SpaceBanter.com - View Single Post - A scientific approach to proving whether man landed on the moon

**[email protected]**

Professor Min wrote:
On 9 Jul 2006, wrote:
Professor Min wrote:
PS Independent reconstruction of an accurate and reliable
NASA chronology for those Apollo photos which reveal
with reasonable certainty a single light source "Look!
the sun looks just like a giant spotlight!" etc., that
would be the obvious place to start building your case.
snips

SNIPPITTYY Whereas...

I never claimed to fly a corporeal manned spacecraft clear to
the Moon and back on fully six separate occasions back in the
days when Richard Milhous Nixon was President of the U.S.A.:
and do so without so much as one casualty--particularly from
the intense radiation beyond ~450 miles above sea level, much
less far beyond the Earth into deep space, where raging solar
storms would've fried any living mortal creatures to a crisp!

I never made any such claim, NASA did. The burden of proof is
squarely on their shoulders, not mine. NASA has abjectly failed
to provide any such extraordinary proof that they did in fact
succeed with their allegedly "manned" Apollo missions--while
the hippies and flower children were jammin' down with Joplin,
Hendrix, and Morrison's latest hits on AM transistor radios...

Lacking any extraordinary proof of Apollo's "manned" success,
therefore every reasonable, rational, sane-minded person must
conclude that all the "manned" portions of the Apollo program
alleged to occur above ~450 miles a.s.l. never happened, but
were hoaxed on terrestrial soundstages...probably at Area 51.
^^^^^^^^^^^
That said...

Provided the date plus approximate time and place of an event,
any good astronomy program can reliably replicate said event
in basic astronomical terms. The momentary angle of sunlight
relative thereto being the most contextual example, to prove
or disprove extant public Apollo "men-on-the-moon" photographs.

Even using light-geocentric coordinates, it doesn't take the
proverbial rocket scientist to ascertain--within a reasonable
degree of certainty--where the light-apparent position of the
Sun was, is, or will be to a solar system body having a known
and reliable ephemeris. The ten major planets obviously being
the best-known and most well-established in all human history
(e.g. even Chris Marriot's 'Sky Map Pro' calls them "planets").

For example, if some of the Apollo "man-on-the-moon" photos
(those generally revealing a single--parallel--light source)
show shadows going off well to the right, when they should've
been going off well to the left, well, you get the "picture".

Beyond this, if several major universities, be they American
or otherwise, were to conduct a thorough investigation of the
matter, then publish their complete analysis, calculations and
conclusions for public scrutiny, nobody's stopping them, or are
they? Thus there are advantages to being a sovereign individual.

Enjoy!
Daniel Joseph Min

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRLFEUpljD7YrHM/nEQL+FwCfQ4IUQOpd2XOrW6DxdQIue2mSeugAoPFO
7moUkp2Ne8WfdbVzhlvZf+3T
=W+nv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

But of course not reading the question correctly can only lead to not
making a relevant answer.
What do we know of the Moon projects?
Well we know that there was no way, for astro/cosmo nauts to send
pictures in real time at that period, but we also know one S Kubrick
came into possesion of NASA satellite lenses which apparently or so the
story goes is how he filmed Barry Lyndon in real light but with a very
wide aperture, with said lenses, now like any Propaganda maybe Mr
Kubrick made those pictures for the Soviet audience to demonstrate
technological superiority, spin had a kernel of truth in those days,
hey I remmeber the Moon shot twas my birthday but being Oz it was a day
ahead, (non natal) but for the back room boys of that hidden society of
covert actions and arms dealers etc, you know the ones that stuff up
every now & then, remember Ollie North?
The Great game is not a conspiracy but the interface of relations and
actions, just outside the boundaries of sovereignty.
Hope that clears that up, has Minnie ever wondered why an Elvis
afficionado invests as much faith in his hero, as any religious zealot?
LB