On Feb 24, 8:51 pm, wrote:
On Feb 24, 8:20 pm, 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.

Just like when the camera on the tripod panned around, it was remote
controlled from earth. Radio controlled, and they too, knew about the
delay,
and so they just panned 7 seconds ahead of whatever event they were
capturing. Simple.

The fact that there was not a bad photo in the lot, was because,
they were using Hassleblad cameras, and everyone knows,
those are just good cameras. Even without automatic aperture
capability, you just point and shoot those babies, and they
were fastened onto their chest, so as long as you are pointing
in the right general direction, you are going to get that shot.
Sure they couldn't look down but they didn't need to! Those
cameras didn't have viewfinders.

The radiation, doesn't affect the film, because, if was only
1. whatever millirads like he said.

And, sometimes, the cross hairs in the image appears,
to be behind the objects in the frame, but that is easily
explainable.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moonlanding8.htm
See P at the top in the above image.

I, used to have a Hassleblad camera, and, they do that sometimes.
It is light refraction, from the, aperture, reflecting. from the sides
of the camera housing.

Now when the LEM lifts off, you can't see the exhaust or dust,
because,
well do the math, what did the thing weight, a couple thousand pounds?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDTH...elated&search=

How much thrust would you need to use, to lift a Harrier Jet, not much
and
they weigh so much more, than that.

And the noise, well, duh, they were in space, and everyone knows,
in space, no one can hear you scream.

Now as for the other claims, for instance that if you double the speed
of the film, it looks like they are just walking around well that is
easy to explain away.
For starter, the _gravity, on the moon, is almost half of the earth,
you know almost 50% and it was Einstein himself, who proved,
that it is not just space, but space-time, you see?

So, of course, when they were walking in space, because of time
dilation and relativistic effects, it appeared as though they would
float a bit, you know like in 0 G you float around, well,
when the gravity is half that of earth, you float down, as opposed to
just
falling down.

And you can also float up a bit, as is clearly shown in some of the
footage.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQ...elated&search=

And they were just being careful, not to jump too high, because they
might
have gone right into space.
So this argument that hey a schoolgirl can jump that high, yes, but
not
with all that weight on thier backs and all that.

That _doubled their weight, and therefore, due to that, they would
only
be able to jump half as high, and so it looked, like they were on
earth.

And now, if you look at those light pings, you can clearly see,
they are antennae, on the tops, of their backpacks, used for
two eay communication.

Oh yeah, and the fact, that now there is a light ping at the top,
of the frame with a hand pointing to it, that, was always there,
and um, it is just a glitch in the film.
Clearly just a small glitch, and again, nothing to see there atoll.

The million pounds of powerd coral reef, ordered by Nasa,
was probably for some other reason, and soon if you look,
you will find that behind NASA proper, there is a garden,
where some if not most of it, was used for landscaping purposes.

On Feb 24, 8:58 pm, "GeekBoy" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

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

Now when the LEM lifts off, you can't see the exhaust or dust,
because,
well do the math, what did the thing weight, a couple thousand pounds?

Have you completely forgetton about the difference of gravity? The moon has
1/6th of the Earths

The whole thing weighed in at 32,399 lbs and the return module 10,024 lbs on
Earth.
[source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module]

So.... the return module would only weight 1670 lbs on the Moon.
Big deal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDTH...elated&search=

How much thrust would you need to use, to lift a Harrier Jet, not much
and
they weigh so much more, than that.

And the noise, well, duh, they were in space, and everyone knows,
in space, no one can hear you scream.

Exactly 1600 pounds, a Volkswagen, and how much thrust would it take
to
propel it into the air, not much, and to land it, the same.

Let me tell you something, when I was a kid, I went to the science
center
in Toronto, and they had a computer model of the LEM, and the
controls,
and you had to land the LEM on the moon, using those controls,
and sure, no one could do it, but that was because we didn't have the
right stuff.
No one did.

Those guys trained for that. You know, looking out the window, get er
done boys
get er done and all that.

They were focussed.

And it really isn't that difficult to fly a craft that has one central
jet under it,
because the jet swivels you see, and you can compensate, for it
wanting
to tip over, by swiveling the jet, in the direction, that you are
tipping over.

