NASA!!!...Psy-op, Photoshop, Terra-forming... What's Up, NASA?

[TheCaliKid]

Nope.. you need to learn how to investigate for yourself.. don't rely on me.. don't rely on someone else.. take responsibility for it yourself.

I gave you the biggest clue yet though.

Geez man, take a chill pill. I only asked because I thought you would be happy to share your info with me.


Perhaps you should change out your acidity with some alkalinity......Just a thought.....

[Voskhod3]

Geez man, take a chill pill. I only asked because I thought you would be happy to share your info with me.

Make an effort yourself.

Each journey starts with a single step.

You can give a man fish every day.. but it's better if you teach him how to fish.

[TheCaliKid]

@ Voskhod3


"A coward is much more exposed to quarrels than a man of spirit."

- Thomas Jefferson

[Voskhod3]

Dear DawnIsMyGoddess,

Have you made any attempt whatsoever to research the "different lighting" claim?

If not, why not?

The clue is in the pictures.

It's not difficult.

You can do it.

[luckee1]

Voskhod3,

This is silly.  Dawnismygoddess' research in images has contributed mightily to this forum.  Now you are taunting him?

Perhaps if you would provide the links, you might have the most powerful ally to your position!

[Dok]

Shadow Play.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzTw4PYfROU

[Voskhod3]

Voskhod3,

This is silly.  Dawnismygoddess' research in images has contributed mightily to this forum.  Now you are taunting him?

Perhaps if you would provide the links, you might have the most powerful ally to your position!

Nope.. people need to figure out how to investigate Apollo hoax claims for themselves. I've learnt from bitter experience that if I provide anything it gets ignored.

This one is particularly easy.

Have you investigated in lucklee1?

Who's going to be the first one to debunk the "different lighting" claim?

The clues are in the pictures.

[Voskhod3]

Shadow Play.

Parallax.

Now.. whilst you're here.. how about the "different lighting" claim dok, you done any research yet?

[Dok]

Parallax.

Now.. whilst you're here.. how about the "different lighting" claim dok, you done any research yet?

im just gonna post stuff and let you do, well, what ever it is you do. Im sure you wont refute any of them, because you havent posted anything yet the whole time youve been here.



Cameras mounted on the chest. No way to aim or bring into focus.

Yet great in focus shots.



 

[Voskhod3]

Look this must be fake... look at the angles of the shadows!

Everyone knows that shadows cast from the sun are parallel.

[Voskhod3]

im just gonna post stuff and let you do,

So you're avoiding the "different lighting" claim.

I thought you were a truth seeker.

And yes we can talk about the Hasselblad camera after we nail the "different lighting" claim.

Why are you so afraid to say an Apollo hoax claim is bullsh*t?

Will your world fall apart?

[Dok]

So you're avoiding the "different lighting" claim.

I thought you were a truth seeker.

And yes we can talk about the Hasselblad camera after we nail the "different lighting" claim.

Why are you so afraid to say an Apollo hoax claim is bullsh*t?

Will your world fall apart?

I just dont care what you have to say. So im just gonna post stuff that i find. 

[Voskhod3]

I just dont care what you have to say. So im just gonna post stuff that i find. 

Well that says a great deal about you and your attitude towards the truth.

This other stuff that you find.. are you going to ask "is it true?".

Are you going to research it properly?

Your track record is poor to non-existant at the moment.

[luckee1]

Look this must be fake... look at the angles of the shadows!

Everyone knows that shadows cast from the sun are parallel.

Now you are discussing shadows' relativity to light, ok, it does not explain this:

[Dok]

Go to site to see the video of it.
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html



Why Did The Apollo 11 Crew Lie
About being in deep space?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fHAISw6bZ4

This footage shows the Apollo 11 crew pre-recording supposed 'live' footage. Armstrong claims that they are 130,000 miles from Earth, and yet we soon discover that the camera is placed on the other side of the cabin, with the windows blacked out, filming the Earth through the round window opposite. Why would they do this if they wanted the best shot of the Earth? The answer is simple - to fool the public into thinking that it is far away, when in fact the craft is still in Earth orbit. How do we know this? Because just before the camera is turned off, the windows are uncovered to reveal blue sky!

