Moon Landing a Hoax??!! Real Evidence here>>>
Bunn E. Rabbit
Were the Moon landings a hoax? Investigative journalist George Noory
from the award winning late night radio talk show
www.coasttocoastam.com interviews expert Marcus Allen on the
possibility that Apollo did *not* go to the Moon! And the entire
nonsense shown on TV during the 1969 broadcast was a Hollywood
production!
Marcus Allen is a writer for the following esteemed web publication:
Two other fantastic web site detailing to cruel moon landing hoax.
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
http://www.lunaranomalies.com/
Some grumpy close-minded idiot de-bunker here:
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
And now that I think about it maybe the Moon itself is a hoax! Can we
really prove the Moon exists? What if it's just a hologram by
mischievous Aliens???
--
Bunn E. Rabbit
_____
"Cosmic upheaval is not so moving as a little child pondering the death
of a sparrow in the corner of a barn." -Anouk Aimee, French Actor
_____
"Death is better, a milder fate than tyranny", Aeschylus (525BC-456BC),
Agamemnon
_____
"I wear no Burka." - Mother Nature
----------
To send mail: remove hutch
Mother Nature
<BunnE...@verizon.hutch.net> wrote:
<my special ed children snipped>
>
>And now that I think about it maybe the Moon itself is a hoax! Can we
>really prove the Moon exists? What if it's just a hologram by
>mischievous Aliens???
Bunny, I wish to have a word with you at your earliest convenience.
Thank you.
--
Mother Nature
DrPostman
scribed:
>
>Were the Moon landings a hoax? Investigative journalist George Noory
>from the award winning late night radio talk show
>www.coasttocoastam.com interviews expert Marcus Allen on the
>possibility that Apollo did *not* go to the Moon! And the entire
>nonsense shown on TV during the 1969 broadcast was a Hollywood
>production!
>
>Marcus Allen is a writer for the following esteemed web publication:
>
>www.nexusmagazine.com
>
>Two other fantastic web site detailing to cruel moon landing hoax.
>
>http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
>
>http://www.lunaranomalies.com/
>
>Some grumpy close-minded idiot de-bunker here:
>
>http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
>
>And now that I think about it maybe the Moon itself is a hoax! Can we
>really prove the Moon exists? What if it's just a hologram by
>mischievous Aliens???
But what about this?
http://www.clavius.org/cokebottle.html
--
DrPostman USPS, MBMC, BsD; "Disgruntled, But Unarmed"
Member,Board of Directors, afa-b, SKEP-TI-CULT® #15-51506-253.
AFA-B Official Pollster & Hammer of Thor winner - August 2004
You can email me at: DrPostman(at)gmail.com
"I venture to say there is no one writing on the
Internet today who is providing a greater purpose
for mankind than that found in my writings."
- Felonious Ray, destroyer of irony meters
ceniza
"Bunn E. Rabbit" <BunnE...@verizon.hutch.net> wrote in message
news:lhc601tne4eicf59p...@4ax.com...
Joseki
Bunn E. Rabbit wrote:
> Two other fantastic web site detailing to cruel moon landing hoax.
I think you may want to look up the word "fantastic". I am not sure
your intent, but I agree with what it really means.
Quintal
wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:48:43 +0000, Bunn E. Rabbit expelled the following:
>
>>
>> Were the Moon landings a hoax? Investigative journalist George Noory
>> from the award winning late night radio talk show
>> www.coasttocoastam.com interviews expert Marcus Allen on the
>> possibility that Apollo did *not* go to the Moon! And the entire
>> nonsense shown on TV during the 1969 broadcast was a Hollywood
>> production!
>>
>> Marcus Allen is a writer for the following esteemed web publication:
>>
>> www.nexusmagazine.com
>>
>> Two other fantastic web site detailing to cruel moon landing hoax.
>>
>> http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
>>
>> http://www.lunaranomalies.com/
>>
>> Some grumpy close-minded idiot de-bunker here:
>>
>> http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
>
>
>ASSHAT ALERT!!!!
CLOSE YOUR EYES! STOP YOUR EARS!
SHUT YOUR MOUTH!!!
Jay Windley
...which unfortunately does not qualify him as knowledgeable on any of the
topics he covered. Allen proves he knows nothing of photographic analysis,
orbital mechanics, and physics. He's just spouting the same old
unscientific nonsense that other lay authors have been tripping over for
decades -- long since debunked.
He claims, for example, that the CSM was just in low Earth orbit for the
entire mission, but since it would be visible to the naked eye in that case
he omits to explain how it went entirely unnoticed for two weeks. He also
omits to explain how radio communications could have been maintained with
such a vehicle for hours on end when that orbit would ensure it would have
line of sight to any particular point on Earth for only four minutes at a
time. Some of the large radio telescopes (operated by non-Americans) can't
even move fast enough to track a LEO object.
He complains about the supposedly surprising high quality of the photographs
taken on the moon, a sure sign of someone with only limited exposure to the
Apollo photographic record. He has obviously seen only the best pictures
reproduced in books and magazines, naturally chosen by their editors because
they are the most presentable. The Apollo photographic record is chock full
of bloopers, but no magazine wants to devote space to a blurry, underexposed
shot of Charlie Duke's left hand.
| Some grumpy close-minded idiot de-bunker here:
|
| http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
I presume you're resorting to name-calling because you can't tell us what
this individual got wrong.
--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org
John Griffin
Wabbits are sarcastic.
Bunn knows that it would be harder to fake a moon landing than to
do it.
Art Deco
Thanks, Jay. After hearing him talking for a few minutes last night, I
was hoping to see your take on his assertions.
The only point he raised that I personally had not heard of was his
claim that direct reentry from lunar-Earth transit was a high-odds crap
shoot -- he used the analogy of dropping a marble from the Empire State
Building into a beer glass. And he raised the point that the Apollo 13
return was likely impossible because of the way mid-course corrections
were made using the LM main engine. Obviously, as you point out, he
knows nothing of how these tasks were actually performed.
>
> | Some grumpy close-minded idiot de-bunker here:
> |
> | http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
>
> I presume you're resorting to name-calling because you can't tell us what
> this individual got wrong.
--
"a photon can travel faster than light when it is not excited"
"Ions are attracted to IRON"
"The dense ions in the ionosphere are simulating a
much higher gravitational pull to earth."
-- Alexa Cameron demonstrates her 200+ alien-implanted IQ
"I really don't care too much for humans"
"Just think of all the fun watching them from above while they
dance their kooker-step on their burning planet ..."
-- Chuckweasel Bohnehead's delusional non-human self-image
Douglas Berry
<cen...@serveradvcogen.com> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.conspiracy beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
>interesting. compelling!
Is it time to spank you again?
http://www.clavius.org/index.html
C'mon, let's here all your tired claims, and see how long you last
before you run away.. again.
Anyone interested in cenzia's past brushes with insanity are welcome
to review them here:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z1E0565D9
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W211515D9
He rants, raves, makes insults, and eventually crawls away.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Douglas Berry
alt.conspiracy beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
>Were the Moon landings a hoax?
No.
http://www.clavius.org/index.html
Ronald Dean
"Phoenix" <rbwa...@databasix.com> wrote in message
news:cu0ljl$a4n$7...@astroconsulting.databasix.com...
> In article <lhc601tne4eicf59p...@4ax.com>,> I think Randy Moss's moon was a hoax.
>
Nonsense, I related to one of the astronaults who
went there.
DrPostman
>interesting. compelling!
>
You've been had, dumbass.
DrPostman
in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>
You related what?
Jay Windley
"Art Deco" <art_...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:040220051019091412%art_...@127.0.0.1...
|
| Thanks, Jay. After hearing him talking for a few minutes last night, I
| was hoping to see your take on his assertions.
Well, very little we haven't already heard a hundred times from all the
other people trying to make a buck off the gullible and paranoid.
| The only point he raised that I personally had not heard of was his
| claim that direct reentry from lunar-Earth transit was a high-odds crap
| shoot -- he used the analogy of dropping a marble from the Empire State
| Building into a beer glass.
FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt). Nobody ever said Apollo was easy; it
doesn't have to be easy in order to get it done. Every Apollo mission
entailed considerable risk. Dropping a marble into a beer glass is a bit
long on the odds compared to re-entry, but people like Allen seem to have no
concept of what industry is capable of.
| And he raised the point that the Apollo 13 return was likely
| impossible because of the way mid-course corrections were made
| using the LM main engine.
He's probably been watching Ron Howard's movie, in which those events are
given more dramatic appeal than they probably deserve.
The LM's main engine was throttlable. This means the timing and the
direction of the actual burns are less important. If you use a small amount
of thrust, you have to burn the engine longer to achieve the same delta-v.
A longer burn means the timing doesn't have to be as accurate, if you
consider the timing error as a percentage.
