Neil Armstrong exposes Apollo Hoax

On Feb 25, 2:52 pm, "Don Stockbauer"
wrote:

"That's one small step for a man, on Giant Bunny hop for......

OH MY GOD MY ****ING BALLS ITCH. ****. GODDAMN IT TO HELL, AND IT
HAS TO HAPPEN RIGHT NOW WHILE MY VOICE IS BEING BROADCAST TO 99% OF
THE WORLD'S POPULATION, ****, HAVE ANY OF EWE OUT THERE EVER TRIED
(INCLUDING YOU WOMEN) TO SCRATCH YOUR ****ING NUTS THROUGH A GODDAMNED
****ING SPACE SUIT? ****, EW E JUST GO TRY IT RIGHT NOW. ****,
WHAT'S A HERO TO DO??? BUZZ, LETZ FIRE THIS MOTHER ****ER BACK UP AND
HEAD BACK TO THE EARTH WHERE I CAN GO TO MY FARM RANDY TUNSTALL AND
JUST SCRATCH THE EVER LOVING **** OUTTA THE FAMILY JEWELS BEHIND THE
BARN OUT OF SIGHT OF 99% OF THE GLOBAL BRAIN'S VIEW:

HOUSTON, WE HAVE A LUNATIC POSTING AT SCI.PHYSICS.RELATIVITY.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html

AND THEN MAYBE WE CAN COME BACK HERE AND I CAN GIVE A DIGNIFIED SPEECH
WHICH PROLLY WONT GET MY ASS THROW OUT OF NASA LIKE SOME HOMICIDAL
WOMAN ASTRO-NUT OR, AS NASA (IN PARTICULAR, SAIC) HAS DONE WITH
CERTAIN VALUABLE EMPLOYEES IN ITS PAST (BACK AROUND 1995 OR SO) WHO
WERE THEN FORCED TO GO MANAGE THE FAMILY FARM JUST LIKE IN THE
"ASTRONAUT FARMER" MOVIE, WHICH IS PRETTY GOOD, BTW.

BLARP.

HOUSTON, THIS LUNATIC IS ROYALLY F*CKED UP.

On Feb 25, 10:21 pm, "JanPB" wrote:
On Feb 25, 10:00 pm, "Koobee Wublee" wrote:

I do know what "stopping down" mean. So, wise-ass photographer who
wants to be a physicist, do you know the exposure of that photograph?

Pretty much the same as daytime on Earth: sunlit landscape. Using a
100 ASA film it would be something like 1/250 sec. at f/8 or so. No
stars would register at this EV (exposure value).
[...]

I have no doubt that you are an expert on this. However, there are so
many variables in this scenario. It is a very weak one for the ones
who side with the moon-hoax anyway.

However, most likely when you develop these films, you can always over-
expose the image of the astronauts and allow the stars to come to
view. We can easily check the star positions with what are in the
archive. So, what is that not done?

Because the normal practice for precious negatives like Moon shots,
classic Hollywood films, the negatives of Henri Cartier-Bresson, etc.
etc., is to handle them as little as possible.

You got a good point there. Thanks.

On Feb 26, 1:38 am, "Koobee Wublee" wrote:

Pretty much the same as daytime on Earth: sunlit landscape. Using a
100 ASA film it would be something like 1/250 sec. at f/8 or so. No
stars would register at this EV (exposure value).
[...]

I have no doubt that you are an expert on this. However, there are so
many variables in this scenario. It is a very weak one for the ones
who side with the moon-hoax anyway.


Does the lack of stars in these photographs prove they are fake?
http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...h+Images&gbv=2

On Feb 26, 8:27 am, "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
................................
I would say it is time for NASA to conclusively prove they went to the
moon,

Moon rocks, telemetry data, thousand of photographs, eyewitness
testimony, calculations, DAILY laser reflection data from instruments
left on the moon. Oh, I guess that is NOTHING.