They practiced. As has been clearly shown in the video.
There are no actual reports of successful landings of the LEM on
earth,
and yes Armstrong had to eject, at the last second when he tried it,
but then, the difference is clear, because you go _slower in space,
and so, you have more time, to react, and so thats why.

Neil armstrong does not look like that or talk like that and the other two
men do not resemble those people either.


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.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:52:58 +0000, Jon Slaughter wrote:


"Bruce Scott TOK" ] wrote in
message ...
Schoenfeld wrote:

Take a look at this video of the Apollo II conference




I dunno about that video appearance, but recently I saw an interesting
film clip on one of the internet video sites.

In the clip I saw, the astronaut was dismounting the LEM and he made a
statement something like "one small step for man...". When the astronaut
stepped off the ladder, a studio light fell off its mount hit the ground a
few feet from the LEM. The director stopped the action and the video crew
was scrambling to re-assemble the scene.

Anyone else seen *that* clip?

On Feb 24, 9:28 pm, wrote:
On Feb 24, 8:58 pm, "GeekBoy" wrote:



wrote in message

oups.com...

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

Now when the LEM lifts off, you can't see the exhaust or dust,
because,
well do the math, what did the thing weight, a couple thousand pounds?

Have you completely forgetton about the difference of gravity? The moon has
1/6th of the Earths

The whole thing weighed in at 32,399 lbs and the return module 10,024 lbs on
Earth.
[source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module]

So.... the return module would only weight 1670 lbs on the Moon.
Big deal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDTH...elated&search=

How much thrust would you need to use, to lift a Harrier Jet, not much
and
they weigh so much more, than that.

And the noise, well, duh, they were in space, and everyone knows,
in space, no one can hear you scream.

Exactly 1600 pounds, a Volkswagen, and how much thrust would it take
to
propel it into the air, not much, and to land it, the same.

Let me tell you something, when I was a kid, I went to the science
center
in Toronto, and they had a computer model of the LEM, and the
controls,
and you had to land the LEM on the moon, using those controls,
and sure, no one could do it, but that was because we didn't have the
right stuff.
No one did.

Those guys trained for that. You know, looking out the window, get er
done boys
get er done and all that.

They were focussed.

And it really isn't that difficult to fly a craft that has one central
jet under it,
because the jet swivels you see, and you can compensate, for it
wanting
to tip over, by swiveling the jet, in the direction, that you are
tipping over.

They practiced. As has been clearly shown in the video.
There are no actual reports of successful landings of the LEM on
earth,
and yes Armstrong had to eject, at the last second when he tried it,
but then, the difference is clear, because you go _slower in space,
and so, you have more time, to react, and so thats why.

Yes thats true, the moon only has one 6th, the earths gravity,
so if you stood at attention, jumped up and saluted, you would fly up,
6 feet, but that is if you weren't carry those 50 pound packs and
that.

And the antennae were retractable antennae, and thats why
you can't see them all the time.

And yes, they lost all the original footage and original telemetry
but heck who keeps that stuff around?

The Smithsonian I mean they are too busy with other stuff,
you know there is more that goes on than just that sort of thing,
important stuff, and you know when someone retires, they clean out
their
desks and stuff gets moved around.
It is probably there somewhere on a shelf, collecting dust.

And people are always saying you can't see the stars behind them and
all that
well you just have to look closer.

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Apollo.html

See, if you look closer, now you can see the stars behind him.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 24, 8:58 pm, "GeekBoy" wrote:
wrote in message

ups.com...

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

Now when the LEM lifts off, you can't see the exhaust or dust,
because,
well do the math, what did the thing weight, a couple thousand pounds?

Have you completely forgetton about the difference of gravity? The moon
has
1/6th of the Earths

The whole thing weighed in at 32,399 lbs and the return module 10,024 lbs
on
Earth.
[source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module]

So.... the return module would only weight 1670 lbs on the Moon.
Big deal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDTH...elated&search=

How much thrust would you need to use, to lift a Harrier Jet, not much
and
they weigh so much more, than that.

And the noise, well, duh, they were in space, and everyone knows,
in space, no one can hear you scream.

Exactly 1600 pounds, a Volkswagen, and how much thrust would it take
to
propel it into the air, not much, and to land it, the same.

