Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 12:37 am Post subject:
outsider wrote:
That may be how you see it, but the point was being made by a professional, who makes films using wires to suspend people and make them appear to be douing all sorts of acrobatic feats. He claims it's clearly done with wires; I doubt you have enough experience to overide his judgement..
That much is true, but it's still thinly supported (groan) conjecture.
Just as with Irving-style historians, his objectivity may be an issue if he's a moon hoax supporter.
outsider wrote:
And remember, the 'wires' are just one of the many flaws in the 'Moon wallks'; I hadn't been aware of that aspect before seeing the video clip.
As you can no doubt tell I'm not a believer in the moon hoax, so I'll settle for calling them 'alleged flaws'. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
MASONIC ASTRONAUTS:
Edwin E. "Buzz" Aldrin, Jr., Leroy Gordon Cooper, Donn F. Eisele, Virgil I. Grissom, Edgar D. Mitchell, Walter M. Schirra, Jr., Thomas P. Stafford, Paul J. Weitz, James B. Irwin, John Glenn.
(and I'm sure at least two were 33* Scottish Rite, but I can't find the site at present)
Whilst obviously not proving the 'moon walks' and 'buggy-rides' were faked, I believe 33* Masons being involved should raise the suspicion level considerably (given their Luciferian orientation). _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Chek your example is 180 degrees different. Both crater shadow and darkness gradiation (gradation?) indicate a light source to the right
As Tele niftily points out, the faked picture crater shadow shows a light source coming from the left, wheras darkness also grad(i)ates to the left, a total impossibility for a point source. This single photo is conclusive evidence of fakery, and where there is fakery there is cover-up.
I think we have actually done some original research here Tele. Nice work M8 _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:11 am Post subject:
rodin wrote:
Chek your example is 180 degrees different. Both crater shadow and darkness gradiation (gradation?) indicate a light source to the right
This is true, but I didn't consider it necessary to flip the picture to illustrate the point I'm making.
rodin wrote:
As Tele niftily points out, the faked picture crater shadow shows a light source coming from the left, wheras darkness also grad(i)ates to the left, a total impossibility for a point source. This single photo is conclusive evidence of fakery, and where there is fakery there is cover-up.
I think we have actually done some original research here Tele. Nice work M8
But is it darkness or a dark area?
Have you got any reference with the photo Rodin?
It's cat. no. should identify when and where it was taken. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
No the point is not whether the light source is left or right. The point is that on your pic the crater shadows and dark/light gradation agree whereas in the fake picture they are 100% in conflict _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:48 am Post subject:
rodin wrote:
No the point is not whether the light source is left or right. The point is that on your pic the crater shadows and dark/light gradation agree whereas in the fake picture they are 100% in conflict
No, the situation is they appear to be in conflict to you based on the available data in the picture.
As Steve Jones points out in response to a similar apparent fallacy in Wood's erroneous rising dust, the solution is to get more data, which is why I'm requesting the source of the photo. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
No, the situation is they appear to be in conflict to you based on the available data in the picture.
You can't be serious. Tell me does the moon 'appear' to be getting darker as we go off to the left? That is because it does. Our eyes do not deceive. If you do not concede this point Chek you are either an illogical thinker or a keeper of the gate.
Thank goodness I am no longer 'validated'... _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
But is it darkness or a dark area?
Have you got any reference with the photo Rodin?
It's cat. no. should identify when and where it was taken.
I have trawled the entire Apollo 11 catalogue and can't seem to locate the image in question (that might just be me though).
It is however the phrase 'is it darkness or a dark area?', that I find the most perplexing in the context of the discussion. What are we saying is the difference? A darker surface colour being wrongly interpreted as shadow? In the image I supplied;
Even the dark surface areas receive the same intensity of light and no matter where you view the lit surface from, these areas appear brightly illuminated - so I am lost as to explain how a light source clearly off camera left and high could not fill the 'dark' area?
I have waded through heaps of similar lunar orbit images taken from assorted altitudes and can find not one that resembles the unusual distribution of shadows that we debate. All have either clean front to back flat lighting, or flat lighting that lead to the gradated cut-off into blackness at the terminator (the 'line' between light and dark on the lunar surface).
Starting work at 12, then going into a quick changeover, means I am out of here for a while. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 9:38 am Post subject:
rodin wrote:
chek wrote:
No, the situation is they appear to be in conflict to you based on the available data in the picture.
You can't be serious. Tell me does the moon 'appear' to be getting darker as we go off to the left? That is because it does. Our eyes do not deceive.
Oh yes they can and often do, everyday. We couldn't enjoy moving pictures otherwise
rodin wrote:
If you do not concede this point Chek you are either an illogical thinker or a keeper of the gate.
Thank goodness I am no longer 'validated'...
There is nothing the least bit illogical about seeing the need for more information to resolve anomalies, and an ultimatum doesn't change that.
As I previously commented - why would the photo need to be faked?
Are you suggesting that we haven't really invented satellites or unmanned probes? Because I can see no difference whether that photo was taken on a manned or unmanned mission.
The photo source is the next necessary step in taking this further. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 9:56 am Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
chek wrote:
But is it darkness or a dark area?
Have you got any reference with the photo Rodin?
It's cat. no. should identify when and where it was taken.
I have trawled the entire Apollo 11 catalogue and can't seem to locate the image in question (that might just be me though).
Me too, for several hours last night. The nearest similar lighting effect I can find is on Phobos which is smaller and irregularly shaped (and I didn't find those features there either).
telecasterisation wrote:
It is however the phrase 'is it darkness or a dark area?', that I find the most perplexing in the context of the discussion. What are we saying is the difference? A darker surface colour being wrongly interpreted as shadow? In the image I supplied;
Even the dark surface areas receive the same intensity of light and no matter where you view the lit surface from, these areas appear brightly illuminated - so I am lost as to explain how a light source clearly off camera left and high could not fill the 'dark' area?
I have waded through heaps of similar lunar orbit images taken from assorted altitudes and can find not one that resembles the unusual distribution of shadows that we debate. All have either clean front to back flat lighting, or flat lighting that lead to the gradated cut-off into blackness at the terminator (the 'line' between light and dark on the lunar surface).
Starting work at 12, then going into a quick changeover, means I am out of here for a while.
I think it may be possible from what I've seen so far that areas around the polar regions are not quite so clear cut, with darker dust areas by definition reflecting less light, together with slopes, lowlands and higher areas being more ambiguous as the light source and observation angle changes. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:08 pm Post subject:
OK, the mystery's semi-solved.
