If the moon landing was faked...

I've been watching some of the Spacecraft films videos of Apollo
missions, 7 through 15 so far.

Got me thinking...

If the first moon landing was faked, why do more? They could have
said "we beat the russians to the moon, we're happy". Why take the
time and trouble to fake 6 more missions?

The DVDs I have range from 8 or 10 to over 20 hours of footage. Why
would they do all this if it wasn't real?

PowerPost2000 wrote:
If the first moon landing was faked, why do more? They could have
said "we beat the russians to the moon, we're happy". Why take the
time and trouble to fake 6 more missions?

Maybe they had a contract with Chesley Bonestell that ran for 7 jobs?
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:

PowerPost2000 wrote:


If the first moon landing was faked, why do more? They could have
said "we beat the russians to the moon, we're happy". Why take the
time and trouble to fake 6 more missions?



Maybe they had a contract with Chesley Bonestell that ran for 7 jobs?
--scott



After the Apollo 11 landing revealed the surface of the Sea Of
Tranquility to be a rolling dust covered plain, WvB turned to Chesley
Bonestell (who was at mission control for the landing) and said: "Don't
worry Chesley; you were right- it was the Moon that was wrong." ;-)
Still, even Chesley would have gotten some satisfaction in a picture
like this:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/pla...tt_boulder.jpg
or this:
http://www.astro.czuby.net/photos/Ksiezyc_(55)/apollo%2017%20-%20large%20lunar%20boulder.jpg

Pat

http://www.astro.czuby.net/photos/Ksiezyc_(55)/apollo%2017%20-%20large%20lunar%20boulder.jpg
Pat Flannery,
Since their superimposed Earth is merely worth 1.9°, it's fairly
obvious that the Hasselblad 6X6 format camera lens must have been that
of an in between custom/stealth lens that supposedly wasn't within
their standard inventory, offering a moderate diagonal telephoto ratio
of roughly 28:1 (diagonal FOV = 28 x 1.9 = 53°). Of course those
pesky 85% albedo clouds of Earth are unfortunately not all that much
brighter than portions of that unusually clean and essentially
moon-dust free rock that's sharing an albedo close to 70%, with the
moonscape being within the realm 50+%. Perhaps that big moon rock
that's so reflective was actually a large rock like formation of their
moon guano, or possibly of dirty moon salt/sodium.

Since Earth should have been an extremely vibrant bluish orb as having
it's extra kilometers worth of an atmospheric layer plus such highly
reflective clouds, I can't but wonder why they felt it so necessary as
to having turned down the color saturation of so many of their color
prints to roughly 10%~5% of normal? Even in B&W format the near-blue
and near-UV spectrum worth of our Earth should have been extremely
vibrant to that of an optically unfiltered Kodak eye that's typically
extra sensitive to such bluish and even a bit of the UV-a color
spectrum.

Too bad the likes of Venus or any other planet wasn't ever within frame
upon any of their EVA expeditions, whereas compared to mother Earth is
where the likes of Venus would obviously have been the much smaller
item but otherwise downright blinding to the unfiltered Kodak eye
(especially without such optics having a fairly substantial UV filter).
The same can be said of the near-blue and UV-a worth of Sirius that
must have always been hiding itself directly behind the moon. Of
course within two of those Apollo missions is where Venus would have
been downright impossible to have excluded, yet somehow they managed.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/ch1.htm
"Hasselblad EL. Electric; interchangeable 80-, 105-, 250-, and 500-mm
focal length lenses; 105-mm lens transmits ultraviolet (UV)
wavelengths."

BTW; Their Westinghouse Color TV Camera also had no such near-UV/UV-a
deep cutoff filter. Though having a farily low resolution at 200
lines, but otherwise having offered a darn good dynamic range of
operation from 5 to 12,000 f-c (that's a nifty DR of 2400 which is way
better than double that of their film, yet still no such other planets
nor stars that even film should have recorded).

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/pla...tt_boulder.jpg
Here we have our naked moonsuit of roughly 85% albedo, accommodating
our brave and obviously rad-hard DNA astronaut as walking upon our
totally gamma and otherwise hard-X-ray moon, plus having to endure
loads of direct and of secondary IR that should have been efficiently
reflected at 33% off the otherwise nearly 7% average visual albedo
instead of the apparent 55+% visual albedo of their very guano like
moon that was so nicely covered in such a nifty thin layer of clumping
and non-electrostatic portland cement and cornmeal. Notice how the
darkest of that moon-dust which should have been infused with the likes
of titanium. iron and carbon/soot isn't hardly below the 20% albedo
mark. Notice how the upper surface of that big rock is offering
somewhat less of an incline yet accommodates no such moon-dust
whatsoever (must have been cleaned off from all of that solar wind).
Notice how the not so distant terrain that's unless you're standing
upon a hill simply can't be hardly more than a km to the horizon, yet
our moon seems to be offering such an unusually clean terrain which
hasn't hardly another such rock or much less of any dark and nasty
meteorites to spare, or even one lousy exposure worth of the nearly
coal like darkness worth of lunar basalt in sight. This image is
actually suggesting they were within somewhat of a crater like
depression with all of those nicely eroded soft hills surrounding that
perhaps should not ave any more moon-dust upon them than thar hills
than upon that nifty terrestrial looking rock.

