|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Was the Apollo moon landing faked?
No. You see, this is what happened.. In order to really fake it well, a guy did
go up there in the lander. However he had a pair of shoes tied to a stick and, from the lander, made the imprints. So, it is a fake after all, man never walked on the moon! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Was the Apollo moon landing faked?
(Diimeloo) wrote in message ...
No. You see, this is what happened.. In order to really fake it well, a guy did go up there in the lander. However he had a pair of shoes tied to a stick and, from the lander, made the imprints. So, it is a fake after all, man never walked on the moon! Instead of our killing off astronauts, how about this; Laser Interplanetary Communications / Venus ~ Earth I actually couldn't agree more about using whatever spaceships as for trade enterprise tools, especially for those flown by robotics like our Apollo missions (sort of controlled crash landings on the moon), at not 1% the cost of accomplishing anything manned and not 0% the chance of any carnage, though I don't consider the ESE fiasco as ever becoming a worthy topic of such robotics, at least not for a few decades worth and then only if someone other is paying for it. Lunar surface radiation is at least worth 342 rad (3.42 Sv) per day, and that's on a relatively nice sunny day having no significant sun spots and just a great deal of friendly energy output so as to fend off at least half of the cosmic influx. If you're bothering to be looking into those lunar image contents, then please look for those rather noticeable differences between those Mars landscapes strewn with meteorite debris and shards of whatever made it through the Mars atmosphere, then compare those images to the lunar environment as there should be more so of such on the moon, because there's absolutely no atmosphere to slow down, absorb energy nor deflect squat. The moon should have been a bloody morgue worth of such meteorites, whereas those Apollo lunar images offered nearly squat worth of meteorites. For the moment, you'll need to disregard all of the nearly 50% surface reflective index, as even though significant portions of the moon should be nearly soot black, perhaps 5% reflective at best, while the average should have amounted to all of 11%. Also disregard the 342 rads (3.42 Sv) per day, as that alone would has seriously fogged even the slow film speed of what those Apollo missions utilized. BTFW; with modern digital scanning, at perhaps 9600 dpi, of those negatives and/or transparencies, even pathetically dim stars could be realized and mapped for determining the location of camera origin, as obviously we already have the exact date and time to work with. Actually if to be speaking along the lines of most interesting of NASA obtained images, of depicting some sort of thoroughly exotic power/energy resources for anything interplanetary worthy and further, this one is way more than convincing (his video tape is worth the price and then some): David Sereda: EVIDENCE the case for NASA UFOs http://www.ufonasa.com/ Though why should we even bother going back to the moon or even off to a most likely inhabited planet like Venus, if we can otherwise establish a TRACE-II class instrument (outfitted with laser transceivers) at VL2, then using a relatively few quantum laser packets in order to obtain/exchange all the information necessary and then some. Only if need be to sending off a trading ship that'll do as little environmental damage on both ends, as well as for eliminating the age old problem of letting the other guy get a good look at exactly what you've honestly got to actually work with. http://www.geocities.com/bradguth/radio-maybe.htm Mars or bust; Here's another topic or two pertaining to what our frozen and irradiated to death Mars has to offer (damn little to say the most): I've looked again at some of the most interesting of Mars images; of those frozen trees or bushes or whatever looks like trees and/or bushes. I tend to agree that the Mars-tree image is simply too *plan view* and not of sufficient perspective to fully appreciate the vertical attributes, though I do believe there is a sufficient amount of vertical structure that's placing such patterns above the surface, of which is still not excluding some hybrid crystal growth rather than of frozen and irradiated to death trees or perhaps bushes. The notion of there being "star dunes" was offered by Tom Newcomb, is certainly just as worth another look-see as if those were once organic. Though for some unexplained reason there's been insufficient efforts at navigating the imaging probe into a better position for a perspective view. If we had applied the sort of SAR imaging technology as the Magellan did of Venus, at the rather terrific perspective view of 43°, then lo and behold we'd have far more usable as well as believable pixels to boot. From my observation of those same "Mars trees" images (http://www.geocities.com/bradguth/mars-01.htm), I tend to feel the shadows projected are more likely suggesting such are of sufficient conical structure, though that doesn't rule out the notions of "star dunes" nor of "mineral structures". As frozen trees or bushes tend to go, they're obviously not representing sufficient solids as to create a crisp shadow. There may likely be a good deal of crystal growth on top of whatever died, creating even further opacity and/or diffusion of light. The pathetically thin (7 to 8 mb) and damn cold (except for a few tropical zone hours above freezing), as well as for being situated within a horrifically irradiated to death environment (being further away from the sun may reduce the solar flak but it's certainly not helping with fending off the cosmic flak), would have needed a transition of perhaps at least thousands of years for DNA/RNA to have adapted. So far, I don't believe the surface impacts as indicated on half of Mars is offering much hope, but for a few years at best, since all environmental hell must have broken lose once Mars was impacted to such an extent. BTW; I've updated one of my pages pertaining to obtaining and/or extracting energy on location, of where others have been making a tough go of it on Venus: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/fire-on-venus.htm BTW No.2; Didn't you know that there's going to be all but one and only one LSE-CM/ISS (lunar space elevator). As opposing gravity-wells tend to go, this lunar/Earth one is about the only example within the recorded universe, and China has just as good if not a better shot at obtaining their LSE claim before our pathetic NASA gets off their bar stool, or perhaps off their space toilet; http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-cm-ccm-01.htm BTW; I've updated one of my old pages pertaining to obtaining and/or extracting energy on location, of where others have been making a tough go of it on Venus: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/fire-on-venus.htm Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Was the Apollo moon landing faked?
Could the cameras have been blocked...? Get the astronauts out while the white room was still in place, close everything up, retract Ahh camera footage could of easily been faked taken days earlier while the astronauts got out of the vehicle and were taken to the blast room in the basement of the launch pad. Many ays to fake things |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon | Kent Betts | Space Shuttle | 2 | January 15th 04 12:56 AM |
We choose to go to the Moon? | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 49 | December 10th 03 10:14 AM |
Was the Apollo moon landing faked? HERE'S PROOF | Brian Pemberton | Space Shuttle | 0 | November 18th 03 04:06 PM |
The Moon Landing Is A Hoax ! | Anonymous | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 3rd 03 09:43 PM |