And contrary to Allen's protests, the returning Apollo capsules have a
window to hit. There is allowance for error. We engineers confess
sometimes to trying to impress laymen by overdramatizing the constraints in
the problems we're trying to solve. Doing so does not admit we don't know
how to do it. For example, to some people cutting something to 0.001 inch
tolerance seems impossible. Ordinary machinists, however, do it every day
without much worry. And they'll boast a little.
Bunn E. Rabbit
<BunnE...@verizon.hutch.net> wrote:
>
>Were the Moon landings a hoax? Investigative journalist George Noory
>from the award winning late night radio talk show
>www.coasttocoastam.com interviews expert Marcus Allen on the
>possibility that Apollo did *not* go to the Moon! And the entire
>nonsense shown on TV during the 1969 broadcast was a Hollywood
>production!
>
>Marcus Allen is a writer for the following esteemed web publication:
>
>www.nexusmagazine.com
>
>Two other fantastic web site detailing to cruel moon landing hoax.
>
>http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
>
>http://www.lunaranomalies.com/
>
>Some grumpy close-minded idiot de-bunker here:
>
>http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
>
>And now that I think about it maybe the Moon itself is a hoax! Can we
>really prove the Moon exists? What if it's just a hologram by
>mischievous Aliens???
I thought it was obvious. Here's the truth about our solar system:
NASA did not go to the moon. And the Moon isn't hollow as some kooks
suggest but filled with a liquid.
It's true. Otherwise NASA would have discovered that the moon is made
of Blue Cheese(Roquefort if you prefer). In addition,
the moon's core is filled with balsamic vinaigrette dressing.
And those Martian geological oddities of late including the canals on
Mars are where the mold is grown for the Blue Cheese.
And now here's some other interesting facts about our fascinating
Solar System.
-Other satellites, depending on their hue are really reservoirs not
"moons" that contain the following; Extra Virgin olive oil, French,
Russian, Caesar, Ranch, Honey dijon mustard, Poppyseed, Raspberry,
Lime yogurt and Italian dressings.
-The Asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter are not fragments of a
former planet but actually organic whole grain free range croutons.
-Jupiter is not really a giant gaseous planet but a greenhouse that
grows organic baby greens. As well as a hundred other assorted
species of nuts, fruits and vegetables. Kinda like Usenet. The
so-called 'Red Spot' covers the area where red peppers and mile long
hydroponic carrots are grown.
-Europa does have life. Under the ice is an underground Rain Forest
heated via Jupiter's gravity with the main crop being the Cacao Bean
of which dark chocolate is harvested from. And did you know that dark
chocolate without dairy yields the highest and most diverse amounts of
antioxidants? Ha! There's probably a funny joke here with Mother
Nature and chocolate but considering the rest of this post I might end
up spending my afterlife on Venus.
-Comets are not ice and rock but in reality a pepper mill.
-Saturn is a farm where free range chicken is raised without hormones
or antibiotics. And in addition, organic eggs along with a variety of
dairy products. The 'rings' focus the necessary wavelengths from the
Sun for the proper growth of grasses and grains for grazing.
-Uranus as you might expect is for growing healthy fibrous legumes.
-Neptune is the largest reservoir in the Galaxy for mineral water. In
addition, Omega essential fatty acids rich heart/brain healthy cold
water fish are farmed there as well.
-Venus is used for baking whole grain breads as well as other medium
range temperature cooking needs including light saute.
-Mercury simply is a grill.
-Pluto, yes poor Pluto is important too as storage facility for
leftovers.
-Sun being multi-purpose like all Stars serves as a microwave for
leftovers, a recycling bin and for quickly brewing coffee and herb
tea.
The reason of course for all this is so that Mother Nature can
conveniently prepare her salads and other cuisine with ease.
Just trying to help.
John Griffin
Planet X is wine.
Planet XX is beer (Dos Equis).
Phil Miller
theobviou...@theobviousindiana.edu (Geoff Cashman) wrote:
>In article <Xns95F3ABBDAD85Ath...@130.133.1.4>,
>John Griffin <thathi...@yahooie.com> wrote:
>>
>>Planet X is wine.
>>Planet XX is beer (Dos Equis).
>>
>
>Planet XXXX is also beer.
> http://www.xxxx.com.au/home.asp
Oh come now, Geoff. While many people in Queensland consider it beer,
the rest of the country would rather drink battery acid than XXXX. By
the way, it's called XXXX because Queenslanders can't spell Beer.
Phil
--
Pfft...English! Who needs that? I'm never going to England.
Homer J. Simpson
DrPostman
in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>Planet X is wine.
>Planet XX is beer (Dos Equis).
>
Planet XXX is Moonshine
lensman1955
"And put in your earplugs, put on your eyeshades. You know where to put
the cork!"
lensman1955
--
I wouldn't mind the ranting and raving and crawling away if he didn't
keep coming back with the same story every couple of months!
Brad Guth
of others supportive of what's NASA/Apollo.
However, how much of those NASA/Apollo missions related to the lunar
surface were of 'assertions', and how much was hard science? Are we
talking about 25%, 50%, 75% or perhaps 90% 'assertions?
I've never once had problems with all the absolutely terrific images of
our moon obtained from orbit (still better resolution than anything
other as of today), such as obtained from anything Apollo while in
orbit, via Hubble or even the likes of KECK as they each managed to
depict a mostly basalt dark moon as it should be, in places as little as
3%(coal like) reflective, at best 25% reflecting within only extremely
few maximum lunar white-out zones. However, I still have some questions
as to the surface conditions that seem to defy all sorts of physics laws
as recorded by their unfiltered Kodak eye.
However, once that Kodak eye was supposedly situated upon the lunar
surface, why was there so much of that mostly basalt dark lunar terrain
that was suddenly transformed into 55+% reflective?
How is it that selective portions of this already oddly bright
reflective lunar terrain (supposedly clumping yet hardly offering a
basalt rock nor meteorite shard in sight), that there were so many of
those intensive retro-reflective zones surrounding a given atronaut?
Would you folks like a good number of specific illumination examples?
Why was there's never an indication of having darker substances of raw
basalt exposed under and/or all about those undocumented fly-by-rocket
landers, as depicted from images obtained from orbit that clearly
indicated as 5% or less reflective index wherever NASA/Apollo pointed
out as being their official landing sites?
Why wasn't it much hotter than reported while supposedly walking upon
the actual dark basalt lunar surface?
At 1.4 kw/m2 worth of continual and unobstructed influx, and therefore
doesn't any portion of IR energy reflect and thereby contribute?
Isn't the radiant influx along with the added portion of reflected IR
energy coming off the lunar surface technically far worse off than
conductive forms of heat that can be easily insulated against?
Why was the Kodak eye (unfiltered except for a full spectrum band-pass
polarised filter that should have made the lunar surface photo record as
darker, certainly not lighter) so unable to record the 256 fold increase
in raw solar near-UV and UV/a energy?
Since there's no atmosphere for diffusing raw sunlight, shouldn't those
polarise filtered images have become recorded as extremely polarised?
Where the heck was the likes of the Sirius star system all of this time?
Shouldn't the tremendus intensity increase (at least 512 fold) of such a
spectrum shifted source of near-UV and UV/a spectrum of Sirius have
recorded nicely into a few of those Kodak moments?
Where was our good old blazing (80+% reflective) Venus all of this time?
Shouldn't Venus upon at least two of thse missions have been photo
recorded as nearly as bright as per those 85% reflective moonsuits?
Why was the film exposure to the 'blue' spectrum of our American flag so
unusually subdued?
How in the freaking heck did the raw solar spectrum become so nicely
xenon like?
Why was the 3.1 g/cm lunar basalt and other supposedly heavier
substances so none-reactive?
Where did all the meteorites and their impact strewn shards go?
Why was there never so much as a dust-bunny impacting at 30 km/s or even
3 km/s?
Why is there still absolutely nothing of interactive of scientific
instrumentation deployed upon the moon?
Isn't there any functioning and thereby R&D documented AI/robotic lander
that'll at least manage a one-way lunar deployment, and if so, where's
the documentation?
What's the secondary TBI X-Ray dosage difference between the fully
illuminated side of the moon as compared to the nighttime side and/or
earthshine environment, or didn't our command modules (on 8+ Apollo
occasions) and numerous other robotic missions before and after ever
once bother as to recording squat, as to obtaining such raw surface
emissions of thermal and radiation levels that should have been rather
easily obtaining such important data upon these sorts of differentials,
especially from such a relatively low (100+km) orbits?
In a little further related research retrospective;
Exactly how long does it require for a block of ice to vaporise in
space?
The same goes for dry-ice(frozen CO2), how much time per ccm or per m3
into becoming vapor?
