I don't believe the moon landings were fake....but how did they pan the camera up and zoom in on the module when it blasted off the moon?

There have been many theories to refute the moon landings, incuding T.V. Shows on fox & the Science channel. Nasa and others have tried to address many of these. archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/02/19/n... science.howstuffworks.com/moon-landing-h... As far as the cameras - they have been explained to be able to control them via remote control.

The Moon missions, (all 9 of them), were 100% fake. End of story. Evidently you have not studied the evidence, and probably weren't around in 7/01/2004 10:3036, I was.

If you believe we went to the Moon, then you are in a very small majority, as well as making yourself look a fool amongst the media majority. Even people who have not studied any evidence, believe they were faked without seeing that evidence, ie, the doctored photo's using Photoshop, and pics of NASA ACTUALLY faking the lunar landing and take off. # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?

If the moon landings were fake, what would keep the USSR, Japan, France and a host of other countries who do not love the US from speaking out? # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? It's comments exactly like yours which prove my point!

You make up plausable sounding arguments to prove the hoax. But always the argument is fundamentally wrong! In your case you mention PHOTOSHOP.

Everyone has heard of Photoshop, and everyone knows you can do almost anything to a photo with it, so it sound reasonable. EXCEPT, Photoshop was first released in 7/01/2004 10:3037! How was it used in the 60's by NASA?

If you have valid arguments state them, don't make it up! # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? The photoshop point is pretty good, if it wasn;t invented unitl the 90's then how was it used in the 60's?

# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? The majority of NASA's fake Moon pictures did not appear until after 1994. That's when the pictures were faked by Tuttle.

Why didn't those pictures appear in books/magazines etc prior to 1994. # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? The Lunar landings were not faked.

The problem with responding to the skeptics is the approach taken by scientists. They defer to arrogance rather than simple fact. Although I am personally beginning to think that we did land at least once but possibly not more than that.

It would have been very difficult and expensive to take so many trips in such a short time. I think it can be proven or disproven by pointing the Hubble at the Moon and taking pictures of the flag and also any rovers left behind. See the scientific misconduct section of our website.

# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? 1st, The goverment could put this all to bed by just producing ONE picture of the landing site/sites taken from earth. 2nd, the Russians never quit on any race with us.

Q:Why,after we "landed" on the moon did they QUIT their manned program to land on the moon? Show me some LEM'S and footprints from the view from earth! # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?

# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? Pie, Eat it Boy! King wienerdog, 61, I need scisorrs, taco grande.

# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? I love my magic tonail, I keep it on my...FOOT... yeah, foot. # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?

Woo baby monkey cows are yummy kfc is cool so eat and rule the world or fight the ancient rats of the ancient underworld. # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?

Why did the flag flutter? How did the astronauts survive the radiation belt? Who filmed the shuttle leaving?

Who filmed when they were 'in space' when the other guy had to keep orbitting? Who does Alex really fancy? # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?

How the heck did the buggy from the apollo 16 mission got to the moon? If it's the good old saturn V there's no room for it! # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?

# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? Pls answers questioned by Bobrina. Does atmosphere on moon change very rapidly?

# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? NASA did land on the moon. THe flag soesn't need atmosphere to move.

According to Newton's theory, anything that is made moving will continue to move. THe astronaughts had to move the flag to get it in the ground, of course it waved and rippled, there was nothing there to stop it. And as far as who filmed the shuttle leaving...That's completely obvious.

It's called cameras. If they can build satellites why in the world couldn't they build a camera too? And your wrong about beleivers being a small majority.

YOU are the one who is the small magority, and if you have the lack of brains to side with the media (for godsake) then perhaps you had better come up with some hard core evidence to prove your point. THere's a ton of FACTUAL and LOGICAL evidence supporting NASA's landing, and the most these conspirators can come up with is Photoshop and that the Astronaughts could have never been able to take a freaking photo. For crying outloud.

# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? NASA landed men on the moon. I was around at the time, and soaked up just about every second of coverage, reports, and information I could at the time.

As Ness says, knock it, and it continues to wave for some time after. There is NO ATMOSPHERE to damp down the movement. It is held up by a piece of stiff horizontal wire along the top.

Flag has been folded or "scrunched up" during transit, therefore in photos it looks "wavy", or creased. It is not moving in any video, except when knocked. I remember seeing the LIVE video of Apollo 17 taking off (at the time) The return module of the LM took off and was followed all the way up until it became a dot.

The video camera on the buggy was remotely controlled by the ground crew, so they could observe what the two were doing during their moon excursions. The buggy has a great big dish aboard (see pictures elsewhere) to allow this communication. It was kind of folded up (a bit like the folding bicycles) and was transported on the LM.

The LM had a kind of "tail lift" a bit like on the back of many trucks/vans. This was only actually fitted to the LM for the missions with the rover. Also, I still haven't seen any explaination of how they faked the LIVE (or "live" for the "fakers") video pictures we saw AT THE TIME particularly of Apollo 16 and 17 (these were in 1/07/2004 11:450).

Pixar would struggle to make some of those "effects" look real EVEN NOW, and they certainly weren't around in 1/07/2004 11:450! They were in colour, although you hardly know it as the moon's surface is fairly featureless grey. Also there were the movie films which came out soon after.

I know I saw quite a bit of the film clips in the early 70's. Not then.... these were obviously shot in a vacuum purely by the way the particles, including the "dust sized" pieces reacted. They didn't get picked up in an atmosphere and then slowly sink like dust does in air on earth.

Some of these films included 2 astronauts and the buggy being driven. So NASA had a HUGE studio they could pump to vacuum? # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?

Oh yes, more about the rover. It was folded up, in a compartment in the side of the LM base (the lander unit). The compartment side folded down (with the lunar rover attached) and the LR was then let down to the ground and unfolded.

The LM base was left behind on takeoff (to make a good takeoff platform) and only the crew module ascended to dock with the Command module. This needed a smaller engine to lift just the 2 astronauts and their samples, instead of the larger lander which included the base, the lunar rover, the experiment packages that were left behind, and of course the flag! Interestingly, about the experiment packages.

At least some (and I think all) of the experiment packages set out by the Apollo astronauts included a reflective prism. This was so that scientists here on earth could fire a laser to a precise spot on the moon and have it reflected back. This has enabled them to measure VERY PRECISELY the distance to the moon.

If you just fired a laser at the moon it would just get absorbed and partly scattered by the dark rock. It would certainly not get reflected back. This research (by many scientists across the globe, not just NASA ones) has shown that the moon is in fact moving away from the earth very slowly.

Ok, some would say a robot lander could have landed this. Well, it could have been done, yes. However, in my view much of the video, film, and photographic eveidence shows they did go there.

But you are entitled to your opinions. # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? Why we haven't gone back to the moon.

# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? Maxine you are a complete nut job. The Americans, more than likely, have landed on the moon!

Those who deny the fact are out of their minds. Maxine's point about Photo Shop is just plain stupid. Photoshop wasnt invented until 7/01/2004 10:3037 and I doubt that the massive, room filling computers that scientists had in those days would have been used for that kind doctoring.

I thought Ness's point about Newtons Law is an excellent explanation of the flag. Someone said that the film footage was fake. In 7/01/20049 2:301 cameras had been invented and utilised for decades, and why would Americans have gone to all the trouble, in effort and financially, to launch the rockets or even build working ones any way.

Think about the logic of it. To those whom still believe that these moon landings were faked, I suggest you have a little more evidence to back up your claims. I live in an era where everything is faked and yet I find it completely plausible that the landings actually happened.

# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? To scabby skyfire, the reason why they stopped going to the moon, is that they had been there, done that and it would no longer be financially worth it to continue moon landings. There is only so much you can do with the moon, and i'm sure that their original intentions did not involve cheese no matter what type it may have been.

