If the moon landing was faked...

Nog wrote:
PowerPost2000 wrote:

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?

Only a total retard would think it was faked.

Oh, you've met Brad Guth and Daniel Min?

Brad Guth wrote:
Nog (aka "Only a total retard would think it was faked")
Only a Third Reich clone of a brown-nosed minion like yourself would
use infomercial-science and those NASA/Apollo conditional laws of
physics.

Hey! You stopped saying "Borg." The "Star Trek" lawyers finally get
onto you?

They just had a special on the Science channel on just how damn lucky
they'd gotten. All the things that went wrong or had to be "juryrigged"
were mind boggling.

The special had video footage of Buzz Aldrin bouncing around on the
moon around the flag which doesn't so much as flutter.

The engineering feat of creating a vacuum dome large enough to move
around in that way to rival the actual trip to the moon.

Tell me how they faked that and you might have a case.

wrote:
Nog (aka "Only a total retard would think it was faked")
Only a Third Reich clone of a brown-nosed minion like yourself would
use infomercial-science and those NASA/Apollo conditional laws of
physics.
You do realize just how gosh darn gamma and hard-X-ray hot and DNA
nasty our moon is.
You do realize that our moon isn't covered with a thin layer of
portland cement and cornmeal.
You do realize that Kodak's photon physics proves that those EVA images

were not of our moon.
You do realize that your infomercial-science and conditional laws of
physics proves nothing.

You do realize that your type of bantering proves nothing ??

How do you know what is or is not on the Moon if we have never been
there ??

It seems to me that you are very "selective" in what you believe, not
looking for the truth at all, only looking to perpetuate your own
cause, however unrealistic it is.

I've wondered that. I asked him once where he got his numbers from and
I think his rant translated to; "This is stuff that everyone knows."
But, if you've read any number of Brad's posts, you realize that trying
to figure out what he means from what he writes is always problematic!

Sy Liebergot wrote:
Brad Guth Wrote:
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

I haven't read Brad's response yet, but I'm willing to assume it's
going to run along the lines of; "You were part of the program,
therefore you have a vested interest in keeping the lie going."

Of course, being Brad, he will add a lot of "incest clone" references.

What it really amounts to is that no one at NASA will take his theory
of buildings on Venus seriously.

Brad Guth wrote:
Sy Liebergot,
How many times and ways can you be called a LLPOF brown-nosed borg of
the mainstream status quo?
You and your kind absolutely suck and blow, at delivering nothing but
disinformation and much worse.

See? Although he brought back the "borg" reference and dropped "incest
clone" this time. There isn't a lot of difference.

Tell me how they faked that and you might have a case.
edrho,
Obviously you're so brown-nosed and otherwise incest cloned that you
know absolutely nothing about 'blue screen' photography nor of the
massive vacuum chambers constructed in order to test/verify various
system plus obviously on behalf of live moonsuit testing.

You tell me know those Kodak moments were those of our moon via actual
EVAs that had no such viable fly-by-rocket lander to start with, that
were obtained without any hint of radiation, thermal stress nor being
been the least bit color spectrum skewed, and then I'll tell you how it
was accomplished upon a mostly guano island that was dusted with a thin
composite layer of what was 55+% albedo, somewhat the likes of portland
cement and cornmeal, while having been nicely xenon lamp illuminated.

BTW; Kodak's film DR was more than sufficient to have recorded other
planets besides mother Earth, and even a few of those pesky stars
(especially of the near-UV spectrum likes of the Sirius star system).
-
Brad Guth

Tell me how they faked that and you might have a case.
edrho,
Obviously you're so brown-nosed and otherwise incest cloned that
yourself and all of your kind know absolutely nothing about 'blue
screen' photography nor of the massive vacuum chambers constructed in
order to test/verify various system plus obviously on behalf of live
moonsuit testing.

Since you're so all-knowing, perhaps you might start off by telling us
how those Kodak moments were supposedly those of our moon via actual
EVAs that had no such viable fly-by-rocket lander to start with, that
were obtained without any hint of radiation, thermal stress nor being
been the least bit color spectrum skewed, and then I'll tell you how it
was accomplished upon a mostly guano island that was dusted with a thin
composite layer of what was 55+% albedo, somewhat the likes of portland
cement and cornmeal, while having been nicely xenon lamp illuminated.

BTW; Kodak's film DR was more than sufficient to have recorded other
planets besides mother Earth, and even a few of those pesky stars
(especially of the near-UV spectrum likes of the Sirius star system)
would have been impossible to have excluded.
-
Brad Guth

edrho,
Why are you folks trying so gosh darn hard in order to prove that
you're all such an incest cloned borg collective of the Third Reich?
Are you actually that hard-line Jewish, or just pretending?

