Photos supposedly taken on the moon ARE FAKE

[Warhol]

Photos supposedly taken on the moon ARE FAKE

This exceedingly well-researched article conclusively demonstrates
that the number of photos NASA claims were taken on the moon COULD NOT
have been taken by the astronauts in the time available to them while
they were supposedly on the moon! It's not a long article, and it's an
absolute MUST READ:

http://web.archive.org/web/20060517052815/http:/www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

Whatcha y'all think?

[Brad Guth]

> http://web.archive.org/web/20060517052815/http:/www.aulis.com/skeleto...
>
>  Whatcha y'all think?

There's actually a lot about their Kodak film and local illumination
issues of its dynamic range and the lack of contrast as well as not
recording any UV secondary/recoil photons, not to mention the lack of
any bluish planetshine and the always missing planet Venus issues.
The moon can not possibly be as inert nor as reflective as depicted in
those Apollo images obtained from its surface.

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/28/13 10:49 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> The moon can not possibly be as inert nor as reflective as depicted in
> those Apollo images obtained from its surface.

On can compare the earth, the lunar surface and the LEM all bathed in
the light of the sun in these Apollo 11 images taken from the Command
Module.

> http://moonpans.com/prints/Apollo_11.jpg
> http://moonpans.com/prints/a11LMEarthrise.htm

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Jan 28, 8:28 am, Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Photos supposedly taken on the moon ARE FAKE
>
> This exceedingly well-researched article conclusively demonstrates
> that the number of photos NASA claims were taken on the moon COULD NOT
> have been taken by the astronauts in the time available to them while
> they were supposedly on the moon! It's not a long article, and it's an
> absolute MUST READ:
>

> http://web.archive.org/web/20060517052815/http:/www.aulis.com/skeleto...
>
>  Whatcha y'all think?

"Let's arbitrarily calculate a MINIMUM time for these tasks and
subtract from available photo time...Given all the facts..."

"Arbitrarily". "Facts".

Yeah, right.


Mark L. Fergerson

[george152]

On 29/01/13 05:28, Warhol wrote:
> Photos supposedly taken on the moon ARE FAKE

Another attempt by a kook to spam a group

[Bast]

Right.
He should provide REAL facts to show that the photos are fake,...like this
video
A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon
http://youtu.be/enY8YzhlVrI

Watch it and decide for yourself

[george152]

The US sent men to the Moon and brought them back.
With Moon rock and photos

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Take away the religious prattle, the glurge, the kook conspiracy nonsense,
the gratuitous distrubing news photos and you are left with a few seconds
of movie clips.

<trim idiotic newsgroups list>

[Brad Guth]

PhotoShop
Image, Adjustments, Replace color (select black), Lightness (+100)

Are you saying that all the minerals of our naked moon are UV inert?

Are you saying that everything of the Apollo mission was also UV
inert?

Are you suggesting the average albedo of the moon is actually twice
that of Earth?

Are you suggesting that Venus is simply a very dark albedo planet?

Where did those extremely contrasty shadows get their secondary fill-
in illumination?

Why does it bother a person like yourself that knows absolutely
nothing of cameras, optics or film, that some of us that are qualified
and not so easily impressed with those NASA/Apollo obtained images, of
our naked and physically dark moon. Are you afraid or simply jealous?

[Brad Guth]

No way did the US accomplish squat. Our "paperclip" SS Nazis and
their fellow upper caste Zionist Jews sent us to/from our moon, except
they miserably failed to properly document their fly-by-rocket landers
and that part of having walked on the surface.

[Bast]

And do you believe Godzilla is real and destroyed Tokyo too,.....just
because it was on TV ?

[Bast]

So since you clearly watched with an open mind,... which parts are
"religious prattle, the Glurge (whatever that means) and kook conspiracy
nonsense" ?

[Brad Guth]

They have to believe, or else. Not one card can ever get pulled out
of their house of cards.

New K-12 history books should be edited by the likes of William Mook
and a few others that can afford to take the risk of exposing truths.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Most of the religious prattle was in the beginning with the scripture
quotes in big letters.

Glurg:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Glurge

Most of the video was glurge with photos of starving children and war
scenes for no rational reason.

The kook conspiracy nonsense starts at about 20 minutes in with nonsense
about not knowing who really shot Kennedy and starts getting ridiculous
with really ignorant "how can this be"'s when discussing Apollo photos.

At about 30 minutes in I could no longer take the utter stupidiy and
dumped it.

[HVAC]

On 1/28/2013 6:52 PM, Bast wrote:
>
>> The US sent men to the Moon and brought them back.
>> With Moon rock and photos
>
>
> And do you believe Godzilla is real and destroyed Tokyo too,.....just
> because it was on TV ?

Hello? You believe in an invisible fucking man in the sky!

Ain't no George Bush mother fucker gonna put one over on ol' Blast!
Nope, Blast got a good bead on reality....




--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg

[george152]

You use the word believe a lot especially when you have no credible reply

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

There is more than TV and the phyical evidence, i.e. rocks which have been
examined world wide, and the words of the thousands of people involved.

There also was monitoring of the comms around the world, both by governments
who would not have hesitated to cry foul if it were faked and individuals
of all nations.

You can't fake radio as being from the moon across the Earth.

[benj]

Evidence that moon public data and images were faked is beyond questions
for anyone with slightest modicum of scientific knowledge and who takes
the time to do a bit of research on the subject. Of course all the
ignorant gullible hicks to blindly accept anything they see on TV and the
talking heads tell them will continue to believe even if you rub their
noses in the stink. They'll tell you it smells like roses to them.

So as usual we have insider spokesmen Wormley and "Worhol" singing the
establishment line and the mountain of prove grows ever higher. Come
people. You are in this group because you are interested in science. You
tell me what kind of "debate" this is on this issue:

Wormley: "aren't these (faked) photos lovely?"
(note "faked" doesn't mean they weren't taken on the moon)

Warhol: "Posting link to this article was just an attempt by a kook to
spam the group"

(Note no proof is give of the validity of "kook" which is just supposed
to be blindly accepted without any proof from some anonymous internet
voice)

And we compare those so-called "responses" to the actual article which
does a careful analysis of NASA's own data as to the technical
feasibility of astro-nots actually taking the photographs on the mood
that NASA (apparently) say they took, although they won't confirm or deny
which in itself very suspicious.

So on the no-moonshot side we have careful technical evaluation leading
to conclusions and on the believe what you are told side, we have pretty
picture and gratuitous accusations of poster being a "kook" without any
proof of same being offered.

OK, gullible hill-billies, YOU decide which side has the most credible
argument here. And after you have, go look at other investigations and
make a decision on them as well.

Let me point out, however, that just because all the moon-shot public
data was faked, does not mean that nobody went to the moon. Clearly there
is one hell of a lot more going on here than anyone is willing to talk
about.

Or you could simply place your head back up your ass where it was before,
only to remove briefly to accept the regular sodomization from the rulers
who are taking your money to perpetrate this crap.

[Brad Guth]

On Jan 28, 5:57 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

With deployed transponders in lunar orbit or even one easily deployed
within the Earth-moon L1, radio is one of the easiest to fake.

[Sam Wormley]

One can compare the earth, the lunar surface and the LEM all bathed in

[Bast]

Uh, yes you can, quite easily.
It's explained in the video listed above.

Much like you get TV from satelites on earth now.
It's simply re-transmitting a signal it recieved from earth

As for the rocks, simple to pick up a few meteorites found all over the
earth, do a bit of heat treating, and voila,...all the moon
rocks you want.

NASA & Von Braun did a lot of research in Antartica, wher pristine
meteorites are scattered all over the snow daily, and very easy to collect.

