Obama says "Lets Go to the Moon!"

[Nailer]

Many pages  and pics to look at , first page has the lander and it looks like it is taped together  and  has black tar paper panels..LOL

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_4.html

[Viper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgQDZbFM62M

Moon Landing Hoax? conspiracy theories & Facts!

Thanks for this, got it on now.

[Nailer]

bottom of page , moon buggy photo?   Can you say botttoming out the floor pan?

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_14.html

[Nailer]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

So do the math:

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

Or, to put it more simply:

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

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


Workload
Jack White's critic demonstrates that he is in a muddle about what he is trying to prove by recommending the ideal method for ascertaining accurately the time available for photography. While not doing it himself, due to the amount of time it would take, he thinks is necessary to note each shot relative to the mission elapsed timings. Taking this advice to heart and also checking the tasks of each astronaut against their individual EVA timings (3) does indeed take hours.
It also produces the following result:

The Apollo 11 EVA workload was ............2hrs 03 minutes
The time allocated to photography was........... 28 minutes
The average time to point-and-shoot .......121 photos was 13.88 seconds
The average time to point-and-shoot .......122 photos (2) 13.77 seconds

These figures demonstrate two things:

a) The role of astronaut photography in this mission was minimal, and most of it was of the point-and-shoot variety. Which begs the question regarding those carefully composed shots.

b) There is a difference between a time and motion study as per Jack White, demonstrating the time available for photography within a mission, and the dissenter's demonstration of the moment within that mission during which that photography took place.

Using the second demonstration as a response to the first is to merely demonstrate these differences, and saying that "White suggests in his study that the work load was such that there should have been two hours with no photography" is a false premise. Yet this statement turns out to be virtually correct when it comes to evaluating the amount of time required for the EVA workload. It would appear that this critic may have done all these calculations and then muddled his paperwork.

As a result of the foregoing, it is clear that Jack White's conclusion of a reserved time of 31 minutes for the Hasselblad still photography across the Apollo 11 EVA, was virtually spot on. We are down to 28 minutes.

In any event, the crux of the matter is that on average across all missions, one photograph had to have been taken every 50 seconds even if Apollo astronauts were doing nothing but photography while allegedly on the Moon.

NOTES:
(1) Lunar Surface Journal reference: http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html used by White, critic and Aulis editor in this matter of the Apollo 11 EVA.
(2) Critic's posting: 'Bad Apprentice': Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:28 pm on badastronomy.com. His segments are 'approx. 15 mins', his total photos is 122:
1. 0 photos; 2. 20 photos; 3. 2 photos; 4. 4 photos; 5. 17 photos; 6. 25 photos; 7. 29 photos; 8. 19 photos, 9. 6 photos.
(3) The Apollo 11, NASA Mission Report volume 3 (complied from the NASA archives, Edited by Robert Godwin) pp 145/174.

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.htm

[Nailer]

If Obama actually sends  men to the moon for REAL  will they make it back to earth?  The moon as we are told has no atmosphere or ozone  so how will they be protected from radiation?

 

[Viper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgQDZbFM62M

Moon Landing Hoax? conspiracy theories & Facts!

About 49 mins in, astronaut's son, "wanna call the CIA, have em' waxed?"

[NotASlave]

lol

Its just a massive SIPHON job to suck DIRECT CASH into the hands of BLACK OPS.

Bet every DIME is spent on ESPIONAGE and MURDER directly on American Citizens.

[NotASlave]

About 49 mins in, astronaut's son, "wanna call the CIA, have em' waxed?"

Yeah - that comment - "SO QUICKLY" and flippantly was apparent.  They MEANT IT.  Was VERY obvious. That was no "joke" at all.  Would make such a comment on fly such as that?  Huh?

Only BLACK OPS LIARS would!

Gawd - I hope ole MonkeyPox isn't getting upset with this - really. Hate ta see the poor chap get bent.