So as it stands, there's still no consensus nor any apparent method of
pulling one together for that of establishing space radiation data, we
still don't know squat about plain old ice or even dry-ice in space, we
don't have a freaking clue as to the surface IR nor TBI differences
between lunar day/night, we have no apparent science upon a purely
zero-orbit gravity drop and subsequent lunar impact data as to the final
velocity, thereby we still have zlich upon the available kinetic energy
release as per cratering the moon, and we still don't have a single
interactive surface instrument telling us squat about the moon (not even
the LUNAR-A form of impact intended probes), nor have we anything from
the perspective of the moon as to improving whatever Earth science
(unless you've got something better than a .05 milliradian blue laser
cannon, and one hell of a nifty tracking capability, those supposed
retro-reflectors are a physics joke, as damn near a RadioShack
photo-strobe transponder would have been doable at 1% the weight,
probably 0.1% the cost, offering a 1° beam of at least a million times
more detectable photons).
In spite of all the orchestrated flak imposed against my suggestions on
seriously accomplishing good and honorable intentions on behalf of ISS,
I also managed to create a few other related topics, several of which
are not specifically about our moon or Titan, though in more than a few
ways offering just about everything under the sun on behalf of improving
future space exploration and just plain old space travel bang for the
buck/euro that's at least indirectly related to folks utilizing our moon
as a rather necessary gravitational booster shot. Of such missions
passing as close to the moon as possible hasn't even been such a new
idea, it just so happens to coincide with the even better physics and
science logic and numerous other values of what the LSE-CM/ISS is good
for.
"Terraforming the moon, before doing Mars or Venus"
"The Moon, LSE-CM/ISS, Venus and beyond, with He3 to burn"
"Lunar/Moon Space Elevator, plus another ISS within the CM"
"Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
"Ice Ages directly regulated by Sirius"
"SETI/GUTH Venus, no kidding"
"Terraforming the moon"
"Relocate ISS to ME-L1"
Relocation of ISS to ME-L1 is certainly a task that's much easier said
than done, but at least it's something that's been doable. For the
benefit of salvaging our environment, extracting and exporting
helium-3(He3/3He) to Earth is just offering a little beneficial fusion
icing on the cake.
I'll offer another topic of "TRACE-->TRACE-II-->VL2" as having
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our moon, of which this will
only further prove my point that these forums summarily suck.
I really don't know for absolute certainty that my highly subjective
interpretations of the published information about our moon, that I find
oddly missing certain details or at least representing incomplete
science, are any different than of my highly subjective interpretations
of those images obtained by the Magellan mission, as persay representing
the one and only last word. As unlike our resident warlord, I could be
wrong, but at least my mistakes are not as such involving war crimes
against humanity.
Deductive reasoning has generally functioned just fine and dandy getting
myself this far in life without too much trouble, nor have I been
getting someone other killed in the process. Whereas I'm still not at
all convinced that our perpetrated cold-war administrations, and of all
those supporting such actions, can say the same.
Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Brad Guth
http://www.clavius.org/cokebottle.html
Clavis, badastronomy and apollohoax are every bit part of the mainstream
hoax. Either that or those folks are so thoroughly snookered that they
don't know which way is up.
I'd even go so far as to believe that we could deliver a soft landing
via controlled fly-by-rocket lander, that is if there were ever such a
capability documented as being R&D demonstrated, or at least their
prototype R&D test flights of a few speedy down-range landings
accomplished outside of their cold-war 'nondisclosure' cultism. I don't
know about yourself but, I've looked and looked again, and there's still
absolutely nothing but your typical cold-war disinformation spin and
hype of their spendy infomercials that hasn't been certified as truth.
Why on Earth wouldn't the USSR robotic lunar lander (especially their
AI/robotic fly-by-rocket lander) have been easily demonstrated?
Why wouldn't our gravity scaled and pilotted lunar lander have been
easily demonstrated?
Why can't anyone as of today demonstrate an AI/robotic fly-by rocket
lander of any scale?
By eliminating payloads and whatever's unrelated to the AI/robotic
fly-by-rocket technology, limiting the test flight fuel loads and even
if need be stripping away the shielding for protecting astronauts would
permit a full scaled lander that should function just fine and dandy
within the environment and gravity of Earth. If not, then it's extremely
unlikely that there's sufficient capability of getting anything safely
onto the moon, much less returning whatever from the moon.
Good grief folks, and not that we should need to bring up that same old
NASA/Apollo retro-reflector crapolla again.
They merely bounced lasers off the raw lunar surface, at even the
pathetic 11% reflective index is offering way better off than any
retro-reflector (actually the surface reflects roughly 25% of an IR
spectrum), which I believe the lunar soil is actually capable of better
than 25% where the best IR spectrum is utilized for getting reflected
photons back off that relatively dark basalt surface, that which in the
brightest visual spectrum offers at most 25% in a few selective zones.
Clearly those pathetic yet extremely bulky retro-reflectors that weren't
even band-pass coated simply vaporised as they impacted along with their
unmanned lander portions. Although it's possible that a robotic
fly-by-rocket retro-thrust soft landing may have saved the day, however
that's certainly a rather nifty accomplishment that has never been
documented, much less demonstrated as of to date.
Even if all them retro-reflectors were somehow carefully deployed and
all were within the same 2+km targeting zone, their contribution for
getting photons back towards Earth would not likely have amounted to
0.0001% (a million to one) of what the combined illuminated zone of what
a 2+km diameter laser beam can otherwise accommodate. Actually the first
decade worth of such laser applied measurements were at best obtaining a
20+km diameter zone. Do the math.
We'd need a gigawatt laser cannon creating at most a 0.2 km target zone
as per even getting close to receiving a certified retro-reflector
photon. That is of course unless they've all been pulverised to death by
whatever comes along at 30+km/s, along with vaporising all of them
Apollo cows that are never coming home.
Brad Guth
responsible for blowing decades of invaluable time, resources and
talents, of trillions of dollars and euros that have been flushed down a
spendy space-toilet. We got JFK terminated and nearly created WW-III
over this space race, and the ongoing cold-war WMD fiasco is what's
directly responsible for extensive collateral damage and of
exterminating tens of thousands of innocent folks, and to think that the
fat lady hasn't even come onto the stage to sing. In other words, it
isn't over until our fat lady sings, or perhaps those Apollo cows come
home.
The "Real Evidence" is actually not of what's in the eye of the beholder
but, as recorded in the unfiltered Kodak eye that sees all. It seems
that such an unfiltered Kodak eye sees extremely well into the near-UV
and even into a portion of the UV/a spectrum. Oddly there was 256 fold
more of such raw solar intensity upon the moon than per residing here on
Earth. Artificial xenon illumination is extremely close to the available
spectrum as photo recorded here upon Earth. Go figure as to why the
'blue' of the American flag is so subdued.
Right about now I'd have to add to my growing list of what really sucks,
in that even team SETI sucks. It seems these SETI folks have been so far
up their own ass that it doesn't matter if there's other life on Venus,
or that we did or did not walk upon the moon. It seems team SETI has
been in the Search for Extra Transfers of Investments into their bank
accounts, and that's about it.
Yet another lethal decade after decades worth of perpetrated cold-war
crapolla down another spendy space-toilet, along with hundreds of
millions of even their supposedly hard earned SETI dollars/euros,
certainly along with loads of SETI dog-wagging, wasted resources and
supposed talents, and still there's absolutely no respect for Venus, nor
of whatever ET's having eyes nor brains. I'm to guess the only qualified
SETI ETs are not only blind but seriously dumb and dumber than even we
could possibly have imagined.
I'll have to keep offering that in spite of all the orchestrated flak
imposed against my research and suggestions of seriously accomplishing
perfectly good and honorable intentions on behalf of relocating ISS
towards the moon, I managed to create a few other related topics,
several of which are not specifically about our moon or Titan, though in
more than a few ways offering just about everything under the sun on
behalf of improving future space exploration and just plain old space
travel bang for the almighty buck/euro that's at least indirectly
related to folks utilizing our moon as a rather necessary gravitational
booster shot. Of such missions passing as close to the moon as possible
hasn't even been such a new idea, it just so happens to coincide with
the even better physics and science logic and numerous other values of
what the LSE-CM/ISS is good for.
"Terraforming the moon, before doing Mars or Venus"
"The Moon, LSE-CM/ISS, Venus and beyond, with He3 to burn"
"Lunar/Moon Space Elevator, plus another ISS within the CM"
"Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
"Ice Ages directly regulated by Sirius"
"SETI/GUTH Venus, no kidding"
"Terraforming the moon"
"Relocate ISS to ME-L1"
One of my old external moon topic pages:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-photo-entro.htm
The basic township on Venus: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
My summary/update page to other interest stuff:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm
TeaWrecks
"Bunn E. Rabbit" <BunnE...@verizon.hutch.net> wrote in message
news:5k2801pso1i6t62qd...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 08:48:43 GMT, Bunn E. Rabbit
> <BunnE...@verizon.hutch.net> wrote:
>
> I thought it was obvious. Here's the truth about our solar system:
>
> NASA did not go to the moon. And the Moon isn't hollow as some kooks
> suggest but filled with a liquid.
