place in govt. run day-care centers. See Feb. 1976 House Bill #2966 and Senate Bill #626.
QuoteBy making readily available drugs of various kinds, by giving the teenager alcohol, by praising his wildness, by stimulating him with sex literature and advertising to him or her practices as taught at the Sexpol, * the psycho-political operator can create the necessary attitude of chaos, idleness and worthlessness into which can then be cast the solution which will give the teenager complete freedom everywhere - Communism. Note: Current efforts towards S.E.I.C.U.S. education in the public school.
Should it be possible to continue conscription beyond any reasonable time by promoting unpopular wars and other means the draft can always stand as a further barrier to the progress of youth in life, destroying any immediate hope to participate in his nation's civil life.
By these means patriotism of youth for their Capitalistic flag can be dulled to a point where they are no longer dangerous as soldiers. While this might require many decades to effect, Capitalism's short term view will never envision the lengths across which we can plan. If we could effectively kill the national pride and patriotism of just one generation we will have won that country. Therefore there must be continual propaganda abroad to undermine the loyalty of the citizens in general and the teenager in particular.
Quotehttp://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgov ... a-sds.html (http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgovernments-usa-sds.html)
HOW JEWS CONTROLLED
THE NEW LEFT OF THE 1960'S
From, Chapter 3, "Radical Jews: The Dilemmas of Marginality," Roots of Radicalism, by Rothman and Lichter, Oxford University Press, New York & Oxford, pages 80-84.
QuoteTo begin with, Americans of Jewish background were disproportionately represented among the leadership and cadres of the Movement until the mid--1960's. At the time they constituted under 3 percent of the population of the United States, and about 10 percent of the students at colleges and universities. Yet, they provided a majority of its most active members and perhaps even a larger proportion of its top leadership. They also provided a very significant proportion of the intellectual community's most vocal supporters of the student movement.
Many of these young people came from liberal or radical families. Some of their parents had been quite active on the Left during the 1930's but later toned down their political activities while retaining their basic value orientations. As early as the 1962 Washington peace demonstration, students of Jewish background constituted over 40 percent of those participants whose religious back-ground could be identified. [Frederick Solomon and Jacob R. Fishman, "Youth and Peace: A Psychosocial Study of Student Peace Demonstrators in Washington, D.C.," Journal of Social Issues 20 (Oct. 1964): 54-73.]
Perhaps more significantly, the early SDS was heavily Jewish both in its leadership and its activist cadres. Key SDS leaders included Richard Flacks, who played an important role in its formation and growth, as well as Al Haber, Robb Ross, Steve Max, Mike Spiegal, Mike Klonsky, Todd Gitlin, Mark Rudd, and others. Indeed, during its first few years, SDS was largely funded by the League for Industrial Democracy, a heavily Jewish socialist (but anti-communist) organization. [See Kirkpatrick Sale, SDS (New York: Vintage, 1973), and Arthur Liebman, Jews and the Left (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1979).]
SDS's early successes were at elite universities containing substantial numbers of Jewish students and sympathetic Jewish faculty, including the University of Wisconsin at Madison, Brandeis, Oberlin, and the University of California at Berkeley. SDS leaders were not unaware of their roots. As Robb Ross put it, describing the situation at the University of Wisconsin in the early 1960's,
my impression is that the left at Madison is not a new left, but a revival of the old . . . with all the problems that entails. I am struck by the lack of Wisconsin born people in the left and the massive preponderance of New York Jews. The situation at the University of Minnesota is similar. [Quoted in Liebman, ibid., p.549.]
http://rac.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=21 ... ge_id=2394 (http://rac.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=21347&pge_prg_id=12630&pge_id=2394)
QuoteDuring the Civil Rights Movement, Jewish activists represented a disproportionate number of whites involved in the struggle. Jews made up half of the young people who participated in the Mississippi Freedom Summer in 1964. Leaders of the Reform Movement were arrested with Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in St. Augustine, Florida, in 1964 after a challenge to racial segregation in public accommodations. Most famously, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel marched arm-in-arm with Dr. King in his 1965 March on Selma.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were drafted in the conference room of Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, under the aegis of the Leadership Conference, which for decades was located in the RAC's building. The Jewish community has continued its support of civil rights laws addressing persistent discrimination in voting, housing and employment against not only women and people of color but also in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community and the disabled community. Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, is currently the only non-African-American member of the NAACP board.
It doesn't really matter though, I have never seen a group like the moonhaxers. They can have all of their arguments debunked but they just keep swinging away. Just look at the debates I posted. It's the same kind of pattern... always.
I think this will be my last post on this issue because I don't want what is a relatively minor issue for me turning into an issue.
So nothing personal. I don't think you guys are dumb or evil for believing the moon landings were faked...just wrong.
First off, I wanted to point out that both Ahaze and MSMD have seen fit to criticize other people's religious beliefs in response to our questioning the Apollo moon landings.
QuoteI think it infinitely appropriate that you're best qualified to chastise others for selectively cherry picking information based on your demonstrated strengths in bias with your Bible study teachings. Nope, nobody sees the Judaic compromises to thinking in orthodox Christian teaching, and nobody notices when personal attacks avoid engaging facts (but since you're not interested in engaging research busting the conspiracy hoax, we can let it rest).
QuoteHow many credible 'eyewitnesses' were there to the "immaculate conception", Jesus' walk-on-water tale, Jesus' ressurection from the dead tale and his bird-flight into heaven tale, all of which you actually believe in, huh? How can you maintain this appalling and ludicrous double standard when it comes to "evidence"?
Gentlemen, if you believe, for religious reasons, that men landed on the moon, I am sorry for having attacked your religion. If it is not your religious belief, then I would ask you not to refer to mine.
I have not brought my religion into this debate, and I see no reason for others to do so. I could just as easily another persons beliefs, or lack thereof, but I don't think it has a place here. Whether someone believes in God, or how they interpret the Bible doesn't seem relevant in this debate, and it seems to work only as an ad hom.
This subject line was re-opened a couple pages back by TF and Whaler, who good naturedly wrote:
QuoteTF: Anyone for more moon landing talk?
W: Yeah I guess Timbo. Keep it clean cuz it's not really that big of a deal for me. I have done some research on this after seeing "hoaxers" get repeatedly schooled in debates. I am pretty certain that there is not one single valid argument for a hoax. I have seen all of them get completely destroyed....So if you wanna post one, I will try to come back with a debunking point. Give me an hour or two though....and I will extend you the same courtesy of a two hour buffer between posts. It is important that we get this sorted out cuz right now it's a distraction of monumental proportions.
To me, "keep it clean" means that people aren't going to criticize my religious beliefs when I'm discussing the moon landing. That doesn't sound to much to ask, does it?
Quote from: "ahaze"Quote from: "Christopher Marlowe"Characterizing the opposing side as asinine does not win the argument. From my perspective, I cannot understand how any reasonable person can see wires leading up several feet from two astronauts at the same time, and not realize that these fellows are being supported by a pulley system. What are we supposed to think? That those are moon wires that grow on the moon?
I didn't characterize the opposing side as asinine, I characterized the denial of the public record as asinine, but given your other postings I should've anticipated the difficulty you'd have making that distinction. So spelling out a little more clearly, it seems asinine to deny the volumes of publicly available records on the moon landings demonstrating they happened...
This is what is known as a distinction without a difference. Watch me do it:
I'm not calling my opponent asinine, I'm calling people who question the official story, that has lots of facts to back it up, asinine.
Addressing the substance: Volumes of publicly available records? Do you mean public records like the Warren Commission report, or the 9/11 commission report? Or are you talking about volumes of public records that show the solar flares that took place during the apollo missions? There are volumes of reasons to believe that the apollo missions were faked.
QuoteAnd while I find it difficult to perceive the preciously proclaimed wires...
They are thin bright lines that run straight up from the astronauts to the top of the frame. Freeze it at 1:19.
[youtube:b40t8akc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23_QdAz2tfY[/youtube]b40t8akc]
QuoteI find it more disconcerting forum participants have difficulty perceiving objects thrown on the moon behaving according to moon gravity concurrent with people moving in real time.
If the apollo landings were faked using special effects, as is demonstrated by the transparent astronaut video, then using a video of special effects is hardly proof of anything. Could I post a video of "The Terminator", and use that as proof that killer robots exist? Those are bitchin special effects!
[youtube:b40t8akc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBJUyYuzivo[/youtube]b40t8akc]
There's just no substance to any of the so called
"pwoof it didn't happen" compared to the volumes of data demonstrating everything from Apollo 11 through to Apollo 17 did happen (sans A-13). Exercising the isolated scope of forum posting may lend itself well to inflaming doubts, but looks pretty idiotic to a lot of people I know that I'm trying to get to take a look at the information out here, so I thought I'd mention the concern.
But don't let me spoil the fun, please feel free to selectively cherry pick curiosities and inflate them into
pwoof. :fun:[/quote]
Yes. People have been calling me a "twoofer" for years because I doubt the official story of 9/11.
There are many rational arguments that show the apollo landings were faked. Here are two:
1) The Russians were leading the space race, but they couldn't make it to the moon because of the danger of radiation. So the US won the race to the moon by....ignoring the radiation. Now the radiation still does exist when you talk about putting satellites into high orbit; and the shuttle also manages to stay below the Van Allen belts; but the Apollo astronauts were immune to radiation poisoning from the VA belts, and from the solar flares while they were on the moon. That's not cherry picking evidence. Radiation is the reason no one has ever gone beyond the VA belts.
2) Moon dust
QuoteFrom Wagging the Moon Doggie:
As previously discussed, NASA nowadays acknowledges that dealing with lunar dust will require the development of sophisticated new technology. No explanation has been provided, of course, for why the Apollo astronauts didn't have any problems with the dust despite allegedly venturing out on multiple EVAs during their alleged missions.
During the alleged Apollo 17 mission, for example, our fearless astronauts supposedly took the Moon buggy out on three separate occasions, returning each time, by their own accounts, covered from head to toe in Moon dust, which they necessarily would have brought back into the lunar module with them, and then ultimately transferred to the command module when the supposed docking later took place. Why then is there no mention in the Apollo literature of any health problems arising from this, or of any problems with any of the delicate instrumentation, or of any problems with any of the door seals? If it is "difficult to filter out of habitats" even with the technology we possess today, then how were we able to do it 40+ years ago?
The 'debunker' crowd, despite loudly proclaiming that they have thoroughly debunked every 'conspiracy' claim that has ever been made, has had nothing to say on this issue. I wonder why that is?
Well done, CM. You have graciously refuted them. Let's see if they can graciously come up with another angle.
Quote from: "Whaler"I love this. FOX... the maniacal Jew evil empire channel runs a special about the moon landing hoax and takes an obscure and kooky conspiracy theory dreamed by crackpots and launches it into the mainstream...yet you guys are trying to make it seem like Jews are trying to silence you and cover it up. Give me a break. :roll:
Aren't Jews constantly whining about the Nazis and Nasa?? Look at all of the coast to coast conspirotard stuff and there is endless Nasa/Nazi conspiracy nonsense. The moonhoax is Jew disinfo period. It's a trap to lump all believers in a Jewish/banking/media criminal network conspiracy with moonhoaxers. Classic poisoning of the well...yet you guys are willfully running into the ambush.
Again...tell me when Fox does a holohoax special. Also tell me when they will have their primetime special on Israel's role in 911. Tell me when youtube deletes your moonhoax videos and you start getting harassed by JIDF trolls. So basically the argument trying to say that the moonlandings were a Jewish conspiracy is bonkers. :crazy:
Are you guys aware of what the Jewish collective was doing in the 1960's? They blew the guy's head off that made the directive for NASA to go to the moon before the decade ended.(JFK) They were actively engaged in radical communist activities, they were actively involved in morally corrupting the culture through the mass media. I think you guys don't quite get what the Jews goal was during the 60's. They were trying to pull of a Bolshevik style revolution. The Jewish media were the first ones to blow the whistle on the Pentagon papers and criticize the Vietnam war. They were the first to cover Watergate and impeach Nixon. Jews were actively involved in every non 'patriotic'/destabilizing movement during this time. It was certainly not making Americans feel good and patriotic...it was too stir the shit... Saying the moon landings are a hoax would fit into this agenda perfectly.
Come on, Whaler, You know this is a weak argument. Jewish Hollywood, via Oliver Stone, also revealed much truth about the JFK Assassination with the Hollywood film J
FK. So what? Fox News probably set up a bunch of strawmen around the airing anyways. That's what they do.
Quote from: "Timothy_Fitzpatrick"Quote from: "Whaler"I love this. FOX... the maniacal Jew evil empire channel runs a special about the moon landing hoax and takes an obscure and kooky conspiracy theory dreamed by crackpots and launches it into the mainstream...yet you guys are trying to make it seem like Jews are trying to silence you and cover it up. Give me a break. :roll:
Aren't Jews constantly whining about the Nazis and Nasa?? Look at all of the coast to coast conspirotard stuff and there is endless Nasa/Nazi conspiracy nonsense. The moonhoax is Jew disinfo period. It's a trap to lump all believers in a Jewish/banking/media criminal network conspiracy with moonhoaxers. Classic poisoning of the well...yet you guys are willfully running into the ambush.
Again...tell me when Fox does a holohoax special. Also tell me when they will have their primetime special on Israel's role in 911. Tell me when youtube deletes your moonhoax videos and you start getting harassed by JIDF trolls. So basically the argument trying to say that the moonlandings were a Jewish conspiracy is bonkers. :crazy:
Are you guys aware of what the Jewish collective was doing in the 1960's? They blew the guy's head off that made the directive for NASA to go to the moon before the decade ended.(JFK) They were actively engaged in radical communist activities, they were actively involved in morally corrupting the culture through the mass media. I think you guys don't quite get what the Jews goal was during the 60's. They were trying to pull of a Bolshevik style revolution. The Jewish media were the first ones to blow the whistle on the Pentagon papers and criticize the Vietnam war. They were the first to cover Watergate and impeach Nixon. Jews were actively involved in every non 'patriotic'/destabilizing movement during this time. It was certainly not making Americans feel good and patriotic...it was too stir the shit... Saying the moon landings are a hoax would fit into this agenda perfectly.
Come on, Whaler, You know this is a weak argument. Jewish Hollywood, via Oliver Stone, also revealed much truth about the JFK Assassination with the Hollywood film JFK. So what? Fox News probably set up a bunch of strawmen around the airing anyways. That's what they do.
JFK didn't reveal anything new. It was and is a limited hangout pinning the murder on the US military. Stone's money man was an Israeli arms dealer.
http://www.rense.com/general42/enemies.htm (http://www.rense.com/general42/enemies.htm)
QuoteWhy didn't Oliver Stone, in his famous movie "JFK" not mention any of this? It turns out the chief financial backer of Stone's film was longtime Mossad figure, Arnon Milchan, Israel's biggest arms dealer.
