Neil Armstrong's Speech About Nothing.

[endlessvista]

Having looked at all the evidence now I am totally convinced that the Apollo Moon programme was a complete sham. The evidence ffrom numerous angles and fields is so overwhelming at this point. I tend to be very cynical about all popular conspiricy thories, but I am nailing my colours firmly to the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax mast. It was a huge con job.

Everytime I stumble upon something which proves this to me, another little gem of real truth comes along. Check out this Neil Armstrong speech on the 25th aniversary of the "moon landings".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NQ3U-B95es&feature=channel_page

Be like Pele being awarded for his sporting life and failing to mention he ever kicked a ball.

[capi777]

That's funny...I just saw the video on the post and refreshed the page and now it is gone! Hmmm..

You only have to go as far as the movie Capricorn One (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/)to realise it was a hoax. Little bit o' truth let out there.

It will be interesting to see what will happen in the new space race these developing countries are in and if this hoax will be purpotrated again.

[dreamweaver]

Having looked at all the evidence now I am totally convinced that the Apollo Moon programme was a complete sham. The evidence ffrom numerous angles and fields is so overwhelming at this point. I tend to be very cynical about all popular conspiricy thories, but I am nailing my colours firmly to the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax mast. It was a huge con job.


It's actually the one conspiracy theory that is the most easily debunked. All you need is some knowledge of science.

[endlessvista]

It's actually the one conspiracy theory that is the most easily debunked. All you need is some knowledge of science.

Go on then, I am listening.

[dreamweaver]

Go on then, I am listening.

I've heard nearly every bogus claim going on this. So tell me what "moon hoax" arguments you find convincing and let's see if I can rebut them. Bear in mind I'm in a pub on a "netbook", so can't type fast. But I'll buy you a pint if you can come up with something I never heard before.

[endlessvista]

I've heard nearly every bogus claim going on this. So tell me what "moon hoax" arguments you find convincing and let's see if I can rebut them. Bear in mind I'm in a pub on a "netbook", so can't type fast. But I'll buy you a pint if you can come up with something I never heard before.

Fair enough then:

If the Saturn 5 rocket was so excellent and flawless during Apollo, then why was the technology mothballed and replaced with an inferior and much more unstable launch system to get the Shuttles into close earth orbit?

Oh and I want to add that the NASA excuse of a cheap reuseable rocket holds no water as nearly all the Shuttle launch rockets were not recovered as they were either destroyed coming back down or lost at sea. It would of been cheaper and safer to use the Saturn 5s rather than come up with a whole new system which was far more unstable and prone to mishaps.

[dreamweaver]

Fair enough then:

If the Saturn 5 rocket was so excellent and flawless during Apollo, then why was the technology mothballed and replaced with an inferior and much more unstable launch system to get the Shuttles into close earth orbit?

I don't know why you think the solid fuel booster technology is "inferior". In fact they're using those very same boosters for the new missions to the moon and Mars.

The Saturn Vs stopped being built when Congress pulled the plug on all Apollo funding. By the mid-1970s the American public was bored with moon missions. They got increasingly gimmicky to try to keep the public's interest - e.g. playing golf on the moon.

When the funding stopped, the whole supporting industry broke up. Who would build Saturn Vs if nobody was paying for them any more?

[endlessvista]

I don't know why you think the solid fuel booster technology is "inferior". In fact they're using those very same boosters for the new missions to the moon and Mars.

The Saturn Vs stopped being built when Congress pulled the plug on all Apollo funding. By the mid-1970s the American public was bored with moon missions. They got increasingly gimmicky to try to keep the public's interest - e.g. playing golf on the moon.

When the funding stopped, the whole supporting industry broke up. Who would build Saturn Vs if nobody was paying for them any more?


Sorry dude, but you totally avoided the question with classic NASA-ism. I am not being smart, but you implied that I was questioning the viability of rocketary as a whole, when I was specifically asking you why an apparently 100% perfect Saturn 5 system when straight to the scrap yard after Apollo ended and was not used for the Shuttle programme?

Next:

Why have no humans (other than Apollo lads) ever travelled beyond the Van Allen Belt and when Shuttle astronauts came close to it in the 1980's NASA almost had a full scale disaster on their hands as the astronauts were getting heat stroke and the inside of the Shuttle cockpit was filled with arcing sparks?

How did Neil Armstrong and Co managed to fly safely all the thousands of miles through it in what was basically a simple thin metal superstructure. They never even so much as losened their collars to feel more comfortable.

[grachtengordel]

So tell me what "moon hoax" arguments you find convincing and let's see if I can rebut them.

IF 'space' is a vacuum, and there is minimal to no 'atmosphere' on the moon, what would protect the astronauts from the heat of the sun and the heat reflected back off the surface? how come they didn't bake in those suits?

[grachtengordel]

By the mid-1970s the American public was bored with moon missions.

but why has no other nation bothered to go there?

[size_of_light]

Keep going guys. I can't get a fix on this whole issue, so an informed discussion will be of much value.

[endlessvista]

next:

How come the planned Apollo 13 landing location would of been in total darkness and therefore would of been impossible to land a Lunar Module on, if the mission had of been a success and not succumbed to "Houston, we have a problem..." soap opera?

[endlessvista]

next:

How come there is no technical documentation concerning how the Lunar Rover was loaded off the Lunar Module and assembled on the lunar surface? The little moon car just magically appears complete and ready to drive.

[dreamweaver]

you implied that I was questioning the viability of rocketary as a whole
Where?

when I was specifically asking you why an apparently 100% perfect Saturn 5 system when straight to the scrap yard after Apollo ended and was not used for the Shuttle programme?

Solid fuel rockets were cheaper and reusable.

Why have no humans (other than Apollo lads) ever travelled beyond the Van Allen Belt and when Shuttle astronauts came close to it in the 1980's NASA almost had a full scale disaster on their hands as the astronauts were getting heat stroke and the inside of the Shuttle cockpit was filled with arcing sparks?
Myth.

The International Space Station passes through the Van Allen Belts five times a day (through a section called the South Atlantic Anomaly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Atlantic_Anomaly

How did Neil Armstrong and Co managed to fly safely all the thousands of miles through it in what was basically a simple thin metal superstructure. They never even so much as losened their collars to feel more comfortable.[/QUOTE]
They're belts, not spheres. A combination of choosing a trajectory to minimise the exposure, shielding and the fact they were travelling through them at several thousands mph meant their actual exposure was no more than a chest X-ray.

[dreamweaver]

next:

How come there is no technical documentation concerning how the Lunar Rover was loaded off the Lunar Module and assembled on the lunar surface? The little moon car just magically appears complete and ready to drive.

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LRVdocs.html

[dreamweaver]

next:

How come the planned Apollo 13 landing location would of been in total darkness and therefore would of been impossible to land a Lunar Module on, if the mission had of been a success and not succumbed to "Houston, we have a problem..." soap opera?
Just stick them in the one post, OK?

And while we're at it, perhaps you could tell me which Apollo missions you believe were real and which were faked?

Apollo 8 circumlunar navigation?
Apollo 10 descent to within 50,000 feet
of the surface?
Maybe it all started with Apollo 11 and the first
landing?
Then, of course, having hoaxed it, they did it all again for
Apollo 12. Then, just to make sure that the pretence was sticking, they
hoaxed a failure for Apollo 13 and then another success for 14.
Then they started to get more elaborate. They started adding extra equipment
(LRV) and hoaxed a further three missions (15,16 and 17). Amazing. Not
content with a simple hoax to beat the Russians, they felt the need to
do it 9 times (all other missions remained in earth orbit).

[grachtengordel]

The International Space Station passes through the Van Allen Belts five times a day (through a section called the South Atlantic Anomaly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Atlantic_Anomaly

sorry Dreamweaver but no deal. you CANNOT use wikipedia to attempt to verify or 'prove' ANY claims , theory or supposition whatsoever.

wikipedia does NOT count. you may as well quote nasa , tesco, clare rayner or the teletubbies.

if you refer tyo wikipedia, it means "i have not researched this"

http://images.uncyc.org/commons/5/5e/ThatsNoMoonThatsWikipedia.jpg

[dreamweaver]

Ah right, so according to grachtengordel, the South Atlantic Anomaly can't exist because it's mentioned in Wikipedia.

By that logic, neither can David Icke:

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

[grachtengordel]

Keep going guys. I can't get a fix on this whole issue, so an informed discussion will be of much value.

check this guys video's . he has done loads under in the 'moonfaker' series.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qjRP_w2rhk

he is obsessed, he meticulously checks every detail, well worth checking his vids for a perspective on this stuff. also research 'the c rock' , a rock on a nasa photo that is obviously a prop, it has 'c' written on it, next to a spot on the 'surface' with an identical 'c'. this is a standard way to mark where props go in TV and theatre. the idea is that the props guy places the rock over the 'c', preferably with the letter facing down. (doh!)

[angelthecat]

I have watched several documentries on the moon hoax and they all seem to have missed one thing. There where no remote control cameras taken to the moon they where all hand held or placed on a tripod, so how would you explain that when leaving the moon the camera panned up to follow the LEM, now they either left a cameraman on the moon or they tied a piece of string to one of the landing vehicles legs. I would like to point out that tying string with thick gardening gloves on is difficult here on earth, so who did they leave,

[grachtengordel]

Ah right, so according to grachtengordel, the South Atlantic Anomaly can't exist because it's mentioned in Wikipedia.

By that logic, neither can David Icke:

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

wrong, i did not write that did I? as '1619 symphony' would say .............."don't get it twisted"

YOU invited the questions and YOU offered to refute any claims that the 'landings' were a hoax. I merely ask that you do not offer as 'evidence' claims from the very people who we accuse of perpetrating the hoax, namely NASA.

I also request that you use a source that , if not 'reliable' , then at least is not blatantly biases/skewed/censored as 'wikipedia' is. ANY other source is acceptable, us army, russain navy, polish grandmothers, just NOT wikipedia, that place recently announced that they were inviting the ADL to 'oversee' and censor their content. how can it be any more unreliable?

and what the f has this got to do with David Icke?

shall we have a look at that 'icke' page on wiki? lets see how the site you favour so much depicts the man

do you want to answer my questions about the moon landings or not?

IF 'space' is a vacuum, and there is minimal to no 'atmosphere' on the moon, what would protect the astronauts from the heat of the sun and the heat reflected back off the surface? how come they didn't bake in those suits?

but why has no other nation bothered to go there?

[dreamweaver]

check this guys video's . he has done loads under in the 'moonfaker' series.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qjRP_w2rhk

he is obsessed, he meticulously checks every detail, well worth checking his vids for a perspective on this stuff. also research 'the c rock' , a rock on a nasa photo that is obviously a prop, it has 'c' written on it, next to a spot on the 'surface' with an identical 'c'. this is a standard way to mark where props go in TV and theatre. the idea is that the props guy places the rock over the 'c', preferably with the letter facing down. (doh!)

Not that old chestnut. :rolleyes:

Talk to any studio technician, anywhere in the world, and ask them if they mark props with letters like that. Go on, do it.

Internet videos being used to promote particular viewpoints are invariably rubbish. Doesn't anyone read any more?

But if you really only find anything believable if it's presented to you on a video, go check out Penn & Teller's Season 3 episode of "Bullshit" (sadly pulled from YouTube) where they show the guy who actually made that "props" claim in the first place, busy stapling together his hand-made "books" in his trailer.

[dreamweaver]

wrong, i did not write that did I? as '1619 symphony' would say .............."don't get it twisted"

YOU invited the questions and YOU offered to refute any claims that the 'landings' were a hoax. I merely ask that you do not offer as 'evidence' claims from the very people who we accuse of perpetrating the hoax, namely NASA.

I also request that you use a source that , if not 'reliable' , then at least is not blatantly biases/skewed/censored as 'wikipedia' is. ANY other source is acceptable, us army, russain navy, polish grandmothers, just NOT wikipedia, that place recently announced that they were inviting the ADL to 'oversee' and censor their content. how can it be any more unreliable?

and what the f has this got to do with David Icke?

shall we have a look at that 'icke' page on wiki? lets see how the site you favour so much depicts the man

Here's a description of the South Atlantic Anomaly from a source you will like:

http://www.paranormal-encyclopedia.com/s/south-atlantic-anomaly/

And if you want to exclude wikipedia on the grounds of reliability, you give me carte blanche to dismiss any source you use that is unreliable. Suits me. :)

[danster82]

the most compelling evidence for me was they documentary where the guy tried to interview the astronauts and they all ran from the questions and got mad at him.

[grachtengordel]

Talk to any studio technician, anywhere in the world, and ask them if they mark props with letters like that. Go on, do it.


"go on , do it" ? YOU claimed to be able to 'de bunk' any theory , that does not include me making several trips to 'studio' s . what a ridiculous response. IF YOU have such a grasp of the truth , then YOU will be ABLE to refute any theory or proposition without demanding that the questioner "Talk to any studio technician, anywhere in the world" . you might aswell demand that i go to the moon and 'get proof'. are you drunk already?

classic disinfo agent tactic, make impossible demands on the questioner

and using the 'smug' emoticon is wasted on me as i have ad-blocked them all and cannot see them on my computer

Here's a description of the South Atlantic Anomaly from a source you will like:

http://www.paranormal-encyclopedia.com/s/south-atlantic-anomaly/


thanks, will check it when i get time

And if you want to exclude wikipedia on the grounds of reliability, you give me carte blanche to dismiss any source you use that is unreliable. Suits me.

Thats a deal, but you only get to pick ONE source that you can dismiss. I 'pick' wikipedia. nasa cannot be used a source because it is they who are 'in the dock' on this discussion so they are an 'unreliable witness' , the prosecution however may site material officially released by 'nasa' as 'evidence' tho , because that 'material' and the deception within it, that is the crime being discussed here

[dreamweaver]

the most compelling evidence for me was they documentary where the guy tried to interview the astronauts and they all ran from the questions and got mad at him.

You mean Bart Sibrel, the man who kept poking Buzz Aldrin (a man who was considerably older and shorter than him) in the chest, calling him a "liar and coward" and then rightly got decked for it?

[dreamweaver]

"go on , do it" ? YOU claimed to be able to 'de bunk' any theory , that does not include me making several trips to 'studio' s . what a ridiculous response. IF YOU have such a grasp of the truth , then YOU will be ABLE to refute any theory or proposition without demanding that the questioner "Talk to any studio technician, anywhere in the world" . you might aswell demand that i go to the moon and 'get proof'. are you drunk already?

classic disinfo agent tactic, make impossible demands on the questioner
No studios mark their props in such a way. None, nada, zip, zilch. I was inviting you to discover this for yourself rather than take my word for it.

"Do the research", as people like you are so fond of saying.


and using the 'smug' emoticon is wasted on me as i have ad-blocked them all and cannot see them on my computer

Obviously not a very good one. :D

[dreamweaver]

"go on , do it" ? YOU claimed to be able to 'de bunk' any theory , that does not include me making several trips to 'studio' s . what a ridiculous response. IF YOU have such a grasp of the truth , then YOU will be ABLE to refute any theory or proposition without demanding that the questioner "Talk to any studio technician, anywhere in the world" . you might aswell demand that i go to the moon and 'get proof'. are you drunk already?

classic disinfo agent tactic, make impossible demands on the questioner

and using the 'smug' emoticon is wasted on me as i have ad-blocked them all and cannot see them on my computer



thanks, will check it when i get time



Thats a deal, but you only get to pick ONE source that you can dismiss. I 'pick' wikipedia. nasa cannot be used a source because it is they who are 'in the dock' on this discussion

Nope, you demand "reliability", therefore only peer-reviewed research by credible scientists and engineers is admissible. You want to play hard-ball, we'll play hardball. Your move.

[grachtengordel]

But if you really only find anything believable if it's presented to you on a video, go check out Penn & Teller's Season 3 episode of "Bullshit" (sadly pulled from YouTube) where they show the guy who actually made that "props" claim in the first place, busy stapling together his hand-made "books" in his trailer.

I seen tha video of the two $h!tbag$ 'penn and teller' , they are there to make a 'entertainment' programme , aimed at an 8year old's mentality, the people who enjoy 'jackass' and 'punked'. they did not 'prove' anything except that they are nasty, snide, exploitative individuals who will stoop at nothing to make a buck. also the 'fat one' is a raving futtbucker

[dreamweaver]

I seen tha video of the two $h!tbag$ 'penn and teller' , they are there to make a 'entertainment' programme , aimed at an 8year old's mentality, the people who enjoy 'jackass' and 'punked'. they did not 'prove' anything except that they are nasty, snide, exploitative individuals who will stoop at nothing to make a buck. also the 'fat one' is a raving futtbucker
I didn't claim they "proved" anything. But it's interesting to see the guy who made the "props" claim all the same.

[grachtengordel]

you demand "reliability",

I never demanded anything , certainly not 'reliability' as this is a hard thing to quantify in this arena of debate, links, conjecture and 'cut n paste'. What i see as 'honest' and 'reasonable', you may see as 'un-reliable'. what you see as 'reliable' , i might see as 'controlled', 'biased' and even 'snide'.

i do not DEMAND 'reliability', I do INFORM you that 'wikipedia' is totally biased. it is not however 'un reliable', 'wiki' is VERY 'reliable' , I rely on it to be false/fraudulent/misleading/lies/fiction. it is totally reliable in that respect, if wikipedia says it is true, you KNOW something smells $h!tty

therefore only peer-reviewed research by credible scientists and engineers is admissible.

but "credible" is another unquantifiable term, an abstract concept that fluctuates with time and flow of information. and 'peer-reviewed' is another empty phrase . 'peer' of whom? your 'peer'? , my 'peer'? a 'peer' of charles darwin? or maybe just a 'dawkins' ? who gets to say if the 'peer' is "reliable " , "credible" or just "a pretentious old soak languishing in a fraternal, competitive 'private members club', that is entirely devoted to concensus"?

You want to play hard-ball, we'll play hardball. Your move.

how bout answering these two then (third time i asked now, hope i dont get pepper sprayed)

but why has no other nation bothered to go there?

IF 'space' is a vacuum, and there is minimal to no 'atmosphere' on the moon, what would protect the astronauts from the heat of the sun and the heat reflected back off the surface? how come they didn't bake in those suits?

[grachtengordel]

and using the 'smug' emoticon is wasted on me as i have ad-blocked them all and cannot see them on my computerObviously not a very good one.

Ouch!

"Do the research", as people like you are so fond of saying.

give 'em enough rope................

[dreamweaver]

I never demanded anything , certainly not 'reliability' as this is a hard thing to quantify in this arena of debate, links, conjecture and 'cut n paste'. What i see as 'honest' and 'reasonable', you may see as 'un-reliable'. what you see as 'reliable' , i might see as 'controlled', 'biased' and even 'snide'.

i do not DEMAND 'reliability', I do INFORM you that 'wikipedia' is totally biased. it is not however 'un reliable', 'wiki' is VERY 'reliable' , I rely on it to be false/fraudulent/misleading/lies/fiction. it is totally reliable in that respect, if wikipedia says it is true, you KNOW something smells $h!tty
The wiki reference was only given for you to read up on what the South Atlantic Anomaly was. Do you dispute its existence - yes or no?

[grachtengordel]

The wiki reference was only given for you to read up on what the South Atlantic Anomaly was. Do you dispute its existence - yes or no?

never heard of it so i can't say either way, i really would have to look at many sources before deciding what seemed most possible and then deducing what seemed most probable , countering in factors like if the 'source' had lied to or tried to decieve me before

[endlessvista]

Where?



The International Space Station passes through the Van Allen Belts five times a day (through a section called the South Atlantic Anomaly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Atlantic_Anomaly

Not the same thing at all. This would claiming that paddling around off the pier at Dover is akin to swimming across the English channel.

Secondly the ISS had a level of technology which makes the Apollo Command Module look like Stone Age by camparision. It has all this extra sheilding which protects it from collosal radiaiton exposure. By comparision the Apollo COmmand Module and LM were essentially biscuit tins in terms of their sheilding and structure. The ISS implemented this safety after the near frying of a Space Shuttle. However the Apollo astronauts passed through the Van Allen Belt as if it wasn't even there. 30+ YEARS PREVIOUS

I repeat, no humans have transversed the Van Allen belt since Apollo.

[grachtengordel]

You mean Bart Sibrel, the man who kept poking Buzz Aldrin (a man who was considerably older and shorter than him) in the chest, calling him a "liar and coward" and then rightly got decked for it?

i saw that, it was a bit out of order the way he was bullying armstriong, an old man who has obviously has brainwashing and mind control done on him, i feel so sorry for neil armstrong, the poor man was tricked as much as we were, and must have had some traumatic programming done on him, when he tries to talk about his time 'on the moon' , the man has to vomit and is immediately debilitated by the programming installed in his mind

[dreamweaver]

Originally Posted by grachtengordel View Post
but why has no other nation bothered to go there?
There are no prizes for coming second. The Soviet Union was the only other country at that time that was remotely capable of coming close. They were also well positioned to expose any "fakery" if they could find any, which they would gleefully have done at the height of the Cold War.