I don't think they had cows on the moon! But we do on earth, Maxine~! # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?

Maxines a golly wog! What's that maxine? , your a twat?

# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? I'm having a swell time.

Maxines a nasty twat! Skyfire and maxine sitting in a tree t w a t t I n g. Whats that Viraj, you spelt your name wrong?

# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? Who doesn't like twat crutch whore bag maxine? And several million other people.

Aye Aye Sir! Who's a twat crutch whore bag? # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?

I agree maxines a twat and a half and so is skyfire! And viraj and steve and what kind of name is bobrina? And andrea how strange are you when we arrived on this website you spelt the web address wrong it was www.andreasrooc.

Maxines got no crutch! # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? Maxine is a dirty moll!

What is wrong with this picture? # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? Maxine has lip fungus.

What's wrong with this picture? # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? Maxine is a smoll like andrea!

# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? I have a 5th sense, its like I have espn or something. Wats wrong wit this pic?

, I know your in it! # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? Why hasn't the u.s.

# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? Well fake or not.

Time to pump money in the new space program MAN ON MARS? # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? Maxine is right.

Neither I, or any other astronaught went anywhere near to the Moon. The closest I ever got to the Moon was when I was fitting my outside TV aerial. Yes it's correct that on 8/05/2004 5:554 I said "Picking up some dust", but I was vacuuming my automobile at the time.

That damn Nasascam site has totally blown the NASA cover up. I think my pal Buzz met him in a pub some years ago. After downing 16 pints, Buzz told him that the landings were fake, but the guy had known they were fake as far back as 7/01/20049 2:301.

# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? Maxine, I remember them landing on the moon in 7/01/20049 2:301.. I watched it on TV. The photos from the Apollo missions were indeed available in the 70's... I have looked at hundreds of them at the time.

Also if they were faked, they could have done a much better job. I'm a Photoshop professional, so I know. # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?

I dunno why they keep on about the Moon landings. Everyone, except a few gullible people, know they were faked. Even the guy who faked the Moon pictures for NASA has owned up to the fact.

# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? No one to this day (1/07/2004 11:454) has ever conducted a controlled rocket landing...ever...except ONLY during each of the apollo mission landings....or so we are led to believe. I find it very hard to believe it happened on the moon 36 years ago without the aid of an advanced super computer.

Mp3 player has thousands of times more memory than the proported total systems on the Lunar Lander(32k). This feat has not been accomplished on earth as of yet, and, while traveling 12000 Mi/per hour, I doubt the Lunar Module would have been able to sustain a rocket landing on the moon without a landing accident or sustaining severe damage to the Lander. Check out the stage creation pics on geocities.com/apolloreality....it all fits....but common sense should already tell you this..why classify documents till 2026 if theres nothing to hide?

# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? Only a fool hides behind a false pretense of patriotism, to protect a lie which has clearly been exposed by the real patriots! Give it up!

Admit you've been duped and move on with your lives...don't be so shocked that you fell for this "lunacy"....we all did. Now that you know the truth, you can go back to the green pill of acquiesence, or be thankful that your red pill has been served! # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?

I have been reading the NASASCAM. I have contacted Tuttle who says he digitally altered the photos and insists on not faking them. He also insists that man landed on the moon (his reply on apollofacts).

Since my first language is not english and I don't want to ask the author stupid qustions, can you explain it to me how can Nasascam consider his words as admition of fakery and not going to the moon? # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? I have video of a new rocket trying to land and it tore up the concrete with the jet blast.

Why isn't there a speck of dust on the feet. Of the tape it states, not for public viewing. Why would they even attempt that.

They were miles from the earth while they were still in orbit. Has anyone listened to the actual moonlanding conversations. I have over and over again.

Yet you don't want to listen. Why does the Earth look the same size as the moon. Much bigger than the moon.

Why hasn't the shuttle even orbited the moon for a couple days? Why don't they ever show what it looks like in space from the shuttle? Even if they have to do it on the dark side of the Earth.

