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."

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

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.

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 I've got a good dozen other items proving we've not
walked on our moon.

You do realize that your infomercial-science and conditional laws of
physics proves nothing.
-
Brad Guth

"PowerPost2000" wrote in message
...
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?


12 was faked too, and 13 was aborted as planned. This all gave NASA enough
time to finish the real vehicles. Apollo 14 was the first landing. All of
the moon rocks attributed to Apollos 11 and 12 were brought back in Harrison
Schmitt's underwear.

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.

On Sun, 07 May 2006 01:44:17 GMT, "Ten Cuidado"
wrote:

12 was faked too, and 13 was aborted as planned. This all gave NASA enough
time to finish the real vehicles. Apollo 14 was the first landing. All of
the moon rocks attributed to Apollos 11 and 12 were brought back in Harrison
Schmitt's underwear.

Now we know that can't be true - there's no way that Alan Shepherd
could keep quiet the fact that he was first man on the moon.

; How do you know what is or is not on the Moon
if we have never been there ??
If the moon landing was faked... There are some replicated forms of
remote science that'll provide for a sufficient degree of extrapolating
data from such soft-science that's perfectly usable as is. The regular
laws of physics is what stipulates that roughly the square root of the
gamma count is what makes for the bulk of the secondary/recoil worth of
the hard-X-ray count.

Taking remote readings of such gamma radiation is certainly a whole lot
safer and well enough accepted, so that you don't have to actually be
situated within the nuclear reactor core in order to realize and thus
having appreciated that your DNA would have otherwise been terminated.

Roughly 160~180 meters of our SL atmosphere as being somewhat equal to
the 18 mm worth of lead shielding that'll cut gamma and the subsequent
hard-X-ray dosage by 50%. Taking away this nifty radiation moderation
factor, such as that of residing upon our moon that supposedly does not
have a sufficient atmosphere, is what makes our moon into a rather
testy TBI worthy sort of orb.

Kodak film (color as well as B&W) has had a well established reaction
to the various spectrum of direct and reflected photons, that's well
documented as per such film recording upon those reflected photons as
having been derived from their being terrestrial or otherwise Xenon
lamp illuminated, as opposed to those more bluish skewed photons
offered by a raw solar spectrum that's absolutely chuck full of those
extra near-UV and UV-a energy photons that'll easily skew the colors
and/or having altered the reflective albedo of various colors on behalf
of B&W film (the color of blue should have recorded as a light gray to
being damn near white), as well as such raw photons having easily
generated those secondary/recoil worth of near-blue/black-light photons
(none of which ever once existed within any of those EVA obtained Kodak
moments).

Kodak film would also have unavoidably managed to have recorded 100
mrem worth of exposure (best noticed between or just outside of the
optically exposed frames). A full rem would have given an obvious
fogging affect throughout each and every roll and frame of their film.
It is technically impossible for those Apollo missions to have
experienced as little as a rem or rad worth of such harsh gamma and
hard-X-ray exposure while having been so radiation butt-naked upon that
surface, which frankly should have been absolutely dark and nasty as
the low albedo surface of our moon was supposed to have been.

There's simply nothing more to say, other than our NASA/Apollo fiasco
had in fact managed to have accomplished a real number upon us. We've
all been badly snookered (some of us to death) by way of those having
"the right stuff", and by now it has only cost humanity trillions per
decade and set us intellectually and scientifically back in time by a
good century per perpetrated cold-war decade.

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.
It's been more than a little hard for myself to believe in the sorts of
hype and infomercial-science that offers no other independent backing
or alternative interpretation, and therefore such infomercial-science
simply can not be replicated. Therefore, being "selective" seems to be
one of the few options that I have to work with, whereas I'd much
rather not have to be all that selective or much less without
sufficient hard-science.

Perpetuating my own cause is pretty much the same thing that Einstein
and countless others had to do if their ideas or results of whatever
research and/or discoveries were ever going to be taken seriously.
This isn't to say that I'm going to be 100% right about every
conceivable notion that I've ever proposed. If I managed to hit a 10%
mark of being correct is perfectly suficient, although obviously if I
could have managed to hit 50+% would certainly be an extra good thing.

Sometimes the truth is going to be either rather funny or it'll be
rather sad depending on how we're having to look at a given situation.