And not only the USSR could have exposed it either. There were thousands of radio hams and amateur astronomers who tracked the trajectory of the Eagle at every stage. Thousands of geologists have examined the moon rocks and confirmed that they are not of this earth. Obviously they must all be in on the conspiracy too.

India and China are planning manned space missions to the moon. They will probably beat the Americans back to it if Nasa gets the funding of the new mission pulled too (quite likely in the current circumstances).

IF 'space' is a vacuum, and there is minimal to no 'atmosphere' on the moon, what would protect the astronauts from the heat of the sun and the heat reflected back off the surface? how come they didn't bake in those suits?
I'll have to go and research exactly how much protection they had, you'll have to bear with me on that.

[grachtengordel]

Internet videos being used to promote particular viewpoints are invariably rubbish. Doesn't anyone read any more?

I do take your point , all 'sources' are suspect, but at least these internet 'amatuers' have not yet got a proven track record of lying to me like TV does.

some 'internet' films are excellent (lenonhonour,robmenard,'maud dib') and many have better editing and better music and a more mature (cant say 'adult' cos that means porn these days) presentation.

and anyway , when i posted that video , I was directly addressing 'SIZE' and not you . he had expressed a wish to examine different theories so he could makje his own judgement , i like JarrahWhite films and he is an aussie so 'size' will understand his accent mayt

[dreamweaver]

However the Apollo astronauts passed through the Van Allen Belt as if it wasn't even there. 30+ YEARS PREVIOUS

Not quite true. As I said, they steered a trajectory to minimise exposure as much as they could.

Could you answer my question btw? I don't see why this should be a one-way process.

"And while we're at it, perhaps you could tell me which Apollo missions you believe were real and which were faked?

Apollo 8 circumlunar navigation?
Apollo 10 descent to within 50,000 feet
of the surface?
Maybe it all started with Apollo 11 and the first
landing?
Then, of course, having hoaxed it, they did it all again for
Apollo 12. Then, just to make sure that the pretence was sticking, they
hoaxed a failure for Apollo 13 and then another success for 14.
Then they started to get more elaborate. They started adding extra equipment
(LRV) and hoaxed a further three missions (15,16 and 17). Amazing. Not
content with a simple hoax to beat the Russians, they felt the need to
do it 9 times (all other missions remained in earth orbit)."

[dreamweaver]

I do take your point , all 'sources' are suspect, but at least these internet 'amatuers' have not yet got a proven track record of lying to me like TV does.

some 'internet' films are excellent (lenonhonour,robmenard,'maud dib') and many have better editing and better music and a more mature (cant say 'adult' cos that means porn these days) presentation.

Fair enough. But I do despair of some of the crap that gets recycled on there. The best video I've ever seen on YT or G Video is "Money as Debt", which is simple but utterly compelling and so clear.

[endlessvista]

Nope, you demand "reliability", therefore only peer-reviewed research by credible scientists and engineers is admissible. You want to play hard-ball, we'll play hardball. Your move.


WOAH Horsey! You were the one who came barging on to this thread and claimed you could use this thing you call "science" to completely debunk every moon hoax theory and all you have done has either played the smart arse (badly), or shifted the argument or changed the subject completely.

I suspect you only expected to be presented with the photo evidence and no doubt you had all your wiki links and so on to disporve them, but you were thrown off your trajectory when I brought up technical issues of which you have so far eh "debunked" none, as you are still using your "science" to search web pages for. From your first post you made it sound like debunking this stuff was something you do for a laugh and yet you are completely at the mercy of wiki and other sources.

This thing you call "science" of which you speak and by your own admission you have great knowledge of in comparison to my tiny mind, is most interesting to me. Please tell me more of the ways of this "science". This is a new concept to me and I am eager to learn of your scientific teachings.:rolleyes:

Look under "S" in wiki BTW.

[grachtengordel]

Fair enough. But I do despair of some of the crap that gets recycled on there. The best video I've ever seen on YT or G Video is "Money as Debt", which is simple but utterly compelling and so clear.

yes, money as debt is good, even a child could understand it so that is one i show to 'very programmed' people, then i move them on to the 'hard stuff' like 'the money masters' , a great 'in depth' history , only fault is the presenter stabs his pen at the screen on every syllable

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936

[endlessvista]

"And while we're at it, perhaps you could tell me which Apollo missions you believe were real and which were faked?



sure:


Apollo 8 circumlunar navigation? = FAKED OR UNMANNED

Apollo 10 descent to within 50,000 feet
of the surface? = FAKED OR UNMANNED

Maybe it all started with Apollo 11 and the first
landing? = FAKED AND EARTH ORBIT


Then, of course, having hoaxed it, they did it all again for
Apollo 12. BINGO


Then, just to make sure that the pretence was sticking, they
hoaxed a failure for Apollo 13 and then another success for 14.BINGO


Then they started to get more elaborate. They started adding extra equipment
(LRV) and hoaxed a further three missions (15,16 and 17). Amazing. Not
content with a simple hoax to beat the Russians, they felt the need to
do it 9 times (all other missions remained in earth orbit)."BINGO


The bigger the story the greater the lie.

[endlessvista]

So how much of the Apollo hoax theory has the deamweaver who "understands science" and has "easily debunked" on this thread thus far?

remember we are on page 5 now and he came in with his "science" on post 3 on page one.

[grachtengordel]

Soviet Union .........were also well positioned to expose any "fakery" if they could find any,

good point. i do however still suspect that the 'cold war' was fabricated like the 'war on terror' , there were no nuclear missiles at greenham common, that kind of stuff. best theory i see yet is that the 'sov blok' was '1984', we were 'brave new world', when the 'wall' came down, the experiment ended, as a winner had been announced, the 'bravenewworld' model would be used worldwide as it was more sucsessful and lower maintainance. the 'cold war' was merely to stop 'cross-contamination' of the two studies in the experiment. still , a good point, loads of people would benefit from exposing the moon hoax so why not 'china' ?, 'castro' ? hmmmmmmmmmm

[lizzy]

but why has no other nation bothered to go there?

hi grachtengordel...I get your question is retorical...:)

b/c they could'nt even get through the van Allen radiation belt in that tin can , just one reason out of hundreds.....
my question is.why did'nt the Russians call "hoax"...and now we know why....both sides are CON-trolled by the same PTB.....

When the 3 'returning' :D astro-NAUGHTS held their first press conference, they were so shamefaced and reticient.......when Patrick Moore asked "what did the stars look like"....they could'nt remember seeing any !!!....

There are good thread here if use use the "search" button.......;)

and then they fed us one fake " movie " after another.......:eek:

[endlessvista]

good point. i do however still suspect that the 'cold war' was fabricated like the 'war on terror'

The Russians and the USA had an understanding, they would not blow the whistle on Apollo, if the Americans did not blow the whistle on the First Man in Space hoax.

It was a symbiotic relationship between two war mongering empires to not step on each other's toes directly.

[dreamweaver]

So how much of the Apollo hoax theory has the deamweaver who "understand science" "easily debunked" on this thread?

There hasn't been a single thing that has caused me any trouble so far, other than a specific question from gracht which I will have to come back on.

As for you thinking that they faked Apollo 8, 10, 11, then again to make sure, then faked one going wrong to make the pretence more exciting, then faked it another four times just to make sure... you owe me a new screen, this one's got coffee all over it (back home now).

[lizzy]

The Russians and the USA had an understanding, they would not blow the whistle on Apollo, if the Americans did not blow the whistle on the First Man in Space hoax.

It was a symbiotic relationship between two war mongering empires to not step on each other's toes directly.

yup and to keep bleeding the taxpayer for another great hoax....the cold war....

(today's big hoax's...global warming / war on terror / banking...these evil creatures are'nt human )

[dreamweaver]

hi grachtengordel...I get your question is retorical...:)

b/c they could'nt even get through the van Allen radiation belt in that tin can , just one reason out of hundreds.....

Already debunked earlier in the thread. The International Space Station passes through the VA belts five times a day (South Atlantic Anomaly) and they are belts, not spheres. It is perfectly possible to plot a trajectory to minimise exposure (not that they were in them long at thousands of mph anyway). Their exposure was no more than an average chest X-ray.

If you think the VA belts are insurmountable, show that you understand the maths. Let's see the numbers.

my question is.why did'nt the Russians call "hoax"...and now we know why....both sides are CON-trolled by the same PTB.....
Even if anyone's daft enough to believe that the Cold War was all a sham, presumably because they think the Illuminati controlled the Soviet Union, would anyone below 33rd masonic level be aware of this? Compartmentalisation of knowledge and all that - so why hasn't any ex-Soviet scientist, even now, entertained the Apollo hoax claims?

When the 3 'returning' :D astro-NAUGHTS held their first press conference, they were so shamefaced and reticient.......when Patrick Moore asked "what did the stars look like"....they could'nt remember seeing any !!!....
Fortunately this was before the days that people were picked for their "media-friendliness" rather than their ability to do the job. Would you rather Tony Blair was on the team? On second thoughts I wish someone would send him up there on a one-way trip...

[endlessvista]

There hasn't been a single thing that has caused me any trouble so far, other than a specific question from gracht which I will have to come back on.

As for you thinking that they faked Apollo 8, 10, 11, then again to make sure, then faked one going wrong to make the pretence more exciting, then faked it another four times just to make sure... you owe me a new screen, this one's got coffee all over it (back home now).

Answer the questions I put to you. PLEASE!!! I have obliged your requests.

I have barely even scratched the surface on why I beleive 100% the Apollo Moon landings were faked.

Take it from me, I am terribly cynical about all conspiricies, especially this one. But I spent years looking at the evidence and I could not longer censor myself from the fact that NASA faked it from start to finish and presented the world with a piece of brilliantly produced stage craft which was enough to fool 100% of the world back then, but they did not bank on people today and in the years since being far more technically savy and less servile to Governments as they are now.

You have debunked nothing, just proved how good you are at using wiki.

and you know fuck all about science either. Next time you come barging into a thread claiming to have the intellectual high standing in such a smug manner as you did on this thread, please have a long personal examinaiton of your claims otherwise you are likely to make as much of an eejit of yourself on other threads as you have on this one using you "science" which apparently only you can grasp...

*SQUEAK*"dreamweaver...you have a problem..."*CLICK*

[endlessvista]

There hasn't been a single thing that has caused me any trouble so far, other than a specific question from gracht which I will have to come back on.

Have you ever considered writing press releases for NASA?

[abababba]

I have watched several documentries on the moon hoax and they all seem to have missed one thing. There where no remote control cameras taken to the moon they where all hand held or placed on a tripod, so how would you explain that when leaving the moon the camera panned up to follow the LEM, now they either left a cameraman on the moon or they tied a piece of string to one of the landing vehicles legs. I would like to point out that tying string with thick gardening gloves on is difficult here on earth, so who did they leave,

Please answer this question.

Also please debunk the wires footage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

Specifically, the appearance of a "slightly floating or dangling effect" starting at 1:45.

[thetonic]

How did the astronauts get inside and out of the lunar landing module when the hatch is smaller in diameter than the bulk of the spacesuits?

Also where are all the stars in this picture of the astronaut? Did they suddenly disspaer?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_VRIPUQofXu8/STPip_2DTmI/AAAAAAAAEgA/wqTf_zdj_JE/s320/A17+6.jpg

http://ganymede.nmsu.edu/tharriso/aplem.gif

[dreamweaver]

Answer the questions I put to you. PLEASE!!! I have obliged your requests.
What questions do you claim I have not answered? And what precisely are your credentials in science?

[astrochicken]

The press confererence does it for me.. those are 3 people that don't feel

comfortable lying to the world

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


"Brother Aldrin is also a Master Mason in Montclair Lodge #144, NJ, 32nd Degree A.A.S.R., R.A.M. & K.T. in Authven Commandery, TX, a Recipient of the Knight Templar Cross of Honor in 1969 and is a Member of the Shrine of North America."

Nasa's just one big freemasonic billions-gobbling black hole.
I don't doubt people are on the moon and i don't doubt theree are bases there probably populated by goose-stepping remnants and their descendants from WW2.. but the *official* story is utterly ludicrous.

[dreamweaver]

Please answer this question.

Also please debunk the wires footage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

Specifically, the appearance of a "slightly floating or dangling effect" starting at 1:45.

Same old myths. Look more carefully, it's an antenna on the backpack, not "wires".

The backpack was known as the PLSS (personal life support system) and you can see the shape of the antenna here: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-PLSSOPSantenna.html

You can also see the antenna in this shot:

http://spacegrant.nmsu.edu/lunarlegacies/images/PLSS57.jpg

[zero1]

Without getting too kooky, one would assume there was no problem with the Apollo moon-landings since one is raised to believe there is an American flag on the lunar surface and a plaque with Richard Nixon's name on it, and that Buzz Aldrin and the other dude stepped off the lander with the famous words "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind..." or whatever it was.

Then you find out about the Van Allen belt, wherein the planet is encircled at distance by a lethal radiation belt between it and the moon which ought to prevent biological lifeforms from progressing beyond it. Then you hear all the stories about John Glenn going nuts after the mission, saying he saw alien ships and what have you on the Dark Side of the moon, in orbit. Then you have my Granny who watched the landings on television in 1969 and swears to this day they were faked in a Hollywood studio lot.

I don't know the truth of this matter as I've not investigated it thoroughly, but there is apparently a lot of evidence both for and against a real moon landing...

Time will tell.

[dreamweaver]

The press confererence does it for me.. those are 3 people that don't feel
comfortable lying to the world

So why didn't they pick Hollywood actors to deliver the lines better?

[dreamweaver]

Then you find out about the Van Allen belt, wherein the planet is encircled at distance by a lethal radiation belt between it and the moon which ought to prevent biological lifeforms from progressing beyond it.
Zero, they are belts, they are not impassable and the radiation isn't that high if you plot the right trajectory and you are passing through it at thousands of mph.

The best analysis I've ever seen on this comes from http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html

Since most people are too lazy to follow the links, here's the C&P (warning: it's very long, but the author takes an honest and balanced view):

Question:

Is it impossible to travel to the Moon, because of the Van Allen Belt?

From: Peter Wingerter
Grade: None given
City: None given State/Prov.: None given Country: None given
Area: Astronomy
Message ID Number: 958408099.As

Is there any truth to the rumor? Is it impossible to travel to the moon, because of the Van Allen Belt?

Peter Wingerter

Answer:

This is an especially interesting question, though maybe more about psychology and epistemology than about astronomy or physics. Nevertheless, the same question comes up again and again, in one form or another, so it really is very important.

It has a number of possible answers:

1. The Apollo spacecraft passed through the Van Allen belt quite quickly, so that in the short time they were exposed, the astronauts did not receive a dose of radiation considered dangerous, at least not compared to the inevitable other risks in the mission.

This is the straightforward, scientific answer. It is correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief.

2. It has to be possible to go to the Moon, because we who are old enough all saw them on TV; a million of us (me included, for Apollo 11) saw the actual launch; a few of us (me included, for Apollo 8) saw the Trans-Lunar Injection burn, from low-Earth orbit to trans-lunar trajectory in the dark sky over Hawaii; and how could anyone fake all that?!

This is a simple common-sense answer. Also correct, I think.

3. There was a monstrous government conspiracy, and the whole thing was faked. I am part of that conspiracy, so you cannot trust my answer.

I know for a fact this one is false -- but how can you know that?!

4. There was a monstrous conspiracy, and the whole thing was faked. I was deceived too, so you cannot trust my answer.

I am as sure as I think one can reasonably be about anything that this one is false, but of course how could I possibly be absolutely certain, in principle?

5. You can't know anything for sure that you have not completely verified yourself, all you can do is take the word of people you trust. So who do you trust?

There is a lot of truth in this one, especially in principle. In practice, we can usually do quite a bit better, especially in the sciences; but the issue is not silly or unimportant, even so. The head of the government of South Africa, for example, is in serious doubt about whether the human immunodeficiency virus, HIV, causes AIDS, because he is (probably sincerely, I guess) in doubt about whom to trust; although there seems to be no serious scientific controversy about the issue. Millions of lives could be at stake as a result.

Now let's take a little more substantial look at my first answer. The idea is to outline the basic facts of the case, and give you the materials you need to verify my statements, to whatever level of detail you wish. This is the traditional scientific way of answering a question. There are three basic issues.

1. What is the actual amount and nature of radiation present in the Van Allen Belts?
2. How long would an astronaut be exposed to that radiation while passing through the belts on a lunar trajectory, and what dose of radiation would he receive?
3. What would be the likely health effects?

Regarding the Van Allen belts, and the nature of the radiation in them, they are doughnut-shaped regions where charged particles, both protons and electrons, are trapped in the Earth's magnetic field. The number of particles encountered (flux is the technical jargon, to impress your friends!) depends on the energy of the particles; in general, the flux of high-energy particles is less, and the flux of low-energy particles is more. Very low energy particles cannot penetrate the skin of a spacecraft, nor even the skin of an astronaut. Very roughly speaking, electrons below about 1 million electron volts (MeV) are unlikely to be dangerous, and protons below 10 MeV are also not sufficiently penetrating to be a concern. The actual fluxes encountered in the Van Allen belts is a matter of great commercial importance, as communications satellites operate in the outer region, and their electronics, and hence lifetimes, are strongly affected by the radiation environment. Thus billions of dollars are at stake, never mind the Moon! The standard database on the fluxes in the belt are the models for the trapped radiation environment, AP8 for protons, and AE8 for electrons, maintained by the National Space Sciences Data Center at NASA's Goddard Spaceflight Center. Barth (1999) gives a summary which indicates that electrons with energies over 1 MeV have a flux above a million per square centimeter per second from 1-6 earth radii (about 6,300 - 38,000 km), and protons over 10 MeV have a flux above one hundred thousand per square centimeter per second from about 1.5-2.5 Earth radii (9,500 km - 16,000 km).

Then what would be the radiation dose due to such fluxes, for the amount of time an astronaut crew would be exposed? This was in fact a serious concern at the time that the Apollo program was first proposed. Unfortunately I have not located quantitative information in the time available, but my recollection is that the dose was roughly 2 rem (= 20 mSv, milli-Sievert).

The time the astronauts would be exposed is fairly easy to calculate from basic orbital mechanics, though probably not something most students below college level could easily verify. You have perhaps heard that to escape from Earth requires a speed of about 7 miles per second, which is about 11.2 km per sec. At that speed, it would require less than an hour to pass outside the main part of the belts at around 38,000 km altitude. However it is a little more complicated than that, because as soon as the rocket motor stops burning, the spacecraft immediately begins to slow down due to the attraction of gravity. At 38,000 km altitude it would actually be moving only about 4.6 km per sec, not 11.2. If we just take the geometric average of these two, 7.2 km per sec, we will not be too far off, and get about 1.5 hours for the time to pass beyond 38,000 km.

Unfortunately calculating the average radiation dose received by an astronaut in the belts is quite intricate in practice, though not too hard in principle. One must add up the effects of all kinds of particles, of all energies. For each kind of particle (electrons and protons in this situation) you have to take account of the shielding due to the Apollo spacecraft and the astronaut space suits. Here are some approximate values for the ranges of protons and electrons in aluminum:

Range in Aluminum [cm] Energy
[MeV] electrons protons
1 0.15 ~ nil
3 0.56 ~ nil
10 1.85 0.06
30 no flux 0.37
100 no flux 3.7

For electrons, the AE8 electron data shows negligible flux (< 1 electron per square cm per sec) over E=7 MeV at any altitude. The AP8 proton compilations indicates peak fluxes outside the spacecraft up to about 20,000 protons per square cm per sec above 100 MeV in a region around 1.7 Earth radii, but because the region is narrow, passage takes only about 5 min. Nevertheless, these appear to be the principal hazard.

These numbers seem generally consistent with the ~2 rem doses I recall. If every gram of a person's body absorbed 600,000 protons with energy 100 MeV, completely stopping them, the dose would be about 50 mSv. Assuming a typical thickness of 10 cm for a human and no shielding by the spacecraft gives a dose of something like 50 mSv in 300 sec due to protons in the most intense part of the belt.

For comparison, the US recommended limit of exposure for radiation workers is 50 mSv per year, based on the danger of causing cancer. The corresponding recommended limits in Britain and Cern are 15 mSv. For acute doses, the whole-body exposure lethal within 30 days to 50% of untreated cases is about 2.5-3.0 Gy (Gray) or 250-300 rad; in such circumstances, 1 rad is equivalent to 1 rem.

So the effect of such a dose, in the end, would not be enough to make the astronauts even noticeably ill. The low-level exposure could possibly cause cancer in the long term. I do not know exactly what the odds on that would be, I believe on the order of 1 in 1000 per astronaut exposed, probably some years after the trip. Of course, with nine trips, and a total of 3 X 9 = 27 astronauts (except for a few, like Jim Lovell, who went more than once) you would expect probably 5 or 10 cancers eventually in any case, even without any exposure, so it is not possible to know which if any might have been caused by the trips.