[Voskhod3]

I just dont care what you have to say. So im just gonna post stuff that i find. 

Did you like my shadows picture?

Or have you forgotten it already?

You're a tiger for the truth, anyone can see that.

[Voskhod3]

Now you are discussing shadows' relativity to light, ok, it does not explain this:

Was the terrain level?

Oh.. and that picture is actually from a moving video.

Did you check it out?

How much have you investigated that picture?

Do you know which mission it is for instance?

[Dok]

This picture from Apollo 15 is really quite an amazing feat of camera work if you consider that it was taken without any means of knowing if everything was in shot. No viewfinder, no one to tell you if everything is in shot. Isn't it strange that the only thing visible on the dark part of the Lunar Lander is the American Flag? You cant put that down to two light sources. More likely a NASA artist and an airbrush! This picture was later used on postcards and NASA advertising.

[TheCaliKid]

Here is my issue with the "Hoaxers".

Ever heard of Apollo 8? (December 1968). Was that also a fake mission?


Here's my point: if we orbited the Moon in '68, and had built all the hardware, then why not go all the way? What is the reason for faking? Also, did we fake all the landings, or just some of them?

[Voskhod3]

Anyone got an opinion on why burlguy, dok, david england and jackson holly don't want to discuss this no more?

They still don't want to touch it.

[Dok]

RADIATION

Radiation plays a big part in space travel. Solar flares could have affected the astronauts at any time. The Apollo leaving Earth would travel through 2 specific areas of very high radiation called the Van Allen Belt. The first field is 272 miles out from Earth. The amount of radiation in the belts actually varies from year to year, but every 11 years its at its worst when the sunspot cycle is at its highest. And guess what? 1969 to 1970 was one of the worst times to go, as this was the time where the radiation was at its peak. I have had numerous internet chats with sceptics who say that the radiation would not play a part in the missions because Man would have not been in the radiation belt for too long. My answer to that is, when Dentists or Doctors take X ray pictures they either leave the room or stand behind a sheet of thick lead to shelter from the radiation. Why did NASA only use a small sheet of aluminium to protect the astronauts when they knew that the radiation levels in Space and on the Moon's surface would be many hundreds of times more deadly? And why would they risk their astronauts to such conditions? In 1959 Bill Kaysing was privy to a study made by the Russians. The Russians discovered that the radiation on the moon would require astronauts to be clothed in four feet of lead to avoid being killed. Why didn't NASA heed their warnings?

Did you know that the US Government tried to blast a hole in the belt 248 miles above Earth in 1962? During Operation Starfish Prime a Megaton Nuclear Bomb was used to try and force an unnatural corridor through the Van Allen Belt...  Unfortunately, the radiation levels actually got worse, not better.  What they created was a third belt that was 100 times more intense than the natural belts, and as estimated by Mary Bennett in 'Dark Moon - Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, by 2002 this artificial zone will still have 25 times more radiation than the other 2 belts. There is no agreement to how wide these radiation belts actually are. Dr James Van Allen, the discoverer of the belts estimated that they were at least 64,000 miles deep, but NASA say they are only 24,000 miles deep. Each Apollo craft spent approximately 4 hours within the belts.

So to what lengths did NASA take to shield the astronauts against the radiation? Its accepted that a minimum of 10 cm width of aluminium would be needed at the very least to keep out radiation. However the walls of the Apollo craft and capsule were made as thin and as light as possible and as a result the craft initially could not carry enough air inside to withstand the equivalent to sea level air pressure. NASA had to reduce air pressure inside the cabin to cope. Here are the official stats from a NASA website: (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html)

'At sea level, the Earth's atmosphere is a mixture of gases - primarily of nitrogen (78% by volume), oxygen (21%), water vapour (varying amounts depending on temperature and humidity), and traces of carbon dioxide and other gases. Oxygen is, by far, the most important component of what we breathe and, indeed, the Apollo astronauts breathed almost pure oxygen laced with controlled amounts of water vapour. With the nitrogen eliminated, the cabin pressure could be considerably less than sea-level pressure on Earth - about 4.8 psi (pounds per square inch) versus 14.7 psi - and, consequently, the cabin walls could be relatively thin and, therefore, light in weight.'