[rio]

Someone should tell President Obama that Stanley Kubrick died some years ago.

[Viper]

Yeah - that comment - "SO QUICKLY" and flippantly was apparent.  They MEANT IT.  Was VERY obvious. That was no "joke" at all.  Would make such a comment on fly such as that?  Huh?

Ya, forgot about the mike still attached to him, i don't believe it was a joke either.

[Letsbereal]

Obama won't go to the Moon it's just rhetorics.

Why? Cause than we would discover they never were on the Moon.

Sure we landed on the Moon! …….or?

That has to remain a secret?

The original (Very sharp) recordings of the first humans landing on the Moon 40 years ago were erased and re-used, NASA admits 16 July 2009 (Reuters) http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56F5MK20090716

What people saw on television in 1969 were not the direct sharp recordings but deliberately fuzzy indirect recordings! You got to ask yourself why? And now this ERASING VERY SHARP RECORDINGS OF THE FIRST STEP OF HUMAN ON THE MOON!!!!??

Don’t call me a fool!

You think I am stupid?

I asked the Japanese directly in an e-mail if they could find any wreckage of any Apollo mission with their JAXA satellite closely orbiting (cause the Moon has only 17% of earths gravity) the Moon?

Their answer: “We estimate that it would be difficult to distinguish any wreckage of Apollo mission with the accuracy cameras onboard the KAGUYA”

Aaaahaaahahhahahahahh!

Again: Don’t call me a fool!

Neil Armstrong’s cryptic speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUx1SURbb3g

Neil Amstrong: “….To you we say; We’ve only completed a beginning. We leave, you, much, what is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered. Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers.”

Snik, snik I’ve been living a lie whole my live and now I still can’t tell the whole truth, only in a cryptic way tell you somtin:

THE TRUTH IS PROTECTED BY A LAYER, UNDONE, UNDISCOVERED - The Moon is

[jeremystalked1]

Conspiracy theorist convinces Neil Armstrong moon landing was faked

 

[Monkeypox]

Yeah - that comment - "SO QUICKLY" and flippantly was apparent.  They MEANT IT.  Was VERY obvious. That was no "joke" at all.  Would make such a comment on fly such as that?  Huh?

Only BLACK OPS LIARS would!

Gawd - I hope ole MonkeyPox isn't getting upset with this - really. Hate ta see the poor chap get bent.

Dude, WTF is your problem?

You're acting like you're 15 years old.

[NotASlave]

Dude, WTF is your problem?

You're acting like you're 15 years old.

Close.  I'm 14.  And a huge liar too.

[Monkeypox]

Close.  I'm 14.  And a huge liar too.

Now, THAT was funny.

 

[NotASlave]

no - but this is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhuMLpdnOjY

[Jackson Holly]

Good thing JTCoyote's not around anymore ... all you
Nasa Deniers would be banned by now!   

[NotASlave]

Good thing JTCoyote's not around anymore ... all you
Nasa Deniers would be banned by now!   

Wow - thats nice. 

Welp - nuffin' like going back to "New Member" again.  Wouldn't be first time!  Good thing I'm not after "fan hood" eh?

Just TRUTH.  And if hurts a few feelers - well then ... *ouchers* - Water board my ass!

[Devotional Soul]

Ancient Vedic literature (the Srimad Bhagavatam) gives very detailed astronomical measurements and calculations.  It says that the moon is much further away than modern day astronomers say it is.  If this is so, then the moon landings are most likely bogus.

[Viper]

The moon is 240,000 miles up, since Apollo we've only been 365 miles up.

[Freeagain]

Good thing JTCoyote's not around anymore ... all you
Nasa Deniers would be banned by now!   

 

I think it may be time to drag up the old thread. All my posts are gone however thanks to him.

[Jackson Holly]

^ ^ ^

Yeah ... the old NASA Boondoggle thread ....

Man those were the days! 