Much of this material can be found in the 1999 "Review of Particle Properties", (see below) in the sections on "Atomic and nuclear properties of materials", on "Radioactivity and radiation protection", and on "Passage of particles through matter".

By this point I have no doubt told you more than you really wanted to know about the Van Allen belt and the Apollo radiation problem! Nevertheless, I have barely scratched the surface, and waved my hands a bit, to make it seem likely that I'm not full of baloney. But in the end you always have to either do it all yourself, or trust a stranger completely, or try to find some path in between: which means understanding a little science, so you can judge for yourself if my arguments make any sense at all, check a little, think about it, maybe do a bit of research on your own from the references if you are interested. The only alternative is to trust no one and do everything, which is simply impossible for anyone; or really give up all your judgements to other people, who may be saints or crooks, wise or insane. I hope you will try to find the possible but not perfect in-between path by learning some science. It is hard, but it is fun and interesting, and it gives you your own power to think and evaluate for yourself, albeit in a limited and imperfect way.

REFERENCES:

Health Physics Society, professional society concerned with radiation effects and radiation protection.

University of Michigan Radiation and Health Physics page. Good general reference on radiation in the environment, including many links about radiation in space.

"Radiation Hazards to Crews of Interplanetary Missions: Biological Issues and Research Strategies", by the Task Group on the Biological Effects of Space Radiation, Space Studies Board, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications of the National Research Council; National Academy Press, 1997. About radiation hazards of possible long-term future missions in space.

"Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation in Manned Space Activities" http://radefx.bcm.tmc.edu/ionizing/publications/space.htm containing an extensive bibliography on the subject.

Standard reference for the Van Allen Belts is AP8 & AE8 Models for the Trapped Radiation Environment, NSSDC, GSFC.

"The Radiation Environment", by Janet Barth of GSFC, 1999; available at http://radhome.gsfc.nasa.gov/radhome/papers/apl_922.pdf.

"An Annotated Bibliography of the Apollo Program" Compiled by Roger D. Launius and J.D. Hunley Published as Monographs in Aerospace History, Number 2, July 1994. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollobib/contents.html

Berry, C.A. "Summary of Medical Experience in the Apollo 7 Through 11 Manned Spaceflights." Aerospace Medicine. 41 (May 1970): 500-19. Described as, "This is a sophisticated scientific paper describing the results of biomedical experiments during the early history of Apollo. It is especially helpful in discussing the problem of radiation and other effect on the astronauts during the missions to the Moon of Apollo 8 and 11."

1999 Edition of the "Review of Particle Properties" compiled by the Particle Data Group at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, and collaborators. "http://www-pdg.lbl.gov/1999/contents_sports.html"

Summary of paper AIAA-1969-19, RADIATION PLAN FOR THE APOLLO LUNAR MISSION (1969); complete paper available from the AIAA.

Note: some links and references updated 6/4/2007.

[oiram]

.
You people are great; Love you all keep going!
I just love it when People keep open there eyes to find the lies of these corrupter's.

I can not wait for the day when Americans will find out there entire space Bullshit only had one function to pull there money out of there pockets by the trillions. I told them for freaking years but ..........
I like to see all there faces once they find out the truth!

Always follow the money & you find the real Truth.

Please people search, search make my day I freaking Love it! ...... Please God don't let me down!

http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr40/413200/Laughing_Hyena80.gifhttp://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr40/413200/haha180.gifhttp://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr40/413200/haha180.gif http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr40/413200/banana1.gif http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr40/413200/banana.gifhttp://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr40/413200/thetruthwillsetyoufree.gif



FAKED Chinese Spacewalk !!! Under Water !!! PROOF !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us8xLsQ1MIE

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=786533

Whoops! China touts success of space launch before takeoff
t's got to be Murphy's Law that once a reporter publishes a trend story, an even better example of that trend is destined to come along. So it was that a real doozy came to light only days after I published a collection of the top Web-publishing gaffes. And this one takes the cake:

Click image to view our collection of Web news publishing gaffes, including the time Vice President Dick Cheney's obituary made its way onto the Web.
(Credit: TheSmokingGun)

A nice little story hit the Web Thursday talking up China's long-awaited space mission and even including detailed dialogue between the astronauts, according to the Associated Press.
Only problem was that the spacecraft hadn't even left the ground at the time the story came out. http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr40/413200/haha80.gif

The story was published by Xinhua, China's official news agency, in an apparent moment of clairvoyance. It was taken down after being up on Xinhua.com most of the day, the AP said.

A staffer at the agency later told the AP that the article, which had been dated September 27, was a "technical error."

The Shenzhou 7 mission, which is expected to feature China's first-ever spacewalk, did in fact take off successfully later Thursday (at least we think so--articles on the launch all cite Xinhua as their source).

But let's hope Xinhau at least comes up with some fresh quotes from the astronauts, maybe even ones that were actually said.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10051677-93.html

.

[oiram]

NASA Def. faked the Moon Landings!!!


That original video that started this post is very interesting but could be a hoax in and of itself. However, it is compelling and coupled with the demeanor of the astronauts afterwards and the general reading of body language there, it seems very likely that the version presented in the documentary is indeed the correct one. Also Buzz Aldrin looks like a real fake lying dude. 33rd Degree masons get introduced usually to the notion that Lucifer is their purpose and therefore from that point on that they accept that they have NO issue whatsoever with lying absolutely and completely. In fact the only thing they answer honestly is "I am Lucifer". funny enough it says that in the bible that if you ask the Devil his name he is forced to reveal himself, but every other thing out of his mouth will be a lie. There is an excellent vid on youtube where this guy video taped a mason outside his club and he was saying "I am lucifer, I am goodness and honesty" stuff like that.
edit just found it here it is:


NASA - Faked Moon Landing
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1376152848542315216
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1376152848542315216

Mason - Shriner claims to be Lucifer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBjOs-egFMs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBjOs-egFMs

Mason - Shriner claims to be Lucifer

man this guy is a ball of hate.

What I LOVE about this video is how the video taper energetically beats this guy. I mean this guy is just trying to unload his evil but he walks away in the end.

Comment By : thegoodnessisgood (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=523706&postcount=40)

This is an interesting film, but there are far better ones. Check out these threads for a full discussion of the subject:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13588

further proof that nasa astronauts were freemasons...
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=54&pictureid=778


this is a stars and stripes flag that was presented by a astronaut to the "mother lodge" of kilwinning that resides in their lodge museum. i got the picture from their website http://www.mk0.com/ but the picture no longer seems to be on their website.

[thetonic]

[SIZE="3"]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us8xLsQ1MIE




.

Damn... PWN!

[ranran]

The mythbusters TV show actually disproved the conspiracy theorys

[oiram]

Now you Guys tell me what you think!


You know what was my first reaction & I said to my Friend the first time I seen the Mars Rover images on TV with Iron red back ground?
I said to him you know this back ground image reminded me of places I have seen when I was working in the outback of Australia!

Now all what is missing to make the bogus Mars landing complete is; that a freaking Kangaroo will jump past the Rover Camera! http://waronyou.com/forums/Smileys/default/Die_Lol.gif

http://www.redcentre.com.au/050d.jpg (http://"http://www.redcentre.com.au/red-centre.html")http://www.teslasociety.com/marspic4.jpg (http://"http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.teslasociety.com/marspic4.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.teslasociety.com/mars2.htm&h=400&w=400&sz=51&hl=en&start=61&um=1&usg=__21V1JtB58adPAjJSVBfQUD6Wdnk=&tbnid=VEK_9ujCiC-KWM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfirst%2Bmars%2Blanding%26start%3D54%2 6ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26newwindow%3D1%26sa fe%3Doff%26sa%3DN")
http://www.stereoeye.jp/stereoclub/scta2003/pd_Alice_Springs_Corroboree_2_R.jpg (http://"http://www.redcentre.com.au/brochure/rcapg3.htm")

Maybe the Pictures have been taken close to Alice springs but could have been taken anywhere in Australia?
Now I was not joking when I said this to my Friend because have a look at this Photos and this is with no filter being used!
Not only this; have a look what they call the side name where I got the Photos from!:eek:

Mars the red Planet "Right" Australia also because of the iron all over the place!
Side Name: Australian Red Centre Experience
http://www.redcentre.com.au/brochure/030a.jpg (http://"http://www.redcentre.com.au/brochure/rcapg3.htm")
http://www.redcentre.com.au/brochure/rcapg3.htm

What do you think do I have a point here! Do they have secret secure Bases around the Alice springs area?

Now I have to say to these NASA guys don't you monkeys know that Australia is Australia & not Mars?  http://waronyou.com/forums/Smileys/default/Die_Lol.gif


http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=5708

[zero1]

Zero, they are belts, they are not impassable and the radiation isn't that high if you plot the right trajectory and you are passing through it at thousands of mph.

The best analysis I've ever seen on this comes from http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html

Since most people are too lazy to follow the links, here's the C&P (warning: it's very long, but the author takes an honest and balanced view):

Question:

Is it impossible to travel to the Moon, because of the Van Allen Belt?

From: Peter Wingerter
Grade: None given
City: None given State/Prov.: None given Country: None given
Area: Astronomy
Message ID Number: 958408099.As

Is there any truth to the rumor? Is it impossible to travel to the moon, because of the Van Allen Belt?

Peter Wingerter

Answer:

This is an especially interesting question, though maybe more about psychology and epistemology than about astronomy or physics. Nevertheless, the same question comes up again and again, in one form or another, so it really is very important.

It has a number of possible answers:

1. The Apollo spacecraft passed through the Van Allen belt quite quickly, so that in the short time they were exposed, the astronauts did not receive a dose of radiation considered dangerous, at least not compared to the inevitable other risks in the mission.

This is the straightforward, scientific answer. It is correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief.

2. It has to be possible to go to the Moon, because we who are old enough all saw them on TV; a million of us (me included, for Apollo 11) saw the actual launch; a few of us (me included, for Apollo 8) saw the Trans-Lunar Injection burn, from low-Earth orbit to trans-lunar trajectory in the dark sky over Hawaii; and how could anyone fake all that?!

This is a simple common-sense answer. Also correct, I think.

3. There was a monstrous government conspiracy, and the whole thing was faked. I am part of that conspiracy, so you cannot trust my answer.

I know for a fact this one is false -- but how can you know that?!

4. There was a monstrous conspiracy, and the whole thing was faked. I was deceived too, so you cannot trust my answer.

I am as sure as I think one can reasonably be about anything that this one is false, but of course how could I possibly be absolutely certain, in principle?

5. You can't know anything for sure that you have not completely verified yourself, all you can do is take the word of people you trust. So who do you trust?

There is a lot of truth in this one, especially in principle. In practice, we can usually do quite a bit better, especially in the sciences; but the issue is not silly or unimportant, even so. The head of the government of South Africa, for example, is in serious doubt about whether the human immunodeficiency virus, HIV, causes AIDS, because he is (probably sincerely, I guess) in doubt about whom to trust; although there seems to be no serious scientific controversy about the issue. Millions of lives could be at stake as a result.

Now let's take a little more substantial look at my first answer. The idea is to outline the basic facts of the case, and give you the materials you need to verify my statements, to whatever level of detail you wish. This is the traditional scientific way of answering a question. There are three basic issues.

1. What is the actual amount and nature of radiation present in the Van Allen Belts?
2. How long would an astronaut be exposed to that radiation while passing through the belts on a lunar trajectory, and what dose of radiation would he receive?
3. What would be the likely health effects?

Regarding the Van Allen belts, and the nature of the radiation in them, they are doughnut-shaped regions where charged particles, both protons and electrons, are trapped in the Earth's magnetic field. The number of particles encountered (flux is the technical jargon, to impress your friends!) depends on the energy of the particles; in general, the flux of high-energy particles is less, and the flux of low-energy particles is more. Very low energy particles cannot penetrate the skin of a spacecraft, nor even the skin of an astronaut. Very roughly speaking, electrons below about 1 million electron volts (MeV) are unlikely to be dangerous, and protons below 10 MeV are also not sufficiently penetrating to be a concern. The actual fluxes encountered in the Van Allen belts is a matter of great commercial importance, as communications satellites operate in the outer region, and their electronics, and hence lifetimes, are strongly affected by the radiation environment. Thus billions of dollars are at stake, never mind the Moon! The standard database on the fluxes in the belt are the models for the trapped radiation environment, AP8 for protons, and AE8 for electrons, maintained by the National Space Sciences Data Center at NASA's Goddard Spaceflight Center. Barth (1999) gives a summary which indicates that electrons with energies over 1 MeV have a flux above a million per square centimeter per second from 1-6 earth radii (about 6,300 - 38,000 km), and protons over 10 MeV have a flux above one hundred thousand per square centimeter per second from about 1.5-2.5 Earth radii (9,500 km - 16,000 km).

Then what would be the radiation dose due to such fluxes, for the amount of time an astronaut crew would be exposed? This was in fact a serious concern at the time that the Apollo program was first proposed. Unfortunately I have not located quantitative information in the time available, but my recollection is that the dose was roughly 2 rem (= 20 mSv, milli-Sievert).

The time the astronauts would be exposed is fairly easy to calculate from basic orbital mechanics, though probably not something most students below college level could easily verify. You have perhaps heard that to escape from Earth requires a speed of about 7 miles per second, which is about 11.2 km per sec. At that speed, it would require less than an hour to pass outside the main part of the belts at around 38,000 km altitude. However it is a little more complicated than that, because as soon as the rocket motor stops burning, the spacecraft immediately begins to slow down due to the attraction of gravity. At 38,000 km altitude it would actually be moving only about 4.6 km per sec, not 11.2. If we just take the geometric average of these two, 7.2 km per sec, we will not be too far off, and get about 1.5 hours for the time to pass beyond 38,000 km.

Unfortunately calculating the average radiation dose received by an astronaut in the belts is quite intricate in practice, though not too hard in principle. One must add up the effects of all kinds of particles, of all energies. For each kind of particle (electrons and protons in this situation) you have to take account of the shielding due to the Apollo spacecraft and the astronaut space suits. Here are some approximate values for the ranges of protons and electrons in aluminum:

Range in Aluminum [cm] Energy
[MeV] electrons protons
1 0.15 ~ nil
3 0.56 ~ nil
10 1.85 0.06
30 no flux 0.37
100 no flux 3.7

For electrons, the AE8 electron data shows negligible flux (< 1 electron per square cm per sec) over E=7 MeV at any altitude. The AP8 proton compilations indicates peak fluxes outside the spacecraft up to about 20,000 protons per square cm per sec above 100 MeV in a region around 1.7 Earth radii, but because the region is narrow, passage takes only about 5 min. Nevertheless, these appear to be the principal hazard.

These numbers seem generally consistent with the ~2 rem doses I recall. If every gram of a person's body absorbed 600,000 protons with energy 100 MeV, completely stopping them, the dose would be about 50 mSv. Assuming a typical thickness of 10 cm for a human and no shielding by the spacecraft gives a dose of something like 50 mSv in 300 sec due to protons in the most intense part of the belt.

For comparison, the US recommended limit of exposure for radiation workers is 50 mSv per year, based on the danger of causing cancer. The corresponding recommended limits in Britain and Cern are 15 mSv. For acute doses, the whole-body exposure lethal within 30 days to 50% of untreated cases is about 2.5-3.0 Gy (Gray) or 250-300 rad; in such circumstances, 1 rad is equivalent to 1 rem.

So the effect of such a dose, in the end, would not be enough to make the astronauts even noticeably ill. The low-level exposure could possibly cause cancer in the long term. I do not know exactly what the odds on that would be, I believe on the order of 1 in 1000 per astronaut exposed, probably some years after the trip. Of course, with nine trips, and a total of 3 X 9 = 27 astronauts (except for a few, like Jim Lovell, who went more than once) you would expect probably 5 or 10 cancers eventually in any case, even without any exposure, so it is not possible to know which if any might have been caused by the trips.

Much of this material can be found in the 1999 "Review of Particle Properties", (see below) in the sections on "Atomic and nuclear properties of materials", on "Radioactivity and radiation protection", and on "Passage of particles through matter".

By this point I have no doubt told you more than you really wanted to know about the Van Allen belt and the Apollo radiation problem! Nevertheless, I have barely scratched the surface, and waved my hands a bit, to make it seem likely that I'm not full of baloney. But in the end you always have to either do it all yourself, or trust a stranger completely, or try to find some path in between: which means understanding a little science, so you can judge for yourself if my arguments make any sense at all, check a little, think about it, maybe do a bit of research on your own from the references if you are interested. The only alternative is to trust no one and do everything, which is simply impossible for anyone; or really give up all your judgements to other people, who may be saints or crooks, wise or insane. I hope you will try to find the possible but not perfect in-between path by learning some science. It is hard, but it is fun and interesting, and it gives you your own power to think and evaluate for yourself, albeit in a limited and imperfect way.

REFERENCES:

Health Physics Society, professional society concerned with radiation effects and radiation protection.

University of Michigan Radiation and Health Physics page. Good general reference on radiation in the environment, including many links about radiation in space.

"Radiation Hazards to Crews of Interplanetary Missions: Biological Issues and Research Strategies", by the Task Group on the Biological Effects of Space Radiation, Space Studies Board, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications of the National Research Council; National Academy Press, 1997. About radiation hazards of possible long-term future missions in space.

"Health Effects of Ionizing Radiation in Manned Space Activities" http://radefx.bcm.tmc.edu/ionizing/publications/space.htm containing an extensive bibliography on the subject.

Standard reference for the Van Allen Belts is AP8 & AE8 Models for the Trapped Radiation Environment, NSSDC, GSFC.

"The Radiation Environment", by Janet Barth of GSFC, 1999; available at http://radhome.gsfc.nasa.gov/radhome/papers/apl_922.pdf.

"An Annotated Bibliography of the Apollo Program" Compiled by Roger D. Launius and J.D. Hunley Published as Monographs in Aerospace History, Number 2, July 1994. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollobib/contents.html

Berry, C.A. "Summary of Medical Experience in the Apollo 7 Through 11 Manned Spaceflights." Aerospace Medicine. 41 (May 1970): 500-19. Described as, "This is a sophisticated scientific paper describing the results of biomedical experiments during the early history of Apollo. It is especially helpful in discussing the problem of radiation and other effect on the astronauts during the missions to the Moon of Apollo 8 and 11."

1999 Edition of the "Review of Particle Properties" compiled by the Particle Data Group at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, and collaborators. "http://www-pdg.lbl.gov/1999/contents_sports.html"

Summary of paper AIAA-1969-19, RADIATION PLAN FOR THE APOLLO LUNAR MISSION (1969); complete paper available from the AIAA.

Note: some links and references updated 6/4/2007.

Thanks for that, DreamWeaver, very interesting stuff. :cool:

[grachtengordel]

When the 3 'returning' :D astro-NAUGHTS held their first press conference, they were so shamefaced and reticient.......when Patrick Moore asked "what did the stars look like"....they could'nt remember seeing any !!!....

yes, i saw that , 'buzz' and the other famous guy looked well shifty but 'collins' looked totally innocent, naive as a baby, like they didn't even have to use trauma based mind control programming on him.

DEBUNKERS.......... EXPLAIN ..........THIS............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcF4ZAsT2Do

[grachtengordel]

The mythbusters TV show actually disproved the conspiracy theorys

oh well, that clears that up then, whats on MTV brad?

[center]Now you Guys tell me what you think!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fNbnXmV1CQ&playnext=1&p=6FB196CE0B378BFB&index=1&feature=PlayList&playnext_from=PL&ytsession=7FcJJM_0XKa3HU9Oqlg8eghbjXtD3c79OnAcTwx-vWyKzQfM1-20kSaw4AMvz5VIv0kqZtJNXfWIDlgxY5WXZumfa2hJfO_1NXHB fa1NhNBEokcITkk8VWXrEgoeTbEpdQSwAmFHaWNocJeEJFLCfM l5ih3oJoK8H1xnR6lsREeAF9wIPnZKc0U02F_WZOMgnz3ibKXJ V_21iT8rd9tzncUydZ2R1OR0Xd4msfAc-RlMP95Jn_-4LE9zOFJ7EaWX8326ukccybVvwwoO06YbQQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH7vN3oO1Zw

[abababba]

Same old myths. Look more carefully, it's an antenna on the backpack, not "wires".

The backpack was known as the PLSS (personal life support system) and you can see the shape of the antenna here: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-PLSSOPSantenna.html

You can also see the antenna in this shot:

http://spacegrant.nmsu.edu/lunarlegacies/images/PLSS57.jpg

I asked two questions, neither of which were answered. I said please explain the dangling effect seen at 1:45 in the video. I was not asking about the wires footage as a whole.

Second, there was a really brilliant question early in the thread that you have ignored. How did the video footage of the takeoff from the moon pan up as the space shuttle took off when the only cameras were hand held?

[jiffy]

I have little knowledge of the science involved, but I have a BEng in Electronic Engineering and worked in IT for more years than I care to remember, I find it rather difficult to believe that something that had the computing power of a Commador 64 took ppls to the moon.