One of the worst sun flares ever recorded happened in August 1972, which was between the Apollo 16 and 17 missions. This single flare would have delivered 960 rem of virtually instant death to any astronaut who was up in Space, and yet all of the Apollo astronauts were carrying out their missions in what amounts to nothing more than a thick linen suit. These pressure suits may have helped protect the astronauts against heat or micro meteorites, but certainly would not have given any radiation protection. By the way, there is no known method of registering when and how strong Solar flare activity will be. So, I guess NASA just struck lucky!

The radiation would have greatly affected the film that was shot on the Moon. Physicist Dr David Groves Ph.D., has carried out radiation tests on similar film and found that the lowest radiation level (25 rem) applied to a portion of the film after exposure made the image on the film almost entirely obliterated. Why didn't that happen to the Apollo films?

Readers will be interested to hear that the biggest Solar Flare for 25 years was recorded in April, 2001. So sceptics who are claiming that NASA know when the Solar Flares are going to appear are talking rubbish - as usual. If this were the case, why didn't they bring down the astronauts from the Shuttle and ISS if they knew this gigantic Solar Flare was about to erupt?

Probably the most convincing argument however about the dangers of radiation to astronauts comes from NASA themselves. Read this report made on 8th September, 2005. It makes very interesting reading, especially when you have a number of sceptics like I have breathing down my neck trying to claim otherwise!


How much radiation awaits lunar colonists?
A new NASA mission aims to find out

September 8, 2005: On the Moon, many of the things that can kill you are invisible: breathtaking vacuum, extreme temperatures and space radiation top the list.

Vacuum and temperature NASA can handle; spacesuits and habitats provide plenty of air and insulation. Radiation, though, is trickier.

The surface of the Moon is baldly exposed to cosmic rays and solar flares, and some of that radiation is very hard to stop with shielding. Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet. All this radiation penetrating human flesh can damage DNA, boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies. 

According to the Vision for Space Exploration, NASA plans to send astronauts back to the Moon by 2020 and, eventually, to set up an outpost. For people to live and work on the Moon safely, the radiation problem must be solved.

"We really need to know more about the radiation environment on the Moon, especially if people will be staying there for more than just a few days," says Harlan Spence, a professor of astronomy at Boston University

To carefully measure and map the Moon's radiation environment, NASA is developing a robotic probe to orbit the Moon beginning in 2008. Called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), this scout will pave the way for future human missions not only by measuring space radiation, but also by hunting for frozen water and mapping the Moon's surface in unprecedented detail. LRO is a key part of NASA's Robotic Lunar Exploration Program, managed by the Goddard Space Flight Center.

One of the instruments onboard LRO is the Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER).

"Not only will we measure the radiation, we will use plastics that mimic human tissue to look at how these highly energetic particles penetrate and interact with the human body," says Spence, who is the Principal Investigator for CRaTER.

By placing the radiation detectors in CRaTER behind various thicknesses of a special plastic that has similar density and composition to human tissue, Spence and his colleagues will provide much-needed data: Except for quick trips to the Moon during the Apollo program, most human spaceflight has occurred near Earth where our planet's magnetic field provides a natural shield. In low-Earth orbit, the most dangerous forms of space radiation are relatively rare. That's good for astronauts, but it leaves researchers with many unanswered questions about what radiation does to human tissue. CRaTER will help fill in the gaps.

Right: The CRaTER telescope consists of silicon radiation detectors (red) mounted on detector boards (green), separated by pieces of "tissue-equivalent" plastic (tan). [More]

Out in deep space, radiation comes from all directions. On the Moon, you might expect the ground, at least, to provide some relief, with the solid body of the Moon blocking radiation from below. Not so.

When galactic cosmic rays collide with particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is radioactive!

So which is worse for astronauts: cosmic rays from above or neutrons from below? Igor Mitrofanov, a scientist at the Institute for Space Research and the Russian Federal Space Agency, Moscow, offers a grim answer: "Both are worse."

Mitrofanov is Principle Investigator for the other radiation-sensing instrument on LRO, the Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector (LEND), which is partially funded by the Russian Federal Space Agency. By using an isotope of helium that's missing one neutron, LEND will be able to detect neutron radiation emanating from the lunar surface and measure how energetic those neutrons are.