BTW No.2; I believe that most of those camera lenses did so happen to
incorporate a neutral polarised filter, that which should have made for
their portland cement and cornmeal surface of their otherwise guano
like moon record as somewhat darker than otherwise recorded w/o benefit
of such an optical element. I'll also gladly post links to those
official color and even of those UV sensitive B&W images of our red,
white and blue flag that oddly recorded such colors as though being of
xenon lamp spectrum illuminated. Imagine that, apparently our sun upon
our naked moon is actually a raw xenon illumination spectrum with damn
little UV and essentially contributing nothing of hard-X-rays or
otherwise adding to the horrific cosmic gamma influx.

Apollo-11 July 20th, 1969 (distance from the surface of moon to surface
of Earth)
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/uncgi/Earth
12:00 UTC July 21, 1969 View from Moon: 379,829 km above 8°19'S
75°7'E

The average distance = 384,467 km or 384,401 km depending on which
US/Russian science you'd care to select. Aparently the actual average
distance is just about anything you'd care to make it as pertaing to
whatever lat/long position upon this Earth you're stiuated at, and of
course since Earth's tilt has been continually shifting about is
certainly why there's hardly any absolute way of folks knowing the
center to center average distance from any one given surface location.
Again, it's too bad that we still haven't established anything as
efficiently station-keeping itself within the interactive LL-1 zone
that would have told us damn near everything we'd care to know, and
then some.

Supposedly (according to NASA) their "normal 80-millimeter lens could
be easily replaced with a 105-millimeter, 250-millimeter, or
500-millimeter lens". Of course with moonsuit gloves it's nearly
impossible if not simply unwise to change a given lense once you're on
the EVA go. There's also the fairly nasty electrostatic moon-dust
consideration plus the continuous extremes of IR that's obviously
direct as well as per secondary that's contributing roughly another 33%
as reflected, as essentially providing extra IR energy for man and
machine to deal with, along with a thin/(low density) of a nearly
crystal clear atmospheric layer of a few of those highly insulative
elements to boot. Gee whiz folks, besides all of the gamma/hard-X-rays
and of being so damn hot and nasty in ways of being so coal like
carbon/soot worthy of being electrostatic dusty and of avoiding
whatever's actually tens of meters deep in places, and yet we're still
supposed to perceive there's no insurmountable problems to behold.
-
Brad Guth

PowerPost2000 wrote:
If the first moon landing was faked, why do more? They could have
said "we beat the russians to the moon, we're happy". Why take the
time and trouble to fake 6 more missions?

You know Hollywood: if one movie is a success, it'll be followed by
numerous sequels...

Mark

PowerPost2000,
There's metric tonnes worth of gold in them thar hills. Meaning that
on both sides of this perpetrated cold-war fence there were tens of
thousands of jobs and seriously big-time financial and retirement
benefit rewards for being encharge of such a grand collective, whereas
such a hoax or not was all that counts, as otherwise keeping thousands
of such highly paid positions at the top that simply would not have
been created and/or sustained so long after WW-II, was clearly their
priority No.1 objective. This is not even to mention upon all of their
religious ruse factors that already had a long and bloody history of
getting their way, or else.

It's not that each side wasn't at the time honestly trying to get
something to/from our extremely nearby moon. Once our first Apollo
mission failed but was having to be hoaxed along in order to look as
though we'd accomplish the task (else funding would have been cut),
then it was just more of the same dry-runs, along with each effort
obtaining more expertise and soft-science with regards to what human
space travels and that task of having to eventually accomplish our moon
actually represented, and therefore the learning curve of appreciating
the daunting task of actually getting something/anything safely onto
that nasty sucker was gradually becoming a reality, that should become
doable as of today, or of at least the near furture of what
sufficiently robust robotics can manage.

Radiation, pesky meteorites and/or meters deep moon-dust or not, just
their own Kodak moments has long since proven as a hard matter of
physics fact that such unfiltered photos were not as such obtained
while upon our dark and nasty moon. So, where's the argument?

The likes of "tj Frazir" and of so many others as having been
sufficiently correct about our moon being one extremely nasty
radioactive plus cosmic/solar reactive place that our frail DNA simply
can not have survived unscaved, but then why not collectively work
together at terminating the likes of NASA once and for all?