I took A level (when A level were real A levels) photography, so I have a little understanding of lighting.
Some of the photographs I have seen have to of had Fill in lighting, you can't get foreground detail when the light source is directly behind.

Why when two pictures are overlaid they have identical backgrounds?

how do you get a shadow cast going towards light source without additional lighting.

As I understand they had standard kodak 35mm film and haselblad camera's

SO how did the film survive the heat/cold

How did the film survive the radiation belt? given that the old luggage scanners used to wipe films

[grachtengordel]

T Thousands of geologists have examined the moon rocks and confirmed that they are not of this earth. Obviously they must all be in on the conspiracy too

I accept that the rocks are 'not of this earth' and they may be from 'the moon' , what i doubt is that the apollo 'lander' (thing looks like a 'thunderbird' model) took THOSE men to the desert scape we saw on film. I think it is more likely that 'we' have been to the moon , but not by that flimsy craft, more likely by 'stargate' or some 'astral' travel and the 'moon' may well be artificial and may well be CRAWLING with extra and inner terrestrial creatures . i also think it is quite possible that 'we' have already been to mars years age

[lizzy]

[b]
I can not wait for the day when Americans will find out there entire space Bullshit only had one function to pull there money out of there pockets by the trillions. I told them for freaking years but ..........
I like to see all there faces once they find out the truth!

Always follow the money & you find the real Truth.

[SIZE="4"]FAKED Chinese Spacewalk !!! Under Water !!! PROOF !!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us8xLsQ1MIE

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=786533

Whoops! China touts success of space launch before takeoff


.

hi oiram.....the chinese clip was great.......pumped alot of patriotic (idiotic) pride into chinese.....most would never want to know it was all fake.:eek:

[jiffy]

I asked two questions, neither of which were answered. I said please explain the dangling effect seen at 1:45 in the video. I was not asking about the wires footage as a whole.

Second, there was a really brilliant question early in the thread that you have ignored. How did the video footage of the takeoff from the moon pan up as the space shuttle took off when the only cameras were hand held?


More important how when he is cast in shadow did they get detail without studio lighting

[oiram]

How did the astronauts get inside and out of the lunar landing module when the hatch is smaller in diameter than the bulk of the spacesuits?

On TV everything is possible! :D
Using a good computer creates miracles "used Super Goo"
http://i467.photobucket.com/albums/rr40/413200/11/lizard.gif
Here is my clean version:
http://s467.photobucket.com/albums/rr40/413200/11/?action=view&current=01.flv

[dreamweaver]

I asked two questions
Tough. I asked endlessvista to give his best shots. You are not him, so I've made no commitment to answer your or anyone else's posts.

, neither of which were answered. I said please explain the dangling effect seen at 1:45 in the video. I was not asking about the wires footage as a whole.
I'll have a look when I have the time, even though you are not endlessvista and I am under no obligation to sit through videos. I am not chained to the computer 24/7.

Second, there was a really brilliant question early in the thread that you have ignored. How did the video footage of the takeoff from the moon pan up as the space shuttle took off when the only cameras were hand held?
Well, that's wrong for a start. For example, the camera that filmed Armstrong was mounted on a flap that was opened to film him climbing down the ladder of the Eagle. So "the only cameras were hand-held" is a false premise to start with.

The shot of the lunar module (not the space shuttle!) taking off was filmed by a tripod-mounted camera with a mechanism to pan up. As far as I'm aware, they only did this with Apollo 17.

[hugolast]

first time i've looked at this stuff and i'm amazed. On balance the footage looks like a bad b movie, they should go back and remaster it so it looks better. I think it's only because they can't because people have the real vintage footage and that would make matters worse.

This is my honest opinion i can't see how it can be real it's so badly done i'd find it hard to defend even if for a bet and if my pride was at stake. It made me smile, the way the camera pans at the end - hollywood eh?

[grachtengordel]

How did the film survive the radiation belt? given that the old luggage scanners used to wipe films

that is a bloody good question

The shot of the lunar module (not the space shuttle!) taking off was filmed by a tripod-mounted camera with a mechanism to pan up. As far as I'm aware, they only did this with Apollo 17.

but what was the 'mechanism' and who controlled it? was it a bit of string tied between the camera and the leg of the garry anderson model they called a 'lunar module'?

[dreamweaver]

that is a bloody good question
re film passing through VA belts.

Actually, airport scanners don't fog film. I've had plenty of films passed through them without any effect.

The astronauts were exposed to no more radiation in the craft than a chest X-ray. I've posted the guy's calculations on that - if you want to dispute him, the only sure way of knowing is to educate yourself in the necessary maths and physics and do the calculations yourself.

I can't see the issue of films in canisters being problematic.
but what was the 'mechanism' and who controlled it? was it a bit of string tied between the camera and the leg of the garry anderson model they called a 'lunar module'?

It was remote control.


And in response to abababba, I've viewed the video in question now. You're talking about a second or two of footage cherry-picked by a guy who wants you to believe it was men on wires. That's only convincing if you already agree with hi, and aren't prepared to do your own research. You can obtain full DVDs of Apollo footage without selective editing. See the whole thing, then decide.

Bye for now, otherwise I'll be here all bloody week. :rolleyes:

[abababba]

re film passing through VA belts.

And in response to abababba, I've viewed the video in question now. You're talking about a second or two of footage cherry-picked by a guy who wants you to believe it was men on wires. That's only convincing if you already agree with hi, and aren't prepared to do your own research. You can obtain full DVDs of Apollo footage without selective editing. See the whole thing, then decide.

Bye for now, otherwise I'll be here all bloody week. :rolleyes:

I understand that you don't want to discuss this all day. But if you ever do come back in the future: I recognize that is a cherry picked piece of footage but I think that's exactly the point. If you find one piece of footage that is impossible to actually happen on the moon, then that debunks the whole story. So there must be some possible explanation for it if the official story is true. I haven't heard a scientific explanation for how dangling is possible on the moon but would be interested to hear if there is one.

[oiram]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fNbnXmV1CQ&playnext=1&p=6FB196CE0B378BFB&index=1&feature=PlayList&playnext_from=PL&ytsession=7FcJJM_0XKa3HU9Oqlg8eghbjXtD3c79OnAcTwx-vWyKzQfM1-20kSaw4AMvz5VIv0kqZtJNXfWIDlgxY5WXZumfa2hJfO_1NXHB fa1NhNBEokcITkk8VWXrEgoeTbEpdQSwAmFHaWNocJeEJFLCfM l5ih3oJoK8H1xnR6lsREeAF9wIPnZKc0U02F_WZOMgnz3ibKXJ V_21iT8rd9tzncUydZ2R1OR0Xd4msfAc-RlMP95Jn_-4LE9zOFJ7EaWX8326ukccybVvwwoO06YbQQ

I am a professional Paraglider & once I launched from 2700 meters & the air is thin, let me tell you I nearly shit my pans :eek: the way I went down.

I don't know if my Paraglider even would inflate on Mars. So how they used Parachutes is a mystery to me. "Maybe they had a big set of blowers on the module pointing upward! :D

If they even went there; which I doubt I would say there must be a big great hole in the ground!

Freaking Scientists Waist of money just being used to fool the not so technical minded public.

Now you may also understand why it is a waist of time to go to there schools because they only teach you shit so there fools propaganda & manipulation works!
Compulsory School have a good guess why this is so! 1 + 1 = 2
Creating brain dead sheep!

Scientists "yeah right"
Politicians "yeah right"
Highly educated "yeah right"
Hundreds of degrees, PHD's & title's "yeah right"
Free Energy is not possible "yeah right"
Aircrafts & titanium made engines & black boxes disintegrate in a fire in the Pentagon "yeah right"
Passports flying out of a burning inferno intact onto the lap of a Cop "yeah right"
Global Warming "yeah right"
And Islam is the only true Religion "yeah right"
And Jesus was not a man like you & me "yeah right"
And Jews are the only chosen once which are Human & all the rest is worth less then animals "yeah right"
The only insane war ever happened war against the Jews "yeah right"

Do you understand now what they tort you in school?

Freaking Retards, greedy self serving money sucking & paid off Psychopathic Lucifer worshiping puppets they are & most if not all Free Maisons are part of this Bullshit game >>> back to reality!

[endlessvista]

What questions do you claim I have not answered? And what precisely are your credentials in science?

30 years in Astronomy. Next question?

[hugolast]

Originally Posted by dreamweaver
T Thousands of geologists have examined the moon rocks and confirmed that they are not of this earth. Obviously they must all be in on the conspiracy too

couldn't it be meteorites, it's a possibilty surely especially if the rocks are not from this earth

[endlessvista]

Bye for now, otherwise I'll be here all bloody week. :rolleyes:


Really? I thought you were going stay to easily debunk the Apollo hoax with your microscope and science?

[jiffy]

re film passing through VA belts.

Actually, airport scanners don't fog film. I've had plenty of films passed through them without any effect.

The astronauts were exposed to no more radiation in the craft than a chest X-ray. I've posted the guy's calculations on that - if you want to dispute him, the only sure way of knowing is to educate yourself in the necessary maths and physics and do the calculations yourself.

I can't see the issue of films in canisters being problematic.

:



How did the film survive the radiation belt? given that the old luggage scanners used to wipe films

You just happened to miss the OLD LUGGAGE SCANNER, maybe your to young to remember, but when scanners first came out you had to remove films from camera's otherwise they were wiped blank not fogged. Luggage scanners now use much less radiation than body X-Rays.

I have no need to do the maths, if by your own words the belt is no more radioactive than a chest X-Ray I would suggest you take a film next time you have one and see what happens!!!!!!!

Also please answer the other questions regarding lighting, overlaid backgrounds and temperature's that normal 35mm film allegedly withstood.

Correct me if im wrong but I'm lead to believe that the Maximum surface temperature is 123°C and Minimum surface temperature -233°C ?

If this is true try putting a film in the oven, then a freeze, and see what happens.;)

[endlessvista]

They earth is filled with Moon and Mars rocks. They can be easily collected in Antartica. They were blasted off the moon by meteor impacts and floated around in the solar system before falling to earth. They find them on the Antartic as they stand out against the white ice and snow. Literally thousands of them fall to earth every day. Getting moon rocks on earth is fairly easy.

Even if this was not the case, unmanned probes had already brought them back before Apollo.

I am amazed that people who "debunk" the moon hoax by saying "but they have moon rocks" are so blantantly ignorant of the dynamic of astrogeology but then claim to have "science" on their side.

I have found time and time again that the Moon hoax "debunkers" are often incredibly ignorant of the "science" they claim to represent, and just assume that because the saw it on TV then it happened when you really get down to the nitty gritty.

Or they are on the NASA payroll or are hoping to get work from them. Like the mole who runs Bad Astronomy who when all else fails resorts to calling people "nuts" and "kooks" when they coner him on issue such as how did they get the Lunar Rover off the LM and assemble it and why no technical documents relating to this procedure were ever produced. Let alone showing how it was even squeezed into the LM. If it was it would make if impossible for the astronauts to even get into their spacesuits due to the lack of space to move.

[endlessvista]

temperature is 123°C and Minimum surface temperature -233°C ?

and the Apollo film was run of the mill Kodak film with no special modifactions and they took some of the most beautifully exposed and composed photographic images in the history of photography with a camera mounted on their chests that had no view finder.

[runciter]

endlessvista your titanic thread is one of my all time favourites and this one is great too.

:)

[coco]

I'm here to make one statement. I watched man walk on the moon and all that. Not very exciting to child. Anyway, I have to admit when they took off from the moon it looked fakey and still does to me today. Looked like an advanced sort of photo imagery for the time. Somewhat cartoony.

[allure]

Can anybody link the original video from the first post? Its not showing up for me.

[dreamweaver]

30 years in Astronomy. Next question?

What questions do you claim I haven't answered? Not that I was inviting you to flood me with multiple posts in between me answering other posts anyway, I was inviting you to give it your best shot and have a meaningful discussion rather than a pie-flinging contest. But it seems you are only interested in the latter.

And "30 years in astronomy" could mean anything from someone who occasionally glances up at the sky and can name a few constellations up to a university professor. Which is it?

Really? I thought you were going stay to easily debunk the Apollo hoax with your microscope and science?

I invited you to give it your best shot and you really haven't come up with anything remotely troubling so far. Why are you having so much trouble debating facts rather than attacking the messenger?

and the Apollo film was run of the mill Kodak film with no special modifactions and they took some of the most beautifully exposed and composed photographic images in the history of photography with a camera mounted on their chests that had no view finder.
Hasselblad cameras don't have a viewfinder but they do have a rangefinder which is visible from the top, as any photographer knows. I don't know if the Hasselblads used by Apollo had rangefinders or not, but that's definitely their 'style'.

They also took hundreds of 'duds' that didn't make it to general release. Unsurprisingly, NASA chose the best ones.

Or they are on the NASA payroll or are hoping to get work from them. Like the mole who runs Bad Astronomy who when all else fails resorts to calling people "nuts" and "kooks" when they coner him on issue such as how did they get the Lunar Rover off the LM and assemble it and why no technical documents relating to this procedure were ever produced. Let alone showing how it was even squeezed into the LM. If it was it would make if impossible for the astronauts to even get into their spacesuits due to the lack of space to move.
Aha! So far from being someone who has just recently "reached the conclusion" that these missions were faked, you have in fact believed it for a long time and got into slanging matches with the 'Bad Astronomy" guy, haven't you? Gave yourself away there.

And surely the concept of folding things up isn't beyond you? Right now, I have a tent folded up in a package that measures about 18" long and 6" in diameter. Yet after a few minutes of work, hey presto, it's a four-man tent with dimensions (H)190 max/140 min, (W)470, (L)255cm.

Oh, and please link to the Bad Astronomy forum threads in which someone (you?) was called a "nut" and "kook" when they were "cornered" about the Lunar Rover, so we can all judge for ourselves who was in the right.

[dreamweaver]

I'm here to make one statement. I watched man walk on the moon and all that. Not very exciting to child. Anyway, I have to admit when they took off from the moon it looked fakey and still does to me today. Looked like an advanced sort of photo imagery for the time. Somewhat cartoony.

The thing is that they were there to land on the moon, get a few snapshots, gather a few samples and make a speech (in which the lines were either fluffed or - as Armstrong claims - the word "a" was blotted out by static). They weren't there to make it "look good".

What people think "looks good" and "sounds good" on screen doesn't always correspond with the real thing anyway. People who have only ever heard gunfire in movies think real gunshots "sound fake" for example. And think how many people are convinced that spacecraft make "whooshing" sounds in space after watching all those sci-fi movies and TV shows...

[dreamweaver]

Originally Posted by dreamweaver
T Thousands of geologists have examined the moon rocks and confirmed that they are not of this earth. Obviously they must all be in on the conspiracy too

couldn't it be meteorites, it's a possibilty surely especially if the rocks are not from this earth

Good question. Geologists can tell the difference though. See http://www.meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm for example. The differences are very clear and any geologist worth their salt could easily tell the difference between a meteorite and a rock taken from the moon. For a start moon rocks won't have any of the charring that meteorites found on earth would. This is also why tales of Werner von Braun secretly grabbing meteorites from the Antarctic and passing them off as moon rocks are complete rubbish.

[dreamweaver]

Re the heat question raised by gracht and others. I said I would go away and research it and this is what someone who believes the Apollo missions were real says: "The temperatures quoted are surface temperatures. Remember that on the Moon, in a vacuum, there is no such thing as an ambient temperature. It's not like walking outside on a hot day or a cold winter's night. There is no heat to deal with except incoming solar radiation, and the ability to deal with that was well-known by Apollo. That's why the spacesuits were white: it reflects most incoming light and heat. The spacesuit design devoted more effort to keeping the astronauts from overheating due to the heat from their own bodies in a sealed rubber suit than to keeping them from frying in the solar heat."

Now I'm not claiming to be the fount of all knowledge, I prefer to write about what I know about rather than make shit up. The above sounds plausible enough to me but I'll be the first to admit I'll need to research this particular question in greater depth to be certain about it.

[grachtengordel]

And think how many people are convinced that spacecraft make "whooshing" sounds in space after watching all those sci-fi movies and TV shows...

are you serious? there can't be many people that dumb. thinking that "spacecraft make "whooshing" sounds in space" is as daft as believing that those men were actually on the moon

[endlessvista]

endlessvista your titanic thread is one of my all time favourites and this one is great too.

:)

cheers mate - the truth will set us all free.

[dreamweaver]

are you serious? there can't be many people that dumb. thinking that "spacecraft make "whooshing" sounds in space"
Producers do it precisely because they think the average viewer wouldn't understand that there are no noises in space (at least external to the vessel).

You can probably blame Gene Roddenberry for that one, he insisted that TV viewers wouldn't "get" a silent spaceship, as they were used to craft making noises.

Having seen the quality of programmes on a friend's TV (I dumped mine years ago), I'm not sure he was wrong about viewers' intelligence.

is as daft as believing that those men were actually on the moon
You missed out the word "not" between "were" and "actually". ;)

[lightgiver]

Having looked at all the evidence now I am totally convinced that the Apollo Moon programme was a complete sham. The evidence ffrom numerous angles and fields is so overwhelming at this point. I tend to be very cynical about all popular conspiricy thories, but I am nailing my colours firmly to the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax mast. It was a huge con job.

Everytime I stumble upon something which proves this to me, another little gem of real truth comes along. Check out this Neil Armstrong speech on the 25th aniversary of the "moon landings".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NQ3U-B95es&feature=channel_page

Be like Pele being awarded for his sporting life and failing to mention he ever kicked a ball.

Neil Armstrong, Jr. is not a freemason; his father, Neil Armstrong, Sr. is an active freemason. (Ohio Grand Lodge of Freemasons records).
Flight information cited from Spaceflight: A Smithsonian Guide. Valerie Neal, Cathleen S. Lewis, Frank H. Winter, in Association with the National Air and Space Museum, The Smithsonion Institution, Washington, D.C., New York, 1995. Image detail from NASA photo of Aldrin, modified by Stanley Q. Woodvine in 1998.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/exopolitica/esp_exopolitics_ZI.htm

[endlessvista]

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-LRVdocs.html


"Last updated 10 September 2007."

Do you not find it strange that NASA are still modifying technical details from stuff desinged nearly 40 years ago?

Were are the original assembly manuals from 1970? Apprently the standard excuse from NASA was it was "Top Secret" - which is pretty funny as the LR was essentially a golf buggy. I know because I have stood next to one of them and it look pretty massive compared to the tiny wee LM it had to share with 2 astronauts. Then in the last few years NASA puts up a webpage saying "this is how we did it now shut up" - very odd?

And get this...why did they even need a wee moon car? Think about it. It was a massive danger to the astronauts on so many levels. One crash on the moon suface or its battery to fail miles form the LM would be death for the Apollo Spaceman Car Driving dudes. Even getting the thing off the LM was a suicide risk.

Here is a clue, the Lunar Rover made good TV. It looked like something from a SCi-Fi movie. That's the only reason it made its magical appearance. The NASA fakers got carried away with themselves and got too ambitious. I also suspect that the whole playing golf on the moon was an inside joke about the LR.

Still was some feat for the astronauts to assemble this thing on the moon with their big chubby gloves.

After a while the NASA moon landings, when you really look at them start to look like a Carry On movie.

[lightgiver]

Interesting if you have not seen it;)

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=1242114182722609684&ei=X5uxSZ3rK8LQ-Abzj9z9Aw&q=alternative+3&hl=en

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-797879957467471860&hl=en

[dreamweaver]

"Last updated 10 September 2007."

Do you not find it strange that NASA are still modifying technical details from stuff desinged nearly 40 years ago?
So you don't know the difference between updating a web page and updating the technical details?

Were are the original assembly manuals from 1970? Apprently the standard excuse from NASA was it was "Top Secret" - which is pretty funny as the LR was essentially a golf buggy. I know because I have stood next to one of them and it look pretty massive compared to the tiny wee LM it had to share with 2 astronauts. Then in the last few years NASA puts up a webpage saying "this is how we did it now shut up" - very odd?
It didn't take long to find this "non-existent" document that you are trying to dismiss. How hard were you looking?

And get this...why did they even need a wee moon car? Think about it. It was a massive danger to the astronauts on so many levels. One crash on the moon suface or its battery to fail miles form the LM would be death for the Apollo Spaceman Car Driving dudes. Even getting the thing off the LM was a suicide risk.
No, they didn't need a moon car. Like you said, it was to make good TV. The American public were getting bored and wondering why they should keep on funding these missions, remember?

And yes, the Apollo missions took risks that would not be acceptable today. They were from a different era, of "can do" rather than the culture of "elf n safety" and "where there's blame, there's a claim" of today.

Oh, and please... can you link to the Bad Astronomy forum threads in which someone (you?) was called a "nut" and "kook" when they were "cornered" about the Lunar Rover, so we can all judge for ourselves who was in the right?