Right: The distribution of ground-level neutron radiation around the Moon's south pole. "Hot spots" are red; cool spots, blue. Credit: Lunar Prospector. [More]

The first global mapping of neutron radiation from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to people) and what fraction are of lower energies.

With such knowledge in hand, scientists can begin designing spacesuits, lunar habitats, Moon vehicles, and other equipment for NASA's return to the Moon knowing exactly how much radiation shielding this equipment must have to keep humans safe.

RADIATION ARTICLE COURTESY OF NASA (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm)

[Dok]

 

 possess an Apollo film documentary called 'Apollo: One Giant Leap For Mankind' which features all of the Space missions from before the Apollo project right up until the Soyez-Apollo link up and the Shuttle.

On this video during the Apollo 16 Mission we are told that the film to the left was shot during the first trip by the Rover to Stone Mountain, a trip that was carried out on 21st April and at 1 km west of the landing site... The second piece of footage to the right was taken the next day, at a site that was 4 km to the South of the landing site... What you can see in BOTH films is the same rocks. How can this be if the sites are several km's apart?

It turns out that after some research, the two films were of the same EVA and was mistakenly labelled by NASA. Rather a lapse for such a company don't you think?

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

[Voskhod3]

This picture from Apollo 15 is really quite an amazing feat of camera work if you consider that it was taken without any means of knowing if everything was in shot. No viewfinder, no one to tell you if everything is in shot. Isn't it strange that the only thing visible on the dark part of the Lunar Lander is the American Flag? You cant put that down to two light sources. More likely a NASA artist and an airbrush! This picture was later used on postcards and NASA advertising.

Excellent dok, we can discuss that later - you may however wish to do some research about Apollo photography beforehand. It's quite obvious you haven't done any at all.

But first.. can we nail the "different lighting" claim?

[Voskhod3]

Ah... I see.

Dok is now going to find every single Apollo hoax claim he can find and drown this thread.

How about we do them one at a time dok.

We still haven't dealt with the "different lighting" claim.

You know... the one you're avoiding.

[Dok]

Still Not Convinced?
Here's 33 things that need to be answered!
1)  Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected? 

3)  There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket.  Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?

4)  Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)

5)  Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand.  The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.

6)  The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.

7)  Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?

Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).

9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?

10)  How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?

11)  In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death.  In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.

12) Who would dare risk using the LM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?

13)  Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

14)  Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.

15)  If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn.  The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.

16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours.  Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?

17)  The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper.  There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.

18)  The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable.  The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.

19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM.

20)  The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges.  They never did.

21)  During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.

22)  With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, 'Hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can't even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.' This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race.

23) Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?

24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.

25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!

26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!

27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."

28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.

29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LM go?

 30) In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.

31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, showing the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!". and appears above in the 'Why Did Apollo 11 Astronauts Lie About Being In Deep Space?' section.

32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?

33) Why did NASA need to airbrush out anomalies from lunar footage of the Moon if they have nothing to hide?


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

[TheCaliKid]

32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?

You have got to be kidding me. Is this really true?


Vok - what are your thoughts about Apollo 8?

[Voskhod3]

 

 possess an Apollo film documentary called 'Apollo: One Giant Leap For Mankind' which features all of the Space missions from before the Apollo project right up until the Soyez-Apollo link up and the Shuttle.

On this video during the Apollo 16 Mission we are told that the film to the left was shot during the first trip by the Rover to Stone Mountain, a trip that was carried out on 21st April and at 1 km west of the landing site... The second piece of footage to the right was taken the next day, at a site that was 4 km to the South of the landing site... What you can see in BOTH films is the same rocks. How can this be if the sites are several km's apart?

It turns out that after some research, the two films were of the same EVA and was mistakenly labelled by NASA. Rather a lapse for such a company don't you think?

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

This is one of Bart Sibrels proven deceptions.

Busted a long time ago. A little research could have easily told you that.

What is it with you and your reluctance to actually check anything?

This is poor dok.. very poor.

[Dok]

Ah... I see.

Dok is now going to find every single Apollo hoax claim he can find and drown this thread.

How about we do them one at a time dok.

You had your chance, in fact many people here have asked you to just post your stuff so we could move on. Well Cya.

We still haven't dealt with the "different lighting" claim.