It appears that Rodin's supplied image has been retouched by Brittanica, possibly to highlight the main features of the semi-submerged Prinz crater and the rille lava flows. I've played around with levels and tone curves and can't arrive at EB's result, so I suspect the apparent dark area to the left has been airbrushed for illustrative balance purposes.
Or maybe they just like f*cking with conspiracy theorist's heads.
Here's Rodin's EB version:
Here's the original local area:
And finally the whole shot from the Apollo 15 mission (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/a15_m_2606.gif):
Right that's me - there must be another gate that needs keeping somewhere. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 21 Mar 2008 Posts: 20 Location: Derbyshire
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 6:43 pm Post subject:
I've heard alot of good points on The Moon Landing.
But after seeing Buzz punch that guy who said he hadn't been to the moon, I'm pretty sure they went _________________ Buy 9/11 Truth dvds on Amazon.com from seller BOXBOX - U.K residents get 2 or 3 FREE dvds from him with every order (due too the postage being $13 even though it only costs $3.65 at the most)
I've brought about 4 things from him and collected about 12 free dvds.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 7:58 pm Post subject:
A.L.EX-N.E.TA wrote:
I've heard alot of good points on The Moon Landing.
But after seeing Buzz punch that guy who said he hadn't been to the moon, I'm pretty sure they went
So if someone punches a 9/11 Truther. that means the Official Conspiracy Theory (Narrative) is correct???
Check this site out, and you will see that Masons are proud of their 33* 'Buzz' Aldrin; then search 'Thirty Three Degee Scottish Rite', and find out from some none-Masonic sites what 33* Masons are all about (the site following makes him 32*, but I have it from other sources he's now a 33*. However, it makes no odds, because from 30* they are made fully aware that Lucifer is their 'good' 'God'):
OK, the mystery's semi-solved.
It appears that Rodin's supplied image has been retouched by Brittanica, possibly to highlight the main features of the semi-submerged Prinz crater and the rille lava flows. I've played around with levels and tone curves and can't arrive at EB's result, so I suspect the apparent dark area to the left has been airbrushed for illustrative balance purposes.
Or maybe they just like f*cking with conspiracy theorist's heads.
Here's Rodin's EB version:
Here's the original local area:
And finally the whole shot from the Apollo 15 mission (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/a15_m_2606.gif):
Right that's me - there must be another gate that needs keeping somewhere.
Hmmm... must admit you have a point there Chek. On the surface (no pun intended of course) it looks as though the light gradation on the original bears no resemblance to the EB picture. Pity. I thought we were on top a good thing there.
Of course if the pics are really of the Moon it would not require a manned mission to get them...
Has anyone tried using colour balance on the original to see what happens when glare is reduced? _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject:
rodin wrote:
Has anyone tried using colour balance on the original to see what happens when glare is reduced?
I've tried the usual contrast/brightness/gamma and tone curve controls but I don't get that smooth effect like EB have managed. Whatever filter process they've used certainly seems to enhance and bring out the lighter details, but suppresses the darker ones.
It's arguably more informative as an image, at least as far as the central features being focussed on are concerned. But maybe a bit mischievous of them not to link to the original. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Having watched the two hour documentary last night on Channel 4 on the moon landings, I found the sincerity of the astronauts interviewed to be most heartfelt. Each had a very deep insight into their apparent and supposed sojourn to another heavenly body. The pristine footage of the lander ascending would be difficult to impossible to fake, given the technology of the day.
However, the overriding question I cannot answer, is why go so many times? In other words, why add so many additional missions, when the first went so swimmingly? Every one would add to those brought in to the conspiracy - why not stop after just two?
Every one moved closer to the place where the whole house of cards could be brought down. So many missions makes no sense if a sham - it is like a magician keep performing the same trick over and over - someone will eventually spot the sleight of hand, the black bag containing the rabbit, the secret pocket in the cloak.
Anyone else see the programme? _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 5:21 pm Post subject:
telecasterisation wrote:
Having watched the two hour documentary last night on Channel 4 on the moon landings, I found the sincerity of the astronauts interviewed to be most heartfelt. Each had a very deep insight into their apparent and supposed sojourn to another heavenly body. The pristine footage of the lander ascending would be difficult to impossible to fake, given the technology of the day.
However, the overriding question I cannot answer, is why go so many times? In other words, why add so many additional missions, when the first went so swimmingly? Every one would add to those brought in to the conspiracy - why not stop after just two?
Every one moved closer to the place where the whole house of cards could be brought down. So many missions makes no sense if a sham - it is like a magician keep performing the same trick over and over - someone will eventually spot the sleight of hand, the black bag containing the rabbit, the secret pocket in the cloak.
Well, ze short answer is it makes no sense because it is - how you say? - buerlocks.
A cracker fringe theory given mass media exposure as stage one of Murdoch's dumbing down stategy enabled by the freshly deregulated US TV networks.
Just as the education system is being terraformed into a training for employability scheme, we (as the current generations) are no longer meant to be standing on the shoulders of the giants that went before us, but are cast adrift on a sea of expediency, conspiracy and doubt, with our only guidance coming from the usual suspects. Or so they would like to have it.
telecasterisation wrote:
Anyone else see the programme?
If it was 'In the Shadow of the Moon', I'm about half way through it. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
http://www.mohavevalley68.com/famous_masons.htm _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:14 pm Post subject:
Here is a very interesting possibility - any of you guys and gals got the knowledge and software to run a 'voice scan' on these two clips, to see if they are both the same? They don't sound exactly the same, but the 'real' footage, if faked, would have had added sound effects. This should not fox the voice scanner.
If they both turn out to be the same - 'voila!' - no longer a 'controversy'.
Personally, I don't believe they landed on the moon, but if it turns out Armstrong was involved in 'fake' filming, it will pretty much give the Yanks game away:
Bravo!!! My position too. _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 11:03 pm Post subject:
outsider wrote:
telecasterisation wrote:
If we can get safely through Van Allen's infamous belts and they start building cities on the moon, who knows what might happen...
They might even find Bin Laden's hideaway!
Groan!! I've just realised I've been wrong all along - the 'beamers' must have been right, because as anyone can see, the Twin Towers have been 'beamed up' to the Moon!! _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
“In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.” -ADOLPH HITLER”, 1925.
Hummm, even a scum of the earth dirtbag like Adolph Hitler knew how to manipulate the masses…
So you think America actually landed men on the moon? Well, think again. We have proof that the moon landings in the late 60’s and early 70’s were all a big lie!