This Usenet of incest cloned "Art Deco" types being just another borg
like brown-nosed collective part of their ongoing ruse/sting of the
century, whereas their pagan religious and political skewed agenda has
been clearly based upon a butt-loads of space-toilet infomercial
crapolla, or much worse.

Why are these folks pretending at being so all-knowing but otherwise so
unable or unwilling to contribute to the actual task of informing the
public, as to sharing the information as to how badly they've been
snookered, and that far too many having died as a direct result of this
perpetrated cold-war and the ongoing science ruse/sting of the century.
tj Frazir; all these elements are charged by cosmic rays.
tj Frazir; all these elements are in radioative constant.
tj Frazir; How much radioactive thorium can you stand ?
Russia/USSR since 1959 has in fact managed to have impacted our moon,
and subsequently we've impacted that nasty sucker many times with some
fairly big stuff, yet neither of us have thus far managed to establish
a surviving robotic science package (not that we haven't tried every
trick in the book) that's interactively contributing data as taken
directly from the lunar surface.

Unfortunately, survivable types of impactors having robust micro
circuitry and thus being capable of such methods having provided
suitable data from such science instruments simply haven't been allowed
anywhere near our moon, and as far as anyone knows about fly-by-rocket
landers that simply have not been up to the task of accommodating the
necessary deorbit and down-range while dealing with lunar mascons,
whereas the obvious thin atmosphere and terribly nasty surface
environment limits our options of getting anything of size and mass
safely deployed without such efforts involving some degree of final
impact into the meters deep layers of salty and reactive moon dust, or
having to termiate into a nearly solid basalt crater.

Oddly, the ongoing exclusions of existing evidence, especially as to
our moon's gamma and secondary/recoil worth of hard-X-rays, has thus
far been the status quo of what has been excluded from their
hard-science, as well as having been banished away from the remote
soft-science as published for the rest of us village idiots to read
about, just as were the similar gamma and other radiation spectrum
readings as taken from our privately funded Lunar Prospector. In other
words, it has been impossible that folks encharge of such instruments
as having received these science readings about the existing gamma and
hard-X-ray potential of our moon to have not known about such facts, as
having been in fact playing along with our original perpetrated
cold-war game plan, by way of having excluded whatever doesn't agree
with the NASA/Apollo scriptures and political agenda. The same tactic
goes for whatever Venus has had to offer.

You'd think that this degree of skewed science as having lied it's
butt(s) off and then having ever since been continually involved with
covering thy butt(s) is as bad off as it gets, but it's not even the
worse part of what such dastardly deeds have actually amounted to. The
likes of "tj Frazir" have been sufficiently right from the very
beginnings, yet having become somewhat diverted by way of these Usenet
rusemasters and of their own mindset that wants certain things to be
the case, when in fact so much of science and thus history is simply
skewed beyond the point of no return.
-
Brad Guth

Originally Posted by Brad Guth

PowerPost2000,
There's metric tonnes worth of gold in them thar hills. Meaning that
on both sides of this perpetrated cold-war fence there were tens of
thousands of jobs and seriously big-time financial and retirement
benefit rewards for being encharge of such a grand collective, whereas
such a hoax or not was all that counts, as otherwise keeping thousands
of such highly paid positions at the top that simply would not have
been created and/or sustained so long after WW-II, was clearly their
priority No.1 objective. This is not even to mention upon all of their
religious ruse factors that already had a long and bloody history of
getting their way, or else.

It's not that each side wasn't at the time honestly trying to get
something to/from our extremely nearby moon. Once our first Apollo
mission failed but was having to be hoaxed along in order to look as
though we'd accomplish the task (else funding would have been cut),
then it was just more of the same dry-runs, along with each effort
obtaining more expertise and soft-science with regards to what human
space travels and that task of having to eventually accomplish our moon
actually represented, and therefore the learning curve of appreciating
the daunting task of actually getting something/anything safely onto
that nasty sucker was gradually becoming a reality, that should become
doable as of today, or of at least the near furture of what
sufficiently robust robotics can manage.

Radiation, pesky meteorites and/or meters deep moon-dust or not, just
their own Kodak moments has long since proven as a hard matter of
physics fact that such unfiltered photos were not as such obtained
while upon our dark and nasty moon. So, where's the argument?

The likes of "tj Frazir" and of so many others as having been
sufficiently correct about our moon being one extremely nasty
radioactive plus cosmic/solar reactive place that our frail DNA simply
can not have survived unscaved, but then why not collectively work
together at terminating the likes of NASA once and for all?

This Usenet of incest cloned "Art Deco" types being just another borg
like brown-nosed collective part of their ongoing ruse/sting of the
century, whereas their pagan religious and political skewed agenda has
been clearly based upon a butt-loads of space-toilet infomercial
crapolla, or much worse.