Let me tell you something, when I was a kid, I went to the science
center
in Toronto, and they had a computer model of the LEM, and the
controls,
and you had to land the LEM on the moon, using those controls,
and sure, no one could do it, but that was because we didn't have the
right stuff.
No one did.

Those guys trained for that. You know, looking out the window, get er
done boys
get er done and all that.

They were focussed.

And it really isn't that difficult to fly a craft that has one central
jet under it,
because the jet swivels you see, and you can compensate, for it
wanting
to tip over, by swiveling the jet, in the direction, that you are
tipping over.

They practiced. As has been clearly shown in the video.
There are no actual reports of successful landings of the LEM on
earth,
and yes Armstrong had to eject, at the last second when he tried it,
but then, the difference is clear, because you go _slower in space,
and so, you have more time, to react, and so thats why.

There was also a arcade game that came out in 79 called "Lunar Lander" that
Atari put out.
The actual game was made in 73 on an IBM mainframe.
All you can do is tilt to the left or right and produce vertical thrust
while gravity is pulling you down with limited fuel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_L...mputer_game%29

People also forget that the Lunar module had a computer onboard to help them
land, although the Commodore VIC-20 had more power than it did.

On Feb 24, 9:57 pm, Jeremy Guerdon
wrote:
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:52:58 +0000, Jon Slaughter wrote:
"Bruce Scott TOK" ] wrote in
...
Schoenfeld wrote:

Take a look at this video of the Apollo II conference

I dunno about that video appearance, but recently I saw an interesting
film clip on one of the internet video sites.

In the clip I saw, the astronaut was dismounting the LEM and he made a
statement something like "one small step for man...". When the astronaut
stepped off the ladder, a studio light fell off its mount hit the ground a
few feet from the LEM. The director stopped the action and the video crew
was scrambling to re-assemble the scene.

Anyone else seen *that* clip?

Oh sure they rehearsed everything they were supposed to do on the
moon,
they even got Stanley Kubric to do some mock-ups so they would know
what
to expect when they got there.

You see, where you are out there, you know, so far away from home and
all that, you are out there representing America, and the world,
and you want to be sure, that you know what you are doing.

And he planned what he was going to say too, when he stepped off the
LEM,
and they had a camera on a remote arm or something there ready to film
that first step on the moon.

That footprint under the LEM, that wasn't really a footprint at all,
that was a mark,
a small crater, made by the um jet engine.

And sure lots of the footage has been sped up 50% and all that,
like the lunar rover, but again, its all relative.

All right, I give up.

You got us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D81hZ8HcFf0

If this was on the moon, at 1 6th the earths gravity, going over that
bump,
he would have flown through the air.

Some of the footage was shot by Kubric.

You have to prepare for these things in advance.

Like that during the Mars rover mission, that it started to snow in
Antarctica and
they had to shut the cameras down.
(did I just say that out loud?)

"The_Man" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 24, 2:58 pm, "GeekBoy" wrote:
"The_Man" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Feb 23, 8:03 pm, wrote:
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.

The amazing thing about the Moon Landing "hoax", is that it began with
the (very bad) motion picture "Capricorn One", "starring" among
others, O.J.

If all the "edidence" of a "hoax" were so "overwhelming", how come
nobody though of it until after a bad Hollywood flick?

Actually that is not true.
Here is a book that was published in 1976, two years before the movie was
released.

We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle

http://www.amazon.com/We-Never-Went-...87304875/sr=1-...

I stnad corrected. Bu this is even worse - Kaysing (the author) came
up with this drivel all by himself.


I think I had read the book, but it must have been over 10 years ago.
It included pictures and calculations using Newtonian physics to explain why
it was faked.
In some of the pictures he is saying "look this is where the lunar rover is
suppose to have first been, but we see its wheel tracks already there"

I think I saw a short done on the news or something many years ago about
this.







BTW, if you are really convinced that the Moon Landings were a hoax,
go ask Buzz Aldrin to swear on a Bible that he walked on the moon. The
last nit-wit to do that got a nice (and well-deserved) knuckle
sandwich from Aldrin.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 24, 10:49 pm, "GeekBoy" wrote:
"The_Man" wrote in message

oups.com...