To start with, keep in mind that there was only about 100 people involved in the moon landing hoax. Mission Control in Houston as well as most of the men and women who worked on this project nearly 40 years ago had no idea it was a fake. But how is this possible? Very simple. The power elite who put on this fiasco never let anyone see too big of picture. The thousands of people involved only had their small part to worry about. Mission control was in Houston. The launch site in Florida. The engineers, mechanics, computer programmers etc, didn’t have jobs that mixed with each other. So most people couldn’t figure out the whole thing amounted to a Hollywood production.
In, 1962, then President John Kennedy said he had a vision of America “putting a man on the moon and returning him safely” before the decade is out. Now, we don’t know if at the time Kennedy knew this was impossible or not but shortly after his murder in 1963, the best rocket scientists in the world involved with the project informed Lyndon Johnson that science is at least 30 years away from being able to accomplish such a task. The fact is…they were a little optimistic. Here we are nearly 40 years later and we still don’t have the technology to send a man to the moon and return him safely to earth. The powers that decided on this fraud concluded that if they couldn’t send a man to the moon and get him back safely, then what would they do is to have NASA fake the project then keep the billions of taxpayer money used to fund this operation for themselves. They then decided they actually could “fake” the whole thing for a fraction of the money they were being supplied. Here’s a site in Iceland where we found alot of the NASA fakes were made, (BELOW).
Here are some facts to keep in mind about the impossibilty of actually sending a human being to the moon: The moon is constantly being bombarded with “micrometeors” that travel at speeds of 20,000 mph. To keep that in perspective a rifle bullet travels at 800 mph. Remember the moon has no atmosphere to slow them down. If any astronaut or the Lunar landing module got hit with just one of those……even if it were the size of a grain of rice, that would be the end. Strange NASA wasn’t too concerned about this at the time, don’t you think?
This one is incredibly funny! This is supposed to be the frogmen to rescue the Apollo men. Look at the fake “kite string” that is on top the the module. This is supposed to be the string that held the parachutes that brought the module to earth. I would think it would require heavy ropes for such a task. By the way, if this is same space module that brought the astronauts home then where is the area that they docked and climbed into the Lunar Module? Was it the same place? It had to be….but they also had to have the parachutes in the same place. So where are the parachutes in this photo? How was there room to get through the opening into the lunar module with the parachutes stored there? Also, look at the fake breathing respirators on their mouths so they wouldn’t spread “Moon germs” to the frog men. Okay, what about the “moon germs” that are inside the module? what about the “moon germs” on their body? Are those moon germs less threatening than what they might breathe out? Maybe since NASA can’t tell us how the Apollo men went to the bathroom for two weeks, We are thinking the frog men should have the gas masks on for any nasty stuff the Apollo men might have brought back! By the way, the “Apollo men” are on the rafts and have been for at least 10 minutes, what is the “frog man” still doing swimming in the ocean? Looking for the great white shark ? Or is he looking for a carp to eat tonight? Come on..AMERICA! Think about the B.S. these pictures are telling you!! (BELOW).
But look at the descrepancies, this is supposed to be the same suit folks!!! Look at the Spacesuit (RIGHT BELOW), This is what NASA says is the actual suit that Neil Armstrong wore on the moon. Now, Look at the same suit NASA claims was photographed with Armstrong with his individial pose. (BELOW LEFT) Check out the discrepancies with the oxygen chambers and the hookup to the helmet. Now, look at the boot (BELOW LEFT).Look at the tread on the boot. It looks nothing like the photo NASA said is the first “boot print” on the moon, (BELOW RIGHT). NASA eventually backtracked for this slip up and now claims the boots Armstrong wore on the moon were “jettisoned” before the LEM took off from the lunar surface and weren’t returned to earth…….SHUUUUUUURE they were!!
Now, Let’s take this even further. Here is Neil Armstrong on the moon, (BELOW LEFT). Is he wearing EITHER of the suits NASA claimed he was earlier? If not, why was NASA having people pay to see the suit he actually wore on the moon in the earlier photo? The suit is now on display at the Neil Armstrong Museum in Ohio.
Oh, here are the Apollo boys again, (BELOW). This time they are entering the Saturn 5 rocket to head to the moon. What? New shoes again? Guess these new yellow ones go with the green cheese on the moon. And a different space suit? New Headgear? How much room was there in that cramped space? Oh, by the way, You guys were in space or “on the moon” for nearly two weeks…how did you go to the bathroom? NASA never really told us that. Hummm, those space suits must have smelled good on the moon with no air to dissipate it!!!!
Another problem, other than the photographic ones, is deadly radiation,not only for the astronauts but the radiation would have fried any pictures they would have tried to take. It is absurd that NASA tried to pass off these so-called pictures from the moon. We’ll show you in a minute that all NASA’S pictures are fakes.
The moon casts a shadow here on earth and it is 250,000 miles away. For the surface to be that bright, it would be blinding to anyone. Forget about getting pictures to come out. However none of the fake photo’s the astronauts took back up this fact.
Neil Armstrong…the alleged first man on the moon, is now suffering from a mental illness because of being forced to live with this lie all his life. Strange that we never see any astronaut that walked on the moon talk in detail about their experience in public. Why don’t they? NASA will not allow them to do so. Before we show you the pictures which prove the moon landing was all a colossal hoax. We want to acknowledge photo analyst Jack White who went over thousands of photo’s from NASA. He’s an expert photographer and agrees these pictures are fake. Keep in mind each picture NASA put out has a code, like a social security number attached to it. It usually starts with the letter “A” and “S”. So, you can search NASA’S website, punch in the code and that particular picture will come up. The pictures have all been coded for decades so no one can doctor any of the pictures with out it being easy to check against the code. For instance this picture is coded in the upper left hand corner: AS15-88-11901. So you know it’s a real authentic picture put out by NASA and in this picture you can see the lunar rover was dropped into postion by a crane. There are no tire tracks left on the front or back of the vehicle. [CLICK ON PICTURES FOR LARGER IMAGES]
Now look at this next picture. It’s a picture of astronaut Buzz Aldrin taken in Mauna Kea Hawaii in 1969. If you look at the mountains behind him, you’ll see it’s the same mountain NASA used in faking the picture below it that was used in the Apollo 17 mission. Just look to the right side of the picture and you’ll see it’s the same mountain NASA photoshoped from the one behind Buzz Aldrin in Hawaii. By the way, I wonder what all the movie production vans are doing sitting behind him?
And, here’s the same fake mountain……..again. And again! Geez, guys! c’mon, you must get tired of using the same fake backdrop from Hawaii over and over again? Look at the center of the picture. You can see exactly where the movie set ends and the fake backdrop begins. Look for the same pattern on all NASA photo’s.
Now, I don’t know how NASA thought they could ever get away with this. Look at the decal on Apollo 15 that says “UNITED STATES” It’s put on with nothing but scotch tape. Must be the new re-enforced scotch tape that can take those 400 degree temperatures.
