~∞*∞~

I found this very, very interesting post and kept it stored away for reposting one day. I forgot where I found it. A space discussion board? I forgot. It's attributed to MoonHead, "Originally posted by MoonHead: Aug 29 2001 01:48PM EST".

I wrote none of it, just sharing and wanting to see orgers reactions and thoughts. I also just bolded the points and added the pics as reference.

I'm also posting it because today (November 7th, 2002), there's news reports on how Nasa will "finally" place those theories and "conspiracies" to rest.

See todays news:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/T...book.reut/
&
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/h...410431.stm


Okay, here we go...

~∞*∞~

Moon Conspiracy

No one landed on the moon. The entire thing was a conspiracy. Yes we did orbit, just like the Russians etc. But the entire lunar deal is a complete facade. There are loads of facts to support this. It's ashame the general population at large is kept in the dark about so many truly important things regarding our civilization's history and progress.

Facts:

1- Space engineers reckon that a space craft going to the moon would need to have approximately 6-9 ft of lead to safely pass through the radioactive astral field that surrounds the moon. When we orbit the earth we don't come into contact with this field. The landers didn't and even if they did with that much weight it would require several dozen rockets to break earths gravitational pull.

2- With temperatures on the moon being 275* in the sun and -275* in the shade, the astronauts would have needed much greater protection than the thin flimsy suits they were issued. Go to the Smithsonian to see the Hollywood vinyl, foil, cotton suits they wore. This is insulting. If these suits are so good why can't miners, fireman or other folks wear them.

3- The design of Lunar lander outfitted it with only one central engine, located on the base of the craft. This produced all of the thrust several thousand pounds of it to land the craft on the moon's surface. Yet just months and weeks prior to the launch not one test pilot was even successful in actually landing it in a vertical position here on earth (think if a jet engine unicycle). They even mounted it with a stabilizing tripod system to no avail. Several units were crashed with test pilots coming very close to being killed. And yet on the moon, on they very first tirp, with them almost being out of fuel, it went flawlessly. ??

4- The power from the single lunar lander engine would be the equivalent of one of the jet engines from a Hawker Harrier jet aircraft. I witnessed the power of the Harrier engines as I saw them literally boil the tarmac at the Paris Air Show back in the 80's. Yet unbelievably when the 'landing' took place on the moon, not only was it totally perfect landing, but the voice recorder was able to completely mask the tremendous din of the engine sitting not more than 3 feet below the astronauts, and...

5- even more incredibly the thrust from the engine on the chalkly surface caused NO DUST OR EVEN A SMALL CRATER BLAST HOLE. Even looking at public close-up images, there is Zero dust to be found on the lunar's lander legs or feet, nor is there an recognizable impact of the engines thrust exhaust on the surface, it's still perfectly flat. Amazing!

6- Astronauts were issued with Hassleblad camera's that were hardmounted to a harness around their chests. Unable to physically move the camera up to their eyes, or anywhere else, they literally had to point and shoot blind. Unbeleivably every image is perfectly framed, in focus, and even more unsettling perfectly exposed for correct aperature and lighting. Even more so...Images that were cleary in the the lunars -275* SHADOWS, such as "USA" on the lunars side or even fellow astronauts standing on the surface behind the lander are perfectly lighted, there are zero shadows in these shots. And...Even more telling is the fact that under close analysis of the natural shadows coming from surface moon rocks and lander legs etc is the fact that MULTI-SHADOWS exist, thereby illustrating more than one light source. This is bizarre given the fact that the only light source on the moon is the sun. Even the guy who invented the camera's has no explanation to all these feats.



7- Camera lenses had cross-hair sights etched into the lenses. Therefore the images taken by the astronauts would be behind the cross hairs when developed. However, several images published showed the image (lander, flag and astronauts helmet) IN FRONT of the cross hairs. This is impossible unless doctored.

8- Flag waving. Cleary visible in original video is the fact that the US flag is waving in the breeze. Given the fact that there is NO ATMOSPHERE on the moon, this is very interesting indeed.



9- Again on the video and stills, looking at horizon images or shots to the black sky above the moons surface, there are NO SIGNS OF BRIGHT STARS, all backgrounds are completely black and void. Given the moons closer proximity to the other planets and galaxy, stars would be much more visible than tyring to find Hale Bopp in downtown LA on a hazy hot August night.