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=47982.0

Looks like it has been locked/closed ... but it is the bomb.

[NotASlave]

 

I think it may be time to drag up the old thread. All my posts are gone however thanks to him.

LMAO - Dare ya

[NotASlave]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4212906.html

Mission to the Moon: How We'll Go Back — and Stay This Time

With the iconic Space Shuttle nearing retirement, the pressure is on NASA to design a new manned vehicle — one that will deliver us safely to the lunar surface by 2020 before building a lasting lunar base. From ensuring a safe launch to getting the vehicle back on the ground, here's an inside look at some of the toughest challenges Orion's engineers are now confronting.

One hundred and eighty-five miles above the planet, suspended between curving, blue horizon and starry blackness, a four-man spacecraft floats in low-Earth orbit. The year is 2020, and the situation routine. Suddenly, a bright tongue of flame erupts from the rear of the craft, signaling a maneuver that hasn't been attempted since before most living humans were born. The craft thrusts sharply forward, away from the marbled orb. Five minutes later, streaking at 25,000 mph, it breaks free of the Earth's gravity and heads out into the void.

It took pilots 50 years to progress from scarf-and-goggles barnstorming to setting down footprints on the Sea of Tranquility; it will have taken another half-century for us to return to the moon. The craft that will carry us there is the heart of an ambitious plan designed to leave more than flagpoles planted on our neighbor. NASA's vision for manned space exploration, the Constellation Program, culminates in a long-term lunar outpost, and lays the groundwork for a mission to Mars.

Mission: Moon
   Mission to the Moon: How We'll Go Back and Stay This Time
moon lander    How It Works: Diagram of NASA's New Moon Plan
   Will It Fly? Podcast w/ Aerospace Engineer Rand Simberg
   Advice from a Veteran: Buzz Aldrin on Orion
   Lunar Real Estate: NASA's Permanent Moon Base
Not long after the inaugural launch of Endeavour (the fifth and final shuttle) in 1992, NASA began contemplating a new generation of manned spacecraft. The agency selected Lockheed Martin to design the X-33 single-stage-to-orbit space plane in 1996; it was abandoned five years later because of technical difficulties. The agency then considered the less ambitious Orbital Space Plane, or OSP. But the second shuttle disaster, the loss of Columbia in 2003, forced NASA to rethink its entire manned space program. It dropped the OSP and suggested another concept: the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV).

After reviewing an initial round of proposals, NASA announced the basic design parameters in September 2005. Many space buffs were disappointed. Instead of Lockheed Martin's proposal for a sleek, high-tech space plane, first previewed in PM's June 2005 issue, the agency decided to build its new spacecraft with off-the-shelf technology. The squat "spam-in-the-can" capsule that NASA unveiled was at first glance a dead ringer for the 1960s-era Apollo spacecraft. Even the launch vehicles were to be pieced together using warmed-over components from both the current shuttle and the Apollo-era Saturn boosters.

By relying on existing technology, the design would allow for more efficient construction, narrowing the gap between the shuttle's retirement in 2010 and the next manned flight. But it also stirred a hot debate within the aerospace community. "NASA's attitude seems to be that Apollo worked, so let's just redo Apollo," says Charles Lurio, a Boston space consultant. Burt Rutan, the mastermind behind the rocket SpaceShipOne, likened the new CEV to an archeological dig. "To get to Mars and the moons of Saturn, we need breakthroughs. But the way NASA's doing it, we won't be learning anything new."

Scott Horowitz, NASA's associate administrator for Exploration Systems, defends the agency's approach. "Sure, we'd love to have antimatter warp drive," he says. "But I suspect that would be kind of expensive. Unfortunately, we just don't have the money for huge technological breakthroughs. We've got to do the best we can within our constraints of performance, cost and schedule."