Here’s Astronaut Pete Conrad from Apollo 12. If you look in his visor, in the upper right hand corner you can see a reflection of a studio light. You can also see the “hotspot” the studio light illuminates on the ground also reflected in his visor.
BELOW LEFT: This is an absurd photo of the Eagle, the lunar module from Apollo 11 while on the moon. Look close. It is nothing but cardboard (which you can see buckling), black roofing paper, gold Reynolds wrap aluminum foil, curtain rods and masking tape along with electrical engineers tape……ridiculous!!!!!
Check out the “Mystery of the Moonrovers” second from the bottom on the right: Here’s a photo of Apollo 17 and the lunar rover. The picture on the top is BEFORE the lunar rover was unloaded and assembled. You can see it’s still packaged and has rubber bands around it. The photo at the bottom shows what it looks like AFTER they broke open the package and supposedly assembled the rover. The package kind of looks like a baked potato broken open. The problem is you can see tire tracks in the photo BEFORE they broke open the package and assembled the rover. [MAKE SURE AND CLICK ON THIS LARGER IMAGE]
BELOW RIGHT: This next NASA fake comes courtesy apollo 15. In most movie sets, the crew will take a picture of the set to try and frame it correctly before they start shooting with film. The same thing here. It’s just that some absent minded photographer forgot and left the polaroids on the leg of the lunar module…….dohhhh!
By the way, if you think the photos left on the lunar lander are just weird reflections from the gold Reynolds Wrap. (BELOW LEFT) Photo Expert Jack White shows you how you can tell the difference.
BELOW LEFT: These are two photo’s of the LEM from apollo 16. The top one taken from the command module on it’s way to the lunar surface and the one on the bottom was taken after it landed. The problem is the top picture shows that the lunar rover was to be unloaded from the RIGHT SIDE (R1) and then that just vanishes after it gets to the lunar surface and now seems to be on the LEFT SIDE (S2).
We think the photographers for Apollo 16 need to frame their phony pictures better. You can clearly see 6 studio lights at the top of the picture at “Lights, Camera, Action”.
BELOW: Here’s the lunar rover of apollo 15 leaving no tracks again which means it was put there from above…..most likely dropped into place from a crane.
Everyone of these pictures is of Buzz Aldrin from Apollo 11. Apparently he can’t figure out how he wants to dress. In some pictures his moon suit is tucked into his moon boots, in some they are not. In some pictures his gloves are white, in some they’re grey. Some pictures he has an antennea …and some he doesn’t. One picture shows him wearing a black arm band…and it disappears in others.
Look at this photo, (BELOW). It’s once again Pete Conrad from Apollo 12. Look in his visor. There are two astronauts reflected. How is that possible? That means there must be THREE astronauts!
(BELOW): These are all pictures of the lunar landing module of Apollo 11. Some on the moon, some in Lunar orbit and two just before it was put on the Saturn 5 Rocket. The last picture is just the ascent module without it’s landing base attached. But NASA says these are all pictures of the same module. Do they all look the same to you?
Objects which are heated cannot be cooled by space. In order for an object to cool it must first be removed from direct sunlight. Objects which are in the shadow of another object will eventually cool but not because space is “cold”. Space is not cold. Hot and cold do not exist in the vacuum of space. Objects cool because the laws of motion dictate that the molecules of the object will slow down due to the resistance resulting from striking other molecules until eventually all motion will stop provided the object is sheltered from the direct and/or indirect radiation of the sun and that there is no other source of heat. Since the vacuum of space is the perfect insulator objects take a very long time to cool even when removed from all sources of heat, radiated or otherwise.
NASA insists the space suits the astronauts supposedly wore on the lunar surface were air conditioned. An air conditioner cannot, and will not work without a heat exchanger. A heat exchanger simply takes heat gathered in a medium such as freon from one place and transfers it to another place. This requires a medium of molecules which can absorb and transfer the heat such as an atmosphere or water. An air conditioner will not and cannot work in a vacuum. A space suit surrounded by a vacuum cannot transfer heat from the inside of the suit to any other place. The vacuum, remember, is a perfect insulator. A man would roast in his suit in such a circumstance.
NASA claims the spacesuits were cooled by a water system which was piped around the body, then through a system of coils sheltered from the sun in the backpack. NASA claims that water was sprayed on the coils causing a coating of ice to form. The ice then supposedly absorbed the tremendous heat collected in the water and evaporated into space. There are two problems with this that cannot be explained away. 1) The amount of water needed to be carried by the astronauts in order to make this work for even a very small length of time in the direct 55 degrees over the boiling point of water (210 degrees F at sea level on Earth) heat of the sun could not have possibly been carried by the astronauts. 2) NASA has since claimed that they found ice in moon craters. NASA claims that ice sheltered from the direct rays of the sun will NOT evaporate destroying their own bogus “air conditioning” explanation.
Remember this. Think about it the next time you go off in the morning with a “vacuum bottle” filled with hot coffee. Think about it long and hard when you sit down and pour a piping hot cup from your thermos to drink with your lunch four hours later… and then think about it again when you pour the last still very warm cup of coffee at the end of the day.
The same laws of physics apply to any vehicle traveling through space. NASA claims that the spacecraft was slowly rotated causing the shadowed side to be cooled by the intense cold of space… an intense cold that DOES NOT EXIST. In fact the only thing that could have been accomplished by a rotation of the spacecraft is a more even and constant heating such as that obtained by rotating a hot dog on a spit. In reality a dish called Astronaut a la Apollo would have been served. At the very least you would not want to open the hatch upon the crafts return.
NASA knows better than to claim, in addition, that a water cooling apparatus such as that which they claim cooled the astronauts suits cooled the spacecraft. No rocket could ever have been launched with the amount of water needed to work such a system for even a very short period of time. Fresh water weighs a little over 62 lbs. per cubic foot. Space and weight capacity were critical given the lift capability of the rockets used in the Apollo Space Program. No such extra water was carried by any mission whatsoever for suits or for cooling the spacecraft.
On the tapes the Astronauts complained bitterly of the cold during their journey and while on the surface of the moon. They spoke of using heaters that did not give off enough heat to overcome the intense cold of space. It was imperative that NASA use this ruse because to tell the truth would TELL THE TRUTH. It is also proof of the arrogance and contempt in which the Illuminati holds the common man.
What we heard is in reality indicative of an over zealous cooling system in the props used during the filming of the missions at the Atomic Energy Commissions Nevada desert test site, where it is common to see temperatures well over 100 degrees. In the glaring unfiltered direct heat of the sun the Astronauts could never have been cold at any time whatsoever in the perfect insulating vacuum of space.