As I'd previously contributed that obviously you're all so brown-nosed
and otherwise incest cloned that yourself and all of your kind know
absolutely nothing about 'blue screen' photography nor of the massive
vacuum chambers constructed in order to test/verify various system plus
obviously on behalf of live moonsuit testing.

But since you're otherwise so gosh darn all-knowing or otherwise having
been snookered and summarily dumbfounded to boot, perhaps you might
start off by telling us village idiots how those Kodak moments were
supposedly those of our moon via actual EVAs that had no such viable
fly-by-rocket lander to start with, that were obtained without any hint
of radiation, thermal stress nor being been the least bit color
spectrum skewed, and then I'll tell you how it was accomplished upon a
mostly guano island that was dusted with a thin composite layer of what
was most often represented as the 55+% albedo, somewhat the likes of
portland cement and cornmeal, while having been nicely xenon lamp
illuminated.

BTW; Kodak's film DR was more than sufficient to have recorded other
planets besides mother Earth, and even a few of those pesky stars
(especially sensitive of easily having recorded the near-UV spectrum
likes of the Sirius star system) as such would have been impossible to
have excluded.

Since unfiltered Kodak film doesn't lie, therefore, how many lies upon
lies are you folks planning upon telling us?

There's so much that's terrestrial about those EVA Kodak moments that
it's almost too silly having to explain the obvious over and over. The
laws of Kodak's photon physics are exactly what they are, and of our
radioactive and otherwise naked, physically dark and downright nasty
plus badly reactive moon of gamma and hard-X-rays is exactly what it
is. Where's the problem?
-
Brad Guth

Brad Guth wrote:
Tell me how they faked that and you might have a case.
edrho,
Obviously you're so brown-nosed and otherwise incest cloned that
yourself and all of your kind know absolutely nothing about 'blue
screen' photography nor of the massive vacuum chambers constructed in
order to test/verify various system plus obviously on behalf of live
moonsuit testing.

So the flag was superimposed on the screen? Or there was a HUGE vacuum
chamber designed to look like the moon? You are a clown.

Since you're so all-knowing, perhaps you might start off by telling us
how those Kodak moments were supposedly those of our moon via actual
EVAs that had no such viable fly-by-rocket lander to start with, that
were obtained without any hint of radiation, thermal stress nor being
been the least bit color spectrum skewed, and then I'll tell you how it
was accomplished upon a mostly guano island that was dusted with a thin
composite layer of what was 55+% albedo, somewhat the likes of portland
cement and cornmeal, while having been nicely xenon lamp illuminated.

If you're talking about the actual Apollo missions, they had the LEMs.
They were clunky, but they worked. Barely as it turns out, but they
worked.

If you're talking about some other "EVA" you'll have to be a little
more clear.


BTW; Kodak's film DR was more than sufficient to have recorded other
planets besides mother Earth, and even a few of those pesky stars
(especially of the near-UV spectrum likes of the Sirius star system)
would have been impossible to have excluded.
-
Brad Guth

I'm certain the film was sensitive enough. They had the exposure
clocked down to avoid washing everything out.

I'm sorry you have trouble grasping that. OTOH, I'm sorry you bother
posting this nonsense.

So the flag was superimposed on the screen? Or there was a HUGE vacuum
chamber designed to look like the moon? You are a clown.
edrho,
So you're into calling hard-science and the regular laws of physics as
bing "a clown"?

Apparently the hard-science as to lunar sodium/salt isn't real, any
more so than the gamma and hard-X-rays are not for real.

You obviously haven't a freaking clue as to how their unproven
fly-by-rocket landers even managed w/o momentum reaction wheels, as
well as still no documentation or demo R&D prototype whatsoever, much
less a clue about all of the gamma/x-ray dosage or of their Kodak
moments that couldn't possibly be those obtained while on our terribly
dark and nasty as well as reactive moon?

If you're talking about some other "EVA" you'll have to be a little
more clear.
All of them (you pick and I'll share my observationology expertise upon
any such image). How's that for being perfectly clear?

I'm certain the film was sensitive enough. They had the exposure
clocked down to avoid washing everything out.
Lens opening/shutter exposure has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do
with excessive IR, gamma or of hard-X-rays. The average moon albedo of
7% is getting damn near coal/soot like black and nasty, as well as for
being highly reactive and otherwise electrostatic charged to well above
millions of volts, not to mention all of that moon-dust getting tens of
meters deep in places.
-
Brad Guth