The result, as NASA boss Michael Griffin puts it, is "Apollo on steroids" — a new-and-improved version of what was, as even critics must acknowledge, mankind's greatest technological feat. Recently dubbed Orion, the CEV will share Apollo's conical form, but be one and a half times as wide (16.5 ft.) and have more than double the habitable internal volume (361 cu. ft.)­, allowing it to carry six astronauts to the space station and four to the moon.

Orion also will boast a number of new tricks, such as hands-off autodocking and the ability to autonomously loiter in lunar orbit for up to six months. Its dual-fault tolerant avionics, based on those of the Boeing 787, will be able to sustain two computer failures and still return the vehicle to Earth. The avionics also will have open architecture, which means they can be easily updated and modified.

Although the CEV concept has been percolating for well over a year, the real design work — putting detailed flesh on NASA's basic frame — is only just beginning at the agency and at Lockheed Martin, NASA's prime contractor. Engineers face a bewildering array of decisions, a complex matrix of tradeoffs among cost, weight, time, safety and mission. "We're struggling mightily to figure out the ramifications of all these requirements," says Bill Johns, Lockheed Martin's chief engineer for Orion. "It's a huge coordination problem that keeps me awake at night."

From ensuring a safe launch to getting the vehicle back on the ground, here's an inside look at some of the toughest challenges Orion's engineers are now confronting.

...

[Viper]

More space stuff they build is more toys we get when we win.

"hmmm, what's in this hanger...?"

I'll take three laser guns, one anti-gravity spaceship, and five gallons of rocket fuel.

[Letsbereal]

I didn't want to start a "did we go to the moon or not" discussion again cause I know there is an other threat on that.

I simply wanted to question it again to proof that Obama's claim to go to the moon is fake and to wake up newbees to question it.

NASA admitted they don't even have the knowledge to go to the Moon now cause they "forgot" to sneak peak the Nazi's when they were busy (If assuming that they did go).

But this could also be a cover layer upon layer also. I think the budget wouldn't be sufficient anyways to start the whole human Moon landing stuff.

In my opinion it's to fund satanist JPL like Black Projects, like said.

[NotASlave]

Of course.  My bet is 90 percent of "NASA" funding goes DIRECTLY to black ops.

[Finchie]

I must admit that while being open minded I can't accept the moon landings didn't happen but this one is pretty convincing. It must either be
-a fake video or
-an automatic camera of some sort.
I'm not convinced by either explanation. Someone please debunk!

The one with the person walking onto the set just has to be a fake (doesn't it??).

The mystery is solved. The camera was operated by Ed Fennell at Houston control. The camera was on the Moon Rover. Due to the time delay, he had to start panning up before the LEM actually took off, so that when the command reached the camera on the moon it would lift up at the right time to track the LEM taking off.  When they did it on Apollo 15 (the first mission with a rover), they cocked it up.  16 wasn't much better, but on Apollo 17 they nailed the timing...and so whenever you see video of that, it's actually Apollo 17's LEM taking off.

[TheHouseMan]

Only a few people can ever fly in a space shuttle to the moon. It's an elite-only affair. It's pointless even paying attention to this story.

[Letsbereal]

Obama Calls for End to NASA’s Moon Program
1 February 2010, by Kenneth Chang (The New York Times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/science/02nasa.html

President Obama is calling on NASA to cancel the program that was to return humans to the Moon by 2020, and focus instead on radically new space technologies.

Mr. Obama’s 2010 budget proposal for NASA asks for $18 billion over five years for fueling spacecraft in orbit, new types of engines to accelerate spacecraft through space and robotic factories that could churn soil on the Moon — and eventually Mars — into rocket fuel.

Plans for a new mission to leave Earth’s orbit will probably not be spelled out for a few years, and the budget proposal makes it clear that any future exploration program will be an international collaboration, not an American one, more like the International Space Station than Apollo.

“I think this is a dramatic shift in the way we’ve gone about particularly human spaceflight over the past almost 50 years,” said John M. Logsdon, former director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University who was one of about a dozen people who were briefed about the NASA proposal Sunday evening.