All these claims are very cheap. Use your f*cked brain for a change.

************************************************** **********************************
Ok Koobee, so allow me to ask you this: what will YOU call "a
conclusive proof" that NASA indeed reached the moon in 1969 , and that
a man walked on the moon? If moon rocks, testimonies, pics and etc.
are "very cheap claims" to you, what will convince you that it REALLY
took place?
I mean, let us know so that people won't waste his time referring you
to evidence that you find "cheap"....
************************************************** **********************************
.................................................. .................
Aside from the obvious ones, such as man in one of those
suits,
could in no way fit, through the door of the LEM.
It has been measured, and it was just too small.

Do you believe NASA put ANYBODY into orbit, ever?

This point is irrefutable so far.

************************************************** ************************************
And again here, Koobee: why is it "irrefutable" that NASA put people
on orbit, but NOT that it actually put men on the moon?? What makes
you accept the fact that people's orbited the Earth? And what's the
difference with the rather galore evidence that men walked on the
moon? Why one is "irrefutable" and the other is doubtable, for you?
Regards
Tonio
************************************************** ***********************************


being that only a
few countries have achieved this feat,. it is pretty difficult, right?

It must be a very difficult thing to do, yes.

And yet these people were "exposed" in this "hoax" by the size of the
LEM door? And by making space suits that were too small?

Have you personally tried on these suits?

Were the space suits TOO SMALL for Mercury, Gemini, the Apollo
missions that didn't go to the moon, Skylab, and the Space Shuttle?

These programs do not deal with the LEM. shrug

Since the LEM did not have to actualy fly on the moon (as you allege),
why didn;t they just make the LEMm door as big as a barn , to avoid
being "discovered" by you clever and intrepid investigators?

Why don't you go ask the aerospace engineers responsible for that?

Do you need more proof than that?

Obviously yes, since that hardly qualifies as "proof" of anything.

The whole thing just don't make any sense.

In sci.physics Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Feb 25, 1:48 pm, "The_Man" wrote:

snip

However, most likely when you develop these films, you can always over-
expose the image of the astronauts and allow the stars to come to
view. We can easily check the star positions with what are in the
archive. So, what is that not done? My not-yet-3-year-old baby girl
is smarter than you are. She just asked me why the moon changes its
shaper over time.

You can over develop film to a certain degree which has the same effect
(almost) as increasing the exposure.

However, you can only develop film once. You are thirty years too late.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Feb 26, 1:27 am, "Koobee Wublee" wrote:
On Feb 25, 4:39 pm, "The_Man" wrote:

On Feb 25, 5:27 pm, wrote:
nor even minimally competent with ANY camera, yet it was the
PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence that you specifically cited. If you are far too
ignorant to judge what is or isn't possible with something as simple
as a CAMERA, what makes you think you are capable of judging what is
possible with a rocket?
But now I see, that it was all just a big fraud.

Yes, it is all just a fraud, but we are talking about the hoax
allegations, not the moon landing.
Calling it a hoax doesn't quite cut it. It was and is the largest
fraud perpetrated on a trusting public in history.

Not quite. There are more in the recent history of mankind. Mostly
political including the relativity theories.

"Trusitng public"? BTW, what difference does it make to you whether
Neil Armostrong walked on the moon or not, except to minimize the
fantastic achievements of others, to bring them down to your level,
you, who can't even take a decent photograph with any camera designed
for anyone who isn't an idiot?

Yes, I do care if it is a fraud or not.

Yes; if it is a fraud, then you can feel better about you being a
complete nothing, who has accomplished nothing in his life, and can't
even understand the minimal basics of photography.

This is part of scientific
exploration we are talking about. It should leave no room for fraud.
When I was a kid, Armstrong was my greatest hero. I loved that phrase
"one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind". Now, that
phrase is more like "one fraudulent step for me, one phantom leap for
mankind". Finding out the evidences just do not agree with what
reality is would just make me angry. I do not want to fancy
fraudulent heroes. If you have a problem with that, you don't have to
call anyone else who do idiots. Go worship a cockroach as a hero if
you like. What is the difference?