[Bast]

And you have no proof,...only faith the government never lies.
OOOPS,...but they do on everything else ?

[Bast]

If you can't watch a video with an open mind,....the results are not
surprising.
You can believe Apollo was all true, if you simply ignore the facts, and it
is your right to think as you wish.

But calling other kooks for acknowledging the blatant lies and technical
goofs that NASA is famous for, is not a good way to ever learn anything.

[Bast]

And yet even the shadows on the lem, are softly lit.
Interesting,....as all photographers claim you need fill lights for that.

Not to ignore the total lack of fogging photographic film would have when
exposed to the radiation in space, over a week

[Forrest Piper]

The conclusion of all of this seems to be that the U.S. made a deal
with the Nazis afer WWII, and there was started a giant program of
disinformation, in order to not let the cat out of the bag concerning
UFO technology that the Nazis had.

The moon rocks could have actually been real rocks that were picked up
and delivered back to earth via UFO, just to spice things up a bit.
All of the photographs that were delivered to the American public
would then satisfy the taxpayers that all their money had been
worthwhile, but only in the sense that status-quo science would
continue to remain status-quo, in order to suit the purposes and
intentions of those who had a better idea for a new infrastructure
that would better use and protect their own, off-world resources.

[Warhol]

Ooh, you Lunatic's may fall in fire... & lies you can't keep quite for
ever... You don't answer the basics.

Here a movie about moon landing will blow your mind apart and fill it
with knowledge...

http://youtu.be/zoZ2AySW2bY

Speaks for itself so check it out. They couldn't do it in 1969 and
they can't do it in 2013... It was all a hoax. And it still goes on to
this very day with everything concerning all space agency's...

[Warhol]

On Jan 29, 2:57 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

you must be very clever... moon rocks... Radio signals... and the word
of thousands parrots... yeah...

May I enlighten you with something you certainly don't know yet...
What you are "sure off" is immaterial.

There are people who are "sure" that the Earth is flat.

The only thing that matters is what evidence you bring.

Actually there is enormous amounts of evidence. Still ongoing hoaxing.
Here are some recent examples on how they use the same footage to fake
many Shuttle missions, as one example:

http://www.septclues.com/SPACE%20SHUTTLE/IGNITIONcomparisons2002_2011.JPG

[Warhol]

On Jan 29, 7:51 am, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > In sci.physics Bast <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

he uses the style of a shill... lies, ignorance, and brainfarts for
"evidence" tells us all we need to know ... Some of the standard
logical fallacies shills like to engage in. As if they never learned
to think and so neglect the message...

[Warhol]

On Jan 29, 2:01 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Bast <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

Since you resort to ad homming rather than answering the question, we
now all know that you pulled your premiss "this is possible" out off
your ass and are incapable of proving it.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <2945b156-a3ca-49af...@v7g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,

Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:

>some of us that are qualified

The word you're looking for is "certified".

-- Richard

[benj]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:57:50 +0000, jimp wrote:

> There is more than TV and the phyical evidence, i.e. rocks which have
> been examined world wide, and the words of the thousands of people
> involved.
>
> There also was monitoring of the comms around the world, both by
> governments who would not have hesitated to cry foul if it were faked
> and individuals of all nations.
>
> You can't fake radio as being from the moon across the Earth.

You can if it's FROM the moon! The fact that moon photos and data were
faked doesn't prove nobody ended up on the moon. In fact one can surmise
that one main reason FOR a faked cover-up would be moon-craft technology
that was not about to be released or even hinted at. Hence the huge money-
wasting rockets that were essentially window dressing. It was really all
an experiment to find 'alternatives' to the war system. I don't think
that one worked out to well, nor the "great society". I'm guessing were
headed more toward a "sophisticated slave state" now.

The extremely casual way NASA has treated(s) original moon data and films
is a pretty strong "statement" that they KNOW it's crap! If this were the
greatest achievement of all mankind, done as the media portrayed it, how
would YOU preserve such treasures? Just pitch them in a corner? Oh excuse
me, but at the Archives somehow we just "misplaced" the original
Declaration of Independence! No matter, though, because we already know
what it says! This set off no alarm bells among you truly gullible
leftist "useful idiots"? You KNOW you are better than that!

Do a little research on your own, jimp. You have the scientific knowledge
and skilz to see what was REALLY going on down amongst all the media
fluff. That is if you are willing to put your bigotry aside long enough
to give it fair and honest look.

A closed mind, on the other hand, is, well, closed.

[Martin Brown]

On 29/01/2013 08:49, Warhol wrote:
> On Jan 28, 10:00 pm, george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>> On 29/01/13 05:28, Warhol wrote:
>>
>>> Photos supposedly taken on the moon ARE FAKE

Saying it again and again does not make it true.

>> Another attempt by a kook to spam a group
>
>
> Ooh, you Lunatic's may fall in fire... & lies you can't keep quite for
> ever... You don't answer the basics.

The lunatics falling into the fire will be the kook-a-doodle-do tin foil
hat conspiracy brigade that think we didn't go to the moon!

>
> Here a movie about moon landing will blow your mind apart and fill it
> with knowledge...
>
> http://youtu.be/zoZ2AySW2bY
>
> Speaks for itself so check it out. They couldn't do it in 1969 and

Actually they could and they did. The amazing thing was that given the
haste in the space race they didn't kill more astronauts doing it.

To fake it convincingly at the time would have been more difficult than
actually going there. Particularly hard would be faking the mission
telemetry to trick the Russians and Brits who were all eavesdropping.

No-one who was around at the time doubts that it was done or that Apollo
13 had a very close shave when the LOX tank pump exploded.

> they can't do it in 2013... It was all a hoax. And it still goes on to
> this very day with everything concerning all space agency's...

You choose a very bad time to claim that no-one has been to the moon.
The Chinese are not all that far off being able to launch their own moon
shot now and you can bet your bottom dollar that on at least one trip
they will like good tourists go and visit an existing Apollo site.

The Hasselblad museum would pay good money for one of its cameras
returned after 40 years of exoatmospheric sunburn.

I expect their first priority will be to stick a Chinese flag in some
bit of virgin lunar landscape. Some fresh moon rocks would be nice.

The orbital survey imagers are now good enough to show the lunar landing
sites and astronauts tracks on the lunar regolith.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

The Japanese orbiter might also be up to the task when the light is
right with a low sun so that the LEM casts a nice long shadow.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[benj]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:44:35 -0500, Bast wrote:

> george152 wrote:

>> You use the word believe a lot especially when you have no credible
>> reply
>
> And you have no proof,...only faith the government never lies.
> OOOPS,...but they do on everything else ?

Obviously you are another nutjob kook! Everybody KNOWS that governments
NEVER lie. Sure maybe they keep things "classified" for a time, but
actually lie to citizens? You are crazier than a shithouse rat! They
could never get away with keep the lid on that many secrets and that many
people. If my government tells me that radiation or genetically altered
food is "good for me" I have no choice but to believe them. Same for you.

[benj]

Come on, Brad. The "professor" actually teaches photography to geezers
and I've seen some of his photos. He thinks they are "pretty good". I say
they suck (I've actually worked as a professional photographer). But what
the hey. That's just a difference in opinion between Warmley and myself,
so it means nothing.

PS. Anyone who has actually examined these NASA photos and others are
aware of the HUGE problem of "unexplained" secondary fill in deep shadows
in many of them. Just one faked photo shows something going on, but here
we have many of them. Looking at NASA "moon" shots one half expects a
large light to come plummeting to the moon from "space", a la The Truman
Show, at any minute.