>
> It's true. Otherwise NASA would have discovered that the moon is made
> of Blue Cheese(Roquefort if you prefer). In addition,
> the moon's core is filled with balsamic vinaigrette dressing.
>
> Solar System.
>
> -Other satellites, depending on their hue are really reservoirs not
> "moons" that contain the following; Extra Virgin olive oil, French,
> Russian, Caesar, Ranch, Honey dijon mustard, Poppyseed, Raspberry,
> Lime yogurt and Italian dressings.
My God! The Solar System is an All you can eat salad bar/buffet!
ceniza
making it were nil.
(which they were and are)
DrPostman
in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>Now, that's bullshit. It is much easier to fake, especially if the odds of
>making it were nil.
>(which they were and are)
You never learn, do you? Year after year you get embarrassed with
these silly claims of yours. But your denial keeps you coming back
to get kicked in the ass over and over again.
DrPostman
<brad...@yahoo.com> in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>DrPostman; "But what about this?"
>http://www.clavius.org/cokebottle.html
>
>Clavis, badastronomy and apollohoax are every bit part of the mainstream
>hoax. Either that or those folks are so thoroughly snookered that they
>don't know which way is up.
Brad, you have been exposed for the kook that you
are so many times it isn't funny. Why do you keep coming back
for this sort of abuse? Face it, your claims have been
shown to be wrong on those web sites and you
can't argue them down.
John Griffin
[ moved your incredibly dumb remark to the bottom, fool ]
>> Bunn knows that it would be harder to fake a moon landing
>> than to do it.
> Now, that's bullshit. It is much easier to fake, especially
> if the odds of making it were nil.
> (which they were and are)
I almost wish I could believe that you're dumb enough to believe
either or both of those idiotic remarks, so I could laugh at you.
Getting there is an engineering problem. If you have the energy
and means of exploiting it, and the mental horsepower to figure
out how to chart the path, and you throw enough money at the
venture, you get there. We had all that forty years ago.
I bet you think they faked the low gravity effects in an
abandoned hangar which they simply flew in a "zero gravity
simulation path" like the "vomit comet." Oops...no thinking
involved... I should have said you believe that sort of thing,
not "you think." I can't imagine how you believe they faked the
telemetry.
Once you explain how all your imaginary faking was done, you face
the impossible task of explaining how they've kept thousands of
people quiet about it for 35 years. I hope you've noticed that
none of the stupid sons of bitches who claim it was faked claim
to have been a part of the conspiracy.
Do you believe there are really hobbits?
Jay Windley
"ceniza" <cen...@genserconadv.com> wrote in message
news:t_KdnUskOZJ...@ntd.net...
|
| It is much easier to fake...
I hear a lot of people say that. When I ask them to explain how, I get a
rambling, handwaving description of how one or two things might have been
faked, but no story that explains all the evidence we have. It turns out
that most of the people who think it could have been faked really have
little or no idea how much stuff is out there that would need to have been
faked.
| especially if the odds of making it were nil.
| (which they were and are)
Explain how you arrived at that estimate.
Jay Windley
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33499b54ea97e007f90...@mygate.mailgate.org...
| I have no falts with many of NASA's assertions, or even the assertions
| of others supportive of what's NASA/Apollo.
Of course you do. You keep calling them names and ignoring their attempts
to answer your questions.
| ...that was suddenly transformed into 55+% reflective?
Show me how you computed that number.
| those intensive retro-reflective zones surrounding a given atronaut?
Heiligenschein. It happens on Earth too, if you pay attention.
| indicated as 5% or less reflective index wherever NASA/Apollo pointed
| out as being their official landing sites?
Albedo varied.
| Why wasn't it much hotter than reported...
(a) your estimates of albedo are simplistic.
(b) you don't know anything about heat transfer.
| Isn't the radiant influx along with the added portion of reflected IR
| energy coming off the lunar surface technically far worse off than
| conductive forms of heat that can be easily insulated against?
No.
| Why was the Kodak eye ... so unable to record the 256 fold increase
| in raw solar near-UV and UV/a energy?
Because not all film is sensitive to all wavelengths.
| Where the heck was the likes of the Sirius star system all of this time?
Right where it always has been.
| Where was our good old blazing (80+% reflective) Venus all of this time?
Right where it has always been.
| Shouldn't Venus upon at least two of thse missions have been photo
| recorded as nearly as bright as per those 85% reflective moonsuits?
Inverse square law.
| Why was the film exposure to the 'blue' spectrum of our American flag so
| unusually subdued?
Have you looked at the response curves for E-3 emulsion?
| How in the freaking heck did the raw solar spectrum become so nicely
| xenon like?
Show me how you determined it was "xenon-like".
| Where did all the meteorites and their impact strewn shards go?
What do you think they were walking in?
| Why was there never so much as a dust-bunny impacting at 30 km/s or even
| 3 km/s?
Because they stopped millions of years ago. The moon has been largely
undisturbed since then.
| Why is there still absolutely nothing of interactive of scientific
| instrumentation deployed upon the moon?
(a) It wasn't designed to last this long.
(b) Jimmy Carter turned them all off in 1977 to save money.
| Isn't there any functioning and thereby R&D documented AI/robotic lander
| that'll at least manage a one-way lunar deployment, and if so, where's
| the documentation?
Who cares?
| What's the secondary TBI X-Ray dosage difference between the fully
| illuminated side of the moon as compared to the nighttime side and/or
| earthshine environment...
Neither is biologically significant under normal conditions with nominal
protection.
| Exactly how long does it require for a block of ice to vaporise in
| space?
Depends on the size of the block and the specifics of the heat transfer.
| The same goes for dry-ice(frozen CO2), how much time per ccm or per m3
| into becoming vapor?
Depends on the specifics of the heat transfer.
| So as it stands, there's still no consensus nor any apparent method of
| pulling one together for that of establishing space radiation data...
I explained to you years ago why your radiation arguments don't mean a
thing, but you didn't care to hear it.
Bookman
"DrPostman" <Lo...@mysig.foremail> wrote in message
news:oaua015h7e1ajb7h8...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 17:53:50 +0000 (UTC), "Brad Guth"
> <brad...@yahoo.com> in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>
>>DrPostman; "But what about this?"
>>http://www.clavius.org/cokebottle.html
>>
>>Clavis, badastronomy and apollohoax are every bit part of the mainstream
>>hoax. Either that or those folks are so thoroughly snookered that they
>>don't know which way is up.
>
>
> Brad, you have been exposed for the kook that you
> are so many times it isn't funny. Why do you keep coming back
> for this sort of abuse? Face it, your claims have been
> shown to be wrong on those web sites and you
> can't argue them down.
That's why "Apollo hoax" ko0ks need to k'lame that
there's this "massive conspiracy" - they can't accept
that the evidence proves them wrong.
ESL!
--
Bookman -The Official Overseer of Kooks and Trolls in AFA-B
Kazoo Konspirator #668 (The Neighbor of the Beast)
Clue-Bat Wrangler
Keeper of the Nickname Lists
Despotic Kookologist of the New World Order
"I'd love to kill you in a ring" - Bartmo gets all touchy-feely
"****SPV....... So yes I am an idiot."
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/afa-b/
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/afa-b/index.html
Bunn E. Rabbit
wrote:
Not to mention those pesky moon rocks studied by scientists at
Universities *worldwide*; which puts a monkey wrench into the 'hoax'
theories being an American conspiracy. And of course Blue Cheese
dressing. Which explains why the French can't stand us for
surpassing their Roquefort.
--
Keith
DrPostman
<webm...@clavius.org> in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>
>"ceniza" <cen...@genserconadv.com> wrote in message
>news:t_KdnUskOZJ...@ntd.net...
>|
>| It is much easier to fake...
>
>I hear a lot of people say that. When I ask them to explain how, I get a
>rambling, handwaving description of how one or two things might have been
>faked, but no story that explains all the evidence we have. It turns out
>that most of the people who think it could have been faked really have
>little or no idea how much stuff is out there that would need to have been
>faked.
>
>| especially if the odds of making it were nil.
>| (which they were and are)
>
>Explain how you arrived at that estimate.
He can't. ceniza used to try, but in the last couple of years he
posts and then runs with his tail between his legs. He throws
around the same stupid arguments and then replies once or
twice. That's all he can do.
ceniza
"DrPostman" <Lo...@mysig.foremail> wrote in message
cenizia
http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/index.html
"Geoff Cashman" <theobviou...@theobviousindiana.edu> wrote in message
news:cu15i3$6il$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <cu0s39$b49$1...@news.xmission.com>,
> Jay Windley <webm...@clavius.org> wrote:
> >And contrary to Allen's protests, the returning Apollo capsules have a
> >window to hit. There is allowance for error. We engineers confess
> >sometimes to trying to impress laymen by overdramatizing the constraints
in
> >the problems we're trying to solve. Doing so does not admit we don't
know
> >how to do it. For example, to some people cutting something to 0.001
inch
> >tolerance seems impossible. Ordinary machinists, however, do it every
day
> >without much worry. And they'll boast a little.