As proof examine the Lunar Lander on display in the Smithsonian Institute and notice the shrouded and encased cone of the rocket engine INSIDE the Lander which is attached above the rocket nozzle at the bottom center of the Lander. It is this rocket engine which supposedly provided the retro thrust upon landing on the moon and the takeoff thrust during takeoff from the moon. In the actual Lunar Lander this engine is present but in the film and pictures of the inside of the Lunar Lander that was “said” to be on the moon the engine is absent. Then examine the Lunar Lander simulator and you will see exactly where the fake footage was filmed.
It should be obvious. The moon landing was a lie. It was all a studio production. Parts where filmed at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, parts were filmed in Arizona and part of it in Hawaii. Parts of the lunar surface were filmed in Iceland and parts in a movie studio….
APOLLO FACTS
Facts surrounding the Apollo missions from Apollofake.Bravehost.com. Every other question you might have about the Apollo fraud should be answered here or above: Courtesy NasaScam.com—
FACT: Neil Armstrong is now suffering with mental illness. A direct result of him putting his name forward as the foundation stone for the biggest lie in history. OR it could be that he has become paranoid by the overwhelming number of web sites, exposing him as a liar.
FACT: Rumor has it that Apollo 12 astronaut Pete Conrad was going public about the fake Moon landings on the 30th anniversary back in July 1999. He was killed in a motorcycle accident one week before the 30th anniversary.
FACT: It takes the space shuttle 66 hours to reach the International Space Station which is a mere 185 miles above Earth. NASA claim Apollo 13 was 55 hours into it’s duration from lift off when it encountered a problem at a distance of 200,000 miles from Earth. Sheesh.
FACT: On his web site, world celebrity Uri Geller states that NASA’s Apollo Moon pictures have been crudely faked, and asks WHY? Uri however is friendly with Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell, so we may ask WHY does he not ask Mitchell himself why the photo’s were faked?
FACT: President Lyndon Johnson made certain Apollo files classified, with a declassification date of 2026. This is so those involved in the Apollo scam would be long dead and gone, and no one alive to blame. One need not wait 18 years for the truth behind Apollo, as it is already well known.
FACT: In the early 60’s NASA officials, realizing that a manned Moon landing was totally impossible before 1970, met in secret behind closed doors. It was at that meeting they agreed upon a decision to fake Apollo 11, in the hope they would get to the Moon later on, and then shroud the earlier faked pictures for genuine Moon pictures. The reality is they never succeeded with any mission.
FACT: Arthur C. Clarke referred to Apollo 11 as a “Hole in History”. Historian A.J.P. Taylor referred to it as “The biggest nonevent of his lifetime”.
FACT: NASA had not perfected the lunar landing craft in time for Apollo 11. In 2008 they are still trying to get a rocket to land and take off again, 40 years after Apollo was supposed to have done just that.
FACT: Film footage taken inside the capsule of ALL Apollo missions, shows a light blue haze, and curvature of Earth through capsule window, when they were supposedly half way to the Moon, and in the blackness of space. This proves that capsule was only in Earth orbit.
FACT: Moon pictures on NASA’s web sites are fake, with backdrop scenes pasted. The pictures reveal a black line penciled in where background meets daylight sky, which was blacked out completely.
FACT: The LM used on latter missions, was the same spec as the first mission, ie, no modifications. It would have therefore been impossible to carry the rover vehicle to the Moon in the same confined LM, even if it collapsed into a more compact form.
FACT: The lunar rover had inflatable tires which would have exploded if pre-inflated, and there was no air on the Moon to inflate them. Pro Apollo NUTTERS claim the rover had solid wire mesh tires. Yes the rover in the museum had these fitted in the mid 70’s when they realized pneumatic tires could not have functioned on the Moon. NASA have had 40 years in which to clear up the plainly obvious mistakes within the Apollo program. Each time some one brings up a query NASA correct it and say nothing, ie, they cannot say why the anomaly was there in the first place. Anyway I have pictures of the rover supposedly on the Moon and it has the SAME tires AND tire valves as the one they used at KSC. In other words it is the SAME one. Early close up pictures of the rover on Internet have CHANGED since the blunder was exposed on this web site.
FACT: It would have been impossible to have a water cooled space suit on the Moon, when outside temperature was already at boiling point of water, there would be no where for the heat to dissipate.
FACT: The LM was suspended from a huge traverse crane based at Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, and was gently lowered at the same time it traversed over a mock Moon surface created beneath it. Check picture on REALITY site, and Channel 4 video “As it Happened” .
FACT: Trainee astronauts were also suspended from this huge traverse crane in a horizontal position to simulate reduced gravity. Check picture on REALITY site with the NASA web site picture of Harrison Schmitt tripping up. The unusual high backward leg swing is identical in both pictures.
FACT: Film footage allegedly taken by Apollo 8 as it supposedly circled the Moon, is the SAME film used for the Apollo 11 mission, except that film is reversed and run backwards, look for “tadpole like” mountain range. What NASA did was to film the mock lunar surface at LRC, traveling in one direction, then reverse camera, and film surface traveling in opposite direction, as shown in video’s.
FACT: Film footage showing Apollo missions allegedly circling the Moon, was taken by a rail mounted camera which slowly moved toward a rotating plaster paris model of the Moon.
FACT: James Lovell was reading from a prewritten script in the simulator when he did the voice over for the above film, and referred to the Moon as being “essentially gray, no color, looks like plaster of paris”. The recording was made long before the mission. Listen carefully on headphones, as he tries hard to suppress himself from laughing. Why otherwise would someone on such an important mision find it so comical? The answer is because it was indeed plaster of paris he was referring to, hence the smirk on face of Michael Collins after the remark.
FACT: Anyone who believes the Moon landings must be “essentially green”.
FACT: Michael J. Tuttle who composed the fake Moon pictures, used mountain background scenes from the astronaut training sessions in Iceland, and other places, to paste on the genuine simulation pictures. He also digitally composed the 360 degree panoramic shots of fake Moon landing sites for use by NASA. His URL speaks for itself. The majority of NASA’s fake Moon landing pictures were taken/composed in the mid 90’s, AND NOT in the late 60’s as many are led to believe. This was because suspicion was aroused at the time regarding the limited number of photo’s available. NASA had to do something rapidly because of the onset of the Internet.
FACT: The Saturn V rocket had shed 97% of its weight upon reaching Earth orbit. The remaining 3% was the space capsule placed in Earth orbit.