It was obviously put out there by the Jews as a disinfo tool. No mention of Mossad, the Federal reserve or anything pointing in that direction. The theory put forth in that movie pins the the whole thing on the MIC...which is classic Noam Chomsky/Jewish intellectual/Marxist academic limited hangout stuff. My father was a JFK assassination buff and there was tons of material about the JFK assassination long before that movie came out. Not comparable to the moonlanding hoax which was a relatively obscure conspiracy theory. Also, Jim Marrs was Stone's consultant on JFK...and we know who butters his bread. Don't get me wrong, JFK is an awesome movie but it's very kosher and was most likely funded by Mossad even if Stone wasn't completely aware of it.
http://www.rense.com/general42/enemies.htm (http://www.rense.com/general42/enemies.htm)
QuoteWhen New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison charged businessman Clay Shaw with participation in the JFK assassination conspiracy Garrison stumbled upon the Israeli Mossad connection to the murder of President Kennedy. Shaw served on the board of a shadowy corporation known as Permindex. A primary shareholder in Permindex was the Banque De Credit International of Geneva, founded by Tibor Rosenbaum, an arms procurer and financier for the Mossad.
What's more, the Mossad-sponsored Swiss bank was the chief "money laundry" for Meyer Lansky, the head of the international crime syndicate and an Israeli loyalist whose operations meshed closely on many fronts with the American CIA.
The chairman of Permindex was Louis M. Bloomfield of Montreal, a key figure in the Israeli lobby and an operative of the Bronfman family of Canada, long-time Lansky associates and among Israel's primary international patrons.
In the pages of "Final Judgment" the Israeli connection to the JFK assassination is explored in frightening--and fully documented--detail. For example, did you know:
* That JFK was engaged in a bitter secret conflict with Israel over U.S. East policy and that Israel's prime minister resigned in disgust, saying JFK's stance threatened Israel's very survival?
* That JFK's successor, Lyndon Johnson, immediately reversed America's policy toward Israel?
* That the top Mafia figures often alleged to be behind the JFK assassination were only front men for Meyer Lansky?
* That the CIA's liaison to the Mossad, James Angleton, was a prime mover behind the cover-up of the JFK assassination?
JFK movie could also be part of this agenda.
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgov ... party.html (http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgovernments-usa-democratic-party.html)
QuoteIf we could effectively kill the national pride and patriotism of just one generation we will have won that country. Therefore there must be continual propaganda abroad to undermine the loyalty of the citizens in general and the teenager in particular.
Becuase Jews don't mind promoting theories that undermine the gov't or military. They do it all of the time. As long as the Jews behind the curtain aren't exposed. That's why they hate 911 so much...cuz Israel was caught red handed and they know it. The whole 911 operation was for the Jews...so you saw the Jews promoting a fake patriotism to whip up the American pubic for a war. Same with pre ww2 propaganda.
Also part of the reason for 911 was to implement a bolshevik style brutal police state aimed completely at the American people...which the Jews have been wanting to do for at least a hundred years now. Department of Homeland security is the tool the Jews were trying to use to stomp on the constitution. The gun grabbing hasn't gone well for them either. It only made people go out and buy more guns after they hear rats like Emmanuel saying that they are going to take away the right to buy guns for those on the no fly list. The no fly list of course would be people considered to be "anti-Semitic" and "political extremists"...a total Jew scam to crack some more gentile heads and achieve total domination.
QuoteWell done, CM. You have graciously refuted them. Let's see if they can graciously come up with another angle.
No other angle necessary. Every single argument to a moon landing hoax has been addressed in Ahaze's and my posts. The van allen belt, the strings, moon gravity,video speeds etc There is no angle or agenda other than to show people that all of these hoaxer arguments have a counter argument that easily explains the anomalies that hoaxers put forth as evidence. That's fine that you guys come back with a counter argument...fair is fair. I'm not really trying to convince you or CM because I think your mind is made up. Maybe others out there reading might do a little digging.
I used to believe in moonhoax theory and I've been known to be a bit of a conspiracy theorist so cognitive dissonance is not why I don't believe in a moon hoax. Last summer I started to read some moonhoax debates on the DI forum. Some of these people debunking the hoax theory were anti zio and Jew wise so I gave their arguments a little more attention and did some research.
btw...That special wasn't on Fox News, It was on the Fox Network. Free TV. Huge audience.
Quote from: "Timothy_Fitzpatrick"I find it interesting that people have the capacity to know of the Jewish conspiracy, yet fall for the obvious Zionist ruse of this "moon landing." Is it a coincidence that the moon deniers on this forum are almost exclusively Americans?
You have nothing to lose by admitting the Jews control the world, but you--being a baby boomer I assume--have a lot to lose by admitting a defining moment in your life is a complete lie. It's understandable. But at the same time, it's time to get over it.
Timothy_Fitzpatrick, Maybe you should be on one of those psychic forums where they're practicing remote viewing techniques trying to find their psychic sense because your insights obviously need corrective lenses, and nobody asked what your psychic perceptions detected about me. Rather the discussion here is about how brain dead the conspiracy theory of "hoax Moon landings" happens to be.
But I likewise find it interesting that people have the capacity to know of the Jewish conspiracy and yet endorse orthodox Christianity and deny scientific achievement.
Quote from: "Christopher Marlowe"This is what is known as a distinction without a difference.
I like that characterization. It distinguishes the obfuscation "asinine" lends to the conversation, and better describes what I was trying to do in attempting to shout down the nonsense. My response was prompted by such distinctions without difference in all the reemphasized snapshot curiosities, ad hominem denial of the public record, refusal of research debunking "hoax Moon landings" theories, and failure to acknowledge the interests most likely colluding in such disinfo. Since it appears certain participants are having difficulty keeping track, that's three aspects of the "hoax Moon landings" theory failing measures of accuracy.
Ultimately I think Whaler nailed it pointing out how perfectly the idiotic "hoax Moon landings" theory fits the J-tribe profile. They were totally opposed to JFK hubris, and the nation seized on his moon-shot dream even more earnestly in his death. The Moon landing accomplishments irritated all kinds of religious "sensibilities" in which the J-tribe rules supreme gaming sentiments, and meanwhile insulted the arrogant blind minded self appointed gods on Earth. So promoting the "hoax Moon landings" theory dovetails perfectly with their hatred of everything JFK represented and provided a convenient sideshow for inflaming religious confusion. Speaking of which...
Quote from: "Christopher Marlowe"To me, "keep it clean" means that people aren't going to criticize my religious beliefs when I'm discussing the moon landing. That doesn't sound to much to ask, does it?
Actually in my opinion, yes it is too much to ask on a forum fundamentally questioning the ideology of a religious people, especially when the faith proclaimed depends on scriptures of that tribe in question. I suspect the J-tribe masters and keepers would cackle reading Bible quotations out here. I hear the concern about not seeing the reason to bring religion into this debate, however I assert the double-standard of ideological allegiance deserves scrutiny when the mind expressing the thoughts demonstrates biases according to such influences.
If I were intent on attack the religion in question, I would've done it with the conversation on "Re: Jews are not to blame for death of Jesus, says Pope in dispute over Bible passage", and maybe for the record I should hit that thread with my perceptions, but as I was mentioning to TF, I really don't think there's much room for psychic insights out here.
Asserting the Moon landings were a hoax directly offends the memory of JFK, and pisses on the graves of the Apollo 1 through Columbia and Challenger crews who sacrificed their lives directly for the endeavor. So denying the capacities of space science and technology has a more insidious quality, bespeaking murderous contempt, and displaying a stratagem of dumbing down collective perception. A perfect profile of the J-tribe MO we know not to love.
But not to forfeit the buffoonery!
Quote from: "Christopher Marlowe"Addressing the substance: Volumes of publicly available records? Do you mean public records like the Warren Commission report, or the 9/11 commission report? ...
I already mentioned a simple viewing of the Discovery Channel's "When We Left Earth" series provides a convenient synopsis overview of the NASA archives giving extensive example of all the technological achievement in realizing the officially disclosed space program rolling today. So is the refusal to see here a byproduct of lacking search techniques? Should I list all the title releases of even more extensive compilations of NASA Apollo footage documenting the history over the decades now? Would it help if I spelled out an Amazon query spilling out all the extensive historical documentaries overwhelmingly demonstrating the spuriousness of isolated incidental speculations?
Quote from: "Christopher Marlowe"They are thin bright lines that run straight up from the astronauts to the top of the frame. Freeze it at 1:19.
Hilarious, using an obviously altered hack job of the discounted 'myth busters' episode debunking the "hoax Moon landings" theory to assert the "hoax Moon landings" theory. The debunking is so easy they knew they couldn't dodge telling it like it is. They go to great lengths to illustrate, but I read all the explanations of the curiosities ages ago, and never even gave the "myth busters" episodes a viewing until this thread recently forced it. I think its healthy to focus on the "loud uproarious reveler in myths" distinction of their oh so clever double entendre mission and take everything they say as grain of salt truth, but in this case they had no choice but to fully acknowledge what's real due to the extensive public record (something we don't have for 9/11).
Quote from: "Christopher Marlowe"There are many rational arguments that show the apollo landings were faked. Here are two:
1) The Russians were leading the space race, but they couldn't make it to the moon because of the danger of radiation. So the US won the race to the moon by....ignoring the radiation. Now the radiation still does exist when you talk about putting satellites into high orbit; and the shuttle also manages to stay below the Van Allen belts; but the Apollo astronauts were immune to radiation poisoning from the VA belts, and from the solar flares while they were on the moon. That's not cherry picking evidence. Radiation is the reason no one has ever gone beyond the VA belts.
Wrong. The Shuttle both launched Hubble, and when Hubble proved a dud returned to Hubble's orbital altitude to repair it. Repairing the Hubble Space Telescope was a more complicated mission than landing on the moon. The Shuttle both set Hubble in orbit at its altitude, and then returned to its orbital altitude to repair it. Right, the Van Allen belt deals radiation, but space tech engineered how to deal with it as even the Wikipedia gives a simple example of how with, "The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation." The limited number of astronauts unfortunately passing through that radiation zone were and are well aware of the job hazards, their gear is built to withstand those realities (you know, like nuclear plant worker gear), and they're powering on and off systems all the time.
Quote from: "Christopher Marlowe"2) Moon dust
From Wagging the Moon Doggie:
QuoteAs previously discussed, NASA nowadays acknowledges that dealing with lunar dust will require the development of sophisticated new technology. No explanation has been provided, of course, for why the Apollo astronauts didn't have any problems with the dust despite allegedly venturing out on multiple EVAs during their alleged missions.
During the alleged Apollo 17 mission, for example, our fearless astronauts supposedly took the Moon buggy out on three separate occasions, returning each time, by their own accounts, covered from head to toe in Moon dust, which they necessarily would have brought back into the lunar module with them, and then ultimately transferred to the command module when the supposed docking later took place. Why then is there no mention in the Apollo literature of any health problems arising from this, or of any problems with any of the delicate instrumentation, or of any problems with any of the door seals? If it is "difficult to filter out of habitats" even with the technology we possess today, then how were we able to do it 40+ years ago?
The 'debunker' crowd, despite loudly proclaiming that they have thoroughly debunked every 'conspiracy' claim that has ever been made, has had nothing to say on this issue. I wonder why that is?
Um, er, that would be because the conjecture is so brain dead Mr. McGowan sir. Have you ever heard of a "decompression chamber" used in undersea exploration? Well similarly in space exploration, vessels are segregated into pressurized chambers allowing personnel in command modules to remain safe and sound while other personnel retreat into separate airlock modules to carry out Moon and space walks. The Lunar Excursion Module is just such a completely separate pressurized chamber - a kind of "mud room" :) if you will - where the astronauts who walked and rode around on the moon were able to dust themselves off before returning to the primary command module.
So no insults intended (with exception to the personal biases), but the Moon landings did happen.
QuoteJFK didn't reveal anything new. It was and is a limited hangout pinning the murder on the US military. Stone's money man was an Israeli arms dealer.
True, Whaler, but only to people like us. However, Oliver Stone's JFK revealed an incredible amount to every day folk--the same every day folk who also probably watch Fox News. Therefore, your argument that the Zionist Fox News airing of a fraction of the moon landing hoax theory means the hoax theory is Jewish derived is fallacious.
What is blatantly hypocritical of you and Ahaze, Whaler, is the fact that you point out Jewish sources when it benefits your arguments (weak as they are) and then turn around and use Jewish sources yourself. (Discovery Channel, Mythbusters, etc.)
Quote from: "ahaze"Quote from: "Christopher Marlowe"This is what is known as a distinction without a difference.
I like that characterization. It distinguishes the obfuscation "asinine" lends to the conversation, and better describes what I was trying to do in attempting to shout down the nonsense. My response was prompted by such distinctions without difference in all the reemphasized snapshot curiosities, ad hominem denial of the public record, refusal of research debunking "hoax Moon landings" theories, and failure to acknowledge the interests most likely colluding in such disinfo. Since it appears certain participants are having difficulty keeping track, that's three aspects of the "hoax Moon landings" theory failing measures of accuracy.
This whole thread is beginning to remind me of the Monty Python "Argument" sketch, where a man pays for an argument, but instead is treated to mere contradictions.
I don't want to launch into a whole explanation of the difference, but a good argument is specific and backs up its assertions. Bad arguments look more like mere contradictions. They merely choose a side, and refute the opposite side. They tend to make the same points over and over, and they don't respond to what the other person is saying; they gloss over distinctions.
Here, I took one point you made and said that it was making a distinction without a difference. Instead of responding to that one specific point, you launched into a general laundry list. IMHO, that is not a proper response, but more of a mere contradiction: "Whatever you say, I will say the opposite. The person who says the last thing WINS."
Quote from: "Christopher Marlowe"To me, "keep it clean" means that people aren't going to criticize my religious beliefs when I'm discussing the moon landing. That doesn't sound to much to ask, does it?
Quote from: "ahaze"Actually in my opinion, yes it is too much to ask on a forum fundamentally questioning the ideology of a religious people, especially when the faith proclaimed depends on scriptures of that tribe in question. I suspect the J-tribe masters and keepers would cackle reading Bible quotations out here. I hear the concern about not seeing the reason to bring religion into this debate, however I assert the double-standard of ideological allegiance deserves scrutiny when the mind expressing the thoughts demonstrates biases according to such influences.
This is probably going to be a deal breaker for me for two reasons:
1) I don't care to debate my religion with people who treat the Lord and sacred scripture with profanity. The admonition about "casting pearls" seems fitting here.
2) My religion isn't relevant here. I come from a legal background, and I know that a clever argument can be made to make anything seem relevant. But the law recognizes that things which are said to be relevant, and that may actually be relevant, should still be left out because of the tendency to prejudice:
QuoteFRE 403: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
Ahaze, I could talk about whatever land it is you are from, and about all of the foolish people that came from that land, and its disgraceful history, it's well-known tendency towards wickedness, etc... And then I could make a little speech about how that is relevant because
it is too much to ask on a forum fundamentally questioning the history of a certain group of people, especially when they practice those same social customs of that tribe in question. Frankly, I find your answers on this subject to be intellectually dishonest. You are obviously engaging in ad hom, and when I call you on it, you refer to a discussion in another thread that has nothing to do with this topic. You sound like you are carrying around a big grudge. I have never even met you, and I don't recall saying anything to you that would make you treat me rudely.
I can trade insults, but what is the point? Does it prove I am right if I find out information about your personal life and use it against you?