>
> I'll echo that.
>
> I used to work for a company that produced high precision small
> metal components using Hydromat machines. The tolerances that
> could be held on those machines were in the .001 realm easily.
> I remember one part in particular that had 96 critical dimensions,
> all of which had .003 or tighter tolerances.
>
> The notion that reentry would have been impossible to accomplish
> because of the odds against it are absurd. High precision operations
> are routine, every day sort of events.
>
> -Geoff
>
>
cenizia
Why not do something that the people of earth could witness?
Never happened. Wonder why?
"Bunn E. Rabbit" <BunnE...@verizon.hutch.net> wrote in message
news:v5mb0155nlrbngvv5...@4ax.com...
HateSpam
> rocks are the least convincing of possible proof.
> Why not do something that the people of earth could witness?
> Never happened. Wonder why?
We live in a society where the POTUS couldn't spooge on an intern without the entire world finding out, and you think
the government could keep a secret like "the moon landings were faked."
What drives people like you? There's a part of me that thinks you goofballs couldn't possibly REALLY believe what you
spout off and that you and your kind are just particularly persistent and self-consistant trolls. I don't know why I
tend to overestimate people.
John Griffin
*********I moved your idiotic remark to the bottom, meathead.
Because we weren't there, you fuckin' moron. Sheesh. Anyway,
it's funny to see one of your kind trying to pass yourself off as
an expert on the quality of proof, after you've consistently
shown that you don't understand the concept.
Try to get a job.
Jay Windley
"cenizia" <cen...@genserconadv.com> wrote in message
news:q6udnY6-Dr8...@ntd.net...
It doesn't have to be a piece of cake; it just has to be possible. I can't
figure out why these conspiracy theorists think something is impossible just
because it's not easy.
Jay Windley
|
| rocks are the least convincing of possible proof.
I disagree. It's physical evidence that, according to all knowledgeable
people, cannot have been fabricated, cannot have originated on Earth, and
have been continuously studied for decades by people all over the world not
sympathetic to American political motives. During the height of the Cold
War, Apollo samples were given to the Soviets, who had obtained their own
lunar samples via an unmanned probe (after Apollo's first samples) and could
very easily have detected a forgery.
| Why not do something that the people of earth could witness?
Such as?
| Never happened. Wonder why?
What possible reasons have you considered, and why did you reject them?
Art Deco
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:37:30 -0600, ceniza expelled the following:
>
> > Now, that's bullshit. It is much easier to fake, especially if the odds of
> > making it were nil.
> > (which they were and are)
>
>
> Shut up stupid.
This poast is APPROVED.
--
"a photon can travel faster than light when it is not excited"
"Ions are attracted to IRON"
"The dense ions in the ionosphere are simulating a
much higher gravitational pull to earth."
-- Alexa Cameron demonstrates her 200+ alien-implanted IQ
"I really don't care too much for humans"
"Just think of all the fun watching them from above while they
dance their kooker-step on their burning planet ..."
-- Chuckweasel Bohnehead's delusional non-human self-image
Douglas Berry
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.conspiracy beanbag and
drunkenly proclaimed the following
>
>"Geoff Cashman" <theobviou...@theobviousindiana.edu> wrote in message
>news:cu15i3$6il$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
>>
>> The notion that reentry would have been impossible to accomplish
>> because of the odds against it are absurd. High precision operations
>> are routine, every day sort of events.
>
>oh, yeah...piece of cake.
>http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/index.html
One shuttle has failed on re-entry.
All the other shuttle missions made it. See the list.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/archives/year1981.html
Care to review each year?
Then there's Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Apollo-Soyuz, and the Skylab
missions.. along with the Soviet/Russian missions. We've
successfully re-entered the Earth's atmosphere well over a hundred
times now with manned spacecraft, losing only 13 people in the
process.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Douglas Berry
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.conspiracy beanbag and
drunkenly proclaimed the following
>rocks are the least convincing of possible proof.
Only to the scientifically illiterate. To those of us who understand
geology, the rocks are a treasure trove of information and proof of
the missions.
>Why not do something that the people of earth could witness?
Like beaming live television back from the Moon?
>Never happened. Wonder why?
Because your previous suggestions were stupid. The Moon is a quarter
of a million miles away. What exactly were they supposed to do?
cenizia
is why you and I subscribe to this newsgroup. And remember my friends, past
events will affect you in the future as history repeats itself. You are
interested in the unknown, the mysterious, the unexplainable, that is why
you are here. That's why I have brought to you, the full story of what
happened on the fateful Apollo missions. I have given you all the evidence,
based on the facts and the testimony of the miserable souls who "survived"
this "heroic" ordeal. The incidents, the places. My friends, I could not
keep this a secret any longer. Let us punish the guilty, let us reward the
innocent. My friends, can your heart stand the shocking facts about MOON
HOAXERS FROM NASA?????
"Bunn E. Rabbit" <BunnE...@verizon.hutch.net> wrote in message
news:lhc601tne4eicf59p...@4ax.com...
>
> Were the Moon landings a hoax? Investigative journalist George Noory
> from the award winning late night radio talk show
> www.coasttocoastam.com interviews expert Marcus Allen on the
> possibility that Apollo did *not* go to the Moon! And the entire
> nonsense shown on TV during the 1969 broadcast was a Hollywood
> production!
>
> Marcus Allen is a writer for the following esteemed web publication:
>
> www.nexusmagazine.com
>
> Two other fantastic web site detailing to cruel moon landing hoax.
>
> http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
>
> http://www.lunaranomalies.com/
>
> Some grumpy close-minded idiot de-bunker here:
>
> http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
>
> And now that I think about it maybe the Moon itself is a hoax! Can we
> really prove the Moon exists? What if it's just a hologram by
> mischievous Aliens???
>
> --
> Bunn E. Rabbit
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"cenizia" <cen...@genserconadv.com> wrote in message
news:oMidnTqHTOF...@ntd.net...
> Greetings, my friends. We are all interested in the moonlandings. For
> that
> is why you and I subscribe to this newsgroup.
You spewed across five of them. To which "this newsgroup" do you refer?
> And remember my friends, past
> events will affect you in the future as history repeats itself. You are
> interested in the unknown, the mysterious, the unexplainable, that is why
> you are here.
Your behavior is unexplainable, true.
> That's why I have brought to you, the full story of what
> happened on the fateful Apollo missions. I have given you all the
> evidence,
> based on the facts and the testimony of the miserable souls who
> "survived"
> this "heroic" ordeal.
You have provided nothing substantive. Only indirect references to your
self-proclaimed efforts.
> The incidents, the places. My friends, I could not
> keep this a secret any longer.
That you thrive on being flamed.
<plonk>
David A. Smith
Namib
> "I wear no Burka." - Mother Nature
"I do not vote". - Mother Nature
Namib
DrPostman
in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>on the contrary. i have proven many times the landings were faked.
Only in that puny little mind of yours, kook.
All you have convinced anyone of is that you
are a total idiot.
DrPostman
in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>oh, yeah...piece of cake.
>http://www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/index.html
And now you have convinced us that you are a stupid
ghoul too.
DrPostman
in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>rocks are the least convincing of possible proof.
>Why not do something that the people of earth could witness?
>Never happened. Wonder why?
>
How do you fake a rock with a composition that
can only be from the moon?
DrPostman
in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>Greetings, my friends. We are all interested in the moonlandings. For that
>is why you and I subscribe to this newsgroup. And remember my friends, past
>events will affect you in the future as history repeats itself. You are
>interested in the unknown, the mysterious, the unexplainable, that is why
>you are here. That's why I have brought to you, the full story of what
>happened on the fateful Apollo missions. I have given you all the evidence,
>based on the facts and the testimony of the miserable souls who "survived"
>this "heroic" ordeal. The incidents, the places. My friends, I could not
>keep this a secret any longer. Let us punish the guilty, let us reward the
>innocent. My friends, can your heart stand the shocking facts about MOON
>HOAXERS FROM NASA?????
Notice how no one cares about your kooky claims.
Especially since you won't give a straight answer
to questions and challenges already put to you.
That's your pattern. Everyone knows it.
You have no friends.
Jay Windley
"cenizia" <cen...@genserconadv.com> wrote in message
news:oMidnTqHTOF...@ntd.net...
|
| Greetings, my friends.
Uh, was that pile of crap supposed to mean something?
Please answer my questions.
josephus
Art Deco wrote:
> Fredrick Garvin <Ga...@elaborate.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 14:37:30 -0600, ceniza expelled the following:
>>
>>
>>>Now, that's bullshit. It is much easier to fake, especially if the odds of
>>>making it were nil.
>>>(which they were and are)
>>
>>
>>Shut up stupid.
>
>
> This poast is APPROVED.
>
shut up stupid
josephus
DrPostman wrote:
tell this idiot to shut up!