These are just a few simple questions I want answered. Did we go to the moon? Was shown to us.

# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? Did you read the nasascam update about Michael Tuttle admitting he tampered NASA photos? I sent Tuttle certain emails, he said he digitally altered the photos: twisted them, filled bottom of photos, altered colors... and insists on not faking them.

How can this be a confession of him admitting fakery (although I support the moon hoax theory). # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? I'm not such an expert on this, but I think that the nasa landings were real.

I recently have been looking at a lot of sites that explain how it is all fake. For some reason I don't belieeve them, I belive that NASA did infact got man to the moon. # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?

# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? Here is a further response from me about the Moon Landing controversy as requested by a few SCIFRAUD members.

With respect to your previous questions, which were not questions at all but rather a pointing to links on the lunar landing controversy. You accused me of ignoring your posts and the evidence, etc. I mentioned that I was already aware of these links and had read this information. I asked for time to finish reading, "Analysis of Surveyor 3 Material and Photographs Returned by Apollo 12".

I would like to discuss several issues, approximately three, about lunar materials chemical analysis, and public perceptions fueled by comments and information published by the scientific community who hold themselves out as authorities, who demand the public trust and believe them. We do not understand why NASA chose a public relations campaign to assert their position that the landings occurred rather than just hand over documents to the press such as this publication. The reason we rely on early data and information is because these analysis are conducted without the political gyrations of funding sources in complicity with scientists seeking perpetual elitist employment positions for life, while really producing not much of value.

Early investigators actually were making discoveries using new, novel, and innovative techniques. The approach to many of the questions posed is both valid and the level of detail is spellbinding. It is my opinion that much of what needed to be learned about the Moon was accomplished by 1984 and everything else since then amounts to trivia, formulated with the concept of a solution seeking a problem.

You don't have to take my word for it, just pick up a recent copy of MAPS and see for yourself. "Analysis of Surveyor 3 Material and Photographs Returned by Apollo 12". Surveyor 3 was one of five automated spacecraft that successfully soft-landed and operated on the lunar surface, acquired a vast amount of new scientific and engineering data, and provided a firm foundation for subsequent manned landings on the Moon.

When we designed and launched these Surveyors, there was no plan for them to be visited by astronauts in subsequent manned missions. Components for engineering and scientific studies. Such an opportunity was provided by the Apollo 12 mission.

Thirty-one months after Surveyor 3 landed, the crew of Apollo 12 photographed the spacecraft and its landing site, and removed and brought back a number of selected components. On the hardware of the long exposure to the lunar environment. The returned material and photographs have been studied and evaluated by 40 teams of engineering and scientific investigators over a period of more than 1 year.

A few tasks are still in process and several proposals for additional studies have been received. This report represents a compilation of the main engineering and scientific results to date. Engineering studies of the television camera show that the complex electromechanical components, optics, and solid-state electronics were remarkably resistant to the severe lunar surface environment over 32 lunar day/night cycles with their extremes of temperature and long exposure to solar and cosmic radiation.

These results indicate that the state of technology, even as it existed some years ago, is capable of producing reliable hardware that makes feasible long-life lunar and planetary installations. Scientific studies of the returned Surveyor parts provide new data in many fields and provide further confirmation that specifically designed recoverable experiments should have great value in the study of the space environment. The landing(s) most certainly occurred, and we are relying on evidence gathered from the chemical analysis of Surveyor 3 mechanical parts.

In addition we are relying on the chemical composition of our lunar sample and other known meteorites as a test comparison by chemical composition. The conclusions reached by the investigators on morphological data on individual particles and X-ray diffraction data on individual lunar dust particles, show the following. It seems reasonable to conclude that the dust examined is of extraterrestrial origin.

The following points support this statement. A) Mineralogy indicates a similarity with bulk phases found in lunar rocks and soils. B) Reasonably high percentages of glassy or amorphous material is typical of lunar solids examined to date.