If you can't park your hatred of Christianity outside, then I don't care to talk to you on this or any other thread. If you can't avoid insulting my religion, if that is too much to ask, then I will just skip over you responses.
Quote from: "ahaze"Asserting the Moon landings were a hoax directly offends the memory of JFK, and pisses on the graves of the Apollo 1 through Columbia and Challenger crews who sacrificed their lives directly for the endeavor. So denying the capacities of space science and technology has a more insidious quality, bespeaking murderous contempt, and displaying a stratagem of dumbing down collective perception. A perfect profile of the J-tribe MO we know not to love.
Yes, and questioning 9/11 is like farting in the noses of all the dead people who heroically died in the WTC, when they were heroically trapped in those heroic towers.
Bill O'Riley: Why do you hate the United States of America?
I wasn't aware that Columbia and Challenger were said to have gone to the moon. Of course it that were said, it would be also be a lie. And if they didn't go to the moon, then they are not really relevant.
As for Apollo 1,
QuoteAllegedly to "save time," NASA opted to conduct both tests simultaneously. So once the astronauts were in place, the cabin was filled with 16 PSI of pure oxygen. With the inward-opening hatch sealed by the interior cabin pressure, the astronauts never had a chance to survive the 'test.' All it took was a spark, allegedly from some faulty wiring, to turn the capsule into a crematorium. In a pressurized oxygen environment, even aluminum will ignite. The crew reportedly were dead within 30 seconds of the onset of the fire. It took rescuers five minutes to pry the hatch open.
Weighing in with perhaps the most appalling quote to make it into these articles, George Jeffs, the chief engineer of the command and service modules, had this to say: "From a technical point of view, I think the fire had a, a very beneficial final effect on the program. It enabled the program to stop and re-review exactly where we stood on every element of the system and to fix every problem that we saw in the system." Of course, roughly the same effect would have been achieved by burning up the module while the astronauts weren't in it, but there is no need to quibble over minor details, I suppose.
Quote"January 1, 1967 - The last known test was over three weeks before Grissom, Chaffee & White suffered immolation. Two men were handling 16 rabbits in a chamber of 100% oxygen at 7.2 psi at Brooks Air Force Base and all living things died in the inferno. The cause may have been as simple as a static discharge from a rabbit's fur ... but we'll never know."
NASA subjected Grissom, White and Chaffee to over 90% pure oxygen at over 16 psi in a test with live electrical circuits and switches being thrown, and with a hatch that took more than three minutes to open, resulting in the fatal Apollo 1 fire.
Bill Kaysing, in his book We Never Went To The Moon, states, in Chapter 9 titled "Murder By Negligence On Pad 34", "If any two documents lend credibility to the contention that the Apollo flights were faked, they are most certainly the Baron Report and the Phillips Report. They were authored by two men of obvious integrity and dedication. Although from diverse backgrounds, both Tom Baron and Sam Phillips were in total agreement on one basic premise, i.e., that North American Aviation and its sponsor, NASA, were totally unequal to the task of assuring even one successful flight to the moon!"
Why did NASA decide to subject Grissom, White and Chaffee to more than 90% pure oxygen at over 16 psi in a test with live electrical circuits and switches being thrown, and with a hatch that took more than three minutes to open, resulting in the fatal Apollo 1 fire?
http://www.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo2.htm (http://www.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo2.htm)
QuoteVirgil I. "Gus" Grissom, the astronaut slated to be the first man to walk on the moon, was murdered, his son has charged in the Feb. 16 edition of Star magazine.
In another stunning development, a lead NASA investigator has charged that the agency engaged in a cover-up of the true cause of the catastrophe that killed Grissom and two other astronauts.
The tabloid exclusive by Steve Herz reports that Scott Grissom, 48, has gone public with the family's long-held belief that their father was purposefully killed during Apollo I.
The Jan. 27, 1967, Apollo I mission was a simulated launch in preparation for an actual lunar flight.
NASA concluded that the Apollo I deaths of Grissom, as well as astronauts Edward H. White and Roger Chafee, were the result of an explosive fire that burst from the pure oxygen atmosphere of the space capsule. NASA investigators could not identify what caused the spark, but wrote the catastrophe off as an accident.
"My father's death was no accident. He was murdered," Grissom, a commercial pilot, told Star.
Grissom said he recently was granted access to the charred capsule and discovered a "fabricated" metal plate located behind a control panel switch. The switch controlled the capsules' electrical power source from an outside source to the ship's batteries. Grissom argues that the placement of the metal plate was an act of sabotage. When one of the astronauts toggled the switch to transfer power to the ship's batteries, a spark was created that ignited a fireball.
Clark Mac Donald, a McDonnell-Douglas engineer hired by NASA to investigate the fire, offered corroborating evidence. Breaking more than three decades of silence, Mac Donald says he determined that an electrical short caused by the changeover to battery power had sparked the fire.
He says that NASA destroyed his report and interview tapes in an effort to stem public criticism of the space program.
"I have agonized for 31 years about revealing the truth, but I didn't want to hurt NASA's image or cause trouble," Mac Donald told the paper. "But I can't let one more day go by without the truth being known."
Grissom's widow, Betty, now 71, told Star she agrees with her son's claim that her husband had been murdered.
http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/2/11/00539 (http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/2/11/00539)
Quote from: "Christopher Marlowe"They are thin bright lines that run straight up from the astronauts to the top of the frame. Freeze it at 1:19.
Quote from: "ahaze"Hilarious, using an obviously altered hack job of the discounted 'myth busters' episode debunking the "hoax Moon landings" theory to assert the "hoax Moon landings" theory. The debunking is so easy they knew they couldn't dodge telling it like it is. They go to great lengths to illustrate, but I read all the explanations of the curiosities ages ago, and never even gave the "myth busters" episodes a viewing until this thread recently forced it. I think its healthy to focus on the "loud uproarious reveler in myths" distinction of their oh so clever double entendre mission and take everything they say as grain of salt truth, but in this case they had no choice but to fully acknowledge what's real due to the extensive public record (something we don't have for 9/11).
I have a hard time understanding what this paragraph means. You say that mythbusters is discounted?
Previously you said you couldn't notice the wires, now it is an "obviously altered hack job"? Was the hack job so obvious that you didn't notice it before?
That is a convenient way to handle video evidence. A video of a hammer faintly spinning in space is proof positive of the apollo lunar landing, but wires that show the astronauts on a harness are obvious hack jobs. Neat. I will take this as an admission that you can see wires leading up from the astronauts to the top of the frame.
You see: The wires are attached to a rig that supported the weight of the astronauts, making them appear weightless.
Here is a video that talks about the harness system used to make people think that men were walking on the moon:
[youtube:2pmroan5]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkzTLmX3FHs[/youtube]2pmroan5]
In the video, JW refers to documents that can be found on NASA's on website. One dated 1/1/63 can be found here:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?Ntx=mod ... %20walking (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?Ntx=mode%20matchallany&Ntk=All&Ns=Publication-Date%7C0&N=0&Ntt=physical%20exercise%20simulation%20terrain%20walking)
It is listed at number 9 on that page.
On pages 8 and 9 of that document, the author discusses the vertical leap of the men on earth vs moon men. On page 9 it says:
QuoteFor the tests of jumping under the earth gravity condition, average maximum heights of 20 to 22 inches were obtained....
Average maximum heights of 8 to 9 feet were obtained for the lunar gravity condition simulated with the existing equipment. Application of height corrections to account for the gravity gradient produced by the test equipment showed that heights of 12 to 14 feet could be achieved under a condition of constant lunar gravity. A few jumps were made by one of subjects with the loaded back-pack, and although no measurements were taken the subject's capability was not noticeably impaired by this additional load.
14 feet? If the astronauts could jump 14 feet, how come we only see little bunny hops in the fake video?
Because it's fake video.
I just thought I should point out how I cited my sources, and how I dealt with specific facts. See that?
Quote from: "Christopher Marlowe"2) Moon dust
From Wagging the Moon Doggie:
QuoteAs previously discussed, NASA nowadays acknowledges that dealing with lunar dust will require the development of sophisticated new technology. No explanation has been provided, of course, for why the Apollo astronauts didn't have any problems with the dust despite allegedly venturing out on multiple EVAs during their alleged missions.
During the alleged Apollo 17 mission, for example, our fearless astronauts supposedly took the Moon buggy out on three separate occasions, returning each time, by their own accounts, covered from head to toe in Moon dust, which they necessarily would have brought back into the lunar module with them, and then ultimately transferred to the command module when the supposed docking later took place. Why then is there no mention in the Apollo literature of any health problems arising from this, or of any problems with any of the delicate instrumentation, or of any problems with any of the door seals? If it is "difficult to filter out of habitats" even with the technology we possess today, then how were we able to do it 40+ years ago?
The 'debunker' crowd, despite loudly proclaiming that they have thoroughly debunked every 'conspiracy' claim that has ever been made, has had nothing to say on this issue. I wonder why that is?
QuoteUm, er, that would be because the conjecture is so brain dead Mr. McGowan sir. Have you ever heard of a "decompression chamber" used in undersea exploration? Well similarly in space exploration, vessels are segregated into pressurized chambers allowing personnel in command modules to remain safe and sound while other personnel retreat into separate airlock modules to carry out Moon and space walks. The Lunar Excursion Module is just such a completely separate pressurized chamber - a kind of "mud room" :) if you will - where the astronauts who walked and rode around on the moon were able to dust themselves off before returning to the primary command module.
Um, so is there a decompression chamber to keep the um, dust from getting all over the um, LEM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LM_illustration_02.jpg
QuoteLeft unexplored by the makers of Moon Machines was the obvious question of how those clean-room conditions could have been maintained once the lander set down on the Moon. The astronauts couldn't shed their protective suits until they were back in the safety of the pressurized capsule, so how exactly did they keep from tracking copious amounts of that lunar dust back into the allegedly sterile LEM cabin? As is revealed in the Lunar Rover episode of the Moon Machines series, "The astronauts quickly learned that the dust adhered to everything it touched."
Everything, that is, except the outside of the lunar module, which, as we have already seen, remained as clean as if it were sitting on the showroom floor. And the dust apparently also didn't adhere to the astronauts' boots or spacesuits, even if Apollo astronaut Charlie Duke did say, while describing what it was like to ride in the lunar rover, that "Moon dust was pouring down on us like rain, and so after a half of a Moon walk, our white suits turned gray." None of that dust, of course, was introduced into the sterile interior of the cabin.
We know that with absolute certainty because we have already been told that in order for the lunar module to operate safely and correctly, the cabin had to be kept dust-free. One of the best-kept secrets of the Apollo program, it turns out, is that there was actually a third passenger along for the rides to the Moon and back: Neil Armstrong's mother. Her primary responsibility was to make sure the boys properly wiped their feet before entering the capsule.
Astute readers, by the way, may have noticed that Duke's comments about driving the rover directly contradict another of the fables sold by the 'debunkers.' According to Phil Plait, if you watch the video footage allegedly shot on the Moon, "you will see dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. Again, the Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum."
As would be expected, we find Jay Windley making essentially the same claim: "dust will fall immediately to the lunar surface. The behavior of the dust in the video and film taken on the lunar surface is one of the most compelling reasons we have for believing it was shot in a vacuum. The dust is clearly dry, but it falls immediately to the surface and does not form clouds."
Who then are we to believe? The guy who actually operated the rover, allegedly on the surface of the Moon, and said that the dust was raining down on he and his partner from all directions, or a couple of self-proclaimed 'experts' who directly contradict NASA's man-on-the-scene?
There is a reason, I might add here, why NASA defers to these two clowns while not officially endorsing their 'debunking' arguments. It's called plausible deniability. NASA knows that 'debunking' the fact that the Moon landings were hoaxed requires a lot of twisting of facts and the promotion of a lot of dubious science, and they choose not to be directly involved in such endeavors. That is also, no doubt, why the agency withdrew its sponsorship of a 'debunking' book that is said to be in the works.
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo7.html (http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo7.html)
As far as I can tell, the topic dilution statements of both CM and TF spell out all they have to offer; denial and distraction.
Three bodies of research now stand confounding what appear to me as dogmatic denials:
1) Extensive public record demonstrating the Moon landings happened and beyond.
2) Facts thoroughly debunking "hoax Moon landings" theories.
3) Framing of "hoax Moon landings" theories complimenting J-tribe prejudices.
I find their repeated insistence on acknowledging only the isolated scope of this thread, and repeated posting of isolated instances on incidental curiosities to show the mechanisms they're capable of exercising and leave it to the better judgment of others wiser than me how best to make sense of what they have to offer. :D:D
Here's a little summary of the main points put forth in "Wagging the Moon Doggie".
(Note: I think he's completely off when he uses "Nazi" stuff to refute the Moon Landings.)
QuoteSummary/Key Points in McGowan's Moon Landing Hoax Pieces
This is not as fun to read as the real thing, but hopefully useful if you want to get an overview or look at a specific section.
Part 1-- :
1) we did it 40 years ago with relatively crude technology, but haven't done it since; neither has any other country; arguments that there is no reason to go back or that it is too expensive don't really hold up
2) we send astronauts up in the space shuttle regularly but still no one has gone further than low earth orbit
3) NASA has "lost" all of the original moon landing recordings – a huge amount of material
4) near-perfect moon-to-earth transmissions very unlikely given technology of '60s
5) NASA transmissions weren't really "live" but taped off a NASA monitor
6) In moon footage, astronauts really just look they are moving awkwardly on earth at half normal speed
7) Astronauts never do anything particularly impressive in terms of jumps, as they should have been capable of
8) Wouldn't astronauts move QUICKER on the moon, in lower gravity and no air resistance?
9) Also missing from the Moon missions was recordings with voice data, biomedical monitoring data, and telemetry data to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship. All of that data, the entire alleged record of the Moon landings, was on the 13,000+ reels that are said to be 'missing.' Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.
Part 2--
1) moon rocks could have been easily obtained from Antartica; von Braun went on mysterious mission to expedition to Antartica during developmental stage of Apollo missions
2) at least one official moon rock was a fraud
3) many other official moon rocks have disappeared
4) 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?
5) LROC photos supposedly showing Apollo lander are not convincing and are essentially worthless
6) why it is then that just about everyone seems to want to send unmanned probes there, or to train enormously powerful telescopes on the Moon's surface? What could they possibly learn about the "parking lot" from those distances that our astronauts didn't already discover by actually being there?
7) "Laser targets" on moon could easily have been placed there by unmanned probes, or lasers just bounced off moon rock
8) the lunar modules look cheesy and poorly constructed
9) the lunar modules are small and do not seem to have enough space for everything they would need
10) very hard to believe the moon buggy actually fit in there a for the later mission
11) the lunar module on display in the museum has miniature astronauts
12) the landing of the lunar module was never tested in proper conditions except officially on the actual mission—and landing would be extremely tricky with the setup they had
13) On Earth, it took many long years of trial and error, many failed test flights, many unfortunate accidents, and many, many trips back to the drawing board before we could safely and reliably launch men into low-Earth orbit. But on the Moon we did it perfectly the first time.