[HVAC]

What a tard. (no offense)

[Brad Guth]

On Jan 29, 1:43 am, rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
> In article <2945b156-a3ca-49af-9369-db8a0d843...@v7g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,

> Brad Guth  <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >some of us that are qualified
>
> The word you're looking for is "certified".
>
> -- Richard

Word game noted, but thanks anyway. I'm certified in photographics,
but probably not by those of your kind.

Did you do the PhotoShop inspection of those "moonpans" images?

http://moonpans.com/prints/Apollo_11.jpg
http://moonpans.com/prints/a11LMEarthrise.htm

PhotoShop

Image, Adjustments, Replace color (select black), Lightness (set to
+100)

Oops, it seems even the very best media hype that NASA has to offer is
bogus.

[Bast]

Forrest Piper wrote:
> On Jan 29, 1:59 am, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> One can compare the earth, the lunar surface and the LEM all bathed in
>>> the light of the sun in these Apollo 11 images taken from the Command
>>> Module.
>>
>>>> http://moonpans.com/prints/Apollo_11.jpg
>>>> http://moonpans.com/prints/a11LMEarthrise.htm
>>
>> And yet even the shadows on the lem, are softly lit.
>> Interesting,....as all photographers claim you need fill lights for
>> that.
>>
>> Not to ignore the total lack of fogging photographic film would have
>> when exposed to the radiation in space, over a week
>
> The conclusion of all of this seems to be that the U.S. made a deal
> with the Nazis afer WWII, and there was started a giant program of
> disinformation, in order to not let the cat out of the bag concerning
> UFO technology that the Nazis had.

Well,...whether you say it was a deal or not.
Operation Paper Clip was real, and the Nazi scientists and all the
technology the U.S. could grab was brought to the States, unknown then to
most of the U.S. public.
So who's to say what that technology consisted of ?

>
> The moon rocks could have actually been real rocks that were picked up
> and delivered back to earth via UFO, just to spice things up a bit.

No need to say UFO's were involved.
You can find plenty of "space rocks" scattered over the earth, and more
appear daily as meterorites.
Not hard for the military to pawn them off as moon rocks, with just enough
differences from regualr earth rocks for a scientest to detect a difference.
Or even regular rock could have been shown to the public & scientists,...who
would know ?

> All of the photographs that were delivered to the American public
> would then satisfy the taxpayers that all their money had been
> worthwhile, but only in the sense that status-quo science would
> continue to remain status-quo, in order to suit the purposes and
> intentions of those who had a better idea for a new infrastructure
> that would better use and protect their own, off-world resources.

That the public & especially politicians were satisfied was all that counted
to keep the money flow coming for NASA.
And where can you ever say some govt beurocrat is more interested in the
public good over their own fat paychecks.

Risking sending a real rocket and have it blow up, crash on the moon, or get
lost, would have shelved every project NASA had going.
....look at the space shuttles, just TWO going bad and most of the NASA
funding was pulled.

Far cheaper and safer to make a fake movie and some pictures

[Bast]

You sound like the guy with dentures who tells me how great it is the govt.
puts flouride in the water for his benefit.

[Brad Guth]

PhotoShop inspections is what also helps to show were the official
published images have been altered and/or entirely fabricated to suit,
but then I too have commercial photographic experience which knows
cameras, lens and filter issues as well as first-hand film processing
and printing, whereas any single spot-source illuminated area is
always going to be extremely contrasty, and only made a whole lot
worse when the average surface albedo is near 12%. I also know that
only a few minerals are not UV reactive.

The last time I'd checked, our sun offers a great deal of raw UV, not
to mention X-rays, plus otherwise our naked moon is a certified gamma
hot-spot (used by our USAF to calibrate their gamma tracking) that
should have greatly limited the safe exposure time that Kodak film and
humans could withstand. As far as anyone knows, not a single forensic
grain within any frame of their Apollo/Kodak film was ever struck by
any gamma or X-rays. Unlike CCD imagers that are erased clean prior
to each and every exposure, and then instantly firmware processed and
stored as a digital file, which tends to eliminate at least 99.9999%
of any false data from gamma or X-rays, whereas their Kodak film that
had been roasted as well as exposed to gamma and X-rays for many
surface hours without any forensic hint whatsoever of such exposure.

Is our moon really that monochromatic inert and otherwise somehow
getting protected by the considerable ionized sodium that surrounds
it? (seems highly unlikely, unless there's a great deal more
atmosphere than we've been told)

[Brad Guth]

I always like to ask: Since when hasn't religion and their puppet
government lied to us?

History is always officially recorded by the victors, so there's no
telling what truths are yet to be disclosed.

[Brad Guth]

Putting full trust in government is the same spooky analogy as
trusting the Pope to look after the kids, and if that makes you a
happy camper, than so be it.

[Mahipal]

On Jan 29, 5:15 am, benj <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:44:35 -0500, Bast wrote:
> > george152 wrote:
> >> You  use the word believe a lot especially when you have no credible
> >> reply

The rock group Journey has the best take on word idea of "believe" for
they sing over and again... listen carefully... "Don't stop, be
leaving!"

> > And you have no proof,...only faith the government never lies.
> > OOOPS,...but they do on everything else ?
>
> Obviously you are another nutjob kook! Everybody KNOWS that governments
> NEVER lie. Sure maybe they keep things "classified" for a time, but
> actually lie to citizens?  You are crazier than a shithouse rat! They
> could never get away with keep the lid on that many secrets and that many
> people. If my government tells me that radiation or genetically altered
> food is "good for me" I have no choice but to believe them. Same for you.

http://youtu.be/Wx9GxXYKx_8 may be old news but I just saw this
regards events at Sandy Hook. It's half an hour long. Remember, it's
not my work.

The word Conspiracy, since one never exists, needs to be removed from
all dictionaries -- paper or otherwise.

Enjo(y)... Cheers!
--
Mahipal, pronounced "My Pal" or "Maple" leads to... Maple Loops.

http://mahipal7638.wordpress.com/meforce/
"If the line between science fiction and science fact
doesn't drive you crazy, then you're not tr(y)ing!"

[Brad Guth]

On Jan 28, 10:51 pm, "Bast" <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> > In sci.physics Bast <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

ZNRs and FUD-masters have no need of learning anything. In fact it's
highly prohibited for these SS Nazi certified spooks and FUD-masters
to know anything outside of their cubical and its strictly enforced
nondisclosure policy.

[Bast]

Are you telling me that 50 years later the Japanese don't have a camera good
enough ?
Or that the hubble hasn't the resolution ?
Or that the Russians wouldn't have raised the bar by sending a whole colony
if it were possible.


That no one has "publicly" been to the moon in the 50 years since offers
only two explanations.

That it was never possible to begin with due to death by radiation.

OR

The Aliens there said to F-off and don't come back or they would blow our
pathetic little blue planet into oblivion.

[Brad Guth]

On Jan 28, 10:24 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>    One can compare the earth, the lunar surface and the LEM all bathed in

>    the light of the sun in these Apollo 11 images taken from the Command
>    Module.
>
>  >http://moonpans.com/prints/Apollo_11.jpg
>  >http://moonpans.com/prints/a11LMEarthrise.htm

Once again, do the PhotoShop inspection of those and other
"moonpans". It's so obvious that even a totally dysfunctional 5th
grader can do it. Would you like to review a few dozen other official
NASA published images?

Can you deliver any official NASA/Apollo images that do not contain
image doctoring or PhotoShop detectable artifacts?

Would you like to see an intentional example of what that NASA/Apollo
era of film doctoring can easily accomplish?