Why are these folks pretending at being so all-knowing but otherwise so
unable or unwilling to contribute to the actual task of informing the
public, as to sharing the information as to how badly they've been
snookered, and that far too many having died as a direct result of this
perpetrated cold-war and the ongoing science ruse/sting of the century.
tj Frazir; all these elements are charged by cosmic rays.
tj Frazir; all these elements are in radioative constant.
tj Frazir; How much radioactive thorium can you stand ?
Russia/USSR since 1959 has in fact managed to have impacted our moon,
and subsequently we've impacted that nasty sucker many times with some
fairly big stuff, yet neither of us have thus far managed to establish
a surviving robotic science package (not that we haven't tried every
trick in the book) that's interactively contributing data as taken
directly from the lunar surface.

Unfortunately, survivable types of impactors having robust micro
circuitry and thus being capable of such methods having provided
suitable data from such science instruments simply haven't been allowed
anywhere near our moon, and as far as anyone knows about fly-by-rocket
landers that simply have not been up to the task of accommodating the
necessary deorbit and down-range while dealing with lunar mascons,
whereas the obvious thin atmosphere and terribly nasty surface
environment limits our options of getting anything of size and mass
safely deployed without such efforts involving some degree of final
impact into the meters deep layers of salty and reactive moon dust, or
having to termiate into a nearly solid basalt crater.

Oddly, the ongoing exclusions of existing evidence, especially as to
our moon's gamma and secondary/recoil worth of hard-X-rays, has thus
far been the status quo of what has been excluded from their
hard-science, as well as having been banished away from the remote
soft-science as published for the rest of us village idiots to read
about, just as were the similar gamma and other radiation spectrum
readings as taken from our privately funded Lunar Prospector. In other
words, it has been impossible that folks encharge of such instruments
as having received these science readings about the existing gamma and
hard-X-ray potential of our moon to have not known about such facts, as
having been in fact playing along with our original perpetrated
cold-war game plan, by way of having excluded whatever doesn't agree
with the NASA/Apollo scriptures and political agenda. The same tactic
goes for whatever Venus has had to offer.

You'd think that this degree of skewed science as having lied it's
butt(s) off and then having ever since been continually involved with
covering thy butt(s) is as bad off as it gets, but it's not even the
worse part of what such dastardly deeds have actually amounted to. The
likes of "tj Frazir" have been sufficiently right from the very
beginnings, yet having become somewhat diverted by way of these Usenet
rusemasters and of their own mindset that wants certain things to be
the case, when in fact so much of science and thus history is simply
skewed beyond the point of no return.
-
Brad Guth

I normally ignore this provocative subject, since there are some of you psuedo-scientists and engineeers bloviating here that haven't a year's formal science training or common sense among you. As a "front-line" Flight Controller in Mission Control and an integral participant for the entire Apollo Program, I will tell you unequivocally that we did indeed sucessfully land humans on the Moon and return them safely to Earth on all the missions so reported. If you continue to believe otherwise, then I can only assume that you're off your meds or are communicating from some loony bin. Or perhaps you desire to sell books to other people with "tin foil hats."
Sy Liebergot
"Apollo EECOM: Journey of a lifetime"

Sy Liebergot ) writes:
Brad Guth dribbled more of his looniness and insanity:
PowerPost2000,
[....]
-
Brad Guth

I normally ignore this provocative subject, since there are some of you
psuedo-scientists and engineeers bloviating here that haven't a year's
formal science training or common sense among you. As a "front-line"
Flight Controller in Mission Control and an integral participant for
the entire Apollo Program, I will tell you unequivocally that we did
indeed sucessfully land humans on the Moon and return them safely to
Earth on all the missions so reported. If you continue to believe
otherwise, then I can only assume that you're off your meds or are
communicating from some loony bin. Or perhaps you desire to sell books
to other people with "tin foil hats."
Sy Liebergot
"Apollo EECOM: Journey of a lifetime"

Mr. Liebergot, Brad Guth is a well known kook whose insanity only
starts at " we never landed on the Moon ", but continues to goofy
**** about Venus ( When he started, his first posted " map of Venus ",
was actually one of *Mars* - really ) that makes lobotomy cases look
like Einstein & Hawking in contrast.

Pay him no mind, for he has none. Plonk the dip****, as most have
learned to do, and everyone, save him, but who cares about him,
will be the far far better for it.

And, kudos for your real work, and the telling of same.

Andre

Dear incest clond borg "Andre Lieven",
What can anyone that's the least bit human have to say about your pagan
Third Reich buttology of skewed DNA on a stick that's so incest
mutated?
-
Brad Guth

Dear incest cloned borg "Andre Lieven" and on behalf of the entire lot
of NASA's MIB/Usenet ****ologest,
What can anyone that's still the least bit human have to share about
your pathetic pagan Third Reich buttology of skewed DNA on a stick
that's so incest mutated?
-
Brad Guth