14) Today, we can't even launch a space shuttle from right here on planet Earth without occasionally blowing one up, even though sending spacecraft into low-Earth orbit is considerably easier than sending spacecraft all the way to the Moon and back. It would appear then that we can draw the following conclusion: although technology has advanced immeasurably since the first Apollo Moon landing and we have significantly downgraded our goals in space, we can't come close to matching the amazing safety record we had in the Apollo days.
15) Apollo spacecraft, which officially performed flawlessly, with the exception of Apollo 13, were produced at a surprisingly fast rate in the 60's
Part 3--
1) 1969 was a strange time in the US; lots of turmoil and upheaval in popular culture
2) lots of people actually doubted the moon landings at the time
3) Nixon had an obvious reason for the show—distraction from the awful Vietnam war, and it needed to work successfully
4) various terrible news events (mostly relating to the war) and the Apollo trips dovetailed
5) Radiation exposure in space a major problem--- NASA says it is a big problem now. The Apollo ships simply didn't have proper radiation protection.
6) Astronauts haven't gotten cancer from all the radiation they should have been exposed to
Part 4—
1) the photos were taken from a very odd and cumbersome system—chest mounted cameras-- that didn't allow exposure setting, focusing or framing; hard to believe the amazing and perfect shots taken could have been taken with this system
2) The odds then of getting exposure, focus and framing correct under these conditions on any given shot would have been exceedingly low. And yet, amazingly enough, on the overwhelming majority of the photos, they got all three right.
3) Debunker explanations of how the photography was done are flawed—in terms of depth of field, and use of a 500mm lens.
4) Film would have been ruined by the radiation on the moon
5) Stars should have come out in at least some of the photos, and why didn't one astronaut bother to TRY to take pics of the stars?
6) Shadows may show different light sources: http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5925HR.jpg (http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5925HR.jpg)
7) Too much light on the astronaut here: http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5869HR.jpg (http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5869HR.jpg) and http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg; (http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg;) this photo shows how the shadows should have looked: http://davesweb.cnchost.com/NASA_Apollo ... ehicle.jpg (http://davesweb.cnchost.com/NASA_Apollo_17_Lunar_Roving_Vehicle.jpg)
8) "If the camera is stopped down to avoid overexposing extremely bright highlights, it cannot simultaneously capture full detail in the shadows. And if the aperture and shutter speeds are set to capture detail in the shadows, the camera would necessarily also capture the brilliant stars, which would be far brighter than anything lying in the lunar shadows. Other planets would be pretty hard to miss in the lunar sky as well, though none can be seen in any of NASA's photos."
9) Obvious photo compositing here: http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg (http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg)
Part 5--
1) http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5864HR.jpg (http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5864HR.jpg) -- the soil under the LEM is completely undisturbed. "Not only is there no crater, there is no sign of scorching and none of the small 'Moon rocks' and not a speck of 'lunar soil' has been displaced! And if you refer back to the earlier close-up of the module's landing pod, you will see that not so much as a single grain of 'lunar soil' settled onto the lunar modules while they were setting down. http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5925HR.jpg (http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5925HR.jpg)
2) Not at all clear how the spacesuits protected the astronauts from temperatures ranging from -260F to +280F.
3) None of the pictures of the spacesuits shows them strongly pressurized, which would have been required.
4) Micrometeorites a real problem on the moon, and could have easily killed an astronaut.
5) President George W. Bush announced on January 14, 2004 that America was going to be returning to the Moon, and we were told by NASA types and various television talking heads that such a goal would require about fifteen years to achieve. No one in the media thought to ask why it would take fifteen years to do with twenty-first century technology what it took only eight years to accomplish with 1960s technology. Not one voice was raised to ask how with the twin advantages of improved technology and prior experience it would still take twice as long this time around.
6) NASA footage of the blastoff from the lunar surface is fraudulent, due to the ability of the moon-based camera to pan and tilt up to track the rising ship (there should have been a delay even if there was a remote control for this)
7) "Astronaut Steve Lindsey, after being chosen to command the final planned mission of the space shuttle, had this to say: "Everybody at NASA feels the same way. We're in favor of taking the next step and getting out of low-Earth orbit." So while technology in every other realm of human existence continues to take giant strides forward, everyone at NASA appears to want to take a big step backwards. To 1969."
Part 6--
1) LCROSS bombing of the moon apparently a disappointment
2) The mission to find water kind of pointless given no current plans to go to moon
Part 7--
1) when JFK said the US would go to the moon by the end of the decade, US had extremely minimal experience with spaceflight
2) Soviets beat the US in a huge number of space milestones
3) "of course, it makes perfect sense that America's first true spacecraft, coming as it did during the infancy of the Space Age, would also stand to this day as the most complicated and sophisticated spacecraft "ever conceived." After all, didn't Henry Ford build the most complicated and sophisticated automobile ever conceived? And didn't Orville and Wilbur build the most complicated and sophisticated aircraft ever conceived? And didn't Alexander Graham Bell invent the IPhone?"
4) conceptually, the LEM was supposed to be extremely clean, any dust or debris could be a hazard. Not clear how they planned to keep the LEM clean once it was on the moon and astronauts were walking in and out.
Part 8--
1) for "future" trips to the moon, NASA has taken extra precautions for moon dust contamination in the LEM and for guarding against radiation. Why wasn't this a concern or a major problem in 1969?
2) The LEM used the first throttle-controlled rocket engine ever to land on the moon, and of course, no one was able to land it properly on the earth, in tests
3) The LEM ascent engine was never tested in its final form
4) Mission Control at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas was a movie set of sorts: on television it looked pretty damned impressive, for the era at least-- an enormous room filled with computer consoles, each staffed by a key member of the Apollo team diligently monitoring his computer screen for any signs of trouble. In reality, as Apollo 11 computer engineer Jack Garman clues us in, "the computer screens that we looked at in Mission Control weren't computer screens at all. They were televisions. All the letters, or characters, [they] were all hand drawn. I don't necessarily mean with a brush, but I mean they were painted on a slide."
5) "The skin on the crew cabin [of the lunar module] was very thin, and that was all done because of weight savings." ... "If you really took your finger and poked hard at it, you could poke right through the outer skin of the spacecraft. It was about the thickness of two layers of aluminum foil." Project Manager Thomas Kelly concurred, noting that "the skin, the aluminum alloy skin of the crew compartment was about 12/1000s of an inch thick. That's equivalent to about three layers of Reynold's Wrap that you would use in the kitchen."" Not clear how this thing was pressurized then.
6) Official story has fragile lunar modules exposed "to the hazards of a lengthy space flight" also involves a docking maneuver in outer space, of unclear procedure at thousands of miles per hour, something that never could have been practiced ahead of time.
Part 9--
1) "Mythbusters" debunking of the hoax is bogus
2) Apollo astronauts never perform any seriously high jumps, even though this can be done easily in free-fall machines
3) Not clear how NASA designed Apollo space suits as early designs were not good and easily overheated in Florida sun
4) "Gemini astronaut Ed White allegedly became the first American to perform a space-walk, despite the fact that NASA did not yet appear to have a suit that would allow for such a maneuver. Nevertheless, on June 3, 1965, White allegedly performed a successful 22-minute EVA (extra-vehicular activity, in NASA jargon) which was yet another "We can do it too!" response to the Soviet Union's first space-walk." His walk was likely a fake.
5) After White, 3 astronauts in a row failed to do a spacewalk
6) "The Apollo spacesuits supposedly weighed in at 180 pounds each, including the PLSS backpacks. You would think that with the advanced technology now available, NASA would have been able to streamline the package. To the contrary, the suits now worn aboard the space shuttle weigh in at 310 pounds each. And ILC claims that it takes three months and 5,000 man-hours to produce each one. Back in the '60s, they claimed to be cranking out a minimum of nine of them for each Apollo flight."
7) There are flaws in the official Apollo 13 story, involving the temperature, water condensation and food supplies
Part 10--
1) "Apollo 8 was only the third launch of a Saturn V rocket, and the first to carry a crew. The first two Saturn V launches, Apollo 4 and Apollo 6, were what NASA referred to as "all-up" tests of the three-stage launch vehicle. Those tests didn't go so well."... "Without taking any of the preliminary steps, and with a launch vehicle that had failed on its last outing, and without knowing if the ship itself could make the journey there and back, America was going to send men all the way to the Moon!"
2) Before Apollo, NASA didn't have such a good record for spaceflight
3) The unmanned Lunar Orbiter program officially sent back relatively few pictures from the moon, may have set up shots for the faked Apollo program
4) "One final note on the Lunar Orbiters: during their flights to and around the Moon, the five satellites recorded twenty-two "micrometeoroid events." The eight lunar modules that made the trip to the Moon apparently recorded no such events. Or maybe the guys just put some duct tape over the holes."
5) Previous tests with docking a spacecraft to another spacecraft were not very successful.
6) Probe-and-drogue mechanism used to dock CM and LEM. Not clear how, with the probe-and-drogue assembly having been removed, the LEM was able to dock with the command module the second time, upon its return from the lunar surface.
Part 11--
1) "The very first Moonwalk by Neil and Buzz was broadcast ('live' of course) at 9:00 PM Eastern time, as though it were a Monday Night Football game. Prime time Moonwalks became a staple of the Apollo program, to such an extent that it was not at all uncommon for the networks to be deluged with complaints when a popular weekly sitcom was preempted for yet another fake 'live' Moonwalk. After the second fake Moon landing, NASA began adding exciting new elements to the Apollo missions to combat public apathy. Apollo 13, of course, added the element of danger. Apollo 14 brought us the Moon in Technicolor, with the first color video broadcasts. Apollo 15 kept us entertained with the addition of a Moon buggy. And Apollo 17 featured the first, and only, spectacular night launch of a Saturn V rocket."
2) "Despite all the acclaim he has received for his exploits as an astronaut, Neil Armstrong clearly has been unjustly denied recognition of his astounding abilities as a photographer. Some may argue that he clearly was not playing in the same league as, say, an Ansel Adams, but I beg to differ. Adams created some awe-inspiring work, to be sure, but could he have done so while wearing a spacesuit, gloves and helmet, and with his camera mounted to his chest, and while acclimating himself to an environment that featured no air, greatly reduced gravity, and extreme heat and cold?"
3) The fold-up Rover buggy "seems to be missing such things as a floor pan, and seats, and cameras, and antennae, and battery packs, and various other components – which raises a few questions, such as where were all the other rover parts stowed? How many empty equipment bays were available to accommodate all the various rover components? And how long exactly did it take the astronauts, given the limitations imposed by their suits and gloves, to deploy and fully assemble a Moon buggy?"
Part 12--
1) The now-canceled Constellation Program to go "back to" the moon was begun in 2005, and at the end, aimed for men on the moon by 2028. The Apollo program allegedly landed men on the Moon in a mere eight years. It shouldn't take almost three times as long to get back to the Moon with today's technology as it did in the 60's!
2) "In May of 1966, after spending five years working on the Apollo project, we were just a-year-and-a-half away from the launch of the first Saturn V. In 2010, after spending five years working on the Constellation project, NASA has nothing to present to us but a hefty bill"
3) "If NASA returns to the moon in 2020 as planned, astronauts will step out in a brand-new space suit. It will give them new mobility and flexibility on the lunar surface while still protecting them from its harsh environment ... The space agency has awarded a $500 million, 6.5-year contract for the design and development of the Constellation space suit." Astronauts performing EVAs these days currently use something known as the Extravehicular Mobility Unit: "It has a hard upper torso, layers of material to protect astronauts from micrometeoroids and radiation, a temperature-regulation system, and its own life support and communication system. The EMU weighs over 300 pounds and has limited leg mobility – astronauts feet are normally locked in place on foot restraints while performing extravehicular tasks, and during Apollo missions, which used a different EMU suit, astronauts were forced to develop a bunny hop to traverse the lunar surface." It is absurd that is takes about four times as long to develop a spacesuit now than it did back in the 1960s.
4) Wernher von Braunn, one of NASA's chief rocket scientists, was a real Nazi
5) Nazi connection to MIT where idea of Apollo missions was developed
6) Computer programming for Apollo was critical for the mission but poorly specified according to one of the computer engineers. "Despite the overwhelming obstacles faced by the MIT team, and the seemingly lackadaisical approach taken with the project, the Apollo guidance system, as would be expected, performed nearly flawlessly on every outing."
The other thing that I don't believe has been discussed here, CM, is the fact that NASA is a completely Masonic operation, top down, bottom up.
(http://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy67/droopinghalo/1979MasonicMoonMedallions.jpg)
[youtube:2przkcyu]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMAvpDdcq88[/youtube]2przkcyu]
All the more reason they can't be trusted; all the more reason their moon landing stage theatrics can't be trusted.
What is the tie that binds in keeping a lid on this gross conspiracy? A blood oath sworn by every single one of the Astronauts--all of whom happen to be Freemasons.
The Jewish-Masonic Apollo 11 crew
(http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w87/alohahedone/Official_Apollo_11_crew_photo_with_.jpg)
The whole thing is a Jew operation.
(http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/maximumrule/Mason/a9f2ef50.png)
And for those who are offended at the revealing of these Masonic traitors, know this: they are not heroes, they didn't go to the moon, they sold out the United States of America by swearing allegiance to the Jewish Masonic Lodge of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.
Ahaze, CM is right, you are not addressing the specifics he brings up and, instead, you're airing a "laundry list" of generalizations.
Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits
2009 07 16
By Maggie Fox | Reuters.com
The original recordings of the first humans landing on the moon 40 years ago were erased and re-used, but newly restored copies of the original broadcast look even better, NASA officials said on Thursday.
NASA released the first glimpses of a complete digital make-over of the original landing footage that clarifies the blurry and grainy images of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walking on the surface of the moon.
The full set of recordings, being cleaned up by Burbank, California-based Lowry Digital, will be released in September. The preview is available at www.nasa.gov (http://www.nasa.gov).
NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing.
Since then, Richard Nafzger, an engineer at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, who oversaw television processing at the ground-tracking sites during the Apollo 11 mission, has been looking for them.
The good news is he found where they went. The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed -- magnetically erased -- and re-used to save money.
"The goal was live TV," Nafzger told a news conference.
"We should have had a historian running around saying 'I don't care if you are ever going to use them -- we are going to keep them'," he said.
They found good copies in the archives of CBS news and some recordings called kinescopes found in film vaults at Johnson Space Center.
Lowry, best known for restoring old Hollywood films, has been digitizing these along with some other bits and pieces to make a new rendering of the original landing.
Nafzger does not worry that using a Hollywood-based company might fuel the fire of conspiracy theorists who believe the entire lunar program that landed people on the moon six times between 1969 and 1972 was staged on a movie set or secret military base.
"This company is restoring historic video. It mattered not to me where the company was from," Nafzger said.
"The conspiracy theorists are going to believe what they are going to believe," added Lowry Digital Chief Operating Officer Mike Inchalik.
And there may be some unofficial copies of the original broadcast out there somewhere that were taken from a NASA video switching center in Sydney, Australia, the space agency said. Nafzger said someone else in Sydney made recordings too.
"These tapes are not in the system," Nafzger said. "We are certainly open to finding them."
