On Feb 24, 11:10 pm, "GeekBoy" wrote:
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.



Don't tell me ~that.

And no, they did not have ray guns, or find ray guns, on the moon.

And that fire flashing thing on their backpacks, that was the propane
gas jet
from their refrigeration system, along with an antennae.

Lots of flashing just above their packs went on as you can clearly
see.

On Feb 24, 6:21 pm, Bruce Scott TOK Use-Author-Supplied-Address-
] wrote:
Schoenfeld 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.

I find it telling that the same sort of people who indulge nonsense
because they can't deal with things like relativity are the same sort
who push things like 9/11 and moonlanding conspiracies.

And in all those cases it's pointless to argue with them, because they
have attained a faith-based level of illogical stupidity.

The west is gradually becoming non religious. Conspiracy theory and
various shades of spirituality are taking up the slack. Conservation
of idiocy.

You're watching someone's facial expression... seeing what you want to
see.

The USSR, having spent billions on their own planned moon landing
attempts, decides to go along with giving their bitter rivals all the
glory for having spent a few hours in a TV studio.

And this man's facial expressions prove it.

wrote in message
oups.com...
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.


That's an antennae, not a wire.

On Feb 24, 11:42 pm, "Robert S" wrote:
On Feb 24, 6:21 pm, Bruce Scott TOK Use-Author-Supplied-Address-

] wrote:
Schoenfeld 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.

I find it telling that the same sort of people who indulge nonsense
because they can't deal with things like relativity are the same sort
who push things like 9/11 and moonlanding conspiracies.

And in all those cases it's pointless to argue with them, because they
have attained a faith-based level of illogical stupidity.

The west is gradually becoming non religious. Conspiracy theory and
various shades of spirituality are taking up the slack. Conservation
of idiocy.

You're watching someone's facial expression... seeing what you want to
see.

The USSR, having spent billions on their own planned moon landing
attempts, decides to go along with giving their bitter rivals all the
glory for having spent a few hours in a TV studio.

And this man's facial expressions prove it.

He was just nervous.
You know had a bit of stage fright.

The fact that most of the astronauts didn't want to swear on a Bible,
that they had walked on the moon, I mean would you?
C'mon. Lets get serious here.

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:57:12 -0600, Jeremy Guerdon wrote:


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?




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Lcx2hcmJs

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.

I believe, I believe. Who handles the funding to pay for this massive
coverup?
I want a nice suplemental bit of cash with no reporting needed.

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Feb 24, 11:10 pm, "GeekBoy" wrote:
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.



Don't tell me ~that.

And no, they did not have ray guns, or find ray guns, on the moon.

And that fire flashing thing on their backpacks, that was the propane
gas jet
from their refrigeration system, along with an antennae.

Lots of flashing just above their packs went on as you can clearly
see.


I don't see "flashing," but I sure do see lots of reflections of the sun on
the pack over exposing the camera.

On Feb 25, 7:35 am, "Me" wrote:
Neil armstrong does not look like that or talk like that and the other two
men do not resemble those people either.

Sheesh, you landing-believers get more delusional with time (squared).

wrote in message
ups.com...
Take a look at this video of the Apollo II conference

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


I much prefer this one - entitled Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage it
purports to show that the 'low gravity' effects were faked using 'Peter Pan'
stage show type wires.

However, if you look at the images of the Astronaut trying to stand up at
2:14 you can quite clearly see the fall of dust as kicked up by his left
foot. That couldn't have been shot on earth. From a very minor movement of
his foot you can see the dust as it lands - and it reaches a distance of at
least 2 or 3 metres without any air resistance.

It's a very effective demonstration of the difference that an airless
environment like the Moon makes.

If that's THEIR evidence it's clear they don't have a clue.
..

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.

I much prefer this one - entitled Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage it
purports to show that the 'low gravity' effects were faked using 'Peter Pan'
stage show type wires.

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

However, if you look at the images of the Astronaut trying to stand up at
2:14 you can quite clearly see the fall of dust as kicked up by his left
foot. That couldn't have been shot on earth. From a very minor movement of
his foot you can see the dust as it lands - and it reaches a distance of at
least 2 or 3 metres without any air resistance.

It's a very effective demonstration of the difference that an airless
environment like the Moon makes.

If that's THEIR evidence it's clear they don't have a clue.
..