“It is a somewhat risky proposition,” Dr. Logsdon said, “but we’ve been kind of stuck using the technologies we’ve developed in the ’50s and ’60s.”

To pay for the new technology development, the budget calls for a complete stop in NASA’s Constellation program, the rockets and spacecraft that NASA has been working on for the past four years to replace the space shuttles.

“We are proposing canceling the program, not delaying it,” Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, said Sunday.

The proposal would officially end aspirations to return astronauts to the Moon by 2020 — President George W. Bush’s “vision for space exploration” developed in the aftermath of the loss of the space shuttle Columbia in 2003.

In place of the Moon mission, Mr. Obama’s vision offers, at least initially, nothing in terms of human exploration of the solar system. What the administration calls a “bold new initiative” does not spell out a next destination or timetable for getting there.

In the meantime, instead of using the Constellation’s Ares I rocket and Orion crew capsule to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station, $6 billion would instead go to financing space taxi services from commercial companies.

Under the proposal, NASA’s budget would rise to $19 billion in the 2011 fiscal year from $18.7 billion. It would also get additional increases in subsequent years, reaching $21 billion in 2015. In total, NASA would receive $100 billion over the next five years.

Whether Congress agrees to the restructuring of NASA remains to be seen. As reports of the impending cancellation of Constellation leaked out last week, members of Congress, particularly in Alabama, Florida and Texas, the homes of the NASA centers most involved with Constellation, expressed concern.

“If early reports for what the White House wants to do with NASA are correct, then the president’s green-eyeshade-wearing advisers are dead wrong,” Senator Bill Nelson of Florida said in a statement last week.

Congress may also balk at the price tag. After spending $9 billion over the past four years on Constellation, canceling the contracts with Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Alliant Techsystems and other companies will cost an additional $2.5 billion, Dr. Logsdon said NASA officials had told him.

If implemented, the NASA a few years from now would be fundamentally different from NASA today. The space agency would no longer operate its own spacecraft, but essentially buy tickets for its astronauts.

Dr. Logsdon said the officials said NASA would evolve into a role more akin to the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, which preceded NASA. The committee did not manufacturer aircraft, but performed aeronautical research that was adopted by aircraft manufacturers.

“The assumption is that there are technological breakthroughs out there ready to be discovered and exploited,” Dr. Logsdon said. “I’m impressed and a little surprised how large the investment in new technology is planned to be. It does represent a shift away from developing systems to developing technologies before developing systems.”

If the approach succeeds, it could jumpstart a vibrant space industry, but it is also risky. By canceling Ares I, NASA would have no backup if the commercial companies were not able to deliver.

One likely competitor for the commercial crew contract is Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, or SpaceX for short. But its Falcon 9 rocket, the one that would be used to carry astronauts to the space station, has yet to have its first launching. When SpaceX, a startup led by Elon Musk, the founder of PayPal, won in 2006 a contract to carry cargo to the space station, the company said it would have six flights of the Falcon 9 by the end of 2009.

Conversely, another likely competitor, United Launch Alliance, which is a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, has decades of experience building space hardware for NASA, and its rockets, the Delta IV and the Atlas V, have successfully carried military and commercial satellites to space. But modifications needed for carrying astronauts could be costly and the launch alliance has also experienced delays and cost overruns.

NASA has also not yet spelled out how it would go about verifying that commercial rockets are sufficiently safe for carrying astronauts. A worry is also that the decades of expertise and experience within NASA in operating spacecraft will be lost, and that the commercial companies might stumble as they learn.

A move to an international collaboration would also make future exploration programs susceptible to buffeting from diplomatic winds on Earth. For example, after Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, lawmakers questioned whether the United States should continue flying astronauts on the Russian Soyuz rockets.

While more countries would share the cost, an international collaboration would probably be more expensive and cumbersome to manage, and could be slowed down by delays of any of the partners.