Article from: Reuters.com
"My husband directed the fake moon landing" says Stanley Kubrick's widow
http://www.firetown.com/blog/2011/03/21/my-husband-directed-the-fake-moon-landing-says-stanley-kubricks-widow/
Quote from: "Timothy_Fitzpatrick"Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits
2009 07 16
By Maggie Fox | Reuters.com
The original recordings of the first humans landing on the moon 40 years ago were erased and re-used, but newly restored copies of the original broadcast look even better, NASA officials said on Thursday.
NASA released the first glimpses of a complete digital make-over of the original landing footage that clarifies the blurry and grainy images of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walking on the surface of the moon.
The full set of recordings, being cleaned up by Burbank, California-based Lowry Digital, will be released in September. The preview is available at http://www.nasa.gov (http://www.nasa.gov).
NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing.
Since then, Richard Nafzger, an engineer at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, who oversaw television processing at the ground-tracking sites during the Apollo 11 mission, has been looking for them.
The good news is he found where they went. The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed -- magnetically erased -- and re-used to save money.
"The goal was live TV," Nafzger told a news conference.
"We should have had a historian running around saying 'I don't care if you are ever going to use them -- we are going to keep them'," he said.
They found good copies in the archives of CBS news and some recordings called kinescopes found in film vaults at Johnson Space Center.
Lowry, best known for restoring old Hollywood films, has been digitizing these along with some other bits and pieces to make a new rendering of the original landing.
Nafzger does not worry that using a Hollywood-based company might fuel the fire of conspiracy theorists who believe the entire lunar program that landed people on the moon six times between 1969 and 1972 was staged on a movie set or secret military base.
"This company is restoring historic video. It mattered not to me where the company was from," Nafzger said.
"The conspiracy theorists are going to believe what they are going to believe," added Lowry Digital Chief Operating Officer Mike Inchalik.
And there may be some unofficial copies of the original broadcast out there somewhere that were taken from a NASA video switching center in Sydney, Australia, the space agency said. Nafzger said someone else in Sydney made recordings too.
"These tapes are not in the system," Nafzger said. "We are certainly open to finding them."
Article from: Reuters.com
I personally know a fellow whom received "MANY"
pallets of magnetic tapes on ALUMINUM reels from NASA. He could "keep the aluminum" but he had to dispose of the tape. I personally saw mounds of aluminum discs and hubs at his place ready for recycling. This occurred intermittently over the past two decades. I
Do Not know what was on these tapes but I do know he performed this 'service' regularly. He is a very good man so I will not reveal more.
QuoteThe good news is he found where they went. The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed -- magnetically erased -- and re-used to save money.
QuoteI personally know a fellow whom received "MANY" pallets of magnetic tapes on ALUMINUM reels from NASA. He could "keep the aluminum" but he had to dispose of the tape. I personally saw mounds of aluminum discs and hubs at his place ready for recycling. This occurred intermittently over the past two decades. I Do Not know what was on these tapes but I do know he performed this 'service' regularly. He is a very good man so I will not reveal more.
NASA sold them for scrap? Well at least the aluminum was recycled.
The story makes perfect sense: NASA erased the original recordings of Mankind's first landing on the Moon in order to save money.
First of all, I can't believe that someone used the words "save money" in a sentence relating to NASA. "We had a bake sale, and we were able to raise enough money to buy John Glen a helmet."
QuoteNASA sold them for scrap? Well at least the aluminum was recycled.
Not sold, they gave him the reels.
@Tim_Fitz
Re the freemasonery angle.
Why would you take a hammer to the Moon...if you really went there ? Heavy and useless (unless part of your tool kit to fix the Moon Buggy if it broke down!) ....Unless to perform some weird kind of Freemasonery rite with a falcon feather.
Until now, I believed in the Moon landings.
If they had used wires, I can't understand why they didn't do a proper job and make the "astronauts" jump 14 ft.
Not to have dust on the feet of the Lunar Module... very careless !
The trouble is that when you make up a lie, it is virtually impossible not to overlook something or other.
Quote from: "Christopher Marlowe"Here's a little summary of the main points put forth in "Wagging the Moon Doggie".
(Note: I think he's completely off when he uses "Nazi" stuff to refute the Moon Landings.)
QuoteSummary/Key Points in McGowan's Moon Landing Hoax Pieces
This is not as fun to read as the real thing, but hopefully useful if you want to get an overview or look at a specific section.
Part 1-- :
1) we did it 40 years ago with relatively crude technology, but haven't done it since; neither has any other country; arguments that there is no reason to go back or that it is too expensive don't really hold up
2) we send astronauts up in the space shuttle regularly but still no one has gone further than low earth orbit
3) NASA has "lost" all of the original moon landing recordings – a huge amount of material
4) near-perfect moon-to-earth transmissions very unlikely given technology of '60s
5) NASA transmissions weren't really "live" but taped off a NASA monitor
6) In moon footage, astronauts really just look they are moving awkwardly on earth at half normal speed
7) Astronauts never do anything particularly impressive in terms of jumps, as they should have been capable of
8) Wouldn't astronauts move QUICKER on the moon, in lower gravity and no air resistance?
9) Also missing from the Moon missions was recordings with voice data, biomedical monitoring data, and telemetry data to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship. All of that data, the entire alleged record of the Moon landings, was on the 13,000+ reels that are said to be 'missing.' Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.
Part 2--
1) moon rocks could have been easily obtained from Antartica; von Braun went on mysterious mission to expedition to Antartica during developmental stage of Apollo missions
2) at least one official moon rock was a fraud
3) many other official moon rocks have disappeared
4) 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?
5) LROC photos supposedly showing Apollo lander are not convincing and are essentially worthless
6) why it is then that just about everyone seems to want to send unmanned probes there, or to train enormously powerful telescopes on the Moon's surface? What could they possibly learn about the "parking lot" from those distances that our astronauts didn't already discover by actually being there?
7) "Laser targets" on moon could easily have been placed there by unmanned probes, or lasers just bounced off moon rock
8) the lunar modules look cheesy and poorly constructed
9) the lunar modules are small and do not seem to have enough space for everything they would need
10) very hard to believe the moon buggy actually fit in there a for the later mission
11) the lunar module on display in the museum has miniature astronauts
12) the landing of the lunar module was never tested in proper conditions except officially on the actual mission—and landing would be extremely tricky with the setup they had
13) On Earth, it took many long years of trial and error, many failed test flights, many unfortunate accidents, and many, many trips back to the drawing board before we could safely and reliably launch men into low-Earth orbit. But on the Moon we did it perfectly the first time.
14) Today, we can't even launch a space shuttle from right here on planet Earth without occasionally blowing one up, even though sending spacecraft into low-Earth orbit is considerably easier than sending spacecraft all the way to the Moon and back. It would appear then that we can draw the following conclusion: although technology has advanced immeasurably since the first Apollo Moon landing and we have significantly downgraded our goals in space, we can't come close to matching the amazing safety record we had in the Apollo days.
15) Apollo spacecraft, which officially performed flawlessly, with the exception of Apollo 13, were produced at a surprisingly fast rate in the 60's
Part 3--
1) 1969 was a strange time in the US; lots of turmoil and upheaval in popular culture
2) lots of people actually doubted the moon landings at the time
3) Nixon had an obvious reason for the show—distraction from the awful Vietnam war, and it needed to work successfully
4) various terrible news events (mostly relating to the war) and the Apollo trips dovetailed
5) Radiation exposure in space a major problem--- NASA says it is a big problem now. The Apollo ships simply didn't have proper radiation protection.
6) Astronauts haven't gotten cancer from all the radiation they should have been exposed to
Part 4—
1) the photos were taken from a very odd and cumbersome system—chest mounted cameras-- that didn't allow exposure setting, focusing or framing; hard to believe the amazing and perfect shots taken could have been taken with this system
2) The odds then of getting exposure, focus and framing correct under these conditions on any given shot would have been exceedingly low. And yet, amazingly enough, on the overwhelming majority of the photos, they got all three right.
3) Debunker explanations of how the photography was done are flawed—in terms of depth of field, and use of a 500mm lens.
4) Film would have been ruined by the radiation on the moon
5) Stars should have come out in at least some of the photos, and why didn't one astronaut bother to TRY to take pics of the stars?
6) Shadows may show different light sources: http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5925HR.jpg (http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5925HR.jpg)
7) Too much light on the astronaut here: http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5869HR.jpg (http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5869HR.jpg) and http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg; (http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg;) this photo shows how the shadows should have looked: http://davesweb.cnchost.com/NASA_Apollo ... ehicle.jpg (http://davesweb.cnchost.com/NASA_Apollo_17_Lunar_Roving_Vehicle.jpg)
8) "If the camera is stopped down to avoid overexposing extremely bright highlights, it cannot simultaneously capture full detail in the shadows. And if the aperture and shutter speeds are set to capture detail in the shadows, the camera would necessarily also capture the brilliant stars, which would be far brighter than anything lying in the lunar shadows. Other planets would be pretty hard to miss in the lunar sky as well, though none can be seen in any of NASA's photos."
9) Obvious photo compositing here: http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg (http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg)
Part 5--
1) http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5864HR.jpg (http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5864HR.jpg) -- the soil under the LEM is completely undisturbed. "Not only is there no crater, there is no sign of scorching and none of the small 'Moon rocks' and not a speck of 'lunar soil' has been displaced! And if you refer back to the earlier close-up of the module's landing pod, you will see that not so much as a single grain of 'lunar soil' settled onto the lunar modules while they were setting down. http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5925HR.jpg (http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5925HR.jpg)
2) Not at all clear how the spacesuits protected the astronauts from temperatures ranging from -260F to +280F.
3) None of the pictures of the spacesuits shows them strongly pressurized, which would have been required.
4) Micrometeorites a real problem on the moon, and could have easily killed an astronaut.
5) President George W. Bush announced on January 14, 2004 that America was going to be returning to the Moon, and we were told by NASA types and various television talking heads that such a goal would require about fifteen years to achieve. No one in the media thought to ask why it would take fifteen years to do with twenty-first century technology what it took only eight years to accomplish with 1960s technology. Not one voice was raised to ask how with the twin advantages of improved technology and prior experience it would still take twice as long this time around.
6) NASA footage of the blastoff from the lunar surface is fraudulent, due to the ability of the moon-based camera to pan and tilt up to track the rising ship (there should have been a delay even if there was a remote control for this)
7) "Astronaut Steve Lindsey, after being chosen to command the final planned mission of the space shuttle, had this to say: "Everybody at NASA feels the same way. We're in favor of taking the next step and getting out of low-Earth orbit." So while technology in every other realm of human existence continues to take giant strides forward, everyone at NASA appears to want to take a big step backwards. To 1969."
Part 6--
1) LCROSS bombing of the moon apparently a disappointment
2) The mission to find water kind of pointless given no current plans to go to moon
Part 7--
1) when JFK said the US would go to the moon by the end of the decade, US had extremely minimal experience with spaceflight
2) Soviets beat the US in a huge number of space milestones
3) "of course, it makes perfect sense that America's first true spacecraft, coming as it did during the infancy of the Space Age, would also stand to this day as the most complicated and sophisticated spacecraft "ever conceived." After all, didn't Henry Ford build the most complicated and sophisticated automobile ever conceived? And didn't Orville and Wilbur build the most complicated and sophisticated aircraft ever conceived? And didn't Alexander Graham Bell invent the IPhone?"
4) conceptually, the LEM was supposed to be extremely clean, any dust or debris could be a hazard. Not clear how they planned to keep the LEM clean once it was on the moon and astronauts were walking in and out.
Part 8--
1) for "future" trips to the moon, NASA has taken extra precautions for moon dust contamination in the LEM and for guarding against radiation. Why wasn't this a concern or a major problem in 1969?
2) The LEM used the first throttle-controlled rocket engine ever to land on the moon, and of course, no one was able to land it properly on the earth, in tests
3) The LEM ascent engine was never tested in its final form
4) Mission Control at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas was a movie set of sorts: on television it looked pretty damned impressive, for the era at least-- an enormous room filled with computer consoles, each staffed by a key member of the Apollo team diligently monitoring his computer screen for any signs of trouble. In reality, as Apollo 11 computer engineer Jack Garman clues us in, "the computer screens that we looked at in Mission Control weren't computer screens at all. They were televisions. All the letters, or characters, [they] were all hand drawn. I don't necessarily mean with a brush, but I mean they were painted on a slide."
5) "The skin on the crew cabin [of the lunar module] was very thin, and that was all done because of weight savings." ... "If you really took your finger and poked hard at it, you could poke right through the outer skin of the spacecraft. It was about the thickness of two layers of aluminum foil." Project Manager Thomas Kelly concurred, noting that "the skin, the aluminum alloy skin of the crew compartment was about 12/1000s of an inch thick. That's equivalent to about three layers of Reynold's Wrap that you would use in the kitchen."" Not clear how this thing was pressurized then.
6) Official story has fragile lunar modules exposed "to the hazards of a lengthy space flight" also involves a docking maneuver in outer space, of unclear procedure at thousands of miles per hour, something that never could have been practiced ahead of time.
Part 9--
1) "Mythbusters" debunking of the hoax is bogus
2) Apollo astronauts never perform any seriously high jumps, even though this can be done easily in free-fall machines
3) Not clear how NASA designed Apollo space suits as early designs were not good and easily overheated in Florida sun
4) "Gemini astronaut Ed White allegedly became the first American to perform a space-walk, despite the fact that NASA did not yet appear to have a suit that would allow for such a maneuver. Nevertheless, on June 3, 1965, White allegedly performed a successful 22-minute EVA (extra-vehicular activity, in NASA jargon) which was yet another "We can do it too!" response to the Soviet Union's first space-walk." His walk was likely a fake.
5) After White, 3 astronauts in a row failed to do a spacewalk
6) "The Apollo spacesuits supposedly weighed in at 180 pounds each, including the PLSS backpacks. You would think that with the advanced technology now available, NASA would have been able to streamline the package. To the contrary, the suits now worn aboard the space shuttle weigh in at 310 pounds each. And ILC claims that it takes three months and 5,000 man-hours to produce each one. Back in the '60s, they claimed to be cranking out a minimum of nine of them for each Apollo flight."
7) There are flaws in the official Apollo 13 story, involving the temperature, water condensation and food supplies
Part 10--
1) "Apollo 8 was only the third launch of a Saturn V rocket, and the first to carry a crew. The first two Saturn V launches, Apollo 4 and Apollo 6, were what NASA referred to as "all-up" tests of the three-stage launch vehicle. Those tests didn't go so well."... "Without taking any of the preliminary steps, and with a launch vehicle that had failed on its last outing, and without knowing if the ship itself could make the journey there and back, America was going to send men all the way to the Moon!"
2) Before Apollo, NASA didn't have such a good record for spaceflight
3) The unmanned Lunar Orbiter program officially sent back relatively few pictures from the moon, may have set up shots for the faked Apollo program
4) "One final note on the Lunar Orbiters: during their flights to and around the Moon, the five satellites recorded twenty-two "micrometeoroid events." The eight lunar modules that made the trip to the Moon apparently recorded no such events. Or maybe the guys just put some duct tape over the holes."
5) Previous tests with docking a spacecraft to another spacecraft were not very successful.
6) Probe-and-drogue mechanism used to dock CM and LEM. Not clear how, with the probe-and-drogue assembly having been removed, the LEM was able to dock with the command module the second time, upon its return from the lunar surface.