This is not my having to say that Apollo missions didn't orbit the
moon, nor saying that an amount of their deployed equipment didn't
manage to land on its surface. What I'm saying is besides their
taking a photograph on average every 50 seconds, it just doesn't seem
all that possible that such Kodak film was entirely unaffected by that
naked and hot environment, accomplishing better dynamic range than
most digital cameras can achieve, and without any hint of gamma, X-
rays or even UV produced secondary/recoil photons that with such
terrific dynamic range should have been easily recorded.

Does this mean the naked surface of our moon is extra special and
unlike anything Earth related?

[Brad Guth]

On Jan 28, 11:24 pm, Forrest Piper <880yardboulderd...@gmail.com>
wrote:

If it wasn't for operation "paperclip" and those SS Nazis, along with
their Zionist partners in crimes against humanity, we probably would
still be having our problems getting stuff in LEO.

Earth most likely has several teratonnes of paramagnetic basalt from
our moon. Would you like a sample?

[Mahipal]

Mars sample rocks are also found on and collected from Earth.

[Martin Brown]

On 29/01/2013 14:18, Bast wrote:

> Martin Brown wrote:

>> You choose a very bad time to claim that no-one has been to the moon.
>> The Chinese are not all that far off being able to launch their own moon
>> shot now and you can bet your bottom dollar that on at least one trip
>> they will like good tourists go and visit an existing Apollo site.
>>
>> The Hasselblad museum would pay good money for one of its cameras
>> returned after 40 years of exoatmospheric sunburn.
>>
>> I expect their first priority will be to stick a Chinese flag in some
>> bit of virgin lunar landscape. Some fresh moon rocks would be nice.
>>
>> The orbital survey imagers are now good enough to show the lunar landing
>> sites and astronauts tracks on the lunar regolith.
>>
>> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html
>>
>> The Japanese orbiter might also be up to the task when the light is
>> right with a low sun so that the LEM casts a nice long shadow.
>
> Are you telling me that 50 years later the Japanese don't have a camera good
> enough ?

Their survey instrument Kaguya isn't intended to do that task, and their
resolution is borderline for features as small as a LEM. But it can show
through its 3D imaging survey capability that the Apollo mission
photographs were taken on the lunar surface. See for example

http://www.universetoday.com/15579/japanese-selene-kaguya-lunar-mission-spots-apollo-15-landing-site-images/

The topography is right when modern 3D data is compared against NASA
pictures taken on the lunar surface with mountains in the background.

> Or that the hubble hasn't the resolution ?

Hubble is not even close. Apart from the fact that it cannot target or
track the moon without suffering motion blur its resolution limit at the
lunar surface is in the ball park of 1/16 mile or 110 yards.

> Or that the Russians wouldn't have raised the bar by sending a whole colony
> if it were possible.

Why bother? It looks like the Chinese will be the next to do it.

> That no one has "publicly" been to the moon in the 50 years since offers
> only two explanations.
>
> That it was never possible to begin with due to death by radiation.
>
> OR
>
> The Aliens there said to F-off and don't come back or they would blow our
> pathetic little blue planet into oblivion.

There is a third much more mundane explanation. It was phenomenally
expensive to do moon shots. We won and the public quickly lost interest
after the first few. The samples obtained were relatively unexciting
rocks and there was no trace of water or interesting minerals. Job done.

I do think it is disappointing that no-one has been back to the moon but
I expect to see another visit within this decade.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Brad Guth]

There's also a very isolated private guano island (Nauru) that our
NASA and team Kodak had full access to work with, in exchange for a
few million and the other little spendy favor of getting this private
slave labor cesspool into UN status with no questions asked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru

[Forrest Piper]

"After the Apollo 11 samples were returned and observed NOT to react
with dry nitrogen, a consensus developed among LSAPT that handling the
samples in nitrogen would be better than continuing with the vacuum
system. Working in vacuum was extremely difficult. A rupture of the
vacuum integrity was rather exciting and sucked all manner of
contaminants (but no technicians) into the cabinet. Quarantine
protocols called for dip tanks of peracetic acid and sodium
hypochlorite for the purpose of sterilizing sealed sample containers
by immersion. These tanks were placed in close proximity to sample
handling operations. Astute members of LSAPT and NASA could also see
that there was no room to process and store samples properly and that
successful Apollo missions would be soon be arriving with more rocks
and soils."

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/lnews/lnjul94/hist25.htm

So, apparently earth's own "dry nitrogen" would have been an issue
with the testing of the samples, since ALL of the samples given to
NASA remained unreactive to nitrogen, the most abundant gas
surrounding the earth:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg/1000px-Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg.png

No nitrogen in the soil??? ...seems a little odd to presume that these
rocks were nothing but substitutes for the real thing...

[Brad Guth]

True, but there's perhaps not 100 kg of Mars, and Mars basalt isn't
hardly any more paramagnetic than Earth basalt, whereas the moon
basalt and perhaps carbonado is rather highly paramagnetic at 3.5+ g/
cm3.

[john]

I like the moon rock they gave
to Amsterdam that turned
out to be fossilized wood
:) :) :)
Oops!!!
Oh, someone must have
stolen the original!
john

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bast <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>> In sci.physics Bast <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> george152 wrote:

>>>> On 29/01/13 10:10, Bast wrote:

>>>>> george152 wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/01/13 05:28, Warhol wrote:
>>>>>>> Photos supposedly taken on the moon ARE FAKE
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Another attempt by a kook to spam a group
>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>> Right.
>>>>> He should provide REAL facts to show that the photos are fake,...like
>>>>> this video
>>>>> A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon
>>>>> http://youtu.be/enY8YzhlVrI
>>>>>
>>>>> Watch it and decide for yourself
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>

>>>> The US sent men to the Moon and brought them back.
>>>> With Moon rock and photos
>>>
>>>
>>> And do you believe Godzilla is real and destroyed Tokyo too,.....just
>>> because it was on TV ?
>>>
>>

>> There is more than TV and the phyical evidence, i.e. rocks which have
>> been examined world wide, and the words of the thousands of people
>> involved.
>>
>> There also was monitoring of the comms around the world, both by
>> governments who would not have hesitated to cry foul if it were faked
>> and individuals of all nations.
>>
>> You can't fake radio as being from the moon across the Earth.
>
>
>

> Uh, yes you can, quite easily.
> It's explained in the video listed above.
>
> Much like you get TV from satelites on earth now.
> It's simply re-transmitting a signal it recieved from earth

Nope, it would have to be retransmitted from the moon as the moon is
the only point in the sky where the entire earth could point a highly
directional antenna at the moon and receive a signal.

If you're going to go to the moon anyway, might as well send the people
along.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 01:57:50 +0000, jimp wrote:
>
>> There is more than TV and the phyical evidence, i.e. rocks which have
>> been examined world wide, and the words of the thousands of people
>> involved.
>>
>> There also was monitoring of the comms around the world, both by
>> governments who would not have hesitated to cry foul if it were faked
>> and individuals of all nations.
>>
>> You can't fake radio as being from the moon across the Earth.
>
> You can if it's FROM the moon!

And if you are going to the moon anyway, might as well send the people
along.

<snip insane babble>

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Bast <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote:

> If you can't watch a video with an open mind,....the results are not
> surprising.

I had no idea what the contents of the video had to say when I started
watching it.

It quickly became puerile nonsense.

[Warhol]

On Jan 29, 5:29 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Bast <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

Well, just to correct a common misconception...

You still have a problem with the vacuum question... it appears that
radio waves don't have a medium to be transmitted in vacuum space...
radio waves need a medium to travel through, the way sound travels
through a mass air.

They referred to this medium as "the Ether"/"Air". The air around us
is filled with many different radio waves, all day, every day. The
radio waves are used to carry information from one place to another by
the use of air as a medium.