[astrochicken]

You know what was my first reaction & I said to my Friend the first time I seen the Mars Rover images on TV with Iron red back ground?I said to him you know this back ground image reminded me of places I have seen when I was working in the outback of Australia!
http://waronyou.com/forums/Smileys/default/Die_Lol.gif
http://www.redcentre.com.au/brochure/030a.jpg




I was thinking something similar.. but to me it looked more like the hawaiian island lanai, especially the part on the north shore they call "garden of the gods"




http://farm1.static.flickr.com/60/191217333_29ac7c1cbf.jpg?v=0
http://blogs.bootsnall.com/Grigo/files/2007/08/Lanai_Things_to_do.jpg
http://www.thebigday.com/i/dest/2/GardenOfTheGods.jpg


The entire island of kahoolawe (right next to lanai) *belongs* to the US military.


http://waikoloa-realty.com/wri-images/hawaii.gif

[arten]

What they showed us the public was definately all Faked and shot out in area 51. However, I believe they are on the moon and on mars you only have to look at the case of Gary McKinnion to see this is what is happening.
We the public don't matter to them TPTB they are pissing on us daily.

[friendsinthesky]

40 yrs ago we went to the moon? You'd think by now it become a tourist destination? But they build a new shuttle not capable of landing on the moon, now that's progress. The "new" type shuttle has windows, why not stick a mega ass video camera behind the window, film the entire event from take off and orbiting the moon, should be an awesome event? But will not happen.

*As for the cameraman being on the moon; don't you know they are superhuman, they're always there, capturing the mega event. Man climbs to top of everest, cameraman is there "on top" to capture event. (DOH)!

[arten]

lol Brill M8:D

[dreamweaver]

40 yrs ago we went to the moon? You'd think by now it become a tourist destination? But they build a new shuttle not capable of landing on the moon, now that's progress.

No, that's Congress. It was the mid-70s, America was losing in Vietnam, OPEC had quadrupled the price of oil, the US was in recession and the public got jaded and cynical about forking out for moon missions that had got rather boring - not least because there wasn't much of interest on there.

No funding = no moon programme = no rocket industry. A political decision was made to scale back Nasa and use the shuttle for less ambitious missions instead.

Concorde was scrapped quite a few years ago. Supersonic air travel is now impossible for civilians. Just because it can't be done today doesn't mean it couldn't be done back then.

[metacomet]

There where no remote control cameras taken to the moon they where all hand held or placed on a tripod, so how would you explain that when leaving the moon the camera panned up to follow the LEM

:eek: Woah.

[friendsinthesky]

No, that's Congress. It was the mid-70s, America was losing in Vietnam, OPEC had quadrupled the price of oil, the US was in recession and the public got jaded and cynical about forking out for moon missions that had got rather boring - not least because there wasn't much of interest on there.

No funding = no moon programme = no rocket industry. A political decision was made to scale back Nasa and use the shuttle for less ambitious missions instead.

Concorde was scrapped quite a few years ago. Supersonic air travel is now impossible for civilians. Just because it can't be done today doesn't mean it couldn't be done back then.

Well that will teach them a lesson. Next time they insist on spending billions in concocting lies, they should have priorities in place.:D

[endlessvista]

It didn't take long to find this "non-existent" document that you are trying to dismiss. How hard were you looking?

A modern, constantly re-edited webpage is not the orignial procedure manual.

Bit like claiming the bible I have on my bookshelf printed in 2003 was hand printed by jesus himself.

[dreamweaver]

:eek: Woah.

Whoa indeed. The person who you quoted saying "There where no remote control cameras taken to the moon they where all hand held or placed on a tripod, so how would you explain that when leaving the moon the camera panned up to follow the LEM" is mistaken. The camera filming the LEM was mounted on a tripod (or "dolly" as the techies call them) and was remotely controlled.

[steevo]

Can anybody link the original video from the first post? Its not showing up for me.

I think this is it :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NQ3U-B95es

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NQ3U-B95es

[dreamweaver]

A modern, constantly re-edited webpage is not the orignial procedure manual.

Bit like claiming the bible I have on my bookshelf printed in 2003 was hand printed by jesus himself.

Hmmm. Where's this link to the forum thread that I have asked for twice (three times now)?

And, directly related to this request, why did you imply at the start of this thread that you had only just recently concluded that the Apollo missions were hoaxed? You have since let slip about old skirmishes you have observed (if not directly involved in) on the Bad Astronomy forum. Well?

[endlessvista]

The camera filming the LEM was mounted on a tripod (or "dolly" as the techies call them) and was remotely controlled.

By whom? I am not disputing this point, just wondering who was operating the romote control at the time. Technically how was this done and who was operating the remote pan?

Could not of been the lads in the LM as they were too busy shooting off into space while mouthing "what a ride" without the slightest hint of the massive vibration of the booster below their asses firing like the clappers.

They should of sounded like "wwwwwwhhhhhaaaaa......ttttt..t.t......aaaaaaaa.... a.a.a.........r..r.r.r.r.....r..r..rideeeeeeeee" - instead it is said like is in being read from a script inside an acoustically sealed recording studio?

on this one it looks like the LM is shot off and then starts falling to "earth" before the video cuts out. Again, no sound or sense of vibration inside. Voices crystal clear.

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

[dreamweaver]

By whom? I am not disputing this point, just wondering who was operating the romote control at the time. Technically how was this done and who was operating the remote pan?

Could not of been the lads in the LM

From what I've read, it wasn't. It was controlled remotely from Houston, just as the Viking probes etc were.

[endlessvista]

And, directly related to this request, why did you imply at the start of this thread that you had only just recently concluded that the Apollo missions were hoaxed? You have since let slip about old skirmishes you have observed (if not directly involved in) on the Bad Astronomy forum. Well?

About 2 years ago I started to beleive it was faked.

I never mentioned it on BA forum. I only went there for non Apollo stuff I was interested in. I was amazed by the almost psychotic attacks from the mods on anyone who made some very air tight aruguments about the Apollo mission anomalies. This is what got me really looking into it.

[dreamweaver]

About 2 years ago I started to beleive it was faked.

I never mentioned it on BA forum. I only went there for non Apollo stuff I was interested in. I was amazed by the almost psychotic attacks from the mods on anyone who made some very air tight aruguments about the Apollo mission anomalies. This is what got me really looking into it.

Fine, thanks for that. Can you point me to any particular examples of these psychotic attacks? I've only skimmed through there but the mods and people like JayUtah (who I know is Jay Windley) seem very patient, erudite and knowledgeable in their posts, from what I've seen.

[endlessvista]

From what I've read, it wasn't. It was controlled remotely from Houston, just as the Viking probes etc were.

In real time? Fair enough.

But this brings up something else. NASA apparently could control a camera on the surface of the moon from Houston...however when they came to TV broadcasts being transmited, for utterly unexplainable reasons they chose to point a B&W TV camera at a video monitor on earth which made the images from the moon as crappy and fuzzy as possible?

When people started asking for the orignal master TV feed tapes not the broadcast ones, NASA had "lost" the tapes!

Perhaps the most imporant TV broadcast ever produced and like so many other aspects of the Apollo mission from technical manuals, to training simulators to the Saturn 5 themselves, NASA dumped them in a skip.

Yet they preserved the Golf Club and Golf Ball which were played on the moon... but not the originals video transmission video recordings.

Com'on now dreamweaver, even you have to admit this is weird shit.

[dreamweaver]

In real time? Fair enough.

But this brings up something else. NASA apparently could control a camera on the surface of the moon from Houston...however when they came to TV broadcasts being transmited, for utterly unexplainable reasons they chose to point a B&W TV camera at a video monitor on earth which made the images from the moon as crappy and fuzzy as possible?

When people started asking for the orignal master TV feed tapes not the broadcast ones, NASA has "lost" the tapes!

Perhaps the most imporant TV broadcast ever produced and like so many other aspects of the Apollo mission from technical manuals, to training simulators to the Saturn 5 themselves, NASA dumped them in a skip.

Yet they preserved the Golf Club and Golf Ball which were played on the moon... but not the originals video transmission video recordings.

Com'on now dreamweaver, even you have to admit this is weird shit.

Shocking though that sounds, I have worked in TV in the past and I'm sorry to say that it doesn't surprise me at all. BBC and ITV routinely wiped over tapes that were historically important, even back in the 90s which was when I was involved. It was much worse back in the 1970s when pro video tape was seriously expensive. :eek:

Crazy as it sounds, it wouldn't surprise me if Nasa had the same fucked-up priorities. Big organisations are strange places - ask Hagbard about his experiences of the NHS for example.

From what I remember of the camera pointing at the screen, that was something to do with the low scan rate of the onboard camera which wasn't compatible with TV rates. It was a last-minute bodge because of some technical problem with the converter equipment they were meant to use. Having worked in some supposedly "prestige" and "glamorous" organisations, this storyu doesn't sound as crazy to me as it might to you.

Anyway, I really have to call it a night now. Sweet dreams and all that. ;)

[endlessvista]

some halarious "fly by wire" stuff on this vid. Look at the first part were he drops the golf ball - it can't seem to make its mind up if its the Moon or the Earth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcEb4zBnY1I&feature=related

Nice to see all the goofy fun the space boys were getting up too. Like kicking boulders. I think I'd be a bit more careful if there was a chance of ripping my space suit and risking instant de-pressurisation and boiling my blood in 30 seconds. But hey, that's what makes them have the "right stuff" I guess.

[metacomet]

Could not of been the lads in the LM as they were too busy shooting off into space while mouthing "what a ride" without the slightest hint of the massive vibration of the booster below their asses firing like the clappers.

They should of sounded like "wwwwwwhhhhhaaaaa......ttttt..t.t......aaaaaaaa.... a.a.a.........r..r.r.r.r.....r..r..rideeeeeeeee" - instead it is said like is in being read from a script inside an acoustically sealed recording studio?


:cool: Thumbs up.

Keep knockin them out of the ball park, endless. The inconsistencies are endless. As are the positions taken by others to protect such inconsistencies.

An endless dance, it is. I suspect one side is fooling itself however ;) Always has and always will.

[metacomet]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcEb4zBnY1I&feature=related

Nice to see all the goofy fun the space boys were getting up too. Like kicking boulders. I think I'd be a bit more careful if there was a chance of ripping my space suit and risking instant de-pressurisation and boiling my blood in 30 seconds. But hey, that's what makes them have the "right stuff" I guess.

Hahaha, oh MY.

Excellent stuff, thanks for posting.

At 0:50 when he gets up I laughed out loud. Looks like a puppet being lifted by the strings.

In one way - it's funny seeing this kind of thing. In another way - it's somewhat disturbing.

*edit* Upon closer inspection, the other astronaut is helping the guy up with his hand. Nothin' strange there...

It is however strange watching him throw the hammer at the end and comparing that to the golfball dropping.... inconsistent.

[endlessvista]

I am starting to think that they were drunk in this video. Perhaps loaded up with gargle in order to mimic low Gs?

Didn't Sting write "Walking on the Moon" to describe how drunk was one night and what he sensation felt like?

[tabea_blumenschein]

For Apollo conspiracy theories, I like clavius.org (http://www.clavius.org/index.html).


The following two pages in particular are relevent to the current discussion:

Radiation primer. (http://www.clavius.org/envradintro.html)

Radiation and the Van Allen belts. (http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html)


Could not of been the lads in the LM as they were too busy shooting off into space while mouthing "what a ride" without the slightest hint of the massive vibration of the booster below their asses firing like the clappers.

They should of sounded like "wwwwwwhhhhhaaaaa......ttttt..t.t......aaaaaaaa... .a.a.a.........r..r.r.r.r.....r..r..rideeeeeeeee" - instead it is said like is in being read from a script inside an acoustically sealed recording studio?

Please explain why there should have been a "massive vibration."

"Well, I just assume there would be" is not an acceptable answer.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

[grachtengordel]

The camera filming the LEM was mounted on a tripod (or "dolly" as the techies call them) and was remotely controlled.

a 'TRIPOD' is not a 'DOLLY' . they are different, a dolly is mobile.

who remotely controlled the camera that filmed the lem?

[dreamweaver]

a 'TRIPOD' is not a 'DOLLY' . they are different, a dolly is mobile.

who remotely controlled the camera that filmed the lem?

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=848223&postcount=113

[grachtengordel]

in a vacuum, there is no such thing as an ambient temperature. It's not like walking outside on a hot day or a cold winter's night. There is no heat to deal with except incoming solar radiation,

That's why the spacesuits were white: it reflects most incoming light and heat.

seems like a contradiction. if there was "no heat to deal with", why were the suits white to "reflect most incoming light and heat"?

surely the 'radiation' you mention is really 'light', just a frequency of the light spectrum that human eyes cannot percieve. so did you mean the suits reflected 'most light' meaning 'visible light' or were you including invisible 'light radiation' as 'light'?

[grachtengordel]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=848223&postcount=113

sorry., still wading thru all the new pages, (backwards)
houston eh? but WHO at houston? who was responsible for that and how did they affect the camera, what kind of signal was used.? i'm not interested in the 'mechanism' ON the camera, that i can accept , but how was it remotely controlled, by radio waves? were satellites used to remote control the camera?

In real time? Fair enough.

But this brings up something else. NASA apparently could control a camera on the surface of the moon from Houston...however when they came to TV broadcasts being transmited, for utterly unexplainable reasons they chose to point a B&W TV camera at a video monitor on earth which made the images from the moon as crappy and fuzzy as possible? .

thats a good point

[dreamweaver]

seems like a contradiction. if there was "no heat to deal with", why were the suits white to "reflect most incoming light and heat"?

surely the 'radiation' you mention is really 'light', just a frequency of the light spectrum that human eyes cannot percieve. so did you mean the suits reflected 'most light' meaning 'visible light' or were you including invisible 'light radiation' as 'light'?

The person quoted didn't say that, did he? He was saying there was no "ambient temperature" to deal with, as there was no air to form convection currents. Heat certainly does get radiated, mostly in the infra-red band.

[dreamweaver]

sorry., still wading thru all the new pages, (backwards)
houston eh? but WHO at houston? who was responsible for that and how did they affect the camera, what kind of signal was used.? i'm not interested in the 'mechanism' ON the camera, that i can accept , but how was it remotely controlled, by radio waves? were satellites used to remote control the camera?

Well, this is one conversation I've seen on this: http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-2788.html

Again, I'm not setting myself up as an "expert" here, nor am I saying you have to accept that Jay Windley is an "expert" (I do think he has genuine expertise and isn't full of shit, but you'll have to make your own judgement). But in his version of events, Apollos 15-17 had cameras remotely controlled from Houston using radio. Because of the 2.6 seconds lag, then obviously the operator had to anticipate the movements. A tricky feat, perhaps, but not impossible.

[grachtengordel]

.

are you serious? there can't be many people that dumb. thinking that "spacecraft make "whooshing" sounds in space" is as daft as believing that those men were actually on the moonProducers do it precisely because they think the average viewer wouldn't understand that there are no noises in space (at least external to the vessel).

You can probably blame Gene Roddenberry for that one, he insisted that TV viewers wouldn't "get" a silent spaceship, as they were used to craft making noises.

thats not what i meant, I did not ask WHY 'producers' use such sound effects, I asked if you seriously believed that people MANY people are thick enough to expect those sound effects to be an accurate representation. I asked if YOU honestly are conceited enough to assume that MOST folk will equate the sound effect used , and THEIR 'virtual' experience (via the screen) of observing the craft fly past THEM in 'space', with the reality of observing the craft 'fly by' , in 'space' (presumably not from a craft or in a 'suit, as they would need outside mounted microphones)

in other words, you just didnt read my post , you responded to a completely different post that the one I wrote

[grachtengordel]

seems like a contradiction. if there was "no heat to deal with", why were the suits white to "reflect most incoming light and heat"?

surely the 'radiation' you mention is really 'light', just a frequency of the light spectrum that human eyes cannot percieve. so did you mean the suits reflected 'most light' meaning 'visible light' or were you including invisible 'light radiation' as 'light'?
The person quoted didn't say that, did he? He was saying there was no "ambient temperature" to deal with, as there was no air to form convection currents. Heat certainly does get radiated, mostly in the infra-red band.

well i just quoted from the text that you posted

"The temperatures quoted are surface temperatures. Remember that on the Moon, in a vacuum, there is no such thing as an ambient temperature. It's not like walking outside on a hot day or a cold winter's night. There is no heat to deal with except incoming solar radiation, and the ability to deal with that was well-known by Apollo. That's why the spacesuits were white: it reflects most incoming light and heat. The spacesuit design devoted more effort to keeping the astronauts from overheating due to the heat from their own bodies in a sealed rubber suit than to keeping them from frying in the solar heat."

[dreamweaver]

.



thats not what i meant, I did not ask WHY 'producers' use such sound effects, I asked if you seriously believed that people MANY people are thick enough to expect those sound effects to be an accurate representation. I asked if YOU honestly are conceited enough to assume that MOST folk will equate the sound effect used , and THEIR 'virtual' experience (via the screen) of observing the craft fly past THEM in 'space', with the reality of observing the craft 'fly by' , in 'space' (presumably not from a craft or in a 'suit, as they would need outside mounted microphones)

in other words, you just didnt read my post , you responded to a completely different post that the one I wrote

OK, then my answer is "yes, I honestly think many TV viewers of today probably are that thick". I thankfully don't have a TV any more, but what I do see when I can't get away from one horrifies me.

I'm not sure I could justify saying "most", but I would stand by "many". There is clearly a cognitive dissonance involved - I'm sure many viewers are perfectly aware that the sound effects are only there to spice up the drama and that real spacecraft would be silent. But if your sample is taken from the average Big Brother viewer, then I'm not so sure.

[grachtengordel]

Apollos 15-17 had cameras remotely controlled from Houston using radio. Because of the 2.6 seconds lag, then obviously the operator had to anticipate the movements. A tricky feat, perhaps, but not impossible.

that made me chuckle. they get the musicians to mime at barky's inauguration because they don't want to risk any 'clangers' that could weaken the power of thier ritual, but they leave something as important as the LIVE , WORLD TELEVISED moon landings to one guy sat in houston who has to move the camera EXACTLY 2.6 seconds BEFORE the ship actually took off and manage to GUESS the velocity of the take off 2.6 seconds IN ADVANCE so that the camera could SMOOTHLY pan up as the 'lem' took off

this is tooth fairy territory

[dreamweaver]

well i just quoted from the text that you posted

OK, there's a nice clear document here about solar energy and how various surfaces can best absorb or reflect radiant heat: http://www.azsolarcenter.com/design/documents/passive.DOC

[dreamweaver]

that made me chuckle. they get the musicians to mime at barky's inauguration because they don't want to risk any 'clangers' that could weaken the power of thier ritual, but they leave something as important as the LIVE , WORLD TELEVISED moon landings to one guy sat in houston who has to move the camera EXACTLY 2.6 seconds BEFORE the ship actually took off and manage to GUESS the velocity of the take off 2.6 seconds IN ADVANCE so that the camera could SMOOTHLY pan up as the 'lem' took off

this is tooth fairy territory

I'm sorry, you've lost me, who's "Barky"? (edit: oh, you mean Obama)

And I believe this was "third time lucky", they didn't quite get it right on Apollos 15 and 16.

[grachtengordel]

OK, then my answer is "yes, I honestly think many TV viewers of today probably are that thick".

they are not all thick, just brainwashed, programmed. VERY intelligent people can be programmed to believe 'black is white' and 'freedom is slavery'.

I'm sure many viewers are perfectly aware that the sound effects are only there to spice up the drama and that real spacecraft would be silent.

it's not just that. they would have to be totally insane. if they were even in the right place at the right time to 'see' a craft 'fly by' , how would they hear it, even if it did make noise? are they sitting outside their ship on the 'deck'? or does the location they view from (in space) have microphones fitted outside that constantly stream 'outside' sound into thier point of observation.

. But if your sample is taken from the average Big Brother viewer, then I'm not so sure.

the 'average' viewer is people like you and me, they are just addicted to the idiot box , if they stop watching for a week, they will soon wise up. they are not dunces, they are programmed . a truly thick man would not be able to hold all the contradictary abstract concepts in mind at once that is needed to believe in the moon landing scam

[friendsinthesky]

I'm sorry, you've lost me, who's "Barky"? (edit: oh, you mean Obama)

And I believe this was "third time lucky", they didn't quite get it right on Apollos 15 and 16.

I have a question for you and it may be alittle difficult for you to answer, anyway; how would the current shaped space shuttle land on the moon?

[dreamweaver]

a truly thick man would not be able to hold all the contradictary abstract concepts in mind at once that is needed to believe in the moon landing scam

The trouble with trying to discuss something with someone who believes that everything they've been told by "authority figures" is an illusion and that everything any government has ever said is lies, is that it's like trying to hold water in a sieve. No matter what evidence is put forward, you'll just write it off as "faked", "cover-up" blahblahblah.

Straight question - what evidence would convince you that the moon landings were real? You see, I'm of the view that you have an opinion and that you won't let it be budged by facts.