Worship a cockroach - like YOU?


I would say it is time for NASA to conclusively prove they went to the
moon,

Moon rocks, telemetry data, thousand of photographs, eyewitness
testimony, calculations, DAILY laser reflection data from instruments
left on the moon. Oh, I guess that is NOTHING.

All these claims are very cheap. Use your f*cked brain for a change.

These claims are "cheap"? And nonsense about not seeing stars, and the
LEM door being too small, or the space suits being too small, are well
thought out?


or to admit they defrauded the public, and then they should be
disbanded, replaced, by some new more trustworthy organization.

Like you and your band of nincompoops who think that starts would be
visible with a slow lense?

There are more. How much do you know about radiation beyond the Van
Allen Belts?

Yes. more than you. It is easy to find interviews with Van Allen
HIMSELF. He died just last year. They specifically asked about that
point. He said that it would NOT be fatal for astronauts, so long as
they didn;t STAY in the belts. On the way to the moon, they go THROUGH
them in a bout 1 hour. **** you, dolt.

But what is the point? That no one would go to the moon because
radiation would make it dangerous? You gotta ****ing be kidding me.
Space travel, with or without the moon, is the single most dangerous
evndeavour of human beings. Just going into earth orbit has killed
many astronauts in very nasty ways. Most of the early astronauts were
test pilots, the NEXT most dangerous occupation other than space
travel.

I can see it now...

"Mr. Smith - you can be the first man to walk on the moon. How a bout
it?"
"No sir, it would be DANGEROUS!!!!!!!"

That is why there no Islamic suicide bombers... suicide bombing is
impossible, because it is TOO DANGEROUS.

That is why no countries on earth have armies - fighting in a war
could get you KILLED! God damn, that is DANGEROUS!!!!

I know it is too dangerous for you to take a **** every day, but REAL
MEN are willing to accept danger, unlike pussies like you. Rather than
accept that you are a cowardly and stupid pussy, you denigrate men who
you are unworthy to be in the same country with.


It is the only way, to regain the public trust.
Beyond question, it was a hoax, and there is whistleblower footage
which proves it.

"Whistelblower footage" of WHAT?

With your attitude, the Chinese might be the first to land a man on
the moon in 4 decades.

So you mention whistelbnlower footage, but all you mean are pictures
of a very old and very shy Neil Armstrong allegely looking "guilty".
Do you think O.J. looks guilty?


Aside from the obvious ones, such as man in one of those suits,
could in no way fit, through the door of the LEM.
It has been measured, and it was just too small.

When people are talking about "It was just too small", that wasn't
engineers that was women describing your Johnson.


Do you believe NASA put ANYBODY into orbit, ever?

This point is irrefutable so far.

Why? Isn't there radiation in low earth orbit? How come the space
suits for the earth missions fit right, but they accidentally made the
space suits for the lubar missions too small? How about space walks?
Were the doors wide enough for EVA? Bet you didn;t know that the first
space walks were so hastily planned, that the astronauts (and
cosmonauts) involved nearly died, because they couldn't get BACK into
the capsule, having nothing to hold onto. The American was in such bad
shape, that Mission Control told his partnet that if he could not get
back into the capsule, to just close the door on him.


being that only a
few countries have achieved this feat,. it is pretty difficult, right?

It must be a very difficult thing to do, yes.

And yet these people were "exposed" in this "hoax" by the size of the
LEM door? And by making space suits that were too small?

Have you personally tried on these suits?

I saw the suits at the Smithsonian. They looked quite reasonable in
size.

Oh, I get it now....

"The suits don't fit - you must ACQUIT!!!!!!"


Were the space suits TOO SMALL for Mercury, Gemini, the Apollo
missions that didn't go to the moon, Skylab, and the Space Shuttle?