So Radio signals from the moon are Fake, just the NASA photos in
space.

BTW vacuum (an empty space, void) noun use of neuter of vacuus (empty)
related to vacare (be empty).

PSS "Vacuum" is one of the few words in the English language that
contains two consecutive 'u's.

[Helmut Wabnig]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:05:50 -0800 (PST), Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

##############################################

>They referred to this medium as "the Ether"/"Air". The air around us
>is filled with many different radio waves, all day, every day. The
>radio waves are used to carry information from one place to another by
>the use of air as a medium.
>

##################################################

Air as medium for radio waves, that sounds really interesting.
Now I know why elephants have their big ears:
Elephants use radio waves and the ears are air antennas.

>So Radio signals from the moon are Fake, just the NASA photos in
>space.
>

THE MOON IS A FAKE !
Didn't you know?

>BTW vacuum (an empty space, void) noun use of neuter of vacuus (empty)
>related to vacare (be empty).
>
>PSS "Vacuum" is one of the few words in the English language that
>contains two consecutive 'u's.

"Idiot" is one of the few words in the English language
that contains two 'i's.


w.

[Martin Brown]

Moonbounce or EME radio transmission is entirely doable but wasteful.

>
>
> Well, just to correct a common misconception...
>
> You still have a problem with the vacuum question... it appears that
> radio waves don't have a medium to be transmitted in vacuum space...
> radio waves need a medium to travel through, the way sound travels
> through a mass air.

Drooling conspiracy nutter detected. Meter pegged at "Beyond Fuckwit".

> They referred to this medium as "the Ether"/"Air". The air around us
> is filled with many different radio waves, all day, every day. The
> radio waves are used to carry information from one place to another by
> the use of air as a medium.
>
> So Radio signals from the moon are Fake, just the NASA photos in
> space.

Plenty of amateur radio HAMS these days have sufficiently powerful
transmitters and sensitive receivers to do moonbounce. This is
particularly easy when it is Arecibo doing the transmitting.

http://echoesofapollo.com/moon-bounce/

Arecibo itself is now good enough to radar image asteroids using delay
doppler analysis of the very weak reflected signal.

http://echo.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroids/4179_Toutatis/toutatis.html

> BTW vacuum (an empty space, void) noun use of neuter of vacuus (empty)
> related to vacare (be empty).
>
> PSS "Vacuum" is one of the few words in the English language that

> contains two consecutive 'u's.-

You can get something right. Shame about the vacuum between your ears.

What do you think radio astronomers spend their time doing?

Radio waves travel through the vacuum of space exceedingly well we can
see much further back in radio waves than with optical astronomy. The
only tricky bit is for a few frequencies where the ionosphere or water
vapour in the Earth's atmosphere gets in the way and local interference.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Brad Guth]

> As for the rocks, simple to pick up a few meteorites found all over the
> earth, do a bit of heat treating, and voila,...all the moon
> rocks you want.
>
> NASA & Von Braun did a lot of research in Antartica, wher pristine
> meteorites are scattered all over the snow daily, and very easy to collect.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Actual pre-heat-treated moon basalt and carbonado is ready to go as
is, and there's lots of it to pick from. There's at least a
millionfold more moon rock than Mars rock, as easily to be found on
Earth, as even I have samples of paramagnetic basalt and carbonado
that's quite different than terrestrial samples.

Gamma spectrometry of our moon indicates the sort of extra metallicity
and its likely paramagnetic nature of moon basalt and carbonado.
Surface mascons further support this interpretation of the somewhat
heavier density bedrock of our physically dark moon.

[Brad Guth]

On Jan 28, 10:24 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>    One can compare the earth, the lunar surface and the LEM all bathed in
>    the light of the sun in these Apollo 11 images taken from the Command
>    Module.
>
>  >http://moonpans.com/prints/Apollo_11.jpg
>  >http://moonpans.com/prints/a11LMEarthrise.htm

It's actually hard to find official NASA/Apollo images having no sign
of being doctored or PhotoShop modified to suit.

Why would our government along with their "paperclip" SS Nazis and
Kodak expertise have any need for such photographic doctoring,
especially if they really did everything exactly as they claim?

Noticed how you keep avoiding the simplest method of easily detecting
such as bogus images. Is this a job related requirement or policy of
NASA FUD-masters?

[Warhol]

On Jan 29, 6:41 pm, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

your post is one of the fine available examples of the mass production
of ignorance and flawed thought processes by the modern "educational"
system.

Radio-waves are electromagnetic, and for this, a proper medium of
conductibility is needed. On earth this medium is the air. In Space
there is no air for the transmission of Radio-waves and thereby no
communication from NASA's alleged travels to Space can be established.

The giant cock-tail umbrella Apollo-11 used as antenna is FAKE

All audio & video from ISS & Shuttle are prerecorded and therewith,
FAKE also.

Radio-waves work solely and exclusively in air.

Radio-waves do not work underwater where there is no air and cannot
work in outer-space where there is no air either, and by that, there
is no medium of conductibility for the transmission of Radio-waves.

[Brad Guth]

> in outer-space where there is no air either, and by that, there

> is no medium of conductibility for the transmission of Radio-waves.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

At times your lack of scientific expertise is a clue as to why Moors
failed to hold onto Fez.

Of course you need to be educated and experienced in order to
investigate such matters of photographic evidence. Do you have any
fellow Moors with those basics?

[benj]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 07:50:11 -0500, HVAC wrote:


> What a tard. (no offense)

Nothing constructive to add to the conversation (as usual) (no offense)

[benj]

Jimp as usual, missing the TOTAL point.
Jimp walks away drooling and mumbling incoherently.

[Brad Guth]

On Jan 29, 8:29 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Bast <faken...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> along.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The Earth-moon L1 is always directly aligned with the moon, and
provides an ideal location to deploy a transponder.

[benj]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:05:31 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

> On 29/01/2013 08:49, Warhol wrote:
>> On Jan 28, 10:00 pm, george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:

> The lunatics falling into the fire will be the kook-a-doodle-do tin foil
> hat conspiracy brigade that think we didn't go to the moon!

I don't understand that scientific term: Kook-a-doodle-do tin foil hat
conspiracy brigade. Could you give me a reference to medical textbook for
it?

> Actually they could and they did. The amazing thing was that given the
> haste in the space race they didn't kill more astronauts doing it.

Face it you have NO idea how many died. You only know how many they TOLD
you died. And quite frankly if you investigate those deaths amazingly
they were "troublemakers" and the conditions in which they died were
HIGHLY suspect.

> To fake it convincingly at the time would have been more difficult than
> actually going there. Particularly hard would be faking the mission
> telemetry to trick the Russians and Brits who were all eavesdropping.

And of course the Russians and Brits would NEVER be in on the scam, would
they? You believe EVERYTHING you've been told, don't you.

> No-one who was around at the time doubts that it was done or that Apollo
> 13 had a very close shave when the LOX tank pump exploded.

So they said. But face it, it was a WONDERFUL "story" and WONDERFUL
movie!

> You choose a very bad time to claim that no-one has been to the moon.
> The Chinese are not all that far off being able to launch their own moon
> shot now and you can bet your bottom dollar that on at least one trip
> they will like good tourists go and visit an existing Apollo site.

So the only real question then is were the Chinese also in on the scam?
And if not then, (likely) how about now?

> The Hasselblad museum would pay good money for one of its cameras
> returned after 40 years of exoatmospheric sunburn.

Assuming it was left on the moon and is still there. It may still be
lying on the floor of the gigantic Moon-fake studio used to run the
original images. You just blindly believe absolutely EVERYTHING that
ANYBODY tells you, don't you? I'll bet you are paying a LOT more for you
stuff than you need to.