FACT: Earth is 250,000 miles from the Moon, yet reflected sunlight from its surface is strong enough to illuminate the darkness on planet Earth. Anyone hovering above surface of Moon would be blinded by the high intensity light reflected back.
FACT: In the mid 60’s, Alan Shepherd was removed from ALL space missions due to vertigo and meniere’s disease. No one in such a poor state of health would be assigned to such a dangerous and complex mission. He was not even on the Apollo 14 mission, which in itself was only in Earth orbit.
FACT: Alleged Moon rock is basalt rock found here on Earth. NASA made it radioactive by “baking it” in a radiation oven. If it is genuine Moon rock, then it was brought back by a scoop and return probe.
FACT: The monitored radio/data signals were either transmitted from Earth and reflected back by bouncing signal of the Moon, or were transmitted via a leased channel. If a valuable source of monitoring equipment was left on Moon, then it would be used today, and not shut down in the 70’s.
FACT: In a TV interview with journalist Sheena McDonald back in 1994, the NASA Administrator, Dan Golden, (alias Dan Dare), openly admitted that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, until they can overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He managed to say this without any mention of the Apollo missions 25 years before, which supposedly went 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit.
FACT: Neil Armstrong has NO momento’s or photographs whatsoever from his alleged Moon mission, however he has plenty from his test pilot days. There are no photographs of Armstrong supposedly on the Moon, because Armstrong, knowing the saga was fake, refused NASA permission.
FACT: In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2008 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k memory.
FACT: When Apollo astronauts were not in space, they were manning mission control communication for other Apollo missions, this was to limit the number of persons in the know. There were in fact two communication links to every Apollo mission. First was launch control who dealt with communication at lift off, and reentry, however once in Earth orbit communication was handed over to the limited few astronauts manning mission control. Check it yourself on film coverage released at the time. Collins, Duke, Aldrin, Lovell, Shepherd, Schmitt, Cernan etc, are all there on various missions. Lovell himself admitted that there were two communication links to the astronauts.
FACT: It would have been impossible for the astronauts to get from the Lunar Module to the conical space capsule, as this section was occupied by the 3 large reentry parachutes, which ejected from the conical end.
FACT: In 2008 NASA does not have the technology to land a man on the Moon, and return them safely. It may be possible in the future, but such a feat is still many, many years away.
FACT: Buzz Aldrin believes he has suffered brain damage as a result of his trip to the Moon. He knows darned well that he never went anywhere near the Moon, and so could not have suffered brain damage in the way he alleges. Aldrin was the only Apollo astronaut who went public, and talked about the Moon landings during the 70’s and 80’s. The guilt, remorse, and stumbling over awkward questions put to him by the media, have put an intolerable strain on him. His psychological damage is the result of keeping it bottled up for 40 years, instead of getting it off his mind. In Aldrin’s book “Return to Earth”, he makes a remark that all 6 of them have been made to look fools. Make of this what you will.
Q: What about Moon rocks brought back by astronauts, it’s proof the landings took place?
A: No it is not, and this is the most common tactic used by NASA and PAN’s, but proves nothing. NASA were manufacturing simulated Moon rock, long before the Apollo missions, this is proven in an abstract published in 1966, 3 years before Apollo 11. This simulated Moon rock is reconstructed from basalt, and meteorite samples discovered in Antarctica. It is simulated Moon rock that is dispatched to universities around the globe as being the real thing. These simulated Moon rocks are, of course, totally different to any rocks found on Earth, and they were meant to be that way. This is why geologists claim they cannot be found elsewhere on Earth. No of course not because they are manufactured by NASA to be totally different to Earth borne rocks. NASA manufacture the simulated Moon rock and Moon dust so cheaply they do not even charge for it, other than transportation costs.
Q: Why don’t they point the Hubble telescope at Moon to view the artifacts left behind?
A: Hubble is owned and operated by NASA, the one’s responsible for faking in the first place, so there is no chance there. In order to cover up for NASA, their paid informers, (PAN’s like Phil Plait from Badastronomy), claim that Hubble cannot resolve down to view the landing sites, but how much resolution do they need? Hubble will in fact resolve down to 50 meter’s on the Moon’s surface, which is more than enough to view the artifacts supposedly left behind. NASA do in fact have very high resolution pictures of the Moon, but do not inform the media because the first thing people would ask is to see the artifacts left behind from Apollo, and, as to be expected there is nothing there.
Q: What about the hammer and feather experiment, how could they achieve that in Earth’s gravity?
A: This is another ridiculous claim made by PAN’s, but again, proves nothing. The film is shot in poor lighting, as well as being a very poor quality black and white fuzzy film, and as the experiment is performed so far away from the camera, it can easily be fabricated. I would like to point out that magicians like David Copperfield have performed far greater feats, (optical illusions), within a few feet of a live audience. One of his stunts involved himself being cut in half by a rotating saw blade, then the two sections of his body were moved to opposite ends of the stage. If PAN’s believe the hammer and feather experiment was real, do they also believe that David Copperfield was sliced in two by a rotating saw blade?
Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?
A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but relay on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
Q: What about the laser reflector left on the Moon by astronauts, from which they can calculate the Moon’s distance from Earth?
A: In 1946 scientists in the USA managed to bounce a radio signal off the Moon’s surface, and were able to calculate the precise distance of the Moon by the reflected radio signal. In the early 60’s NASA realized they could perform the experiment more efficiently, and accurately by using a high powered pulsed laser beam. In this scenario the laser beam is reflected back to Earth in the same way as Sunlight is reflected off the Moon’s surface towards Earth. On May 9 1962, (over 7 years BEFORE Apollo 11 supposedly landed on the Moon), a high powered pulsed ruby laser was successfully aimed at the Moon, and reflected back off the Moon’s surface to provide an accurate measurement of the Moon’s precise distance from Earth without any reflector being on the Moon’s surface. There is no laser reflector on the Moon, and never has been. NASA are using the same method today as what they were using back in 1962 before astronauts supposedly landed on the Moon. Incidentally NASA plan to use an even higher power laser on Mars to calculate distance. Have astronauts placed a reflector on Mars to bounce the beam back?
Q: Why did the USA fake the Moon landings, was it to fool the then Soviet Union?
A: No they weren’t done to fool the Russians, does anyone believe the Russians would be so stupid to fall for a con like that? Russia were more advanced than the USA in space technology, and knew at the time of Kennedy’s speech that it was impossible for manned space travel to the Moon and back. The landings were faked purely and simply to convince Western civilization that the USA were better in space technology than the Soviet Union, because the Western world had lost faith in USA capabilities, and the USA could not be seen as the ‘weaker link’ at such a crucial period in time. There was no SPACE RACE as claimed by NASA, who incidentally coined the phase. Russia had no intention whatsoever of sending men to the Moon because they knew it was impossible.