I dont want to listen to the drivel
Brad Guth
I've composed upon something with as few of those nonspecific words and
even fewer specific numbers as you've just contributed.
"Depends on the specifics of the heat transfer"
I thought the likes of frozen water and/or frozen CO2 were relative
constants. However, since you're the all-knowing expert and wizard of
nearly everything that's "space", why don't you share with us all about
those "specifics of the heat transfer".
I'll catch the rest of your usual crapolla later.
Regards, Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
DrPostman
accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>
>tell this idiot to shut up!
>I dont want to listen to the drivel
Tell him yourself. Now, about those voices you
seem to be hearing when you read usenet......
DrPostman
<brad...@yahoo.com> in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>Thanks Jay, I'll get back to nailing your sorry hide to the barn when
>I've composed upon something with as few of those nonspecific words and
>even fewer specific numbers as you've just contributed.
>
>"Depends on the specifics of the heat transfer"
>
>I thought the likes of frozen water and/or frozen CO2 were relative
>constants. However, since you're the all-knowing expert and wizard of
>nearly everything that's "space", why don't you share with us all about
>those "specifics of the heat transfer".
>
>I'll catch the rest of your usual crapolla later.
>
Sure you will. He nailed your ass to the barn door.
Jay Windley
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0e7b43132590c8fbeb7...@mygate.mailgate.org...
| Thanks Jay, I'll get back to nailing your sorry hide to the barn when
| I've composed upon something with as few of those nonspecific words and
| even fewer specific numbers as you've just contributed.
I'm not holding my breath. I've asked for these explanations for something
like three or four years. Every time I've asked, you run away and then
complain about receiving "flak".
| ...why don't you share with us all about
| those "specifics of the heat transfer".
Um, no. You don't even understand enough of the problem to know what you
need to know in order to solve it. The specifics of the heat transfer are
the details of your postulated situation that *you* need to supply in order
for someone else to compute what you've asked them to compute. In other
words, you've underspecified the problem, and now you think someone else
needs to fill in the details you left out.
What a maroon.
Art Deco
josephus
Fredrick Garvin wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 12:52:54 -0600, cenizia expelled the following:
>
>
>>Greetings, my friends. We are all interested in the moonlandings. For that
>>is why you and I subscribe to this newsgroup. And remember my friends, past
>>events will affect you in the future as history repeats itself. You are
>>interested in the unknown, the mysterious, the unexplainable, that is why
>>you are here. That's why I have brought to you, the full story of what
>>happened on the fateful Apollo missions. I have given you all the evidence,
>>based on the facts and the testimony of the miserable souls who "survived"
>>this "heroic" ordeal. The incidents, the places. My friends, I could not
>>keep this a secret any longer. Let us punish the guilty, let us reward the
>>innocent. My friends, can your heart stand the shocking facts about MOON
>>HOAXERS FROM NASA?????
>
>
>
> Shut up stupid.
shut up stupid
josephus
DrPostman
accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>
>
Such witty repartee! How do you come up with replies like that?
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
<pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in
message <bsfc0118f6uo48ogd...@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 07:48:14 -0600, "cenizia" <cen...@genserconadv.com>
>drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.conspiracy beanbag and
>drunkenly proclaimed the following
>
>>rocks are the least convincing of possible proof.
>
>Only to the scientifically illiterate. To those of us who understand
>geology, the rocks are a treasure trove of information and proof of
>the missions.
>
>>Why not do something that the people of earth could witness?
>
>Like beaming live television back from the Moon?
>
>>Never happened. Wonder why?
>
>Because your previous suggestions were stupid. The Moon is a quarter
>of a million miles away. What exactly were they supposed to do?
It doesn't matter. The moon-hoax kooks would still have kkklaimed it
was either faked, or done robotically under the command of earth-bound
controllers.
--
V.G.
Change pobox dot alaska to gci.
"Bush things is he never attends a Funderal - He will live forever!" - Donnieboi Ferrt explains... something.
Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
>On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 07:48:14 -0600, cenizia expelled the following:
>
>> rocks are the least convincing of possible proof.
>
>
>Please, do explain to us why?
If he doesn't run away from your question, you will regret asking it.
lensm...@hotmail.com
set off a chemical reaction that could be viewed from Earth. (Humor
moment, someone sabotauged the experiment and instead of just a bright
yellow glow, the Earth saw the Coca Cola logo!) Of course, there is the
point that no one in NASA realized they would have to justify and
proove what they did decades later!
lensm...@hotmail.com
World News"? You seem to have the right grasp for factual evidence.
josephus
Geoff Cashman wrote:
> In article <1107803839....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> This would prove nothing. This type of operation could be done
> without humans going to the moon.
>
> -Geoff
>
As near as I can tell the MOONHOAXERs cannot do legitimate historical
research. There is a great mass of historical data and historical
rubbish that would verify almost any event from the holocaust to Apollo
13. Not lonely are there Newspaper reports, but there are original
documents and scientifically qualified evidence. There are 150000
people that have hands on experience with NASA and they know what happened.
HOAXERS should get a life.
Brad Guth
sucks, such as the incest contributions of nothing specific from the
likes of 'DrPostman' and 'Bookman', I'll have to keep offering my honest
reply, in that I have no falts with a great many of NASA's assertions
about the lunar environment, or even of the 'assertions' of others
supportive of whatever's NASA/Apollo.
However, how much persay of those NASA/Apollo missions related to their
lunar surface EVAs were of 'assertions', and how much was of actual hard
science? Are we talking about 25%, 50%, 75% or perhaps 90% 'assertions?
From orbit or from whatever remote observations, all is just fine and
dandy;
I've never once had problems with all the absolutely terrific images of
our moon obtained from orbit (still better resolution than anything
other as of today), such as obtained from anything Apollo while in
orbit, via Hubble or even the likes of KECK as they each managed to
depict a mostly basalt dark moon as it should be, in places as little as
3%(coal like) reflective, at best 25% reflecting within only extremely
few maximum lunar white-out zones. However, I still have some questions
as to the surface conditions that seem to defy all sorts of physics laws
as recorded by their unfiltered Kodak eye.
Once that Kodak/E6 eye was supposedly situated as nearly naked upon the
lunar surface, why was there so much of that mostly basalt dark lunar
terrain that was suddenly transformed into being 55+% reflective as
easily compared to those 85% reflective moonsuits?
Exactly how the heck is it that only selective portions of this already
oddly bright reflective lunar terrain (supposedly clumping yet hardly
offering a basalt rock nor meteorite related shard in sight), that there
were so many of those intensive retro-reflective zones surrounding a
given atronaut?
Would you folks like to see a good number of such specific illumination
examples?
Why was there's never an indication of having darker substances of raw
basalt exposed under and/or all about those undocumented fly-by-rocket
landers, as otherwise depicted from images obtained from orbit that
clearly indicated as contributing at 5% or less reflective index
wherever NASA/Apollo pointed out as being their official landing sites?
Why wasn't it so much hotter than reported while supposedly walking upon
the actual dark basalt lunar surface?
At 1.4 kw/m2 worth of continual and unobstructed influx, and therefore
doesn't any portion of IR energy reflect and thereby contribute?
Isn't the radiant influx along with the added portion of reflected IR
energy that's coming off the lunar surface technically far worse off
than conductive forms of heat that can be easily insulated against?
Why was the Kodak eye (unfiltered except for a full spectrum band-pass
polarised filter that should have made the lunar surface photo record as
darker, certainly not lighter) so unable to record the 256 fold increase
in raw solar near-UV and UV/a energy?
Since there's no atmosphere for diffusing raw sunlight, shouldn't those
polarise filtered images have become recorded as extremely polarised?
Where the heck was the likes of the Sirius star system all of this time?
Shouldn't the tremendus intensity increase (at least 512 fold) of such a
spectrum shifted source of near-UV and UV/a spectrum of Sirius have
recorded nicely into a few of those Kodak moments?
Where was our good old blazing (80+% reflective) Venus all of this time?
Shouldn't Venus upon at least two of thse missions have been photo
recorded as nearly as bright as per those 85% reflective moonsuits?
Why was the film exposure to the 'blue' spectrum of our American flag so
unusually subdued?
How in the freaking photographic heck did the raw solar spectrum become
so nicely xenon like?
Why was the 3.1 g/cm lunar basalt and other supposedly heavier
substances so none-reactive?
As compared to all those terrific images obtained from orbit, where did
all the meteorites and their impact strewn shards go?
Why was there never so much as a dust-bunny impacting at 30 km/s or even
3 km/s?
Why is there still absolutely nothing of interactive of scientific
instrumentation deployed upon the moon?
Isn't there any functioning and thereby R&D documented AI/robotic lander
that'll at least manage a one-way lunar deployment, and if so, where's
the R&D progress documentation?