Part 11--
1) "The very first Moonwalk by Neil and Buzz was broadcast ('live' of course) at 9:00 PM Eastern time, as though it were a Monday Night Football game. Prime time Moonwalks became a staple of the Apollo program, to such an extent that it was not at all uncommon for the networks to be deluged with complaints when a popular weekly sitcom was preempted for yet another fake 'live' Moonwalk. After the second fake Moon landing, NASA began adding exciting new elements to the Apollo missions to combat public apathy. Apollo 13, of course, added the element of danger. Apollo 14 brought us the Moon in Technicolor, with the first color video broadcasts. Apollo 15 kept us entertained with the addition of a Moon buggy. And Apollo 17 featured the first, and only, spectacular night launch of a Saturn V rocket."
2) "Despite all the acclaim he has received for his exploits as an astronaut, Neil Armstrong clearly has been unjustly denied recognition of his astounding abilities as a photographer. Some may argue that he clearly was not playing in the same league as, say, an Ansel Adams, but I beg to differ. Adams created some awe-inspiring work, to be sure, but could he have done so while wearing a spacesuit, gloves and helmet, and with his camera mounted to his chest, and while acclimating himself to an environment that featured no air, greatly reduced gravity, and extreme heat and cold?"
3) The fold-up Rover buggy "seems to be missing such things as a floor pan, and seats, and cameras, and antennae, and battery packs, and various other components – which raises a few questions, such as where were all the other rover parts stowed? How many empty equipment bays were available to accommodate all the various rover components? And how long exactly did it take the astronauts, given the limitations imposed by their suits and gloves, to deploy and fully assemble a Moon buggy?"
Part 12--
1) The now-canceled Constellation Program to go "back to" the moon was begun in 2005, and at the end, aimed for men on the moon by 2028. The Apollo program allegedly landed men on the Moon in a mere eight years. It shouldn't take almost three times as long to get back to the Moon with today's technology as it did in the 60's!
2) "In May of 1966, after spending five years working on the Apollo project, we were just a-year-and-a-half away from the launch of the first Saturn V. In 2010, after spending five years working on the Constellation project, NASA has nothing to present to us but a hefty bill"
3) "If NASA returns to the moon in 2020 as planned, astronauts will step out in a brand-new space suit. It will give them new mobility and flexibility on the lunar surface while still protecting them from its harsh environment ... The space agency has awarded a $500 million, 6.5-year contract for the design and development of the Constellation space suit." Astronauts performing EVAs these days currently use something known as the Extravehicular Mobility Unit: "It has a hard upper torso, layers of material to protect astronauts from micrometeoroids and radiation, a temperature-regulation system, and its own life support and communication system. The EMU weighs over 300 pounds and has limited leg mobility – astronauts feet are normally locked in place on foot restraints while performing extravehicular tasks, and during Apollo missions, which used a different EMU suit, astronauts were forced to develop a bunny hop to traverse the lunar surface." It is absurd that is takes about four times as long to develop a spacesuit now than it did back in the 1960s.
4) Wernher von Braunn, one of NASA's chief rocket scientists, was a real Nazi
5) Nazi connection to MIT where idea of Apollo missions was developed
6) Computer programming for Apollo was critical for the mission but poorly specified according to one of the computer engineers. "Despite the overwhelming obstacles faced by the MIT team, and the seemingly lackadaisical approach taken with the project, the Apollo guidance system, as would be expected, performed nearly flawlessly on every outing."
http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=93095 (http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=93095)
toseek wrote:
There are more than a few problems with McGowan's claims:
It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three & each rocket ship would be taller than New York s Empire State Building [almost º mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.
Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the MoonThe key word here is "directly". Von Braun is referring to a mission mode known as direct ascent, where one huge rocket takes off from the Earth, lands on the Moon, takes off again, and comes back to Earth. That's very different from the approach that was eventually chosen, which involved a separate spacecraft specifically for landing on the Moon. (McGowan actually talks about this later.)
As it turns out, however, NASA doesn t actually have all of that Moonwalking footage anymore. Truth be told, they don t have any of it.Not true. The tapes missing were the ones recorded for Apollo 11 by the Australian tracking stations. That's all.
Given the complete lack of air resistance, shouldn t things actually fall faster on the Moon?Um, no.
Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.Not true. It's all on microfilm at the Marshall Space Flight Center.
As it turns out, authentic Moon rocks are available right here on Earth, in the form of lunar meteorites.
True, but in far smaller quantities than the 800+ pounds brought back by Apollo. And the only way we know these are lunar meteorites are by comparing them to the Apollo samples - the first one was only identified in 1982.
The problem, alas, is that the only known source for authenticated Moon rocks is NASA, the very same folks who are known to occasionally hand out chunks of petrified wood.
There's no evidence that NASA has anything at all to do with the Dutch "moon rock," or in fact that any American ever claimed that it was in fact a Moon rock.
It appears then that having a control rock wouldn t really be of much help after all, since nearly 90% of the alleged Moon rocks that we would want to test don t seem to be around any more.The missing Moon rocks are those given as gifts to governments around the world. The total weight of them all combined is under 2 pounds. There are still over 840 pounds of Moon rocks available for study.
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.Only the hoaxers have ever claimed that Hubble could image the lunar modules. Anyone who knows the first thing about optics knows it's impossible.
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."NASA can't be held responsible for what journalists claim. SMART-1 was never going to get detailed images of the Apollo landing sites.
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.Who would believe that someone writing about the space program would be so ignorant as not to know that Europeans had a space agency? Who would be so ignorant as to think the only difference between an unmanned spacecraft and a manned one is the number of seats you put on it?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Too many to fit into one post, in fact:
Does anyone truly believe – and I'm including all the True Believers out there – that we had the technology in the late 1960s and early 1970s to hit a target of that size with a laser beam from at least 234,000 miles away? Does anyone believe that we have the technology to do it now?
Yes. It's not a big deal - the beam of the laser expands to several kilometers wide over the distance from the Earth to the Moon.
Next up is the massive amount of fuel that will be required to power all of those rockets, for both the ascent and descent stages of the mission. The ascent stage in particular is going to be a bit of a fuel hog, as ascending 69 miles and breaking free of the Moon's gravity is a formidable challenge, to say the least.It doesn't have to break free of the Moon's gravity - it just has to get into orbit.
I'm not at all sure how the air conditioning system is going to work, come to think of it, since air conditioning requires a steady supply of – and please stop me if I am stating the obvious here – air.Cooling does not require air.
It would help, of course, if our spacecraft was heavily insulated in some manner, but that doesn't appear to be the case
Appearances - to someone as ignorant as the author, at least - can be deceiving. The LM was well insulated.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not really sure why we have to pack the damn rover. There is no real compelling reason to take it to the Moon ... except for the fact that they make for good TV, and that seems to be of paramount importance. And as can be seen below, it should easily fit into our spaceship.
The rover made it possible to do much more science in much less time. And it wasn't put inside the LM, but fastened to the side.
NASA has done something very odd, by the way, with the lunar module that it has on display for museum visitors to marvel at: it has staffed it with miniature astronauts wearing miniature space suits (the module may also be scaled slightly larger than the 'real' modules that allegedly landed on the Moon).
This exhibit is around 10 miles from my house. I have no idea what McGowan is talking about here: the exhibit includes an actual lunar module and full-sized astronauts.
These remarkable spacecraft – and I understandably get a little choked up here talking about this, because I am just so damn proud of our team of Nazi scientists – managed to make six perfect take-offs from the surface of the Moon! And understand here people that they did that, amazingly enough, with completely untested technology!
The lunar module was thoroughly tested, both piecemeal and as a unit, with three test flights (Apollo 5, Apollo 9, and Apollo 10) before the landings.
Today, of course, we can't even launch a space shuttle from right here on planet Earth without occasionally blowing one up, even though we have lowered our sights considerably.
The space shuttle went 25 missions before the first failure (and even that one could be attributed to human error). There were only 11 manned Apollo missions (15 if you count Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz).
Lead, which is considerably denser than concrete, is actually the preferred material to use for radiation shieldingThat depends very much on the type of radiation. It's definitely not preferred for radiation in space.
So one of the reasons that we know the Moon rocks are real, you see, is because they were blasted with ridiculously high levels of radiation while sitting on the surface of the Moon. And our astronauts, one would assume, would have been blasted with the very same ridiculously high levels of radiation, but since this was NASA's attempt at a 'debunking' article, they apparently would prefer that you don't spend too much time analyzing what they have to say.There's a big difference between three days of exposure and billions of years.
Because the lighting conditions on the Moon are pretty unique, as you well know, and nobody had ever been there before, so I'm not really seeing how NASA's photographers were able to work the exposures out "ahead of time."
What's the big deal? They know how bright the Sun is, they know how much the lunar soil reflects.
For those who don't find that at all unusual, here is an experiment that you can try at home: grab the nearest 35MM SLR camera and strap it around your neck. It is probably an automatic camera so you will have to set it for manual focus and manual exposure. Now you will need to put on the thickest pair of winter gloves that you can find, as well as a motorcycle helmet with a visor. Once you have done all that, here is your assignment: walk around your neighborhood with the camera pressed firmly to your chest and snap a bunch of photos. You will need to fiddle with the focus and exposure settings, of course, which is going to be a real ***** since you won't be able to see or feel what you are doing. Also, needless to say, you'll just have to guess on the framing of all the shots.
If you're really going to do this experiment, then you should train with the camera for several months before making this attempt, which is what the astronauts did.
Even if our fine astronauts could have captured all of those images, the film would have never survived the journey in such pristine condition. Even very brief exposure to the relatively low levels of radiation used in airport security terminals can damage photographic film, so how would the film have fared after prolonged, continuous exposure to far higher levels of radiation? And what of the 540° F temperature fluctuations? That must have been some amazingly resilient film stock – and yet another example of the lost technology of the 1960s.
Airport security radiation isn't enough to damage any but the most sensitive film, and the film was never exposed to 540-degree fluctuations - those reflect what the Moon experiences during the course of a lunar day (an Earth month), and they weren't there nearly that long.
Due to the lack of atmosphere on the Moon, light is not scattered and travels only in a straight line from the sun and is reflected back in the same direction.Not true. Why would it go back in the same direction?
All of the scenes below, for example, which are obviously not very well lit, would have required long exposures – exposures that would have definitely captured the brilliantly shining stars, since they would have been the brightest objects in the camera's field of view.
McGowan is showing images of the lunar surface in full, unfiltered sunlight and making the idiotic claim that the stars would be even brighter.
Phil also conveniently forgets that the view from the Moon is not filtered through an atmosphere, so the stars have many times the luminosity as here on Earth.
Not true. Earth's atmosphere absorbs only about a third visible light, so there would be only a moderate difference between the brightness of the stars on Earth and on the Moon.
The shadows in the foreground and in the background are at nearly right angles, a phenomenon that cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be explained away as a perceptual problemThe shadows aren't anywhere near being at right angles to each other, and the difference can be explained by lens distortions.
n truth, Goddard's "nifty demonstrations" are entirely dependent upon the effects of atmosphere causing the light to disperse, and thus they have no validity whatsoever.
Goddard's demonstrations do not depend on atmospheric effects.
but what we're really looking for here is depth of field, which this photo has very little of. The photographer has focused on the United States sign (and he did it blindly!), but little else is sharply focused.
The extremes are very slightly blurry in this very enlarged shot, but the edges are still remarkably clear. If it truly lacked depth of field, the stuff at the extremes would be unintelligible blobs.
which would, I would think, make it difficult for a portion of that lunar terrain to obscure part of the ship's S-band antennae assembly.
The S-band antenna is in fact cut off at that point so it can be retracted. This is obvious in numerous photos if McGowan had only bothered to look.
Specifically, there is no crater visible under any of the modules, despite the fact that NASA's own artist renderings clearly showed the presence of a substantial crater. Also, not a speck of dust appears to have been displaced by the 10,000 lb reverse-thrust engine that powered the alleged descent.
Do I really need to refute this nonsense yet again?
In addition, despite the ridiculously close proximity of the immensely powerful rocket engine, no noise from that engine can be heard on the video.The descent engine had 10,000 pounds of thrust - hardly "immensely powerful" and was on the other side of the descent stage from the astronauts.
As can be seen in the photo above, the area directly under what is supposed to be the nozzle of the descent stage engine is completely undisturbed. Not only is there no crater, there is no sign of scorching and none of the small 'Moon rocks' and not a speck of 'lunar soil' has been displaced!
McGowan cherry-picks a photo where he can at least vaguely support this claim. There are others that show significant displacement and scouring.
First of all, no one with an ounce of common sense is going to cut the engine and let their three-ton spaceship simply drop onto the lunar surface. Nor are they going to cruise on in while progressively easing up on the throttle, effortlessly setting the module down, as Plait claims, like "a car pulls into a parking spot," as if they had been landing lunar modules since the day they were born.Except that's exactly what they did do. And if they hadn't cut the thrust, instead of landing, they would have gone shooting off back into orbit, which is what happens when you fire a 10,000-pound rocket engine at the base of a spacecraft that now weighs only a few thousand pounds because you're in lunar gravity and have used up most of your fuel.
Then there was the ever-reliable lunar module finding, catching and docking with another ship while in lunar orbit, utilizing some more completely untested technology.First off, the technology had been tested, and, second, they knew where the other ship was - there was no need to "find" it, just to get to the same orbit at the same time.
What that means is that, after traipsing around in the sun for a spell, the astronauts would have had to step into the shadows to reenter the spacecraft. And when they did so, those spacesuits were apparently smart enough to react instantly and switch over from turbo-charged air conditioning to blast-furnace heating in the blink of an eye.
That would not have been necessary - the temperature exchange, due to the lack of atmosphere, was very gradual.
And it is perfectly obvious from all the photos that the suits were not, in fact, pressurized, because if they were, the astronauts would have looked like the Michelin Man bouncing around on the surface of the Moon.How does he figure this?
According to NASA, every square inch of every exposed surface of every rock allegedly gathered from the surface of the Moon shows this pattern. By extension then, we know that every square inch of the lunar surface is peppered with meteoroid craters. There really is no safe place to hang out. There you are minding your own business lining up your golf shot, and the next thing you know a meteoroid is ripping through your spacesuit at 50,000 mph. That has to sting a little bit.
Again, this is over billions of years, as contrasted with a few hours for the astronauts.
Anyway, doesn't it seem just a little strange that experts would now suggest that if we get to work right away, we might be able to land men on the Moon by the year 2020? Isn't that like saying that with a lot of hard work and a little luck, we might be able to develop a video game as technologically advanced as Pong by the year 2025? Or that by 2030, the scientific community might produce a battery-operated calculator small enough to fit into your pocket?
It would if it cost $125 billion to develop a computer game, and if the relevant technology hadn't improved more than marginally over the last 40 years.
And there apparently either wasn't any delay in the signal or NASA had the foresight to hire a remote camera operator who was able to see a few seconds into the future.
He didn't have to see into the future - he knew when the liftoff was going to happen.
Quote from: "Timothy_Fitzpatrick"The other thing that I don't believe has been discussed here, CM, is the fact that NASA is a completely Masonic operation, top down, bottom up.