> I expect their first priority will be to stick a Chinese flag in some
> bit of virgin lunar landscape. Some fresh moon rocks would be nice.

Personally, I'd be satisfied for now with them sending a low cost nano-
camera there and sending back trust-worthy images. Of course with the
Chinese usual political system there is little chance of that.

PS. there is a million dollar prize for anyone who does.

> The orbital survey imagers are now good enough to show the lunar landing
> sites and astronauts tracks on the lunar regolith.
>
> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/
apollosites.html
>
> The Japanese orbiter might also be up to the task when the light is
> right with a low sun so that the LEM casts a nice long shadow.

So you are still blindly believing every image they tell you is real?
Sure it's a wonderful "plausible" story that fits the previous stories so
well! Only so many of the previous stories have been shown to be fakes
and have credible problems (example the article in question in this
thread) I take it you are not educated enough to actually judge the
evidence presented by these researchers and you have to rely on NASA to
evaluate it for you?

Do you realize that you are under-insured? I can help you out!

[benj]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:18:15 -0500, Bast wrote:

> That no one has "publicly" been to the moon in the 50 years since offers
> only two explanations.
>
> That it was never possible to begin with due to death by radiation.
>
> OR
>
> The Aliens there said to F-off and don't come back or they would blow
> our pathetic little blue planet into oblivion.

You forgot: That they still continue to drive there like you or I drive
to the corner carry-out but just don't tell anybody about it, pretending
nobody's been there.

PS. if setting off an H-bomb in space (in violation of a test-ban treaty,
no less) that created our own personal Van Allen belt that is still
there, didn't get the attention of the aliens, nothing will.

[benj]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 06:01:52 -0800, Brad Guth wrote:

> On Jan 29, 2:15 am, benj <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
<snip>

> Putting full trust in government is the same spooky analogy as trusting
> the Pope to look after the kids, and if that makes you a happy camper,
> than so be it.

Are you saying, Brad, that as a member of the homo sapiens species you
really have no responsibility for what the Pope or his men do to
children? I don't think you understand what "activism" is about yet.

[benj]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 06:02:35 -0800, Mahipal wrote:

> http://youtu.be/Wx9GxXYKx_8 may be old news but I just saw this regards
> events at Sandy Hook. It's half an hour long. Remember, it's not my
> work.
>
> The word Conspiracy, since one never exists, needs to be removed from
> all dictionaries -- paper or otherwise.
>
> Enjo(y)... Cheers!

I know what you mean. Last I heard all those politicians sitting in jail
are there for having a "wide stance". (And we all know that most never
make it to the slammer)

[benj]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:36:26 +0000, jimp wrote:

>> And that's 30 minutes of your life that you can never recover.
>
> That's for sure.
>
> What an utter waste of time.

So your conclusion based upon your application of the scientific method
is that if one video supposedly on the subject was a waste of time, then
obviously ALL videos, articles, books, and other analysis that has been
generated are ALL wastes of time and one can obviously form a
"scientific" opinion without bothering to examine them.

Was the original article of this thread estimating the feasibility of
taking the purported number of photos in the available time a "waste of
time" also?

Great science jimp. Wormley is just some former lab technician so we
expect that sort of thing from him, but I thought you were a notch up
from the ass-hat.

Note that HVAC did NOT say the video was a "waste of time". He said it
was 30 minutes you can't get back. Which is obviously meaningless and
true. There is NO doubt that HVAC has never seen the video because he
NEVER accesses posted links. He only follows orders from his bosses never
from mere citizens. So he obviously has NO idea if it was a waste of time
or not. But being a "strategic writer" he got you believing he said
something he did not. Shame on you. Scientists are supposed to be
PERCEPTIVE!

[Forrest Piper]

'14C is continually being produced in the Earth's upper atmosphere by
bombardment of 14N by cosmic rays. Thus the ratio of 14C to 14N in the
Earth's atmosphere is constant.

'Living organisms continually exchange Carbon and Nitrogen with the
atmosphere by breathing, feeding, and photosynthesis.'

But since there is no atmosphere on the moon, there is no nitrogen in
the regolith!!!

'Thus, so long as the organism is alive, it will have the same ratio
of 14C to 14N as the atmosphere.'

- Concentrations and isotope ratios of carbon, nitrogen and sulfur in
ocean-floor basalts, p. 2435

Same argument here - no atmosphere, no carbon/nitrogen ratios!!!

Earth basalt contains nitrogen, moon does not:

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/2523/basaltnitrogen.jpg

[benj]

On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:58:26 -0800, Warhol wrote:

> your post is one of the fine available examples of the mass production
> of ignorance and flawed thought processes by the modern "educational"
> system.
>
> Radio-waves are electromagnetic, and for this, a proper medium of
> conductibility is needed. On earth this medium is the air. In Space
> there is no air for the transmission of Radio-waves and thereby no
> communication from NASA's alleged travels to Space can be established.
>
> The giant cock-tail umbrella Apollo-11 used as antenna is FAKE
>
> All audio & video from ISS & Shuttle are prerecorded and therewith, FAKE
> also.
>
> Radio-waves work solely and exclusively in air.
>
> Radio-waves do not work underwater where there is no air and cannot work
> in outer-space where there is no air either, and by that, there is no
> medium of conductibility for the transmission of Radio-waves.

I wondered why Warhol who usually is in the "Strategic writer" camp
suddenly appeared on the side of careful scientific research. Now it's
clear that his "no radio waves without air" theory is designed to
sabotage the whole discussion from the inside by declaring himself a
kook.

The truth obviously is that radio waves are transmitted in aether which
fills all space. He would be correct, however, that in a "true" vacuum,
where the aether has been all pumped out, EM waves can't be propagated.
This shows he knows more than he'd pretending to know.

Unfortunately how to create true vacuums is classified.

[benj]

So that means that this is proof enough to you that all the books and
article written on this subject by a host of educated people with varying
credentials are also puerile nonsense that should be never examined?

In science when someone says or implies that "this evidence should NOT be
looked at" that is a clear indication that what is going on is NOT
science.

[george152]

On 29/01/13 19:42, Bast wrote:

> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Bast <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>

Nope. Those signals were received by very large dishes in different
countries around the world

> Much like you get TV from satelites on earth now.
> It's simply re-transmitting a signal it recieved from earth
>
> As for the rocks, simple to pick up a few meteorites found all over the
> earth, do a bit of heat treating, and voila,...all the moon
> rocks you want.
>
> NASA & Von Braun did a lot of research in Antartica, wher pristine
> meteorites are scattered all over the snow daily, and very easy to collect.

That statement is so wrong it redefines crap

[Warhol]

No air, no transmission...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iNM3ydK9qcQ/TX6lCZh9TsI/AAAAAAAADOI/BpFl28EPWXk/s1600/Atomic%2BFez.jpg

[Brad Guth]

I interpret and report on what little I can, and otherwise I fail to
condone the past and ongoing actions of those taking advantage of and/
or provoking others for sport and profit. In other words, I'm another
one of those BP "small people".

Zionist oligarch Jews in charge throughout most of our government
(including their having been in charge of those "paperclip" SS Nazis)
are the ones with the elected, appointed and/or financial backing
authority to take appropriate actions, in that if I were to do so
would put me away for life.

Now, if I were the head of an oligarch Mafia and cloaked by a
mainstream religion, things could be a whole lot different.

What's your excuse?

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/29/13 11:58 AM, Warhol wrote:
> Radio-waves are electromagnetic, and for this, a proper medium of
> conductibility is needed. On earth this medium is the air. In Space
> there is no air for the transmission of Radio-waves and thereby no
> communication from NASA's alleged travels to Space can be established.

