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!

(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

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