These programs do not deal with the LEM. shrug

Since the LEM did not have to actualy fly on the moon (as you allege),
why didn;t they just make the LEMm door as big as a barn , to avoid
being "discovered" by you clever and intrepid investigators?

Why don't you go ask the aerospace engineers responsible for that?

In other words, even your cock and bull story makes no sense at all.
You mean the same aerosapce engineers who were too stupid to make the
space suits the right size, so stupid that their errors were detected
by a dolt like you, who can;t even take a photograph?



Do you need more proof than that?

Obviously yes, since that hardly qualifies as "proof" of anything.

The whole thing just don't make any sense.

The first thing we agree on.

wrote:

You can over develop film to a certain degree which has the same effect
(almost) as increasing the exposure.

More to the point, one can take the original negatives and print them at
higher contrast (remember Agfa #6) or scan them and jack the living ****
out of exposer/contrast (or better, curves) and STILL if the points are
not recorded, not jack**** will show up.

Yeah. It's late in history to revise it. (Did you know that you can
actually redevelop silver halide film?)

It's all gone.

Thank gawd.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:20:18 -0800, rick_sobie wrote:

http://www.dave.co.nz/space/moon-hoa...11-40-5921.jpg Here, here
is some good evidence...

You can clearly see, a brown spot on the ground, made by the rocket
engine,
under the LEM.

You can even see some light sweeping of the ground from it.

The intense heat from the jet, um, made those little pebbles _stay _there,
because, um when heated, they, will, um, stick, to the ground. Clearly,
this all just so much tadoo about nothing.

And the lack of delay from voice transmissions back and forth, was just
well managed theatrics. They knew already, what they were supposed to say
and everyone just said it seven seconds before they were supposed to say
it.

Uh ... _seven_?

Round trip to the moon and back is about 480,000 miles, or about 2.6
seconds at SOL. So, where's the seven second delay come from? Even
adding another delay to get the signal around to the other side of the
world doesn't bring it up close to 7 seconds, as far as I can see.


--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:34:44 -0600, JJ wrote:

wrote:

You can over develop film to a certain degree which has the same effect
(almost) as increasing the exposure.

More to the point, one can take the original negatives and print them at
higher contrast (remember Agfa #6) or scan them and jack the living ****
out of exposer/contrast (or better, curves) and STILL if the points are
not recorded, not jack**** will show up.

Yeah. It's late in history to revise it. (Did you know that you can
actually redevelop silver halide film?)

Only up to a point. Specifically, you can increase the size of
silver crystals which already formed, thus increasing the density, but
anything which didn't crystallize in the initial development is gone,
dissolved away by the hypo (the "fixer").

But in any case, wasn't the still camera loaded with color film? If it
was color, then it's not silver halide film, anyway; it's probably C-41
chemistry, which uses dyes of three colors, produced in the emulsion
during processing, to form the image. (And there's a good chance it's
faded, besides.)



It's all gone.

Thank gawd.

--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org

On Mar 1, 2:40 pm, "Brad Guth" wrote:
"schoenfeld.one" wrote in message

ups.com

Take a look at this video of the Apollo II conference

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

Neil Armstrong shows extreme signs of guilt - the same kind criminals
display during interrogations.

Why bother, it's all a lie based upon other lies. It's what we do best,
isn't it!

Yes, it's true. Why bother. People just want to play like children,
all day, every day. There is no hope for mankind in this state. If you
can take anything of value from these exchanges (and other related
exchanges) it is that the most humans have a major weakness. They are
highly susceptible to deception and easily manipulated into doing and
believing anything. It seems lies are stronger than truth,
empirically.

Perhaps it is the wrong approach to try to help the sheeple
understand. Perhaps it is the fate of those who do understand to
exploit sheeples' failure for their own selfish benefit? Is it natures
way of natural selection? Even if it is.. why bother?