“I’m optimistic this provides a path to a long term and sustainable and high quality program,” Dr. Logsdon said. “But I think there will be a lot of debate over the details over the next few months.”


Obama Calls for End to NASA’s Moon Program 1 February 2010 (The New York Times) http://tinyurl.com/ydlqyro

[Monkeypox]

He killed the moon program, and the Space Shuttle is going out of service soon, so the US will be left without a way to put people into space - at least officially.

The Air Force launches more rockets into space than NASA does, so I wonder what secret spacecraft we actually have?

[chrisfromchi]

He killed the moon program, and the Space Shuttle is going out of service soon, so the US will be left without a way to put people into space - at least officially.

The Air Force launches more rockets into space than NASA does, so I wonder what secret spacecraft we actually have?

I wonder this as well.

It would be sweet if one of alex's producers did a no rush job on something and/or on a slow day alex gets into what we know about space planes.

[JIMI]

I LMAO at the "moon stuff".  Really. Come on now.  Give me a break.

So - we went from like 1970 - 1977 (there abouts) over and over ...IT WAS EASY!  WOW!

Then they said - "nuffin' there - its boring" and just STOPPED?

Err ..ummm ...is that the nature of Gov't?  To just STOP something like that? < *cough* >

So - Anyways, last I heard (correct me if I'm wrong here) NASA (Never A Straight Answer) said they can't get back to the moon till 2019 ..then they said something like 2030!   

LMAO!!

So, with that old ancient technology (you know - where you digital wrist watch took up an acre of computers) and old "rockets" under thier asses - they just went to the moon and went to the moon and went to the moon ...and FOUR WHEELED!  And played GOLF on the moon!!! Wow!

But somehow, today , somehow ..its just so damned hard to do?

Now you YOUNGER FOLK should really think about this - I'm an old fart.  I remember the trash on TV.  Guess what ! - I didn't believe it when I was a KID either!  Hahaha!

EXCELLENT POST THAT SAYS IT ALL!!!

[Monkeypox]

Faked Apollo landings:

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

[Neco]

look at this pic of the lunar lander and tell me that with all the gaps in the metal and so few rivets that it would not leak  or be ripped apart at the speeds it supposedly traveled. It looks like something built in a highschool shop class.. LOL


http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen3/apollo_lm.jpg

That can't be real.  The top half is made of poster board.

[Neco]

Good thing JTCoyote's not around anymore ... all you
Nasa Deniers would be banned by now!   

Temporary jack - What happened to him?  He was a good mod.

[Monkeypox]

That can't be real.  The top half is made of poster board.

Agreed, that HAS to be a mock-up made for display.  It looks like shit.

If I remember correctly, someone was allowed access to the (supposedly) exact duplicate of the LEM that's on display in the Smithsonian.  

According to this person, given the dimensions and angles of the LEM, there would be no way the astronauts could get in and out of it to access the surface of the Moon.

[ES]

I think Obama might be concerned that the fbi will let a patsy terrorist on the space craft who will then detonate the bomb he has shoved into his rectum in order to blow up the moon. Thus ruining the moonlit nights he spends smoking crack and getting blowjobs from other men.

[Jackson Holly]

Temporary jack - What happened to him?  He was a good mod.

Yes, he was a good mod ... but he argued vehemently against those of us on the other side
of the moon~doggle.  (And banned some folks.)

Here's one of my posts about the mighty computer power they packed to the moon:

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=47982.msg769223#msg769223


I'll say again: That thread is THE BEST moonfake thread on the internet. Any newbies around
should check it out.

[Monkeypox]

I think Obama might be concerned that the fbi will let a patsy terrorist on the space craft who will then detonate the bomb he has shoved into his rectum in order to blow up the moon. Thus ruining the moonlit nights he spends smoking crack and getting blowjobs from other men.

 

Nah, Obama already tried to blow up the moon by having NASA ram it.