(http://i778.photobucket.com/albums/yy67/droopinghalo/1979MasonicMoonMedallions.jpg)
[youtube:36rksok1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMAvpDdcq88[/youtube]36rksok1]
All the more reason they can't be trusted; all the more reason their moon landing stage theatrics can't be trusted.
What is the tie that binds in keeping a lid on this gross conspiracy? A blood oath sworn by every single one of the Astronauts--all of whom happen to be Freemasons.
The Jewish-Masonic Apollo 11 crew
(http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w87/alohahedone/Official_Apollo_11_crew_photo_with_.jpg)
The whole thing is a Jew operation.
(http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/maximumrule/Mason/a9f2ef50.png)
And for those who are offended at the revealing of these Masonic traitors, know this: they are not heroes, they didn't go to the moon, they sold out the United States of America by swearing allegiance to the Jewish Masonic Lodge of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.
Ya, everyone knows that some of the Astronauts were masons. That's not even a secret. They did weird little rituals up there. There are photos. Armstrong and Aldrin also did some kind of weird ceremony involving drinking wine when they landed.
That means jack shit. Just because they were masons doesn't mean that the all 6 of the moon missions were faked. Christopher Columbus was all Jewed up also... It doesn't mean that his voyage was faked. They(Aldrin & Armstrong) were/are masons because they were hot shot astronauts and were influential. They are Masons just like most people that rise to position of power in the west. Nothing new there.
Quote from: "mchawe"@Tim_Fitz
Re the freemasonery angle.
Why would you take a hammer to the Moon...if you really went there ? Heavy and useless (unless part of your tool kit to fix the Moon Buggy if it broke down!) ....Unless to perform some weird kind of Freemasonery rite with a falcon feather.
Until now, I believed in the Moon landings.
If they had used wires, I can't understand why they didn't do a proper job and make the "astronauts" jump 14 ft.
Not to have dust on the feet of the Lunar Module... very careless !
The trouble is that when you make up a lie, it is virtually impossible not to overlook something or other.
Ya, they would have brought a hammer to the moon for that or any other repairs....or for the experiment they preplanned. They would have brought the feather because it was extremely light weight and they had preplanned an experiment with the hammer.
QuoteUnless to perform some weird kind of Freemasonery rite with a falcon feather
That is also a possibility. I don't think that it is evidence of 6 faked moon landings though.
QuoteNot to have dust on the feet of the Lunar Module... very careless !
Moon hoaxers have a habit of cherry picking a couple of photos out of hundreds that somewhat support their theory.
QuoteUntil now, I believed in the Moon landings.
really??? I guess I'm gonna have to crank it up a notch then. :)
Quote from: "Timothy_Fitzpatrick""My husband directed the fake moon landing" says Stanley Kubrick's widow
http://www.firetown.com/blog/2011/03/21/my-husband-directed-the-fake-moon-landing-says-stanley-kubricks-widow/
Ya, ok Stanley Kubrick was an insider Illuminati Jew...no disputing that. Why assume that his wife is on the level then? What is this broad selling or promoting?
http://www.christianekubrick.com/ (http://www.christianekubrick.com/)
Why hasn't the Nazi/Masonic priesthood of NASA eliminated her?
So Kubrik found the time to stage 6 moonlandings? You do realize this guy was a crazed, type A perfectionist right? He was famous for driving his actors/producers/studio crazy for taking way to long to shoot movies. Sorry, no way this guy found the time to shoot hundreds of hours of footage and still maintained his regular activities as a Hollywood director.
Also....
http://www.clavius.org/movies.html (http://www.clavius.org/movies.html)
QuoteStanley Kubrick's masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey showed that convincing special effects were possible in 1968, and that accurate depictions of space travel could be produced on movie soundstages.
It's up to individual preference whether to believe the effects in 2001 were credible and accurate. We don't believe they were actually created in outer space. Here's where the cat gets let out of the bag:
* There are too many goofs. In several scenes we can see evidence that this is a manufactured film. We can see the edges of scenery panels, fly wires, reflections of equipment, rear projections, etc. These imperfections appear in every feature film despite efforts from filmmakers. Kubrick had several months and a large budget to orchestrate what would eventually be only two and a half hours of final product, and there were still errors. The Apollo program produced ten times that much footage with no editing seams and with no obvious mistakes.
* The astronomy is wrong. The views from earth to the moon, and of the earth from the lunar surface don't match. For example, the earth is high in the lunar sky as seen from Clavius; it should be low on the horizon. The phase of the earth changes radically between scenes.
* The photography is wrong. As in every space movie, we see a moving starfield in all the space scenes in 2001, along with sunlit objects. You cannot photograph both with the same camera settings. And even if you had a magical camera that could do it, the starfield shouldn't move. The cinematic reason for the moving starfield is to provide a background against which the motion of the foreground can be reckoned; filmmakers acknowledge it doesn't really happen that way, but it needs to happen in a movie.
* The propulsion is wrong. As Dr. Floyd's lunar transport lands, the dust billows as it would in an atmosphere, because it was filmed in an atmosphere. The dust would displace in a vacuum, but it would tend to form a flat sheet and would disperse quickly. When Dave Bowman blows the emergency hatch on the pod in order to re-enter the airlock, the pod stays right there. It should have been propelled away from the ship by the force of the escaping air.
* The zero-gravity scenes are wrong. As Dr. Floyd ascends to orbit he sips through a straw, and the fluid level drops back down to the container when he lets go. Sure, it could be a vacuum effect, but it's not the way drinking happens currently in zero gravity. In several scenes you can see supposedly weightless people moving as if there were gravity -- "grip soles" notwithstanding:
o The Pan-Am captain hunches over Dr. Floyd's seat as a man in normal gravity would have done in order to rest his body weight on the seat back. Such a "hunker" is intuitive in gravity, but uncomfortable and unnatural in weightlessness.
o Dr. Floyd's tray rises up from his lap -- presumably because Dr. Floyd has forgotten to secure it. What made it spontaneously start floating upward? Why did it sway from side to side? And why did it stop floating upward for no visible reason a split-second before Dr. Floyd grabs it? Newton screams "fraud!" at this sort of cinematic license.
* The low-gravity scenes are wrong. The space station floor curves upward correctly to indicate the inside of a torus that spins to provide artificial gravity. But as the characters move about the scene they remain vertical with respect to the frame. They should instead tilt perpendicular to the angle of the floor where they are standing. There are numerous scenes that supposedly take place on the lunar surface, but no evidence of lesser gravity can be seen. The characters move as they would have on earth.
* The lunar landscape is wrong. Kubrick shows us sharp-pointed mountains even though high-definition close-range photographs from Lunar Orbiter 2 (1966) showed the rounded mountains familiar in Apollo photographs.
Again conspiracists claim to be able to identify obscure and minute anomalies in Apollo photos and video, but they can't seem to do it with their own evidence. Nevertheless the important point is the conspiracist argument that NASA could do it because Kubrick could do it. As we've seen, Kubrick can't do it. He can't establish and maintain a truly credible "hoax" for two hours. Nor are the special effects convincing enough to fool observant people into actually thinking they represent space or lunar environments.
But there's actual evidence -- historical accounts -- that Kubrick worked with NASA to fake the footage.
Many conspiracists, led by Clyde Lewis, point to an article circling around the Internet which purports to describe in detail the process Kubrick used to fake the moon landings. But the article is obviously intended as a joke, as a careful reading reveals.
Stanley Kubrick's and Peter Hyams' budgets were very small compared to NASA's. With $40 billion and professional physicists on hand to correct mistakes, these directors could have made the effects much more convincing.
If so then the supposed genius of 2001: A Space Odyssey and Kubrick are irrelevant. The argument was that Kubrick was such a brilliant filmmaker he could have made a convincing hoax. But if Kubrick would have needed expert advisors, then those advisors (not Kubrick) would have been the real geniuses behind it. The conspiracists are just back to speculating about what might be done with supposedly limitless resources. The demonstrable state of the art in 1968 -- compelling but not convincing -- doesn't really have much to do with that.
And it really didn't have much to do with budget. The problems in 2001: A Space Odyssey and Capricorn One had more to do with deciding what effects to attempt rather than attempting good ones and failing. Budget would have increased the quality of the effects, but not their faithfulness to real life. No matter how much money you spend making a realistic starfield, it doesn't compensate for the fact that you shouldn't see one -- much less a moving one. The glitches also deal with basic filmmaking techniques, something Kubrick should already have known, and physicists wouldn't necessarily be helpful.
Consider also Silent Running. Kubrick budgeted $10 million for 2001: A Space Odyssey, while Douglas Trumbull's Silent Running was shot for about a tenth the cost. Trumbull produced the visual effects for both films. Silent Running is less ambitious than Kubrick's masterpiece, but achieves a greater level of consistency and credibility. Increasing the budget does not automatically increase the quality and seamlessness of the final product.
[youtube:2rnosd0r]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNbeN_V_NNw[/youtube]2rnosd0r]
[youtube:2rnosd0r]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK3Jnl6Zyhk[/youtube]2rnosd0r]
QuoteSo Kubrik found the time to stage 6 moon landings? You do realize this guy was a crazed, type A perfectionist right? He was famous for driving his actors/producers/studio crazy for taking way to long to shoot movies. Sorry, no way this guy found the time to shoot thousands of hours of footage and still maintained his regular activities as a Hollywood director.
Just to demonstrate this point, here is a great doc on his life:
Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures full version
Just click the youtube link under the video to watch it on youtube. Embedding is disabled for it but you can watch it on youtube.
[youtube:2rnosd0r]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Chs0yiPUmjg[/youtube]2rnosd0r]
parts 1-6 out of 14
[youtube:2rnosd0r]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=big-Ezv66fg[/youtube]2rnosd0r]
[youtube:2rnosd0r]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmcqP5sLPYY[/youtube]2rnosd0r]
[youtube:2rnosd0r]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdbcGV3uxlk[/youtube]2rnosd0r]
[youtube:2rnosd0r]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGuTf2WmCBo[/youtube]2rnosd0r]
[youtube:2rnosd0r]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDn6h0Gl8lU[/youtube]2rnosd0r]
[youtube:2rnosd0r]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiKlZ73b-Xs[/youtube]2rnosd0r]
Astrobrandt does a whole video of a strawman argument? And then that strawman apparently had strawbabies. What's troublesome is that AB has such a critical eye when he's looking at a cool movie, but he can't notice the obvious bullsh*t in the apollo hoax pictures/videos. It's also troublesome that AB is such bloviating bore.
AB has the nerve to show the apollo astroNOT in the shadow of the LEM with his backpack lit up? The mythbusters supposedly proved this could be done, using Portland cement as a substitute for the moon's reflective albido. But as I read on a blogpost somewhere, "F*ck mythbusters, the only thing those two fags bust is nuts inside each others *ssholes." The Mythbusters says the moon's albido is 7% to 10%, and they measure their test model at 8%.
But Jarrah White points out that Portland gray cement has an albido of 35 to 40%; Portland white cement has an albido of 70 to 80%. You see, MB are depending on the zombies not to check up on the facts.
Here is Jarrah White proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the mythbusters are lying fags:
[youtube:3htud0lt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPni1ESWlNU[/youtube]3htud0lt]
[youtube:3htud0lt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxLx7bpDW9Q[/youtube]3htud0lt]
[youtube:3htud0lt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEaZsiXkVPI[/youtube]3htud0lt]
[youtube:3htud0lt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRJNhxCcxRM[/youtube]3htud0lt]
Quote from: "Christopher Marlowe"Astrobrandt does a whole video of a strawman argument? And then that strawman apparently had strawbabies. What's troublesome is that AB has such a critical eye when he's looking at a cool movie, but he can't notice the obvious bullsh*t in the apollo hoax pictures/videos. It's also troublesome that AB is such bloviating bore.
AB has the nerve to show the apollo astroNOT in the shadow of the LEM with his backpack lit up?
:lol:
You hate that guy with a passion. He is a bit smug...although I kinda like his vids.
He has some very important/sad news. Just uploaded a few hours ago.
[youtube:2e67001y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjttUPGaQIo[/youtube]2e67001y]
:clap: :up: :)
lol@strawbabies!
Jarrah White Debunked by AstroBrandt
[youtube:3l9xmetp]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQgRjV4RGrY[/youtube]3l9xmetp]
[youtube:3l9xmetp]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUBy5Xzf9ok[/youtube]3l9xmetp]
[youtube:3l9xmetp]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruYtL8kPhkg[/youtube]3l9xmetp]
Dealing with the myth busters stuff
[youtube:3l9xmetp]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krpuXKDq4f8[/youtube]3l9xmetp]
Whaler, anti-Freemasonry goes along with the territory of being anti-Jewish...why? Because they are one and the same, more or less. If you claim not to trust Jews, then you also have to claim not to trust Freemasons. Do you trust Jews or something?
Quote from: "Timothy_Fitzpatrick"Whaler, anti-Freemasonry goes along with the territory of being anti-Jewish...why? Because they are one and the same, more or less. If you claim not to trust Jews, then you also have to claim not to trust Freemasons. Do you trust Jews or something?
but it's not as if I'm relying only on the word of a few astronauts...It's not as if the only evidence for six manned missions out there is a few Apollo astronauts saying,"we went to the moon". There's shit loads more evidence than that.
Here is that "fake Dutch moon rock" nonsense completely discredited and debunked. As are all of the kooky claims made by the moon-hoaxers. The moon hoax theory needs to be brought behind the barn and shot...put out of it's misery.
The Moonstone of The Netherlands - Part 1
[youtube:r1f87ny7]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHALUGcEEiQ[/youtube]r1f87ny7]
pt2
[youtube:r1f87ny7]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGQhArtFqIM[/youtube]r1f87ny7]
[youtube:r1f87ny7]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBmJTWMPf0U[/youtube]r1f87ny7]
Shadows on the Moon - Revisited[youtube:r1f87ny7]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZB-DosUGeY[/youtube]r1f87ny7]
Letters from the Moon - The "C" Rock Reloaded[youtube:r1f87ny7]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxwL4DCzUN4[/youtube]r1f87ny7]
Moon Hoax Theory Lies: Wire Supports and Slow Motion[youtube:r1f87ny7]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBICR4PTLfc[/youtube]r1f87ny7]
The MoonFaker Chronicles Episode 216: Radioactive Absurdity [youtube:r1f87ny7]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ecizkmuw4rk[/youtube]r1f87ny7]
When We Left Earth (http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/ppOgZxm6QPE/hqdefault.jpg)
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?p=9BA75FCD5F4412C9 (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?p=9BA75FCD5F4412C9)
OK, Whaler, what about the Van Allen belts?
Quote from: "Timothy_Fitzpatrick"OK, Whaler, what about the Van Allen belts?
I addressed that already. The second post deals with that.
If y'all are wondering why some of the videos I posted are not available, it's because Jarrah White had a hissy fit and had Youtube delete the vids. Yup, silencing moonhoax advocates is a Jewish conspiracy :roll: :crazy: :crazy:
Give me a f%*!ing break :P
[youtube:1fhxda6l]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90GFoXkdQhU[/youtube]1fhxda6l]
(http://www.stephanscottlay.com/Images/warez/moon_cover2.jpg)
Download: https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/407242 ... on..__XviD (https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4072427/A_Funny_Thing_Happened_On_The_Way_To_The_Moon..__XviD)
90-second pwnage: Jarrah debunks himself
[youtube:2wxs020u]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG3UcK9j4Xg[/youtube]2wxs020u]
Re: Apollo Moon Landing Hoax: The Case of the Missing Tracks, follow up.