This Usenet from hell has been a very sad situation that's only become
funny as hell because of what has be forever lost. The global warming
fiasco is more than a sad situation, as well as our perpetrated
cold-war as turned out being such a drain upon humanity as well as upon
most every natural resources of energy. Having Snookered them Russians
with somewhat better smoke and mirrors was both funny and sad, whereas
of those believing that we've walked upon the moon is simply too funny
to being all that sad about, especially since they're so easily
snookered and subsequently dumbfounded that it's a lost cause for those
generations of fools upon fools that were too dumb and dumber to save
their own soul. It's totally funny that we haven't learned a damn
thing about humanity or about making due without the needless taking of
lives and/or the trashing of mother Earth.

What's "unrealistic" is that we're ever going to keep this
technological advantage over China, or even over those of the
ESA/Russian methods of advancing science and of applied space
technology that's primarily going for improving the quality of lives
other than merely focusing upon the upper most 0.1% that our NASA
caters to.

Roy L. Fuchs; You ****ing retard. Aluminum is transparent to X-rays.
Sorry to say that it is not exactly transparent to a given amount of
mass, and aluminum represents the sort of mass that'll generate those
somewhat softer X-rays than of what lead tends to generates. Therefore
more volume but otherwise less overall mass is going to be required of
using aluminum. Unfortunately, those moonsuits offered next to nothing
in volume or mass, and even those Apollo cameras and of their film
packs were made of relatively paper thin aluminum with only a wee bit
of extra material applied inside.

I tend to favor 18 mm(0.7") worth of good old lead or I'll take roughly
160 meters worth of SL atmosphere that'll provide a 50% reduction in
hard-X-rays, thus aluminum is in fact within the ballpark of being
sufficiently good for having provided some moderation. More
importantly is the secondary/recoil worth of hard-X-rays that are going
to get generated by way of all of the lunar gamma that's really hard to
stop (especially if you're situated outside the somewhat protective Van
Allen badlands, and obviously it's only much worse off if you're
orbiting just 100 km away from that reactive moon of ours. Even LL-1
at 58,000 km from the moon could still be somewhat gamma and hard-X-ray
nasty (at least from the direction of our moon).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_shield
"X-ray and gamma radiation are best absorbed by atoms with heavy
nuclei; the heavier the nucleus, the better the absorption. In some
special applications, depleted uranium is used, but lead is much more
common. Barium sulfate is used in some applications too. When cheapness
is important, almost any material can be used, but it must be far
thicker. One standard design practice is to measure the halving
thickness of a material, the thickness that reduces gamma or x-ray
radiation by half. When multiple thicknesses are built, the shielding
multiplies. For example, a practical shield in a fallout shelter is ten
halving-thicknesses of packed dirt. This reduces gamma rays by a factor
of 1/1024, which is 1/2 multiplied by itself ten times. This multiplies
out to 90 cm (3 ft) of dirt. Shields that reduce gamma ray intensity by
50% (1/2) include (see Kearney, ref):"
9 cm (3.6 inches) of packed dirt or
6 cm (2.4 inches) of concrete,
1 cm (0.4 inches) of lead,
150 m (500 ft) of air.
-

http://ohioline.osu.edu/~rer/rerhtml/rer_26.html
Table 1. Shielding Materials and Their Half-Thicknesses for Gamma
Radiation
Lead 0.7 inches
Iron 1.3 inches
Concrete 4.7 inches
-

I seem to recall this replicated basis of taking 0.7" or nearly 1.8 cm
of lead is required in order to provide us with a 50% reduction benefit
for gamma, whereas I therefore do not believe the previous stipulation
of using 0.4"(1 cm) worth of lead which has taken the inverse square
law into account (obviously wouldn't appliy for being on or even
anywhere near our moon) and/or simply had not taken into account for
the ongoing birth rate of the secondary/recoil dosage that's having
created a few extra hard-X-rays via the initial gamma radiation influx,
whereas instead it's only giving us the terrestrial effective half
dosage benefit of having moderated upon the original portion of what's
mostly hard-X-ray dosage. A good depth or distance of our atmosphere
is actually giving us a better denisty value by way of such lower
density shielding not having created the likes of so many of those
nasty secondary/recoil hard-X-rays. After recalculating the dosage
reduction that's provided by atmosphere, I'm willing to reconsider that
as little as 160 meters of SL atmosphere could suffice for obtaining
each half dosage, and thereby of 1600 meters yields a dosage reduction
potential of 1024:1 that seems perfectly rational unless my math is
still unintentionally skewed. Of course, the thinner that atmosphere
(AKA higher altitude) the greater the required distance per obtaining
each of those half dosage benefits.

However, upon our moon is where you can pretty much forget about having
any significant benefits from atmospheric moderation of whatever's
incoming or of any shield from the local radioactive plus reactive
contributions, that is unless our moon is actually offering a whole lot
more dense atmospheric medium than we've been informed of.
-
Brad Guth