For example, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is taking off some time this year to identify sites of interest for the new moon missions. http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/ Although, it's not a mission priority, the LRO is likely to get close enough to photograph some of the Apollo landing sites with a better resolution than the dots and blurs that are currently available. Will you accept any of these photos as evidence of the moon landings or will you automatically write them off as fakes before the LRO has even taken off?

I have a question for you and it may be alittle difficult for you to answer, anyway; how would the current shaped space shuttle land on the moon?
Just seen this question - honest answer is "I don't know". As far as I'm aware, it was only ever designed for earth orbit operations - it is called an "orbiter" after all.

[grachtengordel]

The trouble with trying to discuss something with someone who believes that everything they've been told by "authority figures" is an illusion and that everything any government has ever said is lies, is that it's like trying to hold water in a sieve.

ever heard the expression "your version of events does not HOLD WATER"?
OR "THAT ARGUMENT DOES NOT hOLD WATER"

blahblahblah.

Come on , play nice

Straight question - what evidence would convince you that the moon landings were real?

removal of the many contradictions in the official 'story'

You see, I'm of the view that you have an opinion and that you won't let it be budged by facts.

lets establish one thing, you are not in possesion of the 'FACTS'

you provide THEORY which may or may not change my mind , and some things are open to debate , but not the 2.6 seconds bit, that is too improbable, I can 'suspend my disbelief' in a movie theatre , but not regarding this

Look back over my responses, your point about the 'russians' made me go hmmmmmm, so I am open to interesting theories, IT's possible that the russians could 'expose' the lies, but it is also entirely possible that they were 'in on it' , just because the BBC or CNN or NASA says it is , does not mean it is so , and seeing as they are proven liars, this lends credibility to thier critics

[grachtengordel]

For example, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is taking off some time this year to identify sites of interest for the new moon missions........Will you accept any of these photos as evidence of the moon landings or will you automatically write them off as fakes before the LRO has even taken off?

I already stated that any info presented by NASA is intrinsically suspect, as they are the very people who are being accused of orchestrating the deception

thus NASA cannot be used to 'back up' any claims made by NASA

[helloperator]

Hey man everyone knows the TV show Mythbusters proved that the moon landings were the real deal.

They prooved it conclusively

[dreamweaver]

removal of the many contradictions in the official 'story'
Nearly all the "contradictions" pointed out so far in this thread have turned out not to be so on closer examination.

It's a hallmark of conspiracy theorists that they are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account of something to be totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do.

lets establish one thing, you are not in possesion of the 'FACTS'
I'm in possession of some facts, but I wouldn't claim to have a monopoly on them. Where I simply don't know something, I've not been afraid to admit it.

you provide THEORY which may or may not change my mind , and some things are open to debate , but not the 2.6 seconds bit, that is too improbable,

I don't see why you have such trouble with it. An ascent is predictable enough, especially to scientists. They did have practice anyway to get it right for Apollo 17 (although even that tilt wasn't perfect). It seems to me that the only reason you have a problem with it is that you want to have a problem with it. Indeed, perhaps you need to because the alternative is too horrific to contemplate - accepting that you might be wrong on this.

Look back over my responses, your point about the 'russians' made me go hmmmmmm, so I am open to interesting theories, IT's possible that the russians could 'expose' the lies, but it is also entirely possible that they were 'in on it' , just because the BBC or CNN or NASA says it is , does not mean it is so , and seeing as they are proven liars, this lends credibility to thier critics

The makers of Loose Change have been shown to have lied about certain things in their various versions of "the truth", i.e. they are "proven liars". Does that prove 9/11 isn't an inside job?

But to get back to the Russian example, the Soviet Union broke up nearly two decades ago, there are renegade Russian scientists all over the place and not one, not one, has ever claimed the Apollo missions were faked.

[friendsinthesky]

Hey man everyone knows the TV show Mythbusters proved that the moon landings were the real deal.

They prooved it conclusively

Yes it's true, I saw them stick their head up each others ass. Hope they used super glue.

[dreamweaver]

I already stated that any info presented by NASA is intrinsically suspect, as they are the very people who are being accused of orchestrating the deception

thus NASA cannot be used to 'back up' any claims made by NASA

Circular logic.

[friendsinthesky]

Just seen this question - honest answer is "I don't know". As far as I'm aware, it was only ever designed for earth orbit operations - it is called an "orbiter" after all.


Strange then that they don't build another moon landing model (pun intended) or would that be too telling in this day and age. Maybe NASA could cry poor, the gov is handing out billions.

[redman]

Hey dream weaver explain what they were doing on this clip then.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeDL4beOhZc





This is the clip that some how makes the astronauts go crazy and start threatening to sue, get people popped off by the CIA, Punch out, kick, and look incredibly uncomfortable.

Just look at their whole persona's and mannerisms, look at the likes of Neil Armstrong, whats the story with that guy ?? Becomes a recluse and doesn't hardly appear in public and just gives vibes off like he is struggling very much with the whole lying to the world scenario he is apart of.


You can go on about the science of it all day long because you can rather go off NASA evidence for or the evidence against it and it goes nowhere. But whats your opinion on the points I have just raised, does their behaviour not raise any suspicions with you ??

[dreamweaver]

Hey man everyone knows the TV show Mythbusters proved that the moon landings were the real deal.

They prooved it conclusively

I've not actually seen this show. Will check it out.

[dreamweaver]

Hey dream weaver explain what they were doing on this clip then.
It's a 10-minute clip. How about giving a precis of the substantive points?

Hmmm: what we seem to have is some ropey bits of footage and a voiceover telling you that these bits of footage are what the voiceover says they are.

So basically you disbelieve all "official" stories but you find this convincing?

Erm, ok......................

[redman]

Nearly all the "contradictions" pointed out so far in this thread have turned out not to be so on closer examination.

It's a hallmark of conspiracy theorists that they are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account of something to be totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do.


I'm in possession of some facts, but I wouldn't claim to have a monopoly on them. Where I simply don't know something, I've not been afraid to admit it.



I don't see why you have such trouble with it. An ascent is predictable enough, especially to scientists. They did have practice anyway to get it right for Apollo 17 (although even that tilt wasn't perfect). It seems to me that the only reason you have a problem with it is that you want to have a problem with it. Indeed, perhaps you need to because the alternative is too horrific to contemplate - accepting that you might be wrong on this.



The makers of Loose Change have been shown to have lied about certain things in their various versions of "the truth", i.e. they are "proven liars". Does that prove 9/11 isn't an inside job?

But to get back to the Russian example, the Soviet Union broke up nearly two decades ago, there are renegade Russian scientists all over the place and not one, not one, has ever claimed the Apollo missions were faked.




Think you will find the makers of loose change did not lie, they were scraping the evidence together of what was released at that time. As more evidence was released to debunk loose change... ie like the parts of the plane wreckage at the pentagon, the first loose change said there were no parts found, then photos got released of these little parts of the plane so they added those photo's in the next edition of loose change.

The makers of loose change never purposely lied, they were trying to paint a picture of what happened with very little evidence that has been released.

[arten]

A while back I saw on you tube a clip that clearly showed the astronauts in their capsule and they were supposed to be leaving earth and the guy panned the camera to the window and clearly you could see they had a Photo of the earth taped to the bloody well window. All the stuff they showed to the world was faked 100% sure about it, why would the most secretive country in the world show the world any of its space explorations, it just dose not compute.

[redman]

It's a 10-minute clip. How about giving a precis of the substantive points?

Well try the part were they are deliberately trying to make out they are thousands of miles away from the earth but in reality they are still in earths orbit.


That may be a good place to start.

[redman]

Buzz sure as hell looks like a guy who knows he walked on the moon here doesn't he... LMAO


Look at the guys face, he won't even look at the fucking TV screen to watch it.. and then he just starts waffling shit.


The guy never walked on the moon.... simple as that. And the guy gives of vibes that he could be a right nasty bastard too.


Lying scum bag.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiVXd6lRUz0








See how sure he is when he says you put your money in a court of law and they will laugh at you... he fucking knows how the game works.


Also Edgar Mitchell, do you trust that guy ?? He is a shill if I have ever seen one. Just comes out all of sudden talking about ET's etc.

[grachtengordel]

Yes it's true, I saw them stick their head up each others ass. Hope they used super glue.

nice, that really made me laugh, thanks

[grachtengordel]

Circular logic.

you can try and twist it anyway you like, but what you wrote there has no meaning, its bunk, LOGIC is an abstract concept , relative to the perception, experiences and informaton posessed by the individual

Nearly all the "contradictions" pointed out so far in this thread have turned out not to be so on closer examination.

that "examination" is not close enough, especially when you respond by firing off 2 word rebukes such as "circular logic", a real 'superiorist', 'doublethink' term

[dreamweaver]

Well try the part were they are deliberately trying to make out they are thousands of miles away from the earth but in reality they are still in earths orbit.


That may be a good place to start.

What were these clips taken from and when were they actually used?

[dreamweaver]

you can try and twist it anyway you like, but what you wrote there has no meaning, its bunk, LOGIC is an abstract concept , relative to the perception, experiences and informaton posessed by the individual
And that is why it is a waste of time holding a reasonable discussion with you.

[grachtengordel]

I'm in possession of some facts, but I wouldn't claim to have a monopoly on them. Where I simply don't know something, I've not been afraid to admit it.

but unless you can physically demonstrate these 'facts' , 'prove' them , then they are just THEORY. they may seem like 'fact' to you , based on your individual perception or 'logic', but until they are DEMONSTRATED to be accurate to OTHERS , they remain YOUR THEORIES

the question is not "where you DONT KNOW" , it is where you 'dont know what to believe', you cannot KNOW very much of the reality at all as you were not there, so you can only reference what you THINK you know or BELIEVE you know

[redman]

What were these clips taken from and when were they actually used?

Well have you watched moon movie, and something funny happened on the way to the moon ?? You mentioned Art Sibel before and a part from the movie so you know damn well the story of that clip.



Just explain what you think is happening on the clip. Not a hard thing to do is it.

[dreamweaver]

but unless you can physically demonstrate these 'facts' , 'prove' them , then they are just THEORY. they may seem like 'fact' to you , based on your individual perception or 'logic', but until they are DEMONSTRATED to be accurate to OTHERS , they remain YOUR THEORIES
By all means question everything - but how about applying that same standard to your cherished conspiracy theories as you do to the "official stories" that you dismiss so lightly?

[grachtengordel]

And that is why it is a waste of time holding a reasonable discussion with you.

because you cannot 'win'?

[grachtengordel]

By all means question everything - but how about applying that same standard to your cherished conspiracy theories as you do to the "official stories" that you dismiss so lightly?

I do, that is why they are THEORIES, that is why i CONSIDERED your point regarding russian 'expose' of the fraud

[dreamweaver]

Well have you watched moon movie, and something funny happened on the way to the moon ?? You mentioned Art Sibel before and a part from the movie so you know damn well the story of that clip.



Just explain what you think is happening on the clip. Not a hard thing to do is it.

He's called Bart Sibrel, who comes across to me as a charlatan and fraud who is only interested in making money. And actually, I've not seen his full videos. I'm aware of the stalking incident that led to him being decked though.

I've already explained what is happening in the clip. You have some pieces of footage of unknown origin, and of unknown significance, with a narrator telling you that they are what the narrator is telling you they are. It's not exactly compelling, is it?

[endlessvista]

Please explain why there should have been a "massive vibration."

"Well, I just assume there would be" is not an acceptable answer.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

Look at the video of the LM upper section lifting off from the lower section. There is a fairly intense explosion which would of rattled the crew inside followed by the booster under their ass which you can clearly see emiting flames not to mention the attitude control thrusters for the Apollo C/SM and LM (which had four sets of quadruple thrusters) had 490 N (110 lb) of thrust each.

The result should be a loud racket inside the LM on take off and the astronauts voices quivering, perhaps even demostrating elements of stress.

Instead they are as calm as can be and even when one of them says the obviously scripted for TV "what a ride" it is said without a hint of inflection or the adrenelin rush one would expect. Sounds like it was read off in a recording studio and not in a space ship blasting off from the moon's surface due to an explosion and thrusters going like the clappers all around them.

[redman]

He's called Bart Sibrel, who comes across to me as a charlatan and fraud who is only interested in making money.

I've already explained what is happening in the clip. You have some pieces of footage of unknown origin, and of unknown significance, with a narrator telling you that they are what the narrator is telling you they are. It's not exactly compelling, is it?



Yeah that is the sort of answer that the Astronauts gave, it's dismissing the clip without actually discussing what the fuck they are doing on the clip.

Also you get the feeling that Bart Sibel comes across as a fraud, well I get the exact same feelings off all the astronauts that have supposedly walked on the moon.

And you still have not explained whats happening on the clip, it's pretty clear to see what they are doing.

[endlessvista]

sorry., still wading thru all the new pages, (backwards)
houston eh? but WHO at houston? who was responsible for that and how did they affect the camera, what kind of signal was used.? i'm not interested in the 'mechanism' ON the camera, that i can accept , but how was it remotely controlled, by radio waves? were satellites used to remote control the camera?



thats a good point

It's just one thing after another with NASA and their defenders. Mind you they'll nit pick here and there while ignoring the majority of anamolies and then claim the whole theory debunked.

They just cannot accept what is being presented to them. I think a lot of people are frightened they may have to lose faith in the people on TV. And that Governments are liars and frauds.

[grachtengordel]

It's a hallmark of conspiracy theorists that they are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account of something to be totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do.

one question not related to the moon hoax. if you are so sneering and derisive of "conspiracy theorists", why are you even posting on this forum?

what is your agenda if the "conspiracy theorists" that come here to learn about and discuss "conspiracy" are so below you? do you come here for an ego boost or to use us "conspiracy theorists" as a sounding board with which to internally define your self image?

[endlessvista]

The mythbusters TV show actually disproved the conspiracy theorys

Priceless!

What next Noel Edmonds uses Deal or No Deal to defending the Banking Bailout...:rolleyes:

[grachtengordel]

They just cannot accept what is being presented to them. I think a lot of people are frightened they may have to lose faith in the people on TV. And that Governments are liars and frauds.

it's hard to accept that our 'parental' state lies to us , fobs us off like a child that wont stop asking "but why?". our state does not love us and auntie beeb just wants to fill our head with shit, depressing really . it's like discovering that your parents are not really your parents , they are your owners and they do not like you

[endlessvista]

Second, there was a really brilliant question early in the thread that you have ignored. How did the video footage of the takeoff from the moon pan up as the space shuttle took off when the only cameras were hand held?

dreamweaver said it as remote control from Houston, but I am unable to find anything to back this up. Why stop with remote panning the camera, why not have everything worked by remote control from earth so the astonauts can just concentrate on entertaining the folks back in Ann Arbour by playing more golf, or driving around in their moon can for no reason at all.

There would also be a delay in transmission from earth to moon and back and the "remote control pan" is absolutely perfect with no wobble or out of frame. Some skill I must say...

I also find it hard to beleive that any other kind of electronic device would of been allowed to be used during such a dangerous and one-off/one-chance procedure as getting them off the moon.

But then again, it's like them playing golf and not worrying about sending a golfball through the visor.

[endlessvista]

Speaking of the Lunar Rover, did you know that it could hover and fly as well?

Look how it managed to "drive" all over the moon and not leave any tire tracks in the lunar dust.

http://www.landingapollo.com/conspiracies/photos/jackwhite/moonroverswhichleavenotracksindust.jpg

[endlessvista]

they are not all thick, just brainwashed, programmed. VERY intelligent people can be programmed to believe 'black is white' and 'freedom is slavery'.

I would say the more educated they are the easier they are to brainwash.

[dreamweaver]

I do, that is why they are THEORIES, that is why i CONSIDERED your point regarding russian 'expose' of the fraud

Well, that's at least something. You don't take quite as much of a fingers-in-the-ear "la la, I can't hear you" approach as some others I've encountered.

But it still strikes me very much that you're coming at this from a perspective of "governments, media and established science are all part of a mega-conspiracy to pull the wool over my eyes" and that this conditions your whole outlook on these things.

When I said right at the start that the "Apollo hoax" conspiracy is the most easily debunked, I meant it because there are masses of verifiable data in the public domain and there is physical evidence such as moon rocks, the laser reflectors and so on, and there were the thousands of people who physically tracked the missions throughout their whole trajectory. And to cap it all, there were the Soviets who would gleefully have exposed any fakery. The stuff put out by the likes of Bill Kaysing, Bart Sibrel et al is laughable, childish drivel to me, I'm amazed apparently intelligent people find them remotely credible.

But on a forum that is dedicated to the idea that 3-d, five-senses perception is an illusion, then anything goes. That runs with the territory here, I have to accept it. Although it's funny how it seems that it's more of a case of "anything goes except..."

I like Icke, I think his talk in the by-election made a lot of sense and I think his views on our reality being a hologram are very interesting ideas. Above all else, I agree with him that there is a horrible attack on our rights, that it is getting worse and that mass disobedience is the way to defeat it. But it doesn't mean I have to believe every piece of risible tosh just because the cool kids believe it.

[endlessvista]

Yes it's true, I saw them stick their head up each others ass. Hope they used super glue.

I think the funny moustashes and barets on Mythbusters really brings home the credebility of their science to me.

I mean, would a guy with a bushy tash and baret lie!

[endlessvista]

A while back I saw on you tube a clip that clearly showed the astronauts in their capsule and they were supposed to be leaving earth and the guy panned the camera to the window and clearly you could see they had a Photo of the earth taped to the bloody well window. All the stuff they showed to the world was faked 100% sure about it, why would the most secretive country in the world show the world any of its space explorations, it just dose not compute.

Yes that a particulary damming piece of evidence, especially as the earth's blue glow is clearly visible through the OTHER window on the other side of the command module. I think that was the final piece of evidence that nailed it for me they were hoaxers.

I first saw that clip of Armstrong putting the earth transparency on the window, around the time Colin Powell was using Powerpoint slides to show Saddam's nukes and bio-death missles.

They irony was flying.

Same cunts, same lies, same mass deception on live TV.

[dreamweaver]

Yes that a particulary damming piece of evidence, especially as the earth's blue glow is clearly visible through the OTHER window on the other side of the command module. I think that was the final piece of evidence that nailed it for me they were hoaxers.
That "damning piece of evidence" isn't what Sibrel tells you it is.

This is taken from Jim McDade's article about it:

"As far as Bart's much ballyhooed "never-seen", secret NASA Apollo videotape was neither "never-seen" nor secret. It was all taped footage from the Apollo 11 CM Westinghouse three-color camera telecasts that were broadcast live on NBC, CBS, ABC, the BBC and every other decent network on the planet back in July of 1969. Many ordinary citizens have documentary videos that show the same broadcasts. The times and dates of those broadcasts have long been a matter of public record and the documentation can be viewed in the NASA Apollo 11 Post Launch Mission Operation Report (Number M-932-69-11. The video was so blurry and fuzzy that Houston had to prompt the characteristically un-talkative Apollo 11 commander, Neil Armstrong to describe what he was pointing the camera at so that NASA could correlate what he was shooting with what he was describing on later tape playbacks.

Color TV cameras small enough to fit inside tiny spacecraft cabins were brand new and balky technology back in 1969. Global communications networks could not even synchronize the audio and video signals coming back to Houston from receiving antennas in Australia and Goldstone, California. The only thing new and weird revealed in Sibrel's A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE MOON is his bizarre personal interpretation that the video views of earth were shot through a small hole (template) to give the impression that Apollo 11 was not in low earth orbit. Sibrel insists that none of the Apollo spacecraft ever left low earth orbit because of the "radiation barrier" called the Van Allen Belts. This radiation barrier is greatly exaggerated by all of the "moon hoax" proponents. Sibrel's misinterpretation of the archival Apollo 11 video results from a combination of Bart's longing to see something awry and his lack of understanding about the Apollo cabin and TV camera configuration.

Sibrel attempts to describe to the viewers of his documentary what is going on inside the darkened Command Module while the crew was attempting to give the TV viewers back the best possible view of earth with the primitive handheld color TV camera carried aboard Apollo 11. The problem with his explanation is basically that he does not know what he is talking about. Sibrel may know a lot about current video editing and production technology, but he does not have expertise about Apollo. In order to provide 1969 TV viewers back on earth with the best possible view of our planet from space, it was necessary to eliminate the glaring reflected light and direct sunlight that was streaming into the spacecraft and interfering with the shot. The official Apollo 11 mission documentation from 1969 contains astronaut Michael Collins' own discussion of these lighting problems and the difficulties he experienced with the window shades in the Apollo spacecraft. Unfortunately for Bart Sibrel, he is obviously unaware of astronaut Mike Collins documented statements. The astronauts shuttered most of the capsule windows with special shades that blocked most of the glaring direct and reflected sunlight coming off of the bright, shiny Lunar Module which was docked in close proximity to the location of the windows.