You know... the one you're avoiding.

For every one else, i have stated that i believe what was portrayed in the movie, Dark side of the Moon. That being that we went to the Moon, but the footage shown to the public was all faked. So voshklod can just get bent.  

[Voskhod3]

You have got to be kidding me. Is this really true?
Vok - what are your thoughts about Apollo 8?

Christmas 1968 is one of my fondest memories, we can come to that later.

However we have the "different lighting" claim to deal with first.

IS ANYONE going to do some goddamn research for themselves?

[Voskhod3]

For every one else, i have stated that i believe what was portrayed in the movie, Dark side of the Moon. That being that we went to the Moon, but the footage shown to the public was all facked. So voshklod can just get bent. 

Dok, why won't you research the "different lighting" claim?

Do you avoid ones where you think you might be disappointed?

Is that the way to uncover the truth?

The clues are in the picture.

[TheCaliKid]

Alright Voskhod. I'll answer it so you'll shut up already.


- Reflected Sunlight -


Ya happy now?

[Voskhod3]

Alright Voskhod. I'll answer it so you'll shut up already.
- Reflected Sunlight -
Ya happy now?

Actually no (well a little) but it's much worse than that.

The "different lighting" picture/comments is actually deceptive.

But people need to figure it out for themselves because when they do perhaps they will start to understand how deliberately deceptive some of these claims are.

[Voskhod3]

Actually the Van Allen radiation belt is proving to be such a problem that NASA is stumped on how to design their next mockup to convince everyone. This will be very interesting to see.

We can deal with this after the "different lighting" claim burlguy.

Lets do them one at a time.

You done any research yet?

[Voskhod3]

That is only part of it....he will say lens flare. I have seen the arguments before.

No.. well again that is a small part of it (do you deny there is lens flare)?

No the picture commentary is much more deceptive than that.

Have you got it yet?

[Dok]

How did man manage to collect the rock samples if we didn't go to the Moon???

750 lbs or so were said to be collected on the Apollo missions. This maybe so, but according to official NASA records, only a couple of pounds were actually collected by the astronauts. It would not be impossible to irradiate a rock or put it in a vacuum to get the same results.

Did you know that two years before the Apollo 11 mission, its lead scientist Dr. Werner Van Braun made a trip to Antartica which is a prime area for collection Moon rocks?

Why hasn't anybody spoken out about the cover-up?

They have. Bill Kaysing got in touch with his friend, a private investigator from San Francisco called Paul Jacobs, and asked him to help him with his Apollo anomalies investigations. Mr. Jacobs agreed to go and see the head of the US Department of Geology in Washington, as he was travelling there the following week after his discussion with Mr. Kaysing. He asked the geologist, 'Did you examine the Moon rocks, did they really come from the Moon.?' The geologist just laughed. Paul flew back from Washington and told Kaysing that the people in high office of the American Government knew of the cover-up. Paul Jacobs and his wife died from cancer within 90 days!

Lee Gelvani another friend of Kaysing, says he almost convinced informant James Irwin to confess about the cover-up. Irwin was going to ring Kaysing about it, however he died of a heart attack within 3 days. Is this evidence that a cover-up is in existence?

Check out the film documentary at the top of this page showing NASA employees talking about how they were instructed to airbrush out anomalies on the Moons surface.

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

[Voskhod3]

How did man manage to collect the rock samples if we didn't go to the Moon???

Dok, can we do them one at a time.. people are actually doing some research now.. burlguy has even partially debunked it.

There's still a ways to go though.

Have you checked the "different lighting" claim for yourself yet?

[TheCaliKid]

How come nobody can own a Lunar rock unless it's the government? (or in a museum on loan from the government)

Always wondered about this.

[Dok]

Dok, can we do them one at a time.. people are actually doing some research now.. burlguy has even partially debunked it.

You had your chance, so piss off.

There's still a ways to go though.

Have you checked the "different lighting" claim for yourself yet?

[Voskhod3]

You had your chance, so piss off.

But dok, we have progress.. burlguy is onto it.

He still has to figure out where the deliberate deception is.

Why hasn't anyone checked the originals I wonder?

Man.. did I say too much?

[TheCaliKid]

What about me? I don't count?

I'm the one who just broke the ice!