What's the secondary TBI X-Ray dosage difference between the fully
illuminated side of the moon as compared to the nighttime side and/or
earthshine environment, or didn't our command modules (on 8+ Apollo
occasions) and from numerous other robotic orbiting missions before and
after the fact ever once bother as to recording squat, as to obtaining
such raw surface emissions of thermal and radiation levels that should
have been rather easily obtaining such important data upon these sorts
of differentials, especially if those were from such a relatively low
(100+km) orbits?
In a little further related research retrospective;
Exactly how long does it require for a block of ice to vaporise in
space?
The same request goes for dry-ice(frozen CO2), how much time per ccm or
per m3 into becoming vapor?
So, as it stands, there's still no consensus nor any apparent method of
pulling such a report together for that of establishing space radiation
data, we still don't know squat about plain old ice or even dry-ice in
space, we don't have a freaking clue as to the surface environment of IR
nor TBI differences between lunar day/night, we have no apparent science
upon a purely zero-orbit gravity drop and subsequent lunar impact data
as to the final velocity, thereby we still have zlich upon the available
kinetic energy release as per cratering the moon, and we still don't
have a single interactive surface instrument telling us squat about the
moon (not even the LUNAR-A form of impact intended probes), nor have we
anything from the perspective of the moon as to improving whatever Earth
science (unless you've got something better than a .05 milliradian blue
laser cannon, and one hell of a nifty tracking capability, those
supposed retro-reflectors are still a physics joke, as damn near a
RadioShack photo-strobe transponder would have been doable at 1% the
weight, probably 0.1% the cost, and by focusing a 1° beam of at least a
million times more detectable photons at that).
In spite of all the orchestrated flak imposed against my suggestions on
seriously accomplishing good and honorable intentions on behalf of ISS,
I also managed to create a few other related topics, several of which
are not specifically about our moon or Titan, though in more than a few
ways offering just about everything under the sun on behalf of improving
future space exploration and just plain old space travel bang for the
buck/euro that's at least indirectly related to folks utilizing our moon
as a rather necessary gravitational booster shot. Of such missions
passing as close to the moon as possible hasn't even been such a new
idea, it just so happens to coincide with the even better physics and
science logic and numerous other values of what the LSE-CM/ISS is good
for.
"Terraforming the moon, before doing Mars or Venus"
"The Moon, LSE-CM/ISS, Venus and beyond, with He3 to burn"
"Lunar/Moon Space Elevator, plus another ISS within the CM"
"Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
"Ice Ages directly regulated by Sirius"
"SETI/GUTH Venus, no kidding"
"Terraforming the moon"
"Relocate ISS to ME-L1"
Relocation of ISS to ME-L1 is certainly a task that's much easier said
than done, but at least it's something that's been doable. For the
benefit of salvaging our environment, extracting and exporting
helium-3(He3/3He) to Earth is just offering a little beneficial fusion
icing on the cake.
I'll soon offer another topic of "TRACE-->TRACE-II-->VL2" as having
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our moon, of which this will
only further prove my point that these forums summarily suck.
I really don't know for absolute certainty that my highly subjective
interpretations of the published information about our moon, that I find
oddly missing certain details or at least representing incomplete
science, are any different than of my highly subjective interpretations
of those images obtained by the Magellan mission, as persay representing
the one and only last word. As unlike our resident warlord, I could be
wrong, but at least my mistakes are not as such involving war crimes
against humanity.
Deductive reasoning has generally functioned just fine and dandy getting
myself this far in life without too much trouble, nor have I been
getting someone other killed in the process. Whereas I'm still not at
all convinced that our perpetrated cold-war administrations, and of all
those supporting such actions, can say the same.
Brad Guth
remorse for the dead, for all of the perpetrated cold-war crapolla that
has contributed to so much collateral damage and carnage of the
innocent.
What part of your conditional laws of physics is basically LLPOF
certified crapolla, as opposed to the actual truth?
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Brad Guth" <brad...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e191773a4365ca5def1...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> Perhaps the ANTI-HOAXERS should get some basic morals
Pot. Kettle. Black.
> and a little
> remorse for the dead,
Lots of astronauts dead. Some through the Van Allen belts. Died at the
same age as those of us strapped to the ground by the ignorant masses
holding purse strings. Yes, please show remorse.
> for all of the perpetrated cold-war crapolla that
> has contributed to so much collateral damage and carnage of the
> innocent.
This is "oil", not crapolla. That and religion (or political assertion
that politics is not religion).
> What part of your conditional laws of physics is basically LLPOF
> certified crapolla, as opposed to the actual truth?
You wouldn't know "truth" if it bit your butt.
David A. Smith
DrPostman
with The Prophecy scribed:
>Maybe he's thinking of Arthur C. Clarke's story where the astronauts
This is always worth reposting:
A fellow named Allen Morgan posted this over a year ago in
response to why they didn't set off a bomb or leave a big
mirror to prove that they went there:
NASA: Oh, Mr. Armstrong, there's one more thing.
Armstrong: What's that.
NASA: We'd like you to take a really, really large bomb with you on
the Lunar Lander. Don't worry, we've budgeted for space. Haven't we
Bob?
Bob: You betcha. 200 tons of TNT.
NASA: 400.
Bob: Oh. 400. Right.
Armstrong: Excuse me, a what?
NASA: Bomb. Really big one.
Armstrong: Might I ask why?
NASA: So that you can set it off on the moon.
Armstrong: And....?
NASA: So that we can see it here on Earth
Armstrong: ??
NASA: Well, it would be really cool. And it would prove you went
there.
Armstrong: Are you out of your mind?
NASA: Don't worry, we have a really long detonator cord that you can
use to set it off.
Armstrong: You bozos think I'm going to land on the moon strapped to
200 tons
Bob: 400 tons:
Armstrong: Shut-up pencil neck. 400 tons of explosive????? Did you
decide that this wasn't difficult enough and you wanted to add some
more danger? Are you guys out of your gourd? What purpose does it
serve? What if it goes off on the descent?
NASA: That would *rock*. Suck. Not rock. It would suck, that would
be tragic.
Armstrong: I can't believe this.
NASA: Well, if you don't like that we can ditch it. We have another
idea.
Armstrong: Oh good.
NASA: We'd like you to take a large mirror up there.
Armstrong: Ah, for laser ranging and such. Excellent science.
NASA: Nah, this is so that we can see it from Earth.
Armstrong: What?!?!? How big is this thing?
NASA: Bob?
Bob: A couple of miles across.
Armstrong: Uh?
Bob: Don't worry, it's mylar. Doesn't weigh more than about 50 tons.
Armstrong: 2 miles?
Bob (excitedly): Well, the moon is quite a long way away. If we want
to be able to see the mirror from Earth then it is going to have to
cover a couple of seconds of arc at least. You can do the math
yourself. I like math.
Armstrong: How the hell am I supposed to spread out a mirror that is 2
*miles* across on the moon?????
NASA: Well, you'll have help.
Aldrin: Don't look at me. I have a bad back.
Douglas Berry
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.conspiracy beanbag and
drunkenly proclaimed the following
>Greetings, my friends.
Is it time to spank you again?
http://www.clavius.org/index.html
C'mon, let's here all your tired claims, and see how long you last
before you run away.. again.
Anyone interested in cenzia's past brushes with insanity are welcome
to review them here:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z1E0565D9
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W211515D9
He rants, raves, makes insults, and eventually crawls away.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
DrPostman
<brad...@yahoo.com> in accordance with The Prophecy scribed:
>In spite of all the status quo warlords of this forum that summarily
>sucks, such as the incest contributions of nothing specific from the
>likes of 'DrPostman' and 'Bookman',
I am so glad we task you so, kook.
Warhol
"josephus" <dog...@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
fGRNd.2534$UX3....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Jesus H. Christ.
This moon landing shit has been debunked so many times it is just
ridiculous.
PEOPLE CAN SEE THE SHIT LEFT ON THE MOON BY THE ASTRONAUTS WITH TELESCOPES
YOU FOOLS.
NASA should hire some professional wrestlers to "address" the fake question
(ala Geraldo Riviera's broken nose)...Neil Armstrong is too much of a
gentleman
...we've already granted them the fantasy that they aren't retarded, that's
enough.
__________________
"I believe in God as I believe that the Sun has risen: not only because I
see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Brad Guth
troops as nearly as important as are all the innocent folks that had no
choice, and were not being specifically paid as to accomplish a
perpetrated cold-war job of essentially snookering-thy-humanity while
essentially pillaging mother Earth for energy resources.
If an astronaut or that of soldiers die while either on duty or in any
way related to keeping up with the cold-war ruse/sting of the century;
in the words of our very own resident warlord "so what's the
difference", and that's not a question but a matter of fact.
BTW; I've noticed how you've not taken issue and/or answered upon one of
my concerns about those supposed moon landings that the Kodak/E6 eye
recorded as though being artificially xenon illuminated.
Warhol
"DrPostman" <Lo...@mysig.foremail> a écrit dans le message de news:
f8tf01979r3v1vrkj...@4ax.com...