That rules out the sun providing the earth with heat and energy. :-o

[george152]

On 29/01/13 19:44, Bast wrote:

> And you have no proof,...only faith the government never lies.
> OOOPS,...but they do on everything else ?
>
>
The US went to the Moon as the climactic event of the socalled Space Race.
If it had been in any way a fake the USSR would have been crowing.
They weren't and they didn't.
The British had no problem with the evidence but a net kook years after
the event who has problems with their government makes claims with no
supporting evidence apart from heavily edited videos that were dismissed
when they were first posted

[george152]

On 30/01/13 02:25, Brad Guth wrote:

> Word game noted, but thanks anyway. I'm certified in photographics,
> but probably not by those of your kind.
>
You're certified as a citizen of cuckoo land

[Mahipal]

Really?! The USSR and the British care that much how USA (mis)informs
their people? Well, good to know who keeps us Us US honest.

[john]

Another Zombie speaks up.
What's your stance on UFOs, Zombie?
No evidence?

It's like the Zombies are blind to everything
except what they want to see.

Let's get back to the photographic evidence-
as I understand it, there would be changes
made to the film when exposed to space radiation.
Was the film encased in lead or otherwise
protected except when shooting? In those
special cameras? When exposing the picture, would
there be any evidence of there being ionizing
radiation around and about? How did all those extra shadows
get there?
john

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Warhol <mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Well, just to correct a common misconception...
>
> You still have a problem with the vacuum question... it appears that
> radio waves don't have a medium to be transmitted in vacuum space...
> radio waves need a medium to travel through, the way sound travels
> through a mass air.

People have been bouncing radio signals off of the moon since 1946,
including a lot of amateur radio operators around the world.

You are a total nut job.

*PLONK*

[Warhol]

Rays ain't waves... two different mechanics... Light is a rayonnement
and the sun is like candle...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Pic_du_Midi_de_Bigorre_-_rayonnement_solaire.jpg

Have the radiowaves go through another medium other then air and see
what happens.

Use water for example.

[Brad Guth]

Your FUD is noted, as is your lack of any photographic or Kodak film
expertise.

Obviously you're not even smart enough to rum most any old PhotoShop
in order to easily detect where images have been doctored to suit.

Apparently Apollo-17 landed in a near whiteout location, of 75%
albedo. Why were so many of the missions located in such highly
reflective and otherwise monochromatic inert areas of the moon that
can't be seen or otherwise detected from Earth?

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:31:44 +0000, jimp wrote:
>
>> In sci.physics benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
>>> You can if it's FROM the moon!
>>
>> And if you are going to the moon anyway, might as well send the people
>> along.
>>
>> <snip insane babble>
>
> Jimp as usual, missing the TOTAL point.

The point seems to be on top of your head underneath the propeller hat.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:33:36 +0000, jimp wrote:
>
>> In sci.physics Bast <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> If you can't watch a video with an open mind,....the results are not
>>> surprising.
>>
>> I had no idea what the contents of the video had to say when I started
>> watching it.
>>
>> It quickly became puerile nonsense.
>
> So that means that this is proof enough to you that all the books and
> article written on this subject by a host of educated people with varying
> credentials are also puerile nonsense that should be never examined?

No, it means the video was puerile nonsense.

Are you hearing voices?

That propeller on your beanie must really be spinning right now with all
the hot air you are creating.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics benj <be...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 16:36:26 +0000, jimp wrote:
>
>>> And that's 30 minutes of your life that you can never recover.
>>
>> That's for sure.
>>
>> What an utter waste of time.
>
> So your conclusion based upon your application of the scientific method
> is that if one video supposedly on the subject was a waste of time, then
> obviously ALL videos, articles, books, and other analysis that has been
> generated are ALL wastes of time and one can obviously form a
> "scientific" opinion without bothering to examine them.

No, as I clearly said, that video was an utter waste of time.

I said nothing about anything else.

Are you hearing voices in your head?

<snip rambling babble>

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

Yes, the USSR cared that much about what the USA accomplished and so did
the Chinese, particularly when it overshadowed their accomplishments.

[Mahipal]

On Jan 29, 2:59 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

You know how much the USSR cared back then in the 1960s? Nice.

You missed my point. First, USA cannot go around jumping shouting the
USSR, British, Chinese, Indians... didn't complain so get over it and
accept it! Appeal to the defeated is worse than appeal to authority.

The Space Race could readily have been like Superbowl Sunday Football.
Know the players.

So my point is, find a better defense for your argument than those
that did not come to play did not bitch that we claimed we won. Yawn.

Scientifically, how come there aren't pictures of random sky shots
from the moon? Did they carry just the half a roll of film?

[Bast]

Martin Brown wrote:
> On 29/01/2013 14:18, Bast wrote:

>> Martin Brown wrote:
>
>>> You choose a very bad time to claim that no-one has been to the moon.
>>> The Chinese are not all that far off being able to launch their own
>>> moon shot now and you can bet your bottom dollar that on at least one
>>> trip they will like good tourists go and visit an existing Apollo

>>> site. The Hasselblad museum would pay good money for one of its cameras

>>> returned after 40 years of exoatmospheric sunburn.
>>>

>>> I expect their first priority will be to stick a Chinese flag in some
>>> bit of virgin lunar landscape. Some fresh moon rocks would be nice.
>>>

>>> The orbital survey imagers are now good enough to show the lunar
>>> landing sites and astronauts tracks on the lunar regolith.
>>>
>>> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html
>>>
>>> The Japanese orbiter might also be up to the task when the light is
>>> right with a low sun so that the LEM casts a nice long shadow.
>>

>> Are you telling me that 50 years later the Japanese don't have a
>> camera good enough ?
>
> Their survey instrument Kaguya isn't intended to do that task, and their
> resolution is borderline for features as small as a LEM. But it can show
> through its 3D imaging survey capability that the Apollo mission
> photographs were taken on the lunar surface. See for example
>
> http://www.universetoday.com/15579/japanese-selene-kaguya-lunar-mission-spots-apollo-15-landing-site-images/
>
> The topography is right when modern 3D data is compared against NASA
> pictures taken on the lunar surface with mountains in the background.
>
>> Or that the hubble hasn't the resolution ?
>
> Hubble is not even close. Apart from the fact that it cannot target or
> track the moon without suffering motion blur its resolution limit at the
> lunar surface is in the ball park of 1/16 mile or 110 yards.
>
>> Or that the Russians wouldn't have raised the bar by sending a whole
>> colony if it were possible.
>
> Why bother? It looks like the Chinese will be the next to do it.

>
>> That no one has "publicly" been to the moon in the 50 years since
>> offers only two explanations.
>>
>> That it was never possible to begin with due to death by radiation.
>>
>> OR
>>
>> The Aliens there said to F-off and don't come back or they would blow
>> our pathetic little blue planet into oblivion.
>

> There is a third much more mundane explanation. It was phenomenally
> expensive to do moon shots. We won and the public quickly lost interest
> after the first few. The samples obtained were relatively unexciting
> rocks and there was no trace of water or interesting minerals. Job done.
>
> I do think it is disappointing that no-one has been back to the moon but
> I expect to see another visit within this decade.



You can't go back if you were never there in the first place.
And it's far more likley they realized the odds of them pulling off the
scams forever was pretty slim, so cancelled the program.

Also amazing that NASA lost much of the records.
For something so historic, you would think they would have made 10 copies of
everything,....unless they lost records on purpose so no one could check.

The real question is why when interviewed would the astronaouts who were
alledgely there (ALL OF THEM) "do not recollect seeing stars".
Good LORD,...any human would have most certainly spent at least 5 minutes
just gawking at how amazing the sky must have looked with no atmosphere to
block the view.