C) Presence of glass spheres is a feature that is typical of lunar rocks and soils. D) “Average” chemical composition of the particles approaches that reported for other lunar material. However, there are significant differences among the compositions of individual particles.

These differences can only be seen by analysis of the type conducted in this study. The origin of this dust appears to be from fine-grained rock or soil. The X-ray examination shows that the majority of the particulates are complex mixtures of more than one crystalline phase and not merely micrometer-size pieces of single phase material.

Therefore, the most logical parent material of this dust is a fine-grained breccia or a soil from such a rock type. A common rock type, the lunar breccias are produced by a complex process of impact mixing and remixing of surface and subsurface material as well as solar particles and the leftovers of the impacting object. There is no way tell how many impacts produced a single brecciated stone unless one relates several factors.

However, our sample, which is pristine in composition and a part of the “original mixture”, provides us with an absolute path to the possible ranges of impact produced material. The possibilities are very narrow at first, however, this narrowness is broadened with the frequency, size, and chemical contribution from the impactor(s). As an investigator, you must come to the realization and accept the fact that high temperature solids from the Moon having formed in a volatile depleted environment under a high vacuum pressure are very small crystallites, very specific in composition, and this is the reason the investigators of the surveyor material did not make any mistakes.

An experienced scientist from the US cannot mistake lunar material in thin section for anything terrestrial, unless of course that was the intention from the very beginning. We have seen it done before. Statements Made by Trusted Scientists Not Helping NASA in Lunar Controversy.

Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied lunar rocks knows that anyone who thinks the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of government conspiracy doesn’t know much about rocks. The Apollo samples are just too good. They tell a self-consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot that’s better than any story any conspirator could have conceived.

I’ve studied lunar rocks and soils for 30+ years and I couldn’t make even a poor imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the lab. And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in government labs, no one in “the Government” could do it either, even now that we know what lunar rocks are like. This conduct is very damaging to the business of research and the matter at hand.

It is not credible for a scientist claiming to have thirty plus years of experience and access to all of that material, does not know that the Government material has existed in the form of JSC-1. Rather than issue an apology for this misleading major error, a paper came out indicating that this material no longer exists, as though this is going to be a cure for the exposed scientific misconduct. This is not the way it works and in fact much of the "corrections" to satisfy our claims amount to a scientific makeover utilizing musical chairs setting.

Cosmochemistry Group leads public into minefield of potential abuse. This item deserves mention because it creates a special problem wherein the scientific community is engaged in the employment of meteorite dealers and collectors as gatekeepers or a first line of defense in accessing of lab information. There are numerous problems with using “meteorite dealers” as quote, “established authorities in meteorite identification”.

They form a tightly knit boys club (IMCA) intent on control of outsiders, the public, and basically the entire spectrum regarding meteorites. First of all many of them have been warned by Ebay to leave their clients alone. Here we provide an example of a meteorite dealer named Ken Newton who writes something on his web site about meteorite identification, not based on science at all.

The Cosmochemistry Group from the University of Arkansas has placed the public in a position facing abuse from these dealers. Do I have a Meteorite? Meteorites have a number of characteristics which set them apart from terrestrial rocks.

The most obvious is the unusually heavy nature of meteorites. Stony meteorites are one and a half times heavier than equivalent-sized terrestrial rocks whereas iron meteorites can be four times heavier. Meteorites are generally irregular in shape, but with rounded edges.

Freshly fallen meteorites have very thin (1-2 millimeters thick) black surfaces. However, freshly fallen meteorites are rare and found usually only after the fall itself has been witnessed. Usually, the meteorite has become brown due to weathering and sometimes may reveal a surface scale.

Meteorites are always compact, not porous or hollow. Most meteorites are magnetic and will attract a simple hand magnet. A good test of authenticity is to grind a suspected meteorite on an abrasive wheel.