Q: Was Richard Nixon behind the fake Moon landings.
A: Although Nixon was president at the time of the Apollo missions, he was not directly responsible, even though he knew, or should have known, they were fake. The planning and preparation into faking the Moon missions began way back in the early 60’s, and hence Lyndon B Johnson was the president with the most inside knowledge of the Apollo program.
Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldn’t someone have spoken out.
A: Pan’s claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him it’s for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. It’s probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain it’s not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to “keep mum”. Read comments from people who worked on the Apollo program in the APOLLO FEEDBACK section.
Q: Why didn’t Russia cry foul over the fake Moon missions.
A: Yet another tactic used by PAN’s that the landings were genuine. However they are basing this fact on how Russia poked fun at failures within the USA space industry in the early 60’s, during the Kennedy/Kruschev period. Kruschev was always poking fun at their failures, and referred to Alan Shepard’s 15 minute space flight as a mere ‘flea jump’ to what they (Russia) had done. However when Kruschev stepped down in 1964, the new Soviet leader, Brezhnev, never poked fun at the USA, and Russia just got on with their own business. What many people don’t know however is that the Moon landing was portrayed as being fake in both Russian newspapers, and many other newspapers around the globe at the time, however those stories were suppressed from the Western media. Remember Russia was a very secretive country back in 1969. Russia could have blabbed to the world that the Moon landings were fake, and probably would have done if Kruschev were in power, however Western countries would simply say they were jealous because the USA had beaten them to it. Russia however had a far better plan in mind, and in order to understand how it would work, one needs to understand the way in which Communist ideology worked back in the 1960’s. At that time the Soviet Union assumed Communism would go on forever, and they never anticipated that it would collapse 20 years later, after all it had been going for over 50 years. Their solution to NASA’s fake Moon missions was to sit back and say nothing, safe in the knowledge that in the not to distant future, Western civilization would eventually wake up, and discover that the USA government had lied to them. This would then turn many people against the USA government as they, (the Western media), would feel cheated, made to look fools, and would no longer be able to trust them. This is exactly what the then Soviet Union expected to happen, ie, for the Western media to turn against an authority, that they could no longer trust. If Russia were still a Communist state, its leaders would be laughing their socks off now at the way the USA government was being slagged off by its own citizens. You only have to look at comments on the APOLLO FEEDBACK page to realize how many are turning against the USA government for spreading untrue propaganda, when in reality it was 100% fake.
FACT: Deadly radiation in space beyond the magnetosphere, make space travel impossible. Scientists have not yet found a way to protect astronauts from this deadly radiation. The moon landing lie is another illuminati signature fraud. It’s not by chance we see that number 11 pop up again with Apollo 11 proving once again this was carried out by high ranking elitists. Remember the bible says in the last days there will be a “huge delusion” covering the planet. The fake moon landing is just another one of a long line of illuminati lies we have been exposing. Pass this information along to someone else you know who is a skeptic*. Once again;
EPH 5:11:DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE UNFRUITFUL DEADS OF DARKNESS, BUT INSTEAD EXPOSE THEM;
Neil Armstrong was no doubt trying to tell us something in this video:
— In this next video which was taken shortly after the Apollo 11 astronauts completed this big delusion, you can feel for Neil Armstrong as he gives a press conference. He is clearly about to have a nervous/mental breakdown as he is obviously forced to lie about the mission. Several times it seems he is about to stop the lies but none the less plods on. You get the feeling the other astronauts are afraid he might tell the truth at any minute. But no doubt, for fear of his life, he continues the lies.
Now, take a listen to Buzz Aldrin as he’s confronted with the fact that the Apollo crew put a transparent Earth in the window of the Command Module to make it appear the astronauts where in Lunar Orbit. Listen how he threatens the interviewer with a “Lawsuit” if he shows this video publicly:
“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”
Ephesians 5:11
Posted by Joe Monoco, Nov 08, 2008 02:49 PM
_________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
A moon rock given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 has turned out to be a fake.
Curators at Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, where the rock has attracted tens of thousands of visitors each year, discovered that the "lunar rock", valued at £308,000, was in fact petrified wood.
Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation, said the museum would continue to keep the stone as a curiosity.
"It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," she said. "We can laugh about it."
The rock was given to Willem Drees, a former Dutch leader, during a global tour by Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin following their moon mission 50 years ago.
J. William Middendorf, the former American ambassador to the Netherlands, made the presentation to Mr Drees and the rock was then donated to the Rijksmuseum after his death in 1988.
"I do remember that Drees was very interested in the little piece of stone. But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that," Mr Middendorf said.
Nasa gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries following lunar missions in 1969 and the 1970s.
The United States Embassy in The Hague is carrying out an investigation into the affair.
Researchers Amsterdam's Free University were able to tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be from the moon, a conclusion that was borne out by tests.
"It's a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone," said Frank Beunk, a geologist involved in the investigation.
_________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 9:05 pm Post subject:
Disco_Destroyer wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Ho lland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html
12:12AM BST 29 Aug 2009
'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake
Quote:
A moon rock given to the Dutch prime minister by Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 has turned out to be a fake.
Curators at Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, where the rock has attracted tens of thousands of visitors each year, discovered that the "lunar rock", valued at £308,000, was in fact petrified wood.
Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation, said the museum would continue to keep the stone as a curiosity.
"It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," she said. "We can laugh about it."
The rock was given to Willem Drees, a former Dutch leader, during a global tour by Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin following their moon mission 50 years ago.
J. William Middendorf, the former American ambassador to the Netherlands, made the presentation to Mr Drees and the rock was then donated to the Rijksmuseum after his death in 1988.
"I do remember that Drees was very interested in the little piece of stone. But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that," Mr Middendorf said.
Nasa gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries following lunar missions in 1969 and the 1970s.
The United States Embassy in The Hague is carrying out an investigation into the affair.
Researchers Amsterdam's Free University were able to tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be from the moon, a conclusion that was borne out by tests.
"It's a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone," said Frank Beunk, a geologist involved in the investigation.
Let's hope some of the other recipeints of these 'Moon Rocks' also check out their validity.
I suspect most won't bother, having been corrupted and co-opted into the 'US/Neocon/Zionist/Fascist' agenda.... _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
I wonder how long it will take for the perps and/or patsies, to suggest that lizards (Insert some other imagination) lived there before, when it was a green planet.
Exposing the old New World Order, to usher in the New World Order awakening.
Theosophist, freemasonry, awakening, consciousness shift, change, transformation, 2012, destruction of my life force, morphic resonance & interaction with the morphic field, vibration: evil depopulation meme.