The earth was then clearly visible out of the other "unblocked" cabin window when the shades were closed. What one actually witnesses in the video are not cutouts or templates passing between the earth and the TV camera, it is the communications headset wiring, arms and body of astronaut Michael Collins as he reaches over to remove the shade blocking one of the spacecraft windows. As soon as the shade is removed, the video shows the cabin immediately illuminating with glaring reflected sunlight. We also see that Collins is the one opening the window shade and that another member of the crew is obviously handling the camera from the vicinity of the foot area of the crew couches. Sibrel expressed the mistaken impression that the hand-held Westinghouse TV camera was hard-mounted to the face of the cabin window. Sibrel, as well as his devoted followers are the victims of misinterpretation and apparent misinformation.

Bart is far from what you would call a space expert (although he does have good TV editing and video production skills). He does not appear to possess an understanding of the basic layout and configuration of the Apollo Command Module or the procedures followed by NASA during the Apollo telecasts. Bart has misinterpreted things that are immediately obvious to anyone who has extensively read Apollo history and documentation or anyone who has ever been inside an Apollo Command Module or accurate mockup."

OK, this will immediately raise the objection "but how do you know McDade's version of events is correct?" Fine, I don't "know" at this stage - but he makes specific references to what that footage actually is, so I will go and investigate them. That's what genuine truth-seeking is all about.

[redman]

That "damning piece of evidence" isn't what Sibrel tells you it is.

This is taken from Jim McDade's article about it:

"As far as Bart's much ballyhooed "never-seen", secret NASA Apollo videotape was neither "never-seen" nor secret. It was all taped footage from the Apollo 11 CM Westinghouse three-color camera telecasts that were broadcast live on NBC, CBS, ABC, the BBC and every other decent network on the planet back in July of 1969. Many ordinary citizens have documentary videos that show the same broadcasts. The times and dates of those broadcasts have long been a matter of public record and the documentation can be viewed in the NASA Apollo 11 Post Launch Mission Operation Report (Number M-932-69-11. The video was so blurry and fuzzy that Houston had to prompt the characteristically un-talkative Apollo 11 commander, Neil Armstrong to describe what he was pointing the camera at so that NASA could correlate what he was shooting with what he was describing on later tape playbacks.

Color TV cameras small enough to fit inside tiny spacecraft cabins were brand new and balky technology back in 1969. Global communications networks could not even synchronize the audio and video signals coming back to Houston from receiving antennas in Australia and Goldstone, California. The only thing new and weird revealed in Sibrel's A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE MOON is his bizarre personal interpretation that the video views of earth were shot through a small hole (template) to give the impression that Apollo 11 was not in low earth orbit. Sibrel insists that none of the Apollo spacecraft ever left low earth orbit because of the "radiation barrier" called the Van Allen Belts. This radiation barrier is greatly exaggerated by all of the "moon hoax" proponents. Sibrel's misinterpretation of the archival Apollo 11 video results from a combination of Bart's longing to see something awry and his lack of understanding about the Apollo cabin and TV camera configuration.

Sibrel attempts to describe to the viewers of his documentary what is going on inside the darkened Command Module while the crew was attempting to give the TV viewers back the best possible view of earth with the primitive handheld color TV camera carried aboard Apollo 11. The problem with his explanation is basically that he does not know what he is talking about. Sibrel may know a lot about current video editing and production technology, but he does not have expertise about Apollo. In order to provide 1969 TV viewers back on earth with the best possible view of our planet from space, it was necessary to eliminate the glaring reflected light and direct sunlight that was streaming into the spacecraft and interfering with the shot. The official Apollo 11 mission documentation from 1969 contains astronaut Michael Collins' own discussion of these lighting problems and the difficulties he experienced with the window shades in the Apollo spacecraft. Unfortunately for Bart Sibrel, he is obviously unaware of astronaut Mike Collins documented statements. The astronauts shuttered most of the capsule windows with special shades that blocked most of the glaring direct and reflected sunlight coming off of the bright, shiny Lunar Module which was docked in close proximity to the location of the windows.

The earth was then clearly visible out of the other "unblocked" cabin window when the shades were closed. What one actually witnesses in the video are not cutouts or templates passing between the earth and the TV camera, it is the communications headset wiring, arms and body of astronaut Michael Collins as he reaches over to remove the shade blocking one of the spacecraft windows. As soon as the shade is removed, the video shows the cabin immediately illuminating with glaring reflected sunlight. We also see that Collins is the one opening the window shade and that another member of the crew is obviously handling the camera from the vicinity of the foot area of the crew couches. Sibrel expressed the mistaken impression that the hand-held Westinghouse TV camera was hard-mounted to the face of the cabin window. Sibrel, as well as his devoted followers are the victims of misinterpretation and apparent misinformation.

Bart is far from what you would call a space expert (although he does have good TV editing and video production skills). He does not appear to possess an understanding of the basic layout and configuration of the Apollo Command Module or the procedures followed by NASA during the Apollo telecasts. Bart has misinterpreted things that are immediately obvious to anyone who has extensively read Apollo history and documentation or anyone who has ever been inside an Apollo Command Module or accurate mockup."

OK, this will immediately raise the objection "but how do you know McDade's version of events is correct?" Fine, I don't "know" at this stage - but he makes specific references to what that footage actually is, so I will go and investigate them. That's what genuine truth-seeking is all about.




Well whats the 3rd voice telling them to speak, there is conversation going on with a 3rd party which was not Houston.

[endlessvista]

When I said right at the start that the "Apollo hoax" conspiracy is the most easily debunked, I meant it because there are masses of verifiable data in the public domain and there is physical evidence such as moon rocks, the laser reflectors and so on, and there were the thousands of people who physically tracked the missions throughout their whole trajectory.

How many times has it been already explained to you that all this stuff can be done and HASS BEEN DONE without one single person actually walking on the moon. You are just not listening.

Apollo was MANNED moon mission which was the whole point. Not a Lunar mission which is what you seem to think is enough to prove it happened.

You still have not adressed how the Lunar Rover moved around the moon without making tire tracks.

[backbeat]

They brought a high resolution colour video camera on their trip as can be seen in some of the footage taken onboard the Apollo space craft.

Why then, for the most historic event in the history of the world, did they not use this same high resolution colour video camera but instead opted to film the most historic sequences on the surface with a low resolution, poor quality, grainy, black and white video camera?

[dreamweaver]

How many times has it been already explained to you that all this stuff can be done and HASS BEEN DONE without one single person actually walking on the moon. You are just not listening.
Not once. Show exactly where I have raised the lunar reflectors before and where i have received such "explanations". And if you want to resort to "oooh, they sent probes to put those reflectors there", state exactly when this was please. Missions, dates, names.

And where is that link to the bautforum thread that I requested? You know, the one where someone (was it you?) was bullied by the nasty men for talking about the LM manual? Let's see what really went on, shall we?

You still have not adressed how the Lunar Rover moved around the moon without making tire tracks.
Was it ever put to me or has it been lost amongst the barrage of posts? You've lied to me on the above, so I don't see why I should take it on trust that you asked this.

[grachtengordel]

I don't see why you have such trouble with it. An ascent is predictable enough, especially to scientists.

why not go all the way and call them 'experts'?

[redman]

They brought a high resolution colour video camera on their trip as can be seen in some of the footage taken onboard the Apollo space craft.

Why then, for the most historic event in the history of the world, did they not use this same high resolution colour video camera but instead opted to film the most historic sequences on the surface with a low resolution, poor quality, grainy, black and white video camera?



Going to wait for another bull shit response about if we knew about the apollo missions then you would know that High res cameras would not work on the surface of the moon and they could only use some peice of shit camera that they got free with a box of corn flakes.


ZZZzzzzz..... Fuck all the science behind it because no matter what you say there is always some NASA deuch bag there to come out with some bull shit. I just watch those astronauts mannerisms and actions and it tells me all I need to know. Lying fuckers the lot of them.

[grachtengordel]

The makers of Loose Change have been shown to have lied about certain things in their various versions of "the truth", i.e. they are "proven liars". Does that prove 9/11 isn't an inside job?

Did you mean to respond to my post or was that a mistake? I did not mention 'loose change' anywhere in this thread, i dont even think i EVER referred to that film on this forum . so why refer to that film? why ASSUME that because I disagree with you on one issue , that i will have polar views to you in all topics? you must remember that others are not an extension of how you veiw yourself.

[grachtengordel]

But to get back to the Russian example, the Soviet Union broke up nearly two decades ago, there are renegade Russian scientists all over the place and not one, not one, has ever claimed the Apollo missions were faked.

really? I think you are bluffing, there is no way that you can know this, have you read every russian article, printed or 'posted' that covers this topic? that would only be possible if you were a professional disinfo merchant and not just an amateur disinfo merchant

and anyway, the THEORY that you suggest is only slightly p[ossible, it is far more probable that the two 'sides' are in co-operation all the way and the entire 'cold war' was a fake , a fiction, a movie

[endlessvista]

Not once. Show exactly where I have raised the lunar reflectors before and where i have received such "explanations". And if you want to resort to "oooh, they sent probes to put those reflectors there", state exactly when this was please. Missions, dates, names.

They are not complex devices, they are flaps of reflective foil which could of been dropped on the moon by unmanned probes. They takes ages to sight a laser from earth obsevatories because they are small and hard to find (which is interesting in itself). They are not complex machines. You are the one who claimed that your "science" would easily debunk all the Apollo hoaxes as you say all the other side has is only "consipiricy theory" - well I put it to you dream weaver that all the NASA side has only images and artifacts which required no man to even leave earth orbit in order to present as conclusive evidence of a man walking on the moon.

And where is that link to the bautforum thread that I requested? You know, the one where someone (was it you?) was bullied by the nasty men for talking about the LM manual? Let's see what really went on, shall we?

You still have not debunked the lack of LM tire marks.

This is third time I have made this request and the third time you and your "science" has ignored it.

[dreamweaver]

Fuck all the science behind it
Translation: "lalalala, I can't hear you."

[redman]

Translation: "lalalala, I can't hear you."



Yeah pretty much the same technique your using when asked about the tire tracks.. isn't it ?? :D

[endlessvista]

Was it ever put to me or has it been lost amongst the barrage of posts? You've lied to me on the above, so I don't see why I should take it on trust that you asked this.


In other words you can't write it off as the deluded ravings of conspiricy theorists who lack a basic understanding of science as you so smugly implied.

Admit it, I bet you never wished you came barging in on this thread implying anyone who said Apollo was a hoax was some kind of ignorant fuckwit.

Again, explain the lack of Lunar Rover tire marks without resorting to NASA ass covering or obstructiveness and I will be happy.

Com'on I do not want to have a nasty exchange with you, but just admit that your "easily debunked" manifesto at the start of the thread was not the walk in the park among the lesser spotting gobshites you expected.

Look dreamweaver, if anyone is going to get chicks from this excahnge it is going to be me followed by grachtengordel as we are playing a blinder here. Maybe the two blokes from Mythbusters can let you borrow one of their porn mags or something after they are finished with it.

[grachtengordel]

But it still strikes me very much that you're coming at this from a perspective of "governments, media and established science are all part of a mega-conspiracy to pull the wool over my eyes" and that this conditions your whole outlook on these things.

thats because THEY ARE. of course that perception conditions my 'outlook', just as the perception that there is NOT a "conspiracy" conditions YOUR outlook. this is because we are individuals with free choice and not hive-minded borg

i should bill you thousands for all this free therapy you are getting here

[grachtengordel]

The stuff put out by the likes of Bill Kaysing, Bart Sibrel et al is laughable, childish drivel to me, I'm amazed apparently intelligent people find them remotely credible.

man, you are on SUCH an ego trip, not just here , but generally. the more you post, the more you seem like 'the type'

[redman]

Translation: "lalalala, I can't hear you."



Any word on those tire tracks yet ??



" lalalalala... I still can't hear you ".

[grachtengordel]

But on a forum that is dedicated to the idea that 3-d, five-senses perception is an illusion, then anything goes. That runs with the territory here, I have to accept it. Although it's funny how it seems that it's more of a case of "anything goes except..."

why do you keep referring to some kind of 'general CONSENSUS' ? what is this OBSESSION with consensus. this is a forum of doubt , there is NO consensus, just have the courage of your own convictions and trust your opwn judgement, stop worrying about trying to influence a mass consensus and treat everyones opinions as individual and valid in their own right

I like Icke, I think his talk in the by-election made a lot of sense and I think his views on our reality being a hologram are very interesting ideas. Above all else, I agree with him that there is a horrible attack on our rights, that it is getting worse and that mass disobedience is the way to defeat it.

what has any of this got to do with David Icke?

But it doesn't mean I have to believe every piece of risible tosh just because the cool kids believe it.

who cares WHAT you believe? we are having a debate here , not quantifying the beliefs of individual posters as more or less "cool"

[dreamweaver]

You still have not debunked the lack of LM tire marks.

This is third time I have made this request and the third time you and your "science" has ignored it.

Well, it's the first time I've noticed it. There's been a lot of stuff posted in this thread in between answers, I can't reasonably be expected to hang on your every word, especially not when you're as dishonest as you have been in this thread.

You lied about having freshly come to the conclusion that Apollo was a hoax. I'm pretty sure you have lied about "30 years in astronomy" when you repeated the rubbish about von Braun picking up meteorites when any geologist can tell the difference between a meteorite and a moonrock: http://www.meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm. Do you even know one end of a telescope from another? I find it hard to believe a word you say now. At least grachtengordel takes an honest approach, even if I strongly disagree with his conclusions.

Your request on the Apollo tyre marks (or lack of them) in the regolith. Are you saying there were no tyre marks at all or just in specific places? Do you believe there should be such marks in regolith? Let's at least establish what you're asking first.

Now where's this bautforum link please? Fifth time of asking, what have you got to hide?

[endlessvista]

Any word on those tire tracks yet ??



" lalalalala... I still can't hear you ".

I guess the wiki page hasn't been updated by some NASA goon on a six figure salary to keep the propaganda up to date...

Give them time and no doubt dreamweaver and his knowledge of basic science will have the answer.

Perhaps it was really a hovercraft and the wheels were just for making the landing softer. Yes that's it. Then Mythbusters will have a special totally debunking the conspiricy nuts who do not get their science from the Discovery Channel...

[backbeat]

Going to wait for another bull shit response about if we knew about the apollo missions then you would know that High res cameras would not work on the surface of the moon and they could only use some peice of shit camera that they got free with a box of corn flakes.


ZZZzzzzz..... Fuck all the science behind it because no matter what you say there is always some NASA deuch bag there to come out with some bull shit. I just watch those astronauts mannerisms and actions and it tells me all I need to know. Lying fuckers the lot of them.

Hehe, I am waiting for some kind of excuse about weight issues.

NASA lackey: "Hey comptroller, how about we get some high res colour video from the surface - the publics gonna love it after forking out $135 billion in taxes.

NASA Comptroller: "Get you priorities right boy! The public wants to see astronaughts playing golf on the moon in grainy, low-res, black and white. No room for a hi-res colour video camera, we needs the golf clubs."

[endlessvista]

Well, it's the first time I've noticed it. There's been a lot of stuff posted in this thread in between answers, I can't reasonably be expected to hang on your every word, especially not when you're as dishonest as you have been in this thread.

You lied about having freshly come to the conclusion that Apollo was a hoax. I'm pretty sure you have lied about "30 years in astronomy" when you repeated the rubbish about von Braun picking up meteorites when any geologist can tell the difference between a meteorite and a moonrock: http://www.meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm. Do you even know one end of a telescope from another? I find it hard to believe a word you say now. At least grachtengordel takes an honest approach, even if I strongly disagree with his conclusions.

Your request on the Apollo tyre marks (or lack of them) in the regolith. Are you saying there were no tyre marks at all or just in specific places? Do you believe there should be such marks in regolith? Let's at least establish what you're asking first.

Now where's this bautforum link please? Fifth time of asking, what have you got to hide?

Fouth time you avoided the LR no tire marks issue.

anyone wanna put a fiver on a fifth?

[grachtengordel]

if you want to resort to "oooh, they sent probes to put those reflectors there", state exactly when this was please. Missions, dates, names.

so when are you going to "name" the guy who remote controlled the camera that panned up to show the 'lem' take off? you know , the man who could do everything in sync exactly 2.6 seconds before it happened.

[dreamweaver]

I guess the wiki page hasn't been updated by some NASA goon on a six figure salary to keep the propaganda up to date...

Give them time and no doubt dreamweaver and his knowledge of basic science will have the answer.

Perhaps it was really a hovercraft and the wheels were just for making the landing softer. Yes that's it. Then Mythbusters will have a special totally debunking the conspiricy nuts who do not get their science from the Discovery Channel...
See above, Mr Astrologer, oops I mean "Astronomer". I've asked you to qualify the question.

[dreamweaver]

so when are you going to "name" the guy who remote controlled the camera that panned up to show the 'lem' take off? you know , the man who could do everything in sync exactly 2.6 seconds before it happened.

Was I asked to name him? He was actually mentioned by name in that link I gave you if you care to look.

[dreamweaver]

Fouth time you avoided the LR no tire marks issue.

anyone wanna put a fiver on a fifth?

I've already asked you about this: Are you saying there were no tyre marks at all or just in specific places? Do you believe there should be such marks in regolith? Let's at least establish what you're asking first.

And where's that bautforum link? Shall I go searching for myself and see if I can find you? (sixth time)

[grachtengordel]

Was I asked to name him? He was actually mentioned by name in that link I gave you if you care to look.

several times

but what was the 'mechanism' and who controlled it? was it a bit of string tied between the camera and the leg of the garry anderson model they called a 'lunar module'?

who remotely controlled the camera that filmed the lem?

houston eh? but WHO at houston? who was responsible for that and how did they affect the camera, what kind of signal was used.? i'm not interested in the 'mechanism' ON the camera, that i can accept , but how was it remotely controlled, by radio waves? were satellites used to remote control the camera?

He was actually mentioned by name in that link I gave you if you care to look.

humour me ,this thread is big , and fast, i couldn't find the link

[dreamweaver]

humour me ,this thread is big , and fast, i couldn't find the link
Indeed. He's called Ed Fendell. Some more about him:

[Fendell, from a 1996 interview - "There were some real interesting little tricks you learned with the thing, once you got the crewmen up, that you never learned with the training. And I'll tell you what that was. When you look at the video, you'll probably notice that, the majority of the time when you were watching a crewman, if he started to move, the first thing the camera does is it opens up. If you're smart, the first button you hit was zoom out."]

[Jones - "I've noticed you doing that."]

[Fendell - "And the reason that worked so great was, when you hit zoom out, no matter which way he was going, you were able to keep him within the field-of-view and decide which way he was going. And that just came by experience, trying it. If you hit the zoom out, then you kept the field open; then you could figure 'he's starting to move left.' You can do that and then, as he moves, you follow him and, then, if he stops, you can zoom down on what he's doing. And you'll notice that's kind of the way it happens. It's kind of an 'Open up, left, right, in, tweak'. I remember enough of that. That's how you handled the delay and the movement of the crew."]

[Jones - "A nice trick."]

[Fendell - "It worked pretty good. And then we tweaked using those increment commands."]

[Fendell - "There was actually two other guys who controlled the camera at some times on Apollo 16. A fellow by the name of Al Pennington, who is a Flight Director over there now. And a fellow by the name of Gary Scott, who's not there any more. But on 15 and 17, I only controlled the camera."]
</blockquote>

Another part of the interview is in http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16.trvsta11.html at 166:10:28 Don't miss the story about that meeting with Chris Kraft.

An interview with Ed can also be found at http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/e-g.htm

I recently had an email exchange with Ed about his work and all I can say is: This guy is for real and all the information you need is out there. You just have to know where to look.

Harald

[dreamweaver]

To endlessvista:
I've already asked you about this: Are you saying there were no tyre marks at all or just in specific places? Do you believe there should be such marks in regolith? Let's at least establish what you're asking first.

And where's that bautforum link? Shall I go searching for myself and see if I can find you? (sixth time)

Still waiting, both for clarification of your question and response to mine.


Edit: oh well, time for a brew while you're googling away.

[helloperator]

Not that old chestnut. :rolleyes:

Talk to any studio technician, anywhere in the world, and ask them if they mark props with letters like that. Go on, do it.

Internet videos being used to promote particular viewpoints are invariably rubbish. Doesn't anyone read any more?

But if you really only find anything believable if it's presented to you on a video, go check out Penn & Teller's Season 3 episode of "Bullshit" (sadly pulled from YouTube) where they show the guy who actually made that "props" claim in the first place, busy stapling together his hand-made "books" in his trailer.


Penn and Teller are insane asylum nuts who endorse the official government 911 story.

They are ridiculous jokes up to their eyeballs in lies and mind numbing conformity

[grachtengordel]

Indeed. He's called Ed Fendell. Some more about him:

nice one, thanks for that. i am genuinely interested in this info

[metacomet]

It's just one thing after another with NASA and their defenders. Mind you they'll nit pick here and there while ignoring the majority of anamolies and then claim the whole theory debunked.

They just cannot accept what is being presented to them. I think a lot of people are frightened they may have to lose faith in the people on TV. And that Governments are liars and frauds.

You said it yourself man. Lo' and behold we have over 20 pages so far of one person defending his view of reality.