It's almost the same type of lies that they used after 9/11 when the next
day hundreds of cars parked around the towers were completely burned out to
just shells, but only covered by some dust with no other damage.

Heat like that is not caused by buildings collapsing on their own.
But it would be explained by burning thermite filled buildings coming down.

And guess what,.... we never were able to look at all the records there
either.

[Martin Brown]

You can look at it all you want and it is obvious from the outset that
it is the ravings of a bunch of delusional nutters in tin foil hats.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[HVAC]

On 1/29/2013 2:21 PM, benj wrote:
>
>> It quickly became puerile nonsense.
>
> So that means that this is proof enough to you that all the books and
> article written on this subject by a host of educated people with varying
> credentials are also puerile nonsense that should be never examined?
>
> In science when someone says or implies that "this evidence should NOT be
> looked at" that is a clear indication that what is going on is NOT
> science.

So we should all give credence to the flat Earth people?

You're an idiot, BJ...No offense.


--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg

[Warhol]

care to let us know why you keep showing yourself an idiot over and
over and over and over? <-curly thingie signifies a question mark

[Martin Brown]

On 29/01/2013 20:19, Bast wrote:
> Martin Brown wrote:

>> There is a third much more mundane explanation. It was phenomenally
>> expensive to do moon shots. We won and the public quickly lost interest
>> after the first few. The samples obtained were relatively unexciting
>> rocks and there was no trace of water or interesting minerals. Job done.
>>
>> I do think it is disappointing that no-one has been back to the moon but
>> I expect to see another visit within this decade.
>
> You can't go back if you were never there in the first place.
> And it's far more likley they realized the odds of them pulling off the
> scams forever was pretty slim, so cancelled the program.

We were there. I have handled lunar rocks brought back from the moon.

> Also amazing that NASA lost much of the records.
> For something so historic, you would think they would have made 10 copies of
> everything,....unless they lost records on purpose so no one could check.

A bit careless of them to lose some of the blueprints for a Saturn V.
They were so sure that the Space Shuttle would be better...

>
> The real question is why when interviewed would the astronaouts who were
> alledgely there (ALL OF THEM) "do not recollect seeing stars".

Not surprising at all. They had dark sunshield visors to protect their
eyes from solar glare that you can see on the photographs. Think about
snow blindness risks from UV when skiing and you get the idea. On the
moon there is no protection at all from nasty short wave UV.

Naked eye on the moon I think you would just about see Venus, Jupiter,
Sirius and Vega (and they might be serendipitouly be recorded in the sky
on some of the lunar images - particularly any overexposed ones).

You can just about see Venus midday on the Earth on a really clear day
looking from the shade of a building and knowing exactly where to look.
The problem is more about getting your eye to focus at infinity and a
passing plane or contrail helps. Lose it and you have to start again.

> Good LORD,...any human would have most certainly spent at least 5 minutes
> just gawking at how amazing the sky must have looked with no atmosphere to
> block the view.

The sunlit ground means their eyes would not be dark adapted. But even
so they should have been able to see a handful of the brightest stars if
they had known *exactly* where to look. Any overexposed images might
well show faint traces of the brightest stars.

> It's almost the same type of lies that they used after 9/11 when the next
> day hundreds of cars parked around the towers were completely burned out to
> just shells, but only covered by some dust with no other damage.
>
> Heat like that is not caused by buildings collapsing on their own.
> But it would be explained by burning thermite filled buildings coming down.

Definitely a moon howling nutter. Meter pegged at "Beyond Fuckwit" *AGAIN*

>
> And guess what,.... we never were able to look at all the records there
> either.

It seemed to leave a rather large hole in New York city.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Mahipal <mahip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2:59 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Mahipal <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 29, 2:27 pm, george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>> >> On 29/01/13 19:44, Bast wrote:
>>
>> >> > And you have no proof,...only faith the government never lies.
>> >> > OOOPS,...but they do on everything else ?
>>
>> >> The US went to the Moon as the climactic event of the socalled Space Race.
>> >> If it had been in any way a fake the USSR would have been crowing.
>> >> They weren't and they didn't.
>> >> The British had no problem with the evidence but a net kook years after
>> >> the event who has problems with their government makes claims with no
>> >> supporting evidence apart from heavily edited videos that were dismissed
>> >> when they were first posted
>>
>> > Really?! The USSR and the British care that much how USA (mis)informs
>> > their people? Well, good to know who keeps us Us US honest.
>>
>> Yes, the USSR cared that much about what the USA accomplished and so did
>> the Chinese, particularly when it overshadowed their accomplishments.
>
> You know how much the USSR cared back then in the 1960s? Nice.

Yes, as does anyone with an education and/or was alive then.

> You missed my point. First, USA cannot go around jumping shouting the
> USSR, British, Chinese, Indians... didn't complain so get over it and
> accept it! Appeal to the defeated is worse than appeal to authority.

You had no point.

Had the US faked the moon missions, the Soviets would have known and
the world's newspapers would have been filled with the headlines.

<snip remaining babble>

[Mahipal]

On Jan 29, 3:38 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Mahipal <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 2:59 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >> In sci.physics Mahipal <mahipal7...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jan 29, 2:27 pm, george152 <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
> >> >> On 29/01/13 19:44, Bast wrote:
>
> >> >> > And you have no proof,...only faith the government never lies.
> >> >> > OOOPS,...but they do on everything else ?
>
> >> >> The US went to the Moon as the climactic event of the socalled Space Race.
> >> >> If it had been in any way a fake the USSR would have been crowing.
> >> >> They weren't and they didn't.
> >> >> The British had no problem with the evidence but a net kook years after
> >> >> the event who has problems with their government makes claims with no
> >> >> supporting evidence apart from heavily edited videos that were dismissed
> >> >> when they were first posted
>
> >> > Really?! The USSR and the British care that much how USA (mis)informs
> >> > their people? Well, good to know who keeps us Us US honest.
>
> >> Yes, the USSR cared that much about what the USA accomplished and so did
> >> the Chinese, particularly when it overshadowed their accomplishments.
>
> > You know how much the USSR cared back then in the 1960s? Nice.
>
> Yes, as does anyone with an education and/or was alive then.

There are no people who doubt or question or challenge anything?

> > You missed my point. First, USA cannot go around jumping shouting the
> > USSR, British, Chinese, Indians... didn't complain so get over it and
> > accept it! Appeal to the defeated is worse than appeal to authority.
>
> You had no point.

Says you jimp. Says you.

> Had the US faked the moon missions, the Soviets would have known and
> the world's newspapers would have been filled with the headlines.

Now I too am convinced!

> <snip remaining babble>

Sure, snip a simple question to try let it go unanswered tactic.

Fwiw, I am young. I get history by reading and observing. For
instance, yes I did have to watch One Oliver Stone directed JFK film.
Not alone I.

[Brad Guth]

On Jan 29, 12:41 pm, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

The physically dark moon, averaging an albedo reflective index of
roughly .07, would hardly be considered as anything too bright.
Besides, how could they possibly miss seeing and even easily
photographing Venus along with the lunar horizon or some local portion
of lunar terrain, especially on two of their missions when Venus had
been passing so nearby?

Are you going to suggest that Venus wasn't at the very least twice as
bright as Earth?

On the other hand, your oligarch style of obfuscation is noted, as a
valid excuse for being a certified FUD-master and/or brown-nosed
minion.

[george152]

On 30/01/13 08:17, benj wrote:

> Unfortunately how to create true vacuums is classified.
The secret is that warhol opens his head and the vacuum escapes