On Feb 24, 2:58 pm, "GeekBoy" wrote:
"The_Man" wrote in message

roups.com...

On Feb 23, 8:03 pm, wrote:
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.

The amazing thing about the Moon Landing "hoax", is that it began with
the (very bad) motion picture "Capricorn One", "starring" among
others, O.J.

If all the "edidence" of a "hoax" were so "overwhelming", how come
nobody though of it until after a bad Hollywood flick?

Actually that is not true.
Here is a book that was published in 1976, two years before the movie was
released.

We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle

http://www.amazon.com/We-Never-Went-...87304875/sr=1-...

I stnad corrected. Bu this is even worse - Kaysing (the author) came
up with this drivel all by himself.

I think I had read the book, but it must have been over 10 years ago.
It included pictures and calculations using Newtonian physics to explain why
it was faked.
In some of the pictures he is saying "look this is where the lunar rover is
suppose to have first been, but we see its wheel tracks already there"

I think I saw a short done on the news or something many years ago about
this.



BTW, if you are really convinced that the Moon Landings were a hoax,
go ask Buzz Aldrin to swear on a Bible that he walked on the moon. The
last nit-wit to do that got a nice (and well-deserved) knuckle
sandwich from Aldrin.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, I suppose its the whole double the tape speed and it looks like
earth.

How easy was it to fool people?

Just bounce around, use the guy wires, have a small gas jet on your
pack,
at the top, in case the wires flash, have an antennae, you know make
it look
good, do retakes, go over everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbxkcEW3UYM

You can clearly see the wire just above his pack. If you know where to
look.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Feb 24, 9:28 pm, wrote:
On Feb 24, 8:58 pm, "GeekBoy" wrote:



wrote in message

oups.com...

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

Now when the LEM lifts off, you can't see the exhaust or dust,
because,
well do the math, what did the thing weight, a couple thousand
pounds?

Have you completely forgetton about the difference of gravity? The moon
has
1/6th of the Earths

The whole thing weighed in at 32,399 lbs and the return module 10,024
lbs on
Earth.
[source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module]

So.... the return module would only weight 1670 lbs on the Moon.
Big deal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDTH...elated&search=

How much thrust would you need to use, to lift a Harrier Jet, not
much
and
they weigh so much more, than that.

And the noise, well, duh, they were in space, and everyone knows,
in space, no one can hear you scream.

Exactly 1600 pounds, a Volkswagen, and how much thrust would it take
to
propel it into the air, not much, and to land it, the same.

Let me tell you something, when I was a kid, I went to the science
center
in Toronto, and they had a computer model of the LEM, and the
controls,
and you had to land the LEM on the moon, using those controls,
and sure, no one could do it, but that was because we didn't have the
right stuff.
No one did.

Those guys trained for that. You know, looking out the window, get er
done boys
get er done and all that.

They were focussed.

And it really isn't that difficult to fly a craft that has one central
jet under it,
because the jet swivels you see, and you can compensate, for it
wanting
to tip over, by swiveling the jet, in the direction, that you are
tipping over.

They practiced. As has been clearly shown in the video.
There are no actual reports of successful landings of the LEM on
earth,
and yes Armstrong had to eject, at the last second when he tried it,
but then, the difference is clear, because you go _slower in space,
and so, you have more time, to react, and so thats why.

Yes thats true, the moon only has one 6th, the earths gravity,
so if you stood at attention, jumped up and saluted, you would fly up,
6 feet, but that is if you weren't carry those 50 pound packs and
that.

And the antennae were retractable antennae, and thats why
you can't see them all the time.

And yes, they lost all the original footage and original telemetry
but heck who keeps that stuff around?

The Smithsonian I mean they are too busy with other stuff,
you know there is more that goes on than just that sort of thing,
important stuff, and you know when someone retires, they clean out
their
desks and stuff gets moved around.
It is probably there somewhere on a shelf, collecting dust.

And people are always saying you can't see the stars behind them and
all that
well you just have to look closer.

http://oea.larc.nasa.gov/PAIS/Apollo.html

See, if you look closer, now you can see the stars behind him.

Actually you should not be able to see the stars. We see them from the Earth
because the atmosphere is making it possible just like at certain times of
the day the sun looks larger than it normally is because of optics of the
atmosphere.