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.

With persuasive "proof" such as this argument, I see no reason not to
assume that the astronaut also shot JFK, concealed "BigFoot", covered
up Roswell, and is cheating on his wife...

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.

On Feb 23, 4:03 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.

Go go gadget conspiracy theory!

What will it be next week, schoenfelch?

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?

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.

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

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


Yes, its true. They read what they want to support there conclusions. (The
total opposite of logic and science)

But it is odd the way he is acting. He seems too nervous. What does this
means? Does this mean that it was all a hoax? Maybe... But chances are its
something more sinister. Maybe something like he's just been in space for
for a week and feels like ****.

The problem with most of these idiots that I see is they think they know how
one would act after doing something like that. They say "****, he's just
been the first guy on the moon. He should be feeling great." How do they
know that? Its just another case of someone thinking they know everything
about everything and when something doesn't jive with there reasoning then
they make up evidence to support it.

Its amazing we have so many idiots in the world. If only americans spent
more time in science classes they might get a clue. I guess though its hard
to teach a kid what logic is if when they go home they see there parents
being illogical.

"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-...e=UTF8&s=books


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.

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.

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.






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, 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.

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.