Yea but it's still funny watching them come up with their "proof" the images
and video who are fake. The 200 tons of TNT is what I would call the proof,
that will keep our mouth's shout, we the unbelievers, when that light shall
shine on the moon. Than Maybe I shall start to pray again towards the Nasa
Temple. But as long they can't show me a F-eking light on that moon.
I will keep my back towards those Fake Nasa High Priest. They can't even
save the world from "Temple One" that shall hit the Earth in 2012 and that
PROOF I shall Give on the 4 of July 2005. Stupid Magog's can't even destroy
a little rock. Yea, it isn't the Nasa that shall save us.
My serpent shall eat the serpent of the Zog's, do you Remember this story
People? the Rod's (staff) story's and the pharaoh. Could it be that the
ancients Egyptians went to the moon !!! they to had Rod'ss that transformed
in Serpent's.
Yeah this world is still full of mystery's, and they want to take us already
to the moon.
Brad Guth
You poor snookered village idiot of a damn fool, either that or your the
one that's beeb responsible for doing the snookering on behalf of our
perpetrated cold-war.
Go back into one of my replies in which I given at least a good dozen
proof-positive reasons as to why those landings and of EVA's upon the
moon have NOT been the truth and nothing but the truth.
BTW; I've noticed how you've not bothered as to taking issue and/or
answered upon any one of my concerns about those supposed moon landings,
that which the Kodak/E6 eye recorded as though being artificially xenon
illuminated.
Are you just pretending at being another village idiot, or is that your
natural status?
Tell us exactly why all of those Kodak/E6 moments were recorded exactly
as though being artificially xenon illuminated. This phase is called
'put-up or shut-up'.
Brad Guth
tit-for-tat as to those phony baloney moon landings than this, but
here's one of my old external moon related topic pages about just how
good our NASA/Apollo photographic rustmasters were:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-photo-entro.htm
The LSE-CM/ISS that's doable:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Besides what's been perfectly good and invaluable about our moon
(contrary to just about everything NASA/Apollo), and of what the
LSE-CM/ISS could have already accomplished on behalf of science and
humanity, this sub-topic about Venus is somewhat directly related to our
moon, while being all about the truth and nothing but the truth of my
sharing what's been discovered on behalf of Venus.
Even though the moon landings (manned as well as Ai/robotic) were a
bloody hoax, as phony baloney as any cold-war crapolla tends to get, and
as easily proven from all of those Kodak/E6 moments that are absolutely
proof-positive that in no freakin way were those surface images obtained
under raw solar illumination. Go figure, that is if you'd dare to
discover how thoroughly snookered you've become.
Since I've already posted some of my info and unanswerable questions
within this topic of moon landings that didn't happen, of sharing
perfectly good information and providing questions that have been
specifically all about those supposed moon landings that must remain as
scientifically undocumented since there's nothing that Kodak corporate
would dare to contribute, or that the lethal aspects of their internal
'nondisclosure' policy upon all that's cold-war NSA/DoD isn't going to
be enforced without remorse upon whomever breaks rank. In spite of all
of their orchestrated flak, here's the next agenda of another somewhat
testy topic that's offering yet another one of my usual wall of words,
of way more than two sentences worth on behalf of others (ETs) having
accomplished life upon Venus. At least Venus has been technically
doable, even as for getting whatever probes onto such a hot and nasty
surface and keeping those operational isn't any longer all that
insurmountable (just ask Russia/ESA and their Venus EXPRESS team).
Unlike our moon, Venus is otherwise doable for those that haven't become
so completely snookered into being so entirely dumbfounded, as to
believing in WMD and/or only of whatever's NASA/Apollo intellectual
space-toilet crapolla certified.
Have yourself a look-see at this sub-topic; "SETI/GUTH Venus, no
kidding"
http://mygate.mailgate.org/mynews/sci/sci.astro.seti?order=smart&expand=19145&p=1/306#19145
Your basic township that's existing on Venus:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
Summary/update page of interesting stuff:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm
Brad Guth
nothing whatsoever specific that'll offer anything that's not
NASA/Apollo scripted.
This is exactly like all of those stealth WMD, of asking our resident
warlord if he ever made even a little mistake, or asking the Pope about
all of those exterminated Cathars, and of Jews about Jesus Christ or the
USS LIBERTY assisted 6-Day war that was directly responsible for
exterminating all those tens of thousands of Muslim prisoners.
I have more of the same to share. Would you like to hear?
Art Deco
Brad Guth
Jay Windley; "Show me how you computed that number."
For starters, I actually used my eyes, one at a time and then both at
the same time. Within a few milliseconds is when all three of my
remaining brain cells kicked into action with the rather
obvious/subjective comparisons of the moonscape up against those nifty
85% reflective moonsuits.
Actually those moonsuits could be offering us as little as a 80%
reflective index.
Then I viewed over all sorts of other well known items of painted
aluminum, of those darn American 'red', white' and extremely subdued
'blue' flags, then onto what was coated as artificially medium gray and
of a few items that were black and/or either nearly black or as being
Kodak/E6 recorded as black because of their being situated entirely
within the shadow of such a harsh point-source of illumination.
Unfortunately, there were a few too many situations where those pesky
zones of your highly retro-reflective though apparently non-reactive
clumping moon-dirt managed as to record nearly as brightly as per the
moonsuit itself, and supposedly that was with benefit of a polarised
filter that if anything should have made for such an unusually
reflective primary surface as darker (not lighter).
Lo and behold, compared to most all of the images obtained from orbit,
and even those contributed from other moon orbiting missions, the likes
of team Hubble and of numerous Earth based astronomy that can't seem to
uncover any portion of the moon that reflects more than 25% within the
visual spectrum.
Instead of the 11~12% index as otherwise normalized, there seems to have
been a rather large number of those 55+% reflective landscapes that also
shared hardly any strewn meteorites and impact shards, just those micro
shards of your magically clumping moon-dirt that simply wasn't all that
deep, much less of ever exposing the dark basalt as so well imaged from
orbit.
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
>Greetings, my friends.
I am not your friend, because you are a militant k00k.
Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)
wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
>tell this idiot to shut up!
Ok.
SHUT UP, IDIOT!
Jay Windley
"Warhol" <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36qk47F...@individual.net...
|
|
| PEOPLE CAN SEE THE SHIT LEFT ON THE MOON BY THE ASTRONAUTS WITH TELESCOPES
| YOU FOOLS.
No, they can't. We don't have telescopes powerful enough to do that.
--
|
The universe is not required to conform | Jay Windley
to the expectations of the ignorant. | webmaster @ clavius.org
Jay Windley
|
| BTW; I've noticed how you've not bothered as to taking issue and/or
| answered upon any one of my concerns about those supposed moon
But I have. And you've largely ignored them.
Jay Windley
| | ...that was suddenly transformed into 55+% reflective?
|
| Jay Windley; "Show me how you computed that number."
|
You mean you guessed. Sorry, not good enough. If you give me a "hard
number" then I expect to see where that was computed. If you just guess
that it's 55%, then it's not a hard number.
| Kodak/E6 recorded...
E-3. Do your homework.
| ...as black because of their being situated entirely
| within the shadow of such a harsh point-source of illumination.
No, it's mostly due to the exposure latitude of the Ektachrome emulsion.
| Unfortunately, there were a few too many situations where those pesky
| zones of your highly retro-reflective though apparently non-reactive
| clumping moon-dirt managed as to record nearly as brightly as per the
| moonsuit itself...
Saturating the emulsion tends to do that. Have you ever actually used a
camera? Have you ever actually paid attention to the pictures you took?
But now you're just off on another distractive rant.
See, I can take a picture of an asphalt roadway (albedo ca. 12%) and make it
look nearly black or make it look blindingly white simply by adjusting one
control on my camera. The point is that you can't just look at a photograph
of something and tell what its reflectivity is, especially if you don't know
the settings of the camera. And so when you tell me you're just looking at
photos and guessing that the reflectivity is about 55%, then I have no
obligation to try to explain that away. You're plucking a number out of the
air (or vacuum) and expecting others to refute it. The refutation is that
you plucked it out of the air.
| Instead of the 11~12% index as otherwise normalized, there seems to have
| been a rather large number of those 55+% reflective landscapes...
...you guess...
| ...that also shared hardly any strewn meteorites and impact shards
Uh, where do you think the dust came from? What do you think the dust *is*?
lensm...@hotmail.com
Jay Windley wrote:
> "Warhol" <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:36qk47F...@individual.net...
> |
> |
> | PEOPLE CAN SEE THE SHIT LEFT ON THE MOON BY THE ASTRONAUTS WITH
TELESCOPES
> | YOU FOOLS.
>
> No, they can't. We don't have telescopes powerful enough to do that.
And even if we did, in order to see the stuff, you'd have to be in so
tight that you couldn't very well see the rest of the moon. The hoaxers
would just say you took a picture of a model and presented it as proof.
Let's face it. The only thing that would satisfy them would be if we
took them up to the Moon and let them actually handle the items.