The New Age theosophy utopia meme (spiritual and/or, even atheist meme.)
That if we all come together, that is the only way to spiritually get off the planet, “spiritually” and those that don't go along with it will prevent those that do go along with it and must be rid of, and are dangerous to those that do go along with it. Also people who won’t connect to that “spiritually” part, are told that the planet can’t support 6 billion people because of all the pollution that we are causing and the old new world order are intentionally causing it with unnecessary industrial use to show people that it can’t continue. Some so-called green movements (Friends of the earth, for example) buy into this atheist line and say there are to many people on the planet and “they the people” are to blame for this over industrial pollution, wars and such. So both groups in their varied and mixed types, are supporting the depopulation agenda and are sold the idea that it is necessary that some/many will have to go. Only half a billion left (Example: Georgia guide stones) so they will have all those resources, natural (some Gaia types) and/or some industry (Techno Venus project types) for sustainable use in abundance.
-----------------
Where there is NO individual spiritual salvation (or divine retribution.) In this New World Order awakening, consciousness shift, and change or transformation meme.
And people have to be convinced this is not possible:
That there is plenty to go around for 6 billion people or so, if we don’t pollute and waste, like most all do now and encouraged/forced to do now via false legislation.
And if people were responsible, even spiritually responsible, having to many children would be a responsibility with wisdom sort willingly and population would not be a problem IF it became a problem.
Very useful new documentary, with new insights into 'moon fakery':
Thank's for that link outsider, just been on a forum debating The Moon Landings.
Quote:
Radiation of all types will travel through a vacuum "space" some of that radiation hits the Earth and heats it, we also have an atmosphere, which conducts (mosty solid matter conducts; some more than others) and convects heat. Some radiation is reflected from the earth and further some of that is relflected back again to the earth, depending on what is in the atmosphere. Also some of that heat, conducts and convects depending on what is in the atmosphere.
The photos in the studio had them supposedly in full sunlight and published them to the world. As would have the supposed space craft been in full sunlight and in the vacuum of "space" once far enough away from the Earth and its atmosphere.
"Any
intelligent high school student with a basic physics book can prove NASA
faked the Apollo moon landings. If you doubt this please explain how the
astronauts walked upon the moon's surface enclosed in a space suit in
full sunlight absorbing a minimum of 265 degrees F, of heat surrounded by a
vacuum... and that is not even taking into consideration any effects of
cosmic radiation, Solar flares, micrometeorites, (body heat) etc. NASA tells us the
moon has no atmosphere and that the astronauts were surrounded by the
vacuum of space."
-----------------------
"Heat is defined as the vibration or movement of molecules within matter.
The faster the molecular motion the higher the temperature. The slower
the molecular motion the colder the temperature. Absolute zero is that
point where all molecular motion ceases. In order to have hot or cold,
molecules must be present.
A vacuum is a condition of nothingness where there are no molecules.
Vacuums exist in degrees. Some scientists tell us that there is no such
thing as an absolute vacuum. Space is the closest thing to an absolute
vacuum that is known to us. There are so few molecules present in most
areas of what we know as "space" that any concept of "hot" or "cold" is
impossible to measure. A vacuum is a perfect insulator. That is why a
"Thermos" or vacuum bottle is used to store hot or cold liquids in order
to maintain the temperature for the longest time possible without
re-heating or re-cooling.
Radiation of all types will travel through a vacuum but will not affect
the vacuum. Radiant heat from the sun travels through the vacuum of
space but does not "warm" space. In fact the radiant heat of the sun has
no affect whatsoever until it strikes matter. Molecular movement will
increase in direct proportion to the radiant energy which is absorbed by
matter. The time it takes to heat matter exposed to direct sunlight in
space is determined by its color, its elemental properties, its distance
from the sun, and its rate of absorption of radiant heat energy. Space
is NOT hot. Space is NOT cold."
Objects which are heated cannot be cooled by space. In order for an
object to cool it must first be removed from direct sunlight. Objects
which are in the shadow of another object will eventually cool but not
because space is "cold". Space is not cold. Hot and cold do not exist in
the vacuum of space. Objects cool because the laws of motion dictate
that the molecules of the object will slow down due to the resistance
resulting from striking other molecules until eventually all motion will
stop provided the object is sheltered from the direct and/or indirect
radiation of the sun and that there is no other source of heat. Since
the vacuum of space is the perfect insulator objects take a very long
time to cool even when removed from all sources of heat, radiated or
otherwise. NASA insists the space suits the astronauts supposedly wore
on the lunar surface were air conditioned. An air conditioner cannot,
and will not work without a heat exchanger. A heat exchanger simply
takes heat gathered in a medium such as Freon from one place and
transfers it to another place. This requires a medium of molecules which
can absorb and transfer the heat such as an atmosphere or water. An air
conditioner will not and cannot work in a vacuum. A space suit
surrounded by a vacuum cannot transfer heat from the inside of the suit
to any other place. The vacuum, remember, is a perfect insulator. A man
would roast in his suit in such a circumstance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4
Award winning filmmaker Bart Sibrel presents his highly acclaimed (and much hated) controversial documentary showcasing newly discovered behind-the-scenes out-takes from the first mission
to the moon, proving that the crew never left earth orbit.
Never before in all of recorded aviation has a flying machine worked on its first attempt, much less the most complicated one ever imagined, landing on another heavenly body on its maiden voyage, and returning roundtrip with a crew that lived to tell,
all with 1960's technology. (More computing power is found today in a $10 watch.)
According to William Kaysing, a NASA contractor for Apollo,
a classified interdepartmental memo rated the odds of a successful and survivable manned lunar landing on its first attempt at one in ten thousand. That is why the returning men of the mission looked so dejected rather than triumphant at their press conference,
as they were blackmailed into lying about the alleged greatest accomplishment of mankind, to the detriment of their own souls.
Sibrel has been interviewed, and his documentary about
the moon landings have been featured on, The Tonight Show,
The Daily Show, Geraldo at Large, The Abrams Report,
Coast to Coast, NBC, CNN, FOX, Time Magazine,
The New York Times, The L.A. Times, The Washington Post
and USA Today.
mobypaterson wrote:
This is the subject everyone was brought up believing and it's hard to imagine the alternative truth that perhaps it didn't happen.
For me the real eye opener was watching "Something funny happened on the way to the moon" where you see the astronauts faking their distance from the earth, making it look a lot smaller through the windows and thus farther away. . .
You have to ask yourself... why would they do that?
So yeah, more and more I'm coming round to the fact that there is summit up with the whole thing.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