[youtube:2wxs020u]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKTSJ0RTuMk[/youtube]2wxs020u]
J. White has gone on a rampage/hissy fit to get all of the videos debunking his claims falsely and illegally removed from youtube. Pathetic.
The Blunder-Boy Who Cried DMCA
[youtube:2wxs020u]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6xY7WFQ3OI[/youtube]2wxs020u]
"A Funny Thing..." Moon Conspiracy debunked pt 1 of 2
[youtube:2wxs020u]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMrB857Oaxw[/youtube]2wxs020u]
"A Funny Thing..." Moon Conspiracy debunked pt 2 of 2
[youtube:2wxs020u]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYA_g2AJ0fc[/youtube]2wxs020u]
Quote from: "Timothy_Fitzpatrick"(http://www.stephanscottlay.com/Images/warez/moon_cover2.jpg)
Download: https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/407242 ... on..__XviD (https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4072427/A_Funny_Thing_Happened_On_The_Way_To_The_Moon..__XviD)
"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen
http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html (http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html)
This general charge is usually made by people who don't understand very much at all about radiation. After witnessing the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the tragedy of Chernobyl it is not surprising that the idea of radiation should elicit an intuitively fearful reaction. But when you understand the different types of radiation and what can be done about them, it becomes a manageable problem to avoid radiation exposure.
It doesn't matter how difficult or expensive it might have been to falsify the lunar landings. Since it was absolutely impossible to solve the radiation problem, the landings had to have been faked.
This is a common method of argument that attempts to prove something that can't be proven, by disproving something else. In this case the reader is compelled to accept the conspiracy theory and all its attendant problems and improbabilities, simply on the basis that no matter how difficult, absurd, or far-fetched a particular proposition may be, if it's the only alternative to something clearly impossible then it must -- somehow -- have come to pass. This false dilemma is aimed at pushing the reader past healthy skepticism and into a frame of mind where the absurd seems plausible.
The false dilemma is only convincing if the supposedly impossible alternative is made to seem truly impossible. And so conspiracists argue very strenuously that the radiation from various sources spelled absolute doom for the Apollo missions. They quote frightening statistics and cite various highly technical sources to try to establish to the reader that the radiation poses a deadly threat.
But in fact most conspiracists know only slightly more about radiation than the average reader. This means only a very few people in the world can dispute their allegations, and the conspiracists can simply dismiss them as part of the conspiracy.
The Van Allen belts are full of deadly radiation, and anyone passing through them would be fried.
Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.
The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.
Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.
This is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10 astronauts.
NASA defenders make a big deal about the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly, but the Apollo spacecraft ventured into the more intense parts of the belts.
True, but the point was to validate the scientific models using hard data, and to ascertain that a spacecraft hull would indeed attenuate the radiation as predicted.
We know the space shuttle passes through the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (SAMA), but since the shuttle astronauts have time in each orbit to recover, the effects are not felt as strongly. The Apollo astronauts spent around four hours at a single stretch in the Van Allen belts. [Mary Bennett]
This is exactly the opposite of the recovery principle. If the shuttle astronauts spend 30 minutes of each 90-minute orbit passing through the SAMA, that sums to an exposure of 8 hours per day. The human body does not recover from radiation in a matter of minutes but rather hours and days. The damaged tissue must be regenerated. If radiation exposure is more or less continuous over several days, such as in the shuttle scenario, the tissue never has time to regenerate before being damaged by continuing radiation.
Even though the outlying parts of the Van Allen belts contain more intense radiation than the SAMA, a four-hour passage followed by days of relatively little exposure offers a better recovery scenario than days of accumulated low-level exposure.
The four-hour figure is reasonable, but somewhat arbitrary. Since the Van Allen belts vary in flux and energy, it's not as if there's a clearly demarcated boundary. It's a bit like walking over a hill. If the slope gently increases from flat and level to 30° or so, where do you say the hill starts?
It would require six feet (two meters) of lead in order to shield from the Van Allen belts. The Apollo spacecraft had nowhere near this amount of shielding and so could not have provided the astronauts adequate protection.
The "six feet of lead" statistic appears in many conspiracist charges, but no one has yet owned up to being the definitive source of that figure. In fact, six feet (2 m) of lead would probably shield against a very large atomic explosion, far in excess of the normal radiation encountered in space or in the Van Allen belts.
While such drastic measures are needed to shield against intense, high-frequency electromagnetic radiation, that is not the nature of the radiation in the Van Allen belts. In fact, because the Van Allen belts are composed of high-energy protons and high-energy electrons, metal shielding is actually counterproductive because of the Bremsstrahlung that would be induced.
Metals can be used to shield against particle radiation, but they are not the ideal substance. Polyethylene is the choice of particle shielding today, and various substances were available to the Apollo engineers to absorb Van Allen radiation. The fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls of the command module was likely the most effective form of radiation shielding. When metals must be used in spacecraft (e.g., for structural strength) then a lighter metal such as aluminum is better than heavier metals such as steel or lead. The lower the atomic number, the less Bremsstrahlung.
The notion that only vast amounts of a very heavy metal could shield against Van Allen belt radiation is a good indicator of how poorly though out the conspiracist radiation case is. What the conspiracists say is the only way of shielding against the Van Allen belt radiation turns out to be the worst way to attempt to do it!
Official NASA documents describing the pre-Apollo studies of the Van Allen belts clearly state that shielding was recommended for the Apollo spacecraft, yet no shielding was provided. [Mary Bennett and David Percy]
Commensurate with the common perception of radiation as an inescapably deadly force is the notion of radiation shielding as universally heavy and dense. Percy and others seem to rely on the notion that radiation shielding, if present, would have been very conspicuous -- or prohibitively bulky.
As discussed in the previous question, shielding against particles is not the same as shielding against rays. To say that the Apollo spacecraft did not provide adequate shielding is to ignore both the construction of the Apollo command module and the principles of radiation shielding.
And it must be kept in mind that shielding was only one element of a multi-pronged solution for safely traversing the Van Allen belts. It was never intended that the shielding in the command module would provide the only protection for the astronauts. The shielding was adequate to protect the astronauts against the circumstances of the trajectory and exposure duration worked out by the mission planners.
NASA apologists come up with different numbers for estimates of the exposure in the Van Allen belts. This suggests they really don't know what they're talking about. [Mary Bennett and David Percy]
All the estimates we've seen lie within the same order of magnitude and generally outline a plausible method of computation. This stands in contrast to the conspiracist estimates which generally have no quantitative support.
Computing the precise exposure for Apollo astronauts is very difficult. That's why the astronauts wore dosimeters to measure the actual exposure. The factors involved in computing expected exposure analytically include:
Exact trajectory. The Van Allen belts are not uniformly shaped. They have thick and thin spots. And the level of radiation is not constant at all points. Toward the center of the belt cross sections there is more radiation than at the edges. Most Apollo enthusiasts do not know the exact trajectory or how it relates to the location of the Van Allen belts. But they know that they don't know this, and so they frequently do their computations assuming the astronauts passed through the densest parts, and therefore err on the side of overestimating the exposure.
Exact velocity. Exposure time is very important to a correct computation of radiation dosage. Because the velocity of the spacecraft is constantly changing, the same ambiguity which governs the geometry of the trajectory also governs the rate at which it is followed. And most enthusiasts (and all conspiracists) lack the information and skill to precisely determine the velocity of the spacecraft during the Van Allen belt traversal, and therefore the exposure time.
Exact energy and flux. In any given cubic meter of the Van Allen belts there will be a soup of particles at various energy levels and fluences. Energy describes the velocity of the particle, how far it will penetrate, and how much damage it will do if it hits something. Flux is the density of particles, how many of them pass through a given area in a second. Generally, the higher the energy the lower the flux. Low-energy particles (i.e., protons 30 MeV and below) can be ignored because they do not penetrate the spacecraft outer hull. But at each point along the trajectory through the Van Allen belts there is a different continuum of flux and energy. It requires a lot of mathematics to fully solve this system. And since some of the variables are hard to determine, they're typically approximated.
Probabilistic factors. Even should a high-energy particle penetrate the spacecraft hull to the interior, it will only cause problems in the human organism if it is absorbed in tissue. It is possible for the particles to pass through the body without colliding, in which case they are harmless. The human body varies in density. Particles are more likely to collide with dense tissue like bone. The amount of absorbed radiation is a statistical probability based on how much radiation is detected by dosimeters.
To summarize then, a fully accurate analytical solution must first determine the exact trajectory of the spacecraft through the Van Allen belts. This will give a continuous function describing particle flux and energy at each point along the trajectory.
At each point in the trajectory we will have a function giving flux per given energy level. So a 100 MeV proton will have, say, a flux of 20,000 particles per square centimeter per second at that point in space. But for other energy levels the flux will be different at the same point. The total irradiation inside a spacecraft will be the sum of all the fluences at energies capable of penetrating the hull and shielding.
And at each point along the trajectory the velocity of the spacecraft must be determined so it can be known how much time the spacecraft spends at that point. This is multiplied by the conglomeration of fluences to arrive at a dose.
This dose is simply the amount of radiation present. It must be converted to a meaningful value that describes its likely effect on human tissue. Again, energy and fluence come into play, because low-energy particles (but still high enough to penetrate the shield) are likely to accumulated in the outer layers of the skin and cause damage which is sloughed off harmlessly. High-energy particles are absorbed in the bones and internal organs, causing much greater injury.
The procedure for analytically computing a radiation dose is simple enough in principle as outlined above, but of course is very difficult to actually carry out. This is why engineers generally don't try to compute the dosage to any great degree of accuracy ahead of time. They are happy simply to arrive at an order of magnitude which provides adequate design criteria. The actual radiation exposure is always measured, not computed.
So then was it measured on Apollo?
Yes. Each astronaut wore a personal dosimeter. The accumulated dose for each astronaut was regularly reported to Mission Control over the radio.
New evidence has shown that the Van Allen belts are indeed stronger and more dangerous than NASA says. [Bart Sibrel]
Sibrel misinterprets the source article published by CNN. It was reported only that the Van Allen belts were slightly larger in places and slightly denser than previously understood. This is not a new reality, merely a refinement of existing figures. We are still studying the Van Allen belts and must occasionally revise our numerical models. The new findings have implications for the astronauts in the Alpha space station. Since these astronauts will be exposed to the fringes of the Van Allen belts for an extended period, it is prudent now to provide a bit of extra polyethylene shielding to the sleeping quarters. For transitory exposure such as in Apollo missions, the new findings add only a negligible hazard.
Sibrel and others argue that NASA has under-reported the intensity of the Van Allen belts for many years as part of a cover-up. They argue that the real magnitude of the radiation is now being made known, and that it's strong enough to have precluded a successful Apollo mission.
Unfortunately that's a very naive argument. The United States has never been the only spacefaring nation, nor the only nation ever to study the Van Allen belts. Canada provide valuable data to the Apollo project, and the USSR duplicated all the U.S. research, and may even have conducted more. For thirty years the same body of engineering data used to produce the Apollo spacecraft has been used by all nations in designing communication satellites, probes, and other devices intended to operate in and beyond the Van Allen belts. If this data had seriously under-reported the actual radiation present, the spacecraft engineered to those standards would all have failed prematurely due to radiation damage.
This is a very important point since it involves the financial interests (to the tune of billions of dollars!) of countries with no special desire to protect the reputation of the United States. Had this data been seriously wrong, someone surely would have complained by now. Satellites are insured against premature loss, and the insurers want to make sure the spacecraft are engineered to the best possible standards. There is immense worldwide economic incentive to having the best available data on the Van Allen belts, so it's highly improbable the the U.S. has been intentionally providing erroneous data to the entire world for thirty years.
An orbital nuclear detonation in 1962 code-named Starfish Prime created a third Van Allen belt composed of high-energy electrons. This belt was a hundred times more intense than the existing Van Allen belts and was computed to have a half-life of 20 years. [Bennett and Percy, Dark Moon, p. 309]
The authors give no reference for the claim that this artificial radiation belt was "a hundred times" more "intense" than the naturally-occurring belts. Nor do they define what is meant by "intense". The Starfish Prime test did in fact produce a temporary artificial radiation belt, and it's true that this belt persisted longer than anticipated. But it was not an impediment to the Apollo missions because it had dissipated to a safe level by then, and was very small (and easily avoided) to start with.
Radioactive half-life applies to radioisotopes only. It does not apply to clouds of magnetically-retained charged particles. The authors imply that their theory is confirmed by expert authors, but in fact the author they cite discusses only the general concept of radioactive half-life. Bennett and Percy are responsible for having misapplied it to this problem. Radioactive half-life and particle belts have nothing at all to do with each other. The dispersal of this belt doesn't have anything to do with radioactive decay, and a great deal to do with solar weather and shifting magnetic fields.
The authors argue that such a radiation belt would still be highly intense to this day. However they have shown no evidence that any of the radiation from Starfish Prime is still there. Instead they refer to irrelevant scientific principles and claim it "must" still be there.
A secret study done by the Soviet Union and obtained by the CIA determined that a meter of lead would be required to shield against deep space radiation.
Many conspiracists allude to this alleged report, but none of them can attest to actually having seen it. Since they can argue the alleged report is closely held by the CIA and therefore still top secret, the conspiracists are protected from refutation. No one can prove the non-existence of any document, much less one that is allegedly classified by an intelligence agency. Unfortunately it's more straightforward to note that the conspiracists cannot expect the world to accept an argument based on evidence which they cannot produce. If it's so top secret, how do they know about it?
It's fairly easy to show that such a document likely does not exist. We know that great thicknesses of lead are not required to shield against particle radiation. We know that Soviet science and engineering were excellent. We note with no small amusement and no small suspicion that the conclusion of the alleged report contradicts the commonly accepted principles of physics, and that it instead bears a striking resemblance to the naive assertions of inexpert conspiracy theorists who claim that only thick sheets of lead are suitable for radiation shielding. The alleged report is plausible to the lay reader but utterly unconvincing to the scientist.
History provides the final proof. Had the Soviets actually believed that great thicknesses of material were required to shield against radiation, they would have questioned the design of the Apollo spacecraft. The spacecraft clearly did not provide a meter of lead shielding, yet NASA claims it successfully traversed the Van Allen belts. Yet the Soviets acknowledged then and continue to acknowledge today that the Apollo program was a clear success.
In recent years the Western world has been able to examine the Soviet spacecraft design which was to have carried cosmonauts to the moon. They did not provide a meter of lead for their spacecraft either.
Soviet cosmonauts have been quoted as saying radiation was a very grave concern.
And NASA officials have been quoted as saying essentially the same thing. Radiation is a very great concern, but there's a vast difference between a "concern" and an insurmountable obstacle. The conspiracist argument relies on the radiation problem being insurmountable, and nothing said by either NASA or cosmonauts conveys the notion that these problems couldn't