Few people can admit that they've ever been tricked, let alone admit to the existence of massive trickery which can be pulled on an entire planet. This is the age of revealing : those of us seeing past trickery are on the upside of a swing in consciousness. Those on the downside are in the process of questioning beliefs... many fail.

[metacomet]

I've already asked you about this: Are you saying there were no tyre marks at all or just in specific places? Do you believe there should be such marks in regolith? Let's at least establish what you're asking first.

And where's that bautforum link? Shall I go searching for myself and see if I can find you? (sixth time)

Translation: I was wrong to play super hero scientist and am now afraid to acknowledge your question, so I will backpedal and ask you to 'clarify' it.


You have done a commendable job defending your stance, dreamweaver, but this is one of many rabbit holes that is probably not worth falling into, in your case. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, after a certain point you should stop trying to jam your square peg into a round hole.... it will never 'fit' for those of us who have already gone down these rabbit holes.

[metacomet]

Penn and Teller are insane asylum nuts who endorse the official government 911 story.

They are ridiculous jokes up to their eyeballs in lies and mind numbing conformity

Penn and Teller faked a Bigfoot video which showed absolutely no detail or Bigfoot whatsoever and then used it to 'denounce' the entire phenomena.

It was sickening. We should start a thread on those jackasses.

[dreamweaver]

Translation: I was wrong to play super hero scientist and am now afraid to acknowledge your question, so I will backpedal and ask you to 'clarify' it.


You have done a commendable job defending your stance, dreamweaver, but this is one of many rabbit holes that is probably not worth falling into, in your case. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong, after a certain point you should stop trying to jam your square peg into a round hole.... it will never 'fit' for those of us who have already gone down these rabbit holes.

Oi, metacomet, I did not set myself up as "superhero scientist". Where I don't know things, I've admitted as much. It's our friend who claims to have spent 30 years in astronomy, without showing much sign of knowing one end of a telescope from the other, who is a bigger culprit in that department.

I was seeking clarification for the question because it doesn't make sense. "What about the tyre tracks?" Well, what about them? Do they sometimes appear and sometimes not? Do they never appear? Should they appear?

As it happens I've already googled on this and it seems that the very same people who think an astronaut's footprint shouldn't appear are the same ones who think tyre tracks should appear.

They demonstrate no knowledge of how regolith behaves or should behave on the moon. Therefore the questions I'm raising are very pertinent.

But yes, there does indeed come a point when the law of diminishing returns kicks in. I've gained respect for one person over the course of this thread for his honesty, while losing respect for another for his dishonesty. Such is life.

[endlessvista]

To endlessvista:


Still waiting, both for clarification of your question and response to mine.


Edit: oh well, time for a brew while you're googling away.


6th time.

[redman]

Any news on those tire tracks yet ??



" lalalalala.. still can't hear you ".

[endlessvista]

Any news on those tire tracks yet ??



" lalalalala.. still can't hear you ".


Not a sausage. It's too painful for him to even consider becasse it is so obviously damning proof that the NASA Apollo Mission was a lie.

So instead he makes snide remarks, acts too clever to answer and challenges people on non-issues. All so he does not have to look honestly at these images and allow the penny to drop.

http://www.landingapollo.com/conspiracies/photos/jackwhite/moonroverswhichleavenotracksindust.jpg

"please mommy...make the bad picture go away..."

[endlessvista]

The Moon "Hover" Rover...

http://www.landingapollo.com/conspiracies/photos/jackwhite/AS17-137-20979.jpg

not to mention all the sharp and pointy edges on the rover which could easily rip a fabric spacesuit opened.

[endlessvista]

Get this, you know what is even funnier is that the Apollogists claim tha that the reason why there are no tire tracks in 12 Lunar Rover images is...

...are you ready...



...because the astronauts moving around the rover covered them over with dust. If that's not the kookiest conspiricy theroy I ever heard then I do not know what is.

look at how deep the trenches should be in this comical picture of rover tracks starting in the middle of nowhere with no tracks leading up to them.

http://www.landingapollo.com/conspiracies/photos/jackwhite/as15-85-11450.jpg

[endlessvista]

Here is the official "paintings" of how they got the LR off the module.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_15/surface_opp/rover_deploy_lg.gif

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_15/surface_opp/rover_unfold_lg.gif


and here is the official image of the Last supper which proves that it happened. Using the same level of proof as the NASA paintings.

http://www.bethanylc.com/worship/easter/last_supper.jpg

[nessa felagund]

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/2526/funnypicturescatmoondk2.jpg (http://img181.imageshack.us/my.php?image=funnypicturescatmoondk2.jpg)





sorry, couldn't resist! :o:D

[jiffy]

You just happened to miss the OLD LUGGAGE SCANNER, maybe your to young to remember, but when scanners first came out you had to remove films from camera's otherwise they were wiped blank not fogged. Luggage scanners now use much less radiation than body X-Rays.

I have no need to do the maths, if by your own words the belt is no more radioactive than a chest X-Ray I would suggest you take a film next time you have one and see what happens!!!!!!!

Also please answer the other questions regarding lighting, overlaid backgrounds and temperature's that normal 35mm film allegedly withstood.

Correct me if im wrong but I'm lead to believe that the Maximum surface temperature is 123°C and Minimum surface temperature -233°C ?

If this is true try putting a film in the oven, then a freeze, and see what happens.;)

Guess this was to hard to answer?

[endlessvista]

Guess this was to hard to answer?

1969 - Construction began on Kodak Colorado Division - a manufacturing unit for films and papers, located in Windsor, Colorado. ♦ A very special stereo camera made by Kodak accompanied astronauts Aldrin and Armstrong when they set foot on the moon.

This is from Kodaks own site. They mentioned nothing about developing a special new film for the Apollo mission, because they didn't. It was the same over the counter camera film everyone used back then.

Unlike Dreamweaver I know nothing at all about his "science", but I do know that the regular laws of physics stipulates that roughly the square root of the gamma count is what makes for the bulk of secondary/recoil hard−X−ray count. Kodak film (colour as well as B&W) has had a well established reaction to the various spectrum of direct and of the reflected photons (which are mega on the moon), that's well documented as per such film recording upon those reflected photons as having been derived from their being Xenon lamp illuminated, as opposed to those more bluish skewed photons of a raw solar spectrum.

Therefore it is technically impossible for those Apollo missions to have experienced as little as a rem or rad worth of such harsh gamma and hard−X−ray exposure while having been so utterly radiatiated upon the hostile surface of our moon. The NASA moon photos are completely and utterly faked. If they were for real and using the Kodak film which NASA and Kodak both admit was used, they would be completely fogged over from massive photon expouser. Yet they are all perfect. That's because NONE of them were taken on the surface of the moon. And that's even before we get to the extreme temp changes.

I am still waiting on dreamweaver and his "science" to explain the lack of tire marks around the LR in 12 photos.

[endlessvista]

no tire tracks again:

http://www.collectspace.com/images/news-120508d.jpg

[endlessvista]

from the BBC report - 6th Feb 1971:

He hit two balls just before lift-off, and drove them, as he put it, "miles and miles and miles".

here is the famous golf swing at double speed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mEQGtHeUJw&feature=related

This is a classic example of how the faked the moon footage. They filmed it at normal speed and then played it at half speed to makeit look more Moon-ish:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdqBL5pdRT8


more stupidity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJJqDoPHT_c&feature=related

He should of leaped about 6 feet off the ground if he was subject to moon gravity - but that would of looked even more fake playing it at half speed.

[endlessvista]

Finally found a video of the Rover being deployed.

The "entity" they deploy has four balloons instead of wheels that look nothing what Goodyear made.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-M5r2OKPNk

Notice how there is no axle nor means to drive the "wheels".

[endlessvista]

the famous Coke bottle on the moon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4U1kJzzklo

[dreamweaver]

I am still waiting on dreamweaver and his "science" to explain the lack of tire marks around the LR in 12 photos.

What a dishonest little man you are. As you know perfectly well, Metacomet advised several posts back that I might as well let go as there was nothing left to achieve and I thought it a good idea to follow his advice. Every substantive point you have made has already been rebutted, you have lied out of your teeth about your credentials and about posts you claim not to have been answered but were. You have continually refused to reveal this thread on bautforum where you claim someone (probably you) was hounded off it for mentioning LM manuals. You are obviously trying to hide something there, so again I have no more respect for you.

The fact that, since you realised I had stopped responding, you have been sneakily adding posts as a Gollum-style "victory dance" only serves to reinforce what a liar you are. You even tried to suck up to me in the Penn & Teller thread while sneakily adding more false claims here.

And as for the LM tyre marks, you have never indicated why you think there should be tyre marks in the photos in question, so the question is meaningless. That is your answer. I could very, very easily have just posted a standard rebuttal of this non-issue - it's one of the standing jokes in the pro-Apollo community. The reason is quite simple - you show no understanding of why you think there should be tracks in these particular instances and the claims made by the Hoax Believers on this, as with just about every other claim they make, is laughable.

[tabea_blumenschein]

You just happened to miss the OLD LUGGAGE SCANNER, maybe your to young to remember, but when scanners first came out you had to remove films from camera's otherwise they were wiped blank not fogged. Luggage scanners now use much less radiation than body X-Rays.

I have no need to do the maths, if by your own words the belt is no more radioactive than a chest X-Ray I would suggest you take a film next time you have one and see what happens!!!!!!!

Also please answer the other questions regarding lighting, overlaid backgrounds and temperature's that normal 35mm film allegedly withstood.

Correct me if im wrong but I'm lead to believe that the Maximum surface temperature is 123°C and Minimum surface temperature -233°C ?

If this is true try putting a film in the oven, then a freeze, and see what happens.

Guess this was to hard to answer?

Jiffy, perhaps you didn't read those links I posted earlier. If you did, you would have learned that the Van Allen belt radiation is particle radiation, and not electromagnetic radiation such as x-rays or gamma rays. Therefore, talking about dental or chest X-rays and what they might do to film is completely irrelevent.

And yes, the Apollo CM had adequate shielding against particle radiation.

For answers to your other questions, I once again recommend doing some research of your own at clavius.org. (http://www.clavius.org/index.html) All of the concerns I've seen brought up in this thread are dealt with there. Including the "no rover tracks" claim.

[metacomet]

Dreamweaver, instead of a heated and defensive reply, all that needed to be said, many pages ago was "I cannot explain the absence of tracks".

There are no tracks in the photos of the lunar rover. Why? I don't know. It's interesting, and I can't explain it. Maybe it was assembled on spot and for some reason... the astronauts didn't leave... footprints. Hmm.

There is no logical explanation besides "I don't know."

Or you could say "The vehicle magically appeared on the spot." Or, "The astronauts could fly about like fairies while manually constructing the vehicle... no footprints.

I'd rather say it was all faked myself, but that's just me...

[dreamweaver]

Dreamweaver, instead of a heated and defensive reply, all that needed to be said, many pages ago was "I cannot explain the absence of tracks".

metacomet, any "heat" and "defensiveness" is in your imagination. I dislike dishonesty and my actual feeling towards endlessliar is disgust.

I can easily explain the absence of tracks. When the regolith is hard, there is no reason why tracks would be left. The big standing joke is that the same people who claim that tracks should be left in all circumstances also claim that astronauts' boots shouldn't be able to leave an imprint. Go figure.

That, as I have explained several times already, was why I sought more information. The tracks issue has been rebutted to death, for example at http://www.clavius.org/rover2.html. Do you want me to copy and paste it verbatim or can you click a link all by yourself?

I had taken your advice of "letting go" at face value because as far as I could see endlessvista had thoroughly exposed his own dishonesty and that it was plain for all to see. But since that now seems to have just been a ploy to make it look like I was running away, I'm staying right here and exposing every lie. Bring it on.

[dreamweaver]

Guess this was to hard to answer?
Er, no, I had followed metacomet's advice to let the thread go, only to discover later that endlessvista and you have exploited my absence to claim your posts hadn't been answered. So now I'm back and if anyone complains again about me defending myself, then that's just too bad.

First, as already explained in a previous post, there is no ambient temperature on the moon. You can't get heat passed by convection currents because there is no air, remember? So the surface temperature of the moon is irrelevant. What does matter is shielding the cameras from directheat radiation from the sun, which they were.

Your point about the radiation has been eloquently answered by tabea. To that I would add that the calculations I posted earlier clearly show that the Apollo crafts' actual exposure to radiation in the Van Allen belts was not very high - about the same as a typical chest X-ray. The maths was very clearly explained in the post - you can follow it for yourself.

[thetonic]

Dreamweaver do you work for NASA?

What qualifies you to be an 'expert' on this topic?

Why have you chosen to be the spokesperson for moon questions on this thread? Do you really blelieve these things being a member of DI forums, surely you understand that all facets of 'government' make monumental lies on a daily basis, do you somehow believe NASA is the exception?


"We can deal with rockets and dreams, but reality is too much it seems" - Curtis Mayfield

[dreamweaver]

Dreamweaver do you work for NASA?

What qualifies you to be an 'expert' on this topic?

Why have you chosen to be the spokesperson for moon questions on this thread? Do you really blelieve these things being a member of DI forums, surely you understand that all facets of 'government' make monumental lies on a daily basis, do you somehow believe NASA is the exception?
No.

I have stated several times that I am not an expert.

It seems I have been chosen by people who seem to think that if any one of their not-very-original points is missed, then I am unable to answer it and they'll hold little victory dances in a Gollum stylee.

Of course governments lie. So do some conspiracy theorists. Wouldn't the world be simple if people always told 100% lies or 100% truth, it would be so much easier to work out the truth then. If your world really is as simplistic and black-and-white as you imply, then I envy you. Life is more complicated than that for the rest of us.

[thetonic]

What are we even doing in space when we cant take care of this planet???

I think up to 80% of these supposed space missions have been done to weaponize space with haarp technology and tracking/monitoring tech.

[dreamweaver]

What are we even doing in space when we cant take care of this planet???

It's precisely this question that led to Apollo being pulled in the first place. It's a very valid one.

I'm not a great "believer" in the HAARP and chemtrails stuff and have had flak on the forum for it before. But let's not drag this thread off-topic, eh? It's unwieldy enough as it is.

[thetonic]

[QUOTE=dreamweaver;850766]

It seems I have been chosen by people who seem to think that if any one of their not-very-original points is missed, then I am unable to answer it and they'll hold little victory dances in a Gollum stylee.

understood, however Ive found many of your answers unsatisfactory to my current understanding of things. There have been many valid questions which you seem to be able to explain away no matter what.. ie. you become an expert in rocket propulsion, properties of vaccuum enviornments, weather conditions on the moon etc... I think you are stretching.. a lot.

Where are your questions to these events or are you comfortable with everything youve been told so far by the 'experts'?


Of course governments lie. So do some conspiracy theorists. Wouldn't the world be simple if people always told 100% lies or 100% truth, it would be so much easier to work out the truth then.

Well if people spoke 100% truth then lies would not exist and vice versa

If your world really is as simplistic and black-and-white as you imply, then I envy you. Life is more complicated than that for the rest of us.

Nothing is black and white... There is truth though, and it seems to be increasingly elusive in this world... How would it make you feel to find out that the moon landings were hoaxs with much smoke and mirrors to hide the reality of another type of 'space program'? Would it make you angry? Would it make you indifferent to knowing the truth?

[dreamweaver]

How would it make you feel to find out that the moon landings were hoaxs with much smoke and mirrors to hide the reality of another type of 'space program'? Would it make you angry? Would it make you indifferent to knowing the truth?
Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

The cost and difficulties involved in faking such an operation far exceed actually going there and doing it. It also stretches credibility that, having faked it once, they would do it again eight times, including a failed one just to add some extra drama.

Now how would it make you feel to find out that the moon landing hoax theories were just made up by charlatans who were trying to make easy money from the gullible? Would it make you angry? Would it make you indifferent to knowing the truth?

[runciter]

Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

an arbitrary choice based on manipulated information.

[dreamweaver]

an arbitrary choice based on manipulated information.

HBs don't like Occam's Razor, do they? Why have a simple explanation when a convoluted, preposterous one will do?

[runciter]

The cost and difficulties involved in faking such an operation far exceed actually going there and doing it. It also stretches credibility that, having faked it once, they would do it again nine times, including a failed one just to add some extra drama.

Now how would it make you feel to find out that the moon landing hoax theories were just made up by charlatans who were trying to make easy money from the gullible? Would it make you angry? Would it make you indifferent to knowing the truth?


occult rituals, mass hypnosis and mind control: ordinary kabbalistic behaviour, nothing strange.

using a huge amount of our money, and putting people's lives at risk, only adds fun to the trick.

[runciter]

HBs don't like Occam's Razor, do they? Why have a simple explanation when a convoluted, preposterous one will do?

you don't like to think that this whole reality is a psyop, do you? better to listen to daddy's tales, he would never deceive you.

[dreamweaver]

occult rituals, mass hypnosis and mind control: ordinary kabbalistic behaviour, nothing strange.

using a huge amount of our money, and putting people's lives at risk, only adds fun to the trick.
you don't like to think that this whole reality is a psyop, do you?

Has it not occurred to you that sites like this one and Alex Jones and the troofers might all be part of this same kabbalistic behaviour? Or does "trust no one" somehow not apply to your favourite conspiracy theorists?

[runciter]

Has it not occurred to you that sites like this one and Alex Jones and the troofers might all be part of this same kabbalistic behaviour? Or does "trust no one" somehow not apply to your favourite conspiracy theorists?

use your own brain vs trust the nasa, the choice is yours, unless you're part of...

[runciter]

central bankers are sabbatean frankist kabbalists, they control masonry and nasa is 100% masonic.

[dreamweaver]

You haven't answered the question. If all this reality is a psy-op, why should you believe the likes of Alex Jones and David Icke? How do you know they aren't an Illuminati black hole to suck you in and distract you?

[runciter]

You haven't answered the question. If all this reality is a psy-op, why should you believe the likes of Alex Jones and David Icke? How do you know they aren't an Illuminati black hole to suck you in and distract you?

distract me from what? from the fact that there's nothing wrong with this reality?

ok you're right, we aren't enslaved by the bankers, war and famine are only illusions.

[runciter]

and i'm absolutely sure that you are honestly seeking the truth.

[runciter]

You haven't answered the question.


you're lying, i answered your question, the answer was "use your brain".

[dreamweaver]

distract me from what? from the fact that there's nothing wrong with this reality?

ok you're right, we aren't enslaved by the bankers, war and famine are only illusions.
You said this whole reality was a psy-op, remember? So maybe all those are illusions too.

Thanks anyway for confirming my suspicions about why people like you are so desperate to cling to hokey youtube videos as "proof" that manned moon landings never happened. You have an ideology that you think explains everything to you and must denounce anything that you perceive as a threat to that ideology. Just like religion, really.

you're lying, i answered your question, the answer was "use your brain".
Well, you put words after my question but to me it didn't qualify as a valid answer. I see little evidence of you using your brain, I just see someone clinging to a religion. You seem to have missed the point of the question anyway. If all this is a made-up reality, your brain has no way of knowing what is real and what isn't.

[runciter]

You said this whole reality was a psy-op, remember? So maybe all those are illusions too.

Thanks anyway for confirming my suspicions about why people like you are so desperate to cling to hokey youtube videos as "proof" that manned moon landings never happened. You have an ideology that you think explains everything to you and must denounce anything that you perceive as a threat to that ideology. Just like religion, really.

i think you're a gatekeeper of some kind, you systematically ignore anything that doesn't fit your pre-programmed mindset.

[runciter]

Well, you put words after my question but to me it didn't qualify as a valid answer.


i don't know about alex jones or david icke, but i'm pretty sure about you.

[dreamweaver]

you systematically ignore anything that doesn't fit your pre-programmed mindset.
"Hello Mr Pot, I'm Mr Kettle. You're very black, aren't you?"

Oh, and calling people gatekeepers, shills and disinfo agents is the standard defence mechanism for your ideology. It doesn't intimidate me in the slightest.

i don't know about alex jones or david icke,

Exactly. And if your claim about reality being a psy-op is true, you have no basis for saying "this is right" and "this is wrong". So there's no reason why I should believe a word you say when you tell me what to think. Well done.

[runciter]

your logic is extremely poor, and it's not surprising being you a nasa boy.

you say i have no basis, but you're assuming that i'm a soulless masonic robot.

btw wasn't willy wonka an illusionist?

my apologies to endlessvista for playing the illusionist's game.

[dreamweaver]

your logic is extremely poor,
Coming from you, I find that completely baseless (and unsupported) assertion rather ironic. :D

You're just angry with me because I've exposed the flaw in your entire ideology. If all this reality is made-up, as you claim, then why should I believe anything you say about what is real and what isn't?

[runciter]

i used the term psyop, i know i'm not a robot, and i'm sure there are other free souls.

it isn't difficult to understand.

[dreamweaver]

i used the term psyop, i know i'm not a robot, and i'm sure there are other free souls.

it isn't difficult to understand.
Why should I believe you're a "free soul"? That's assuming that the very concept of "being a free soul" isn't itself an illusion, of course.