10- Field trips and excursions of the astronauts to new and 'unchartered areas' of the surface were eerily similar. If you SUPERIMPOSE IMAGES, things get puzzling when surface rocks and background canyons can be perfectly overlayed without overlap. And in some images the lander is even present and others it is not.

11- Blast off of the lunar lander. After the surface walks, jogs and lunar buggy trips (which coincidentally caused clouds of moon dust to rise everywhere) were complete, a camera was left behind to film the blast off back to earth. Closer examination of this video illustrates that there is a small pop and the lander shoots straight up. Not only does the camera remain conveinently in place but it appears as if the capsule first takes off, then there is the explosion and it seems to go up on a wire. And there is no moon dust/cloud to obscure the camera's image. STRANGE.

12- telling verbal transmissions. Astronauts make particular note of the fact that surface of moon is very similar to LANDSCAPE OF SOUTHWESTERN US desert (even down to rock shapes/sizes). Transmission of "You guys are puting on a REALLY GOOD SHOW there" by Astronauts/Houston. Interestingly enough, all space transmissions are now blacked out to the general public and we now only get what is appropriate.

There is more to digest but this may give you some indication. Do the research yourself.

No one has been to the moon. America apparently went a few times but then stopped going. After collecting roughly 80lbs of moon rocks and showing the rest of the world "how to do it" suddenly we now have enough info on the closet planet near us. Hmmm.


No one has been to the moon. America apparently went a few times but then stopped going. After collecting roughly 80lbs of moon rocks and showing the rest of the world "how to do it" suddenly we now have enough info on the closet planet near us. Hmmm.

=-=-=-=-=

NASA debunks moon landing hoax conspiracy

February 19, 2001

Web posted at: 12:54 PM EST (1754 GMT)

(CNN) -- Did NASA land men on the moon? "Yes, we did," the space agency proclaimed Monday on the Internet, rebutting newly boosted claims from conspiracy theorists that the Apollo missions were faked.

"A recent TV program resurfaced old questions about whether NASA really sent astronauts to the moon between 1969 and 1972. We did," the agency said on its home page.

Airing Thursday on the Fox Network, the sensational show advanced the idea that the United States did not have the ability to go the moon but staged the landings to one-up the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Reputable scientists dismiss the claim outright. "Sounds ridiculous? Of course it does! It is. So let me get this straight right form the start: This program is an hour-long piece of junk," explained astronomer Phil Plait on his Web site, Badastronomy.com.

The theorists point to supposed oddities in NASA moon shots to boost their claim. Among the most prominent: The U.S. flag should not be waving. Camera crosshairs should not be behind lunar features in the distance. Stars should be in the background.

Plait and other scientists dismiss such notions. Flags can ripple in a vacuum and the U.S. one is doing so because an astronaut is moving the pole to which it is attached.

Camera crosshairs appear to be behind white objects in some images because the images bled slightly during development, like overexposed film. And why are the stars absent? They are too faint for the camera to pick up, according to Plait.

"From the very first moment to the last, the program is loaded with bad thinking, ridiculous suppositions and utterly wrong science," he said.

NASA adds another line of defense. The program never raised the issue of more than 800 pounds (363 kg) of lunar rocks that astronauts brought back to Earth.

"Geologists worldwide have been examining these samples for 30 years, and the conclusion is inescapable. The rocks could not have been collected or manufactured on Earth," the NASA site said.

The space agency has encountered other such theories since the landings took place. Why bother to respond to what most consider such harebrained ideas?

"I think it wasn't in respect to the show. It was an answer to the number of e-mails that we were getting as a result of the show," NASA spokesman Bob Jacobs said. Many of them came from elementary school teachers, who said their students had asked them about the show's claims.



~∞*∞~

Hhhmmm.











~∞*∞~
Edited to add photo references.
[This message was edited Thu Nov 7 23:23:47 PST 2002 by FlyingCloudPassenger]

Sounds like a interesting episode for the X-Files.

Eyuridice73 said:

cues up "x-files" theme music

...and the truth shall set you free!

Another clue : 2001 A Space Odyssey was shot right around that time. It's obvious they used Kubrick's set.