All but a few meteorites contain grains of metal that appear as shining flecks on the abraded surface, or they are made almost entirely of metal, in which case the whole surface appears shiny. What to do with a suspected meteorite. If the above description matches a rock you believe may be a meteorite, you can contact private dealers for confirmation, many have websites – search for “meteorites” or “meteorite dealers” with one of the regular search engines) .

You will need to either send or take a sample for visual inspection, but usually only a small (walnut-sized) piece is needed. The Cosmochemistry Group at the University of Arkansas is no longer able to offer this service due to the large number of requests and limited resources. This group did not take the time to warn the public of poorly informed meteorite dealers and there are many out there.

In addition to his conduct on Ebay, here is one of many reasons why Mr. Newton (a meteorite dealer) is not qualified to counsel the public on meteorites. 99% of all meteorites are attracted to a strong magnet on a string. (As are metal artifacts and iron ore) Or if the object is small, hang it from a string.

This is used as a preliminary test and is recommended to new collectors. However, a few meteorite hunters use a different method. Instead of a magnet, they use a compass needle to determine magnetic attraction.

A magnet will corrupt or change the magnetic field of a meteorite. Folks, when we read this statement we nearly fell off our chair. You cannot, “corrupt or change the magnetic field of a meteorite (destroying research info)”, simply by attaching a magnet to it.

This is impossible. The magnetic properties of all substances, whether in the solid, liquid or gaseous state, are due entirely to the motions of electrons within the atoms, and magnets of all kinds are the result of the lining up of electron loops and spinning electrons. The most modern theory of ferromagnetism and the explanation of a magnetization curve is based upon magnetic domains.

If the temperature of a ferromagnetic specimen is heated above a certain temperature, called its curie point, the exchange coupling disappears and the specimen becomes paramagnetic. (This results in changing the magnetism of the substance but not the summation of its chemical composition or info). In the absence of a certain amount of energy applied to the substance (meteorite), just attaching a magnet is not going to do what Mr. Newton claims.

(No relation to Isaac). HIs web site below. Finally, Mr. Peterson, In this area, not to mention biomedicine, energy resources, and other fields, I think we as a nation are losing lots of credibility all over the world, I fear as more and more people join the internet community.

The only way we can reverse this I'm afraid is to start holding those we handed authority in science, research, and funding accountable for their actions and inactions. We need a massive house cleaning. # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?

Not only was Photoshop not invented until 7/01/2004 10:3037, the first raster image was edited/created in the 70's. Also check www.geocities.com/apollofeedback5 for reasons to forget this ridiculous claim! # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?

I think its all fake . # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? Srry about the message on top after readingt the sites above it is very obvious that nasa did visit the moon.

If not we will see when japan goes up there again soon. # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? Can I get more informations(cd,video clips etc)?

# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? I want to mention tht when america landed on the moon first of all they dint posses much technology.

Ok if I agree tht they did posses then y didn't the russians landed even they were equiped with such space technolagy tht the americans still don't have. Second thing is the shadow of the astraunauts. There are 4 shadows in the video which means tht there are 4 lighting sources which where as there is only 1 sun.

I think it is totally fake and shooted in a studio. # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? IT's clear what happend, Nixon wanted to score with the USSR back then.

The USSR scored the space, Nixon wanted to show them they are better, Bring stanly Kubrick, Hire the actors, go to a remote location and shot the damn thing. Everything is a fake. I can understand when someone tries to hang on to the lies of his/her country government, but come one we're grown ups now.

# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? Www.geocities.com/apollofeedback7 has many answers. The issue can be debated at www.geocities.com/apollofeedback8 .

That would be a better place where ppl of expertise can answer (specially for you, Maxine). If ppl have doubts, I would like that it is shared in the right place. # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?

Im not to sure, to think they didn't go to the moon is pretty ridiculous, but why are there alot of mistakes found? And to think that in 7/01/20049 2:301 when color tv was just created you could make a space ship, fly it up in the sky through the atmosphere and travel ALL the way to the moon, then land, and come back... for me, it sounds WAY to good to be true. Guys please reply to this.

# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? Why don't you stop talking and start acting by sending your crews to the moon (if you are smart enough to do it) and be able to check for our USA land marks (ups!) US moon marks? At that time, you will find out that our moon landing was a true mission.

And don't forget, we will do it again! # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? Hahaha thats funny, you think nasa didn't land on the moon?

# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? I think the moon landings were TOTALLY faked by NASA to win the space race against USSR. We all agree that space shuttles require highly sophisticated computers to control their systems, right?

But way back in the 60's the most powerful computers were not even as good as pocket calculators, forget managing gravity, temprature, environment, calculating distance, altitude, speed n stuff inside the space shuttle. A space shuttle is no car/bike/motorboat or for that matter a tiny WW2 plane that has a tiny engine with a gear box or a propeller. Secondly radiation belts r impossible to survive in just a 2 inch walled space air craft or for that matter even a 10 inch one.

Thirdly if they had visited the moon in the 60's y havent dey done it again till now? Don't give the budget crap cause NASA is not short of money, the simple answer is that dey don't have the technology yet. The only thing which is really holds an argument from the NASA's side is the moon rocks... Though I am not really shure as to how they have made them.

But I am shure there must be some scientific explaination behind them which will sooner or later be known to mankind. # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? 1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view.

Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon?

The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam. 2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?

4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? 5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand.

The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place. 6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions. 7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?

8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? Sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon). 9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?

10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry? 11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.

12) Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested? 13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches. 14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.

15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars. 16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours.

Russian scientists calculated in 1/07/2004 11:453 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?

17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order. 18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i.

And yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. Speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.

19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM. 20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges.

They never did. 21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering. 22) With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM?

Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, ' you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can't even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.' This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race. 23) Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?

24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon.

Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear. 25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts.

Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 8/05/2004 5:558 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 8/05/2004 5:559 of an inch of aluminium shielding!

26) The Apollo 1 fire of 8/05/2004 5:551, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!

28) In 7/01/20049 2:301 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 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 alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator. 29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen.

The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LEM go? 30) In the year 1/07/2004 11:454 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.

31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, dated by NASA three days after they left for the moon. It shows the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!".

32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments? # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction?

# re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? I remember watching a 1996 TLC program about the DC-X (Delta clipper); The DC-X is a VTOL(vertical take off and landing) rocket. Many websites still list it as being a scaled down test rocket to test the feasability of VTOL technology in a 1 stage reusable rocket.

The rocket works; it went up stopped in mid air(approx 1000ft+) hovered, them moved laterally, then decended rocket engines first to the ground, and landed successfuly. They did however show some disasterous previous attempts. I remember distictly the NASA offical stating "THAT ONLY NOW WITH SOPHISTICATED MICROCHIPS THAT ALLOW FOR THE 1000'S OF MANIPULATIONS PER SECOND OF THE ROCKET THRUSTERS CAN VTOL BE DONE by a ROCKET".

I never thought anything of the statement at the time, but now it seems odd that he forgot that the Lunar lander did it 25+ years ago 250,000 miles from earth slowing from an approx. They also cooled the LM with a 1967/01/2004 10:3033 airconditioner that during Appolo 17, resisted 240 F+ for approx 3 days, using only BATTERIES...which had to run the other aspects of life support, lights etc. Batteries? And they were in direct sunlight the whole time;no Van Allen belts, no magnetic field, no 50 miles of relatively dence atmosphere with an Ozone to shield them; and in a NASA sanctioned book I own, it states that parts of the LM were as thin as 7/01/2004 10:3031 of an inch; yes thats 7/01/2004 10:3031ths of an inch.

They even tell amusing stories of screwdrivers dropped by accident during simulations falling straight through to the floor. The face of the moon always faces the earth; a lunar month(synodical) is 29+ days ,half being day; the other night. I don't recall seeing any vapour blasts comming from the LM; Im not even sure if an A/C can work in a vacuum.

A vacuum is natures best insulator; this is why your coffee stays mostly hot while in a thermos(vacuum bottle). I am a sceptic of the moon landings, but I will not say that it absolutly never happened either. All NASA has to do is show how these systems worked...but apparently they have lost the blueprints for the insignificant machinery used to go to the moon and back...ei.

The Saturn V rocket and all its stages aswell as the Lunat modual and lander; I don't know this first hand...but again why can't NASA end this by allowing close scrutiny of these bluprints.. and give demonstrations on how the technology worked.....I'd pay to see it. # re: The NASA Moon Landings, Fact or Fiction? Some thoughts on the 30th.

Above 200 to 300 miles altitude, the Radiation of X-Rays, Gamma Rays, and Cosmic Rays are deadly to any and all living organisms. We are protected here on Earth, by the Van Allen Belts (180 -300 miles alltitude), and the atmosphere surrounding the earth. The reason the temperatures at the equator are so much hotter, and almost unbearable at105-120 degrees F, is that the sun's Radiation has less atmosphere to penetrate.

The direct sunlight radiation on the Moon's surface without any atmosphere whatsoever ranges between 265 degrees to 300 degrees F. , far above the boiling temperature of water here on earth, (with atmospheric pressure of 15 lbs. Per square inch).

The absence of any atmosphere leaves EVERYTHING subject to deadly Solar radiation, X-Rays, Gamma Rays, Cosmic Rays, and Solar flares. It is a very, very in-hospitable place, to say the least. Even short duration exposure to the deadly radiation would result in Cancer, Leukemia, and Death.

The space around the Moon is a total vaccuum. In a vaccuum, the so-called air-conditioning units worn as "backpacks" by the Astro-NOTS had NO WAY TO CONDUCT THE HEAT AWAY. Remember, the radiated surface heat of an object in direct sunlight on the surface of the Moon is 265 to 300 degrees F.

A vaccuum is a PERFECT INSULATOR. Heat (molecular motion) must be conducted by molecular motion, transferred from one medium to another medium, for heating or cooling of any kind to be effected. The cycle is continuous, repeating transfer of heat from the engine block to the outside air.

If the automobile radiator was placed in a vaccuum chamber, no convection could take place from the fins to the air (because there would be no air molecules to EFFECT A TRANSFER of heat away from the radiator); the heat would keep increasing, until the entire water system boiled away, then engine heat would keep rising until the engine self destructed, burning itself up. On the "Moon", the entire CLOSED SYSTEM of the "air-conditioning backpack" and the Astro-NOT inside the suit, were ALL "WITHIN A TOTAL, COMPLETE VACCUUM". They would have cooked like a burritos in a microwave oven!

Ole'.. WHERE DID THE HEAT GO, NASA? The "Spacesuits" were supposedly pressurized to 5 p.s.i.. At that pressure, the gloves which were integral with the arms of the suits worn by the Astro-Nots would be practically immovable in the fingers. The pictures and film released by NASA shows the men working with the gloves freely moving their fingers and grasping objects with NO DIFFICULTY WHATSOEVER, and apparently no pressure in the gloves!

The entrance and exit hatch on the Lunar landing module is dimensionally to small for any Astro-Not to have climbed out of with the bulky suit on. Maybe that is why there are NO PICTURES OF ANYONE EXITING THE TOO SMALL HATCH! When investigators tried to get copies of the original construction drawings of the Lander Module from Grumman Aircraft Corp.

, of Beth Page New York, they were told that all of the drawings have been destroyed! (Isn't that convenient!) No further detailed analysis can made. The Lander simulator is on view at the Smithsonian Museum.

Many areas in the two craft differ from pictures. The Astro-Nots carried standard Hasselblad cameras, fastened to their suit front, supposedly to take the many still photos. According to Kodak Corp.

, who made the film used in the Moon Landing expeditions, the film melts above 150 degrees F. The