"Nathan Jones" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

You are a waste of skin.

THE APOLLO HOAX FAQ version 4.1 - November 2003
Written by Nathan Jones

Subject: (1) Forward and Intent

In recent years there have been many criticisms and
refutations made in various media of the Apollo record, the
so called proof of the Apollo space missions that allegedly
landed astronauts onto the surface of the Moon during the
period 1969 to 1972. The criticisms and refutations by authors
such as David Percy, Ralph Rene, the late James Collier, Bill
Kasing and others take the form of analysis of the photographic
record and video footage shot by NASA astronauts and questions
about the viability of other aspects of the operation such as
the flight worthiness of the Lunar Module (LM)

Proven to fly better than any "theory" you propose.

and the
radiation risk posed to astronauts who venture outside of the
Earths protective shield - the Van Allen belts.

Empty brainless words.

....
It is my intention that this faq be a more accurate and detailed
resource than most of the usenet chatter concerning this topic.
I will tell the reader now that although I haven't examined every
reported anomaly in the Apollo record, far from it, but what I have
determined so far is not looking good for the Apollo "protagonists".

Especially when you can make a buck.

Subject: (3) What does it take to prove we went to the Moon?

What does it take to prove that we didn't? What does it take to prove that
you are not making money off this tripe?

Subject: (4) The public are dumb, they'll buy into any idea.

So you'll sell it to them.

Subject: (5) No stars are visible in the images, where are they?

No stars are visible on Earth in the daytime, yet clearly they are still
there. The background lighting causes the iris of the eye, and the camera,
to cut off their weak light.

Subject: (6) The flag waves.

And you can claim this from a still photograph. Amazing. You are a fool.

Subject: (7) There's no dust on the lander footpads

Imagine that.

Subject: (8) Why is no engine noise audible in the LM radio
broadcasts?

What would direct the pressure waves from the exhaust back into the lander?
The cheese?

Subject: (9) Where are the flames from the landers engines?

Oh, you mean the unburned fuel oxidizing in the Moon's oxygen rich
atmosphere? Where indeed.

Subject: (10) What about the shape of the exhaust and its
effects?

What about it.

Subject: (11) Was the Lunar Module (LM) tested on Earth?

Not really. Landing the thing at 1 g was not required. So simulators
proved sufficient. Just like with fighters.

Subject: (12) Where's the blast crater?

Not one under a Harrier either. But you never cared about facts. Only
lies.

Subject: (13) Dust kicked up by the Rover wheels acts strange.

No sh*t, Sherlock. Ever heard of static electricity? No humidity to bleed
this off.

Subject: (14) Radio telemetry proves man went to the Moon right?

The fact that you post the same crap over and over proves you have
intelligence, right?

Subject: (15) Laser ranging reflectors on the Moon are proof
right?

No. It is much easier to believe that we had teams of robots back in the
60s place them.

Subject: (16) Why don't they point the HST at the landing sites?

Because we couldn't resolve them. And the scientists don't give a sh*t
about your rantings. Besides, you'd say *these* images were faked.

Subject: (17) The Russians had to be in on it right?

Not just them. The whole world.

Subject: (18) What about Apollo 8, 9 and 10?

You wanted to discuss practice. There you go.

Subject: (19) The radiation hazards facing the missions.

No hazard. Well documented *lack* of hazard prior to the missions being
run.

Subject: (20) The Lunar surface brightness misconception.

It is your misconception.

Subject: (21) Photographic anomalies, heiligenschein, shadows and
perspective.

Yes, the astronauts sure didn't prepare the landscape very well.

Subject: (22) What still film was used?

Just what was documented. And your heat transfer knowledge still sucks.

Subject: (23) In a vacuum there is no heat?

Not even true on Earth.

Subject: (24) The noon day temperature misconception.

You are still an idiot. You should hire someone that knows something about
heat transfer to do your "thinking" for you.

Subject: (25) How much insulation does it take to keep an
astronaut warm?

Not insulation, but heat transfer.

Subject: (26) Can the Moon rocks be faked?

We could use the stones in your head!

Subject: (27) Unmanned retrieval of Moon rocks possible?

Sure. We've got rocks from Mars, too.

Subject: (28) The Eagle landing site anomalies.

That explains the dimples in your head, I presume? You should choose a
different pet.

Subject: (29) Some sceptics websites.

Min should be so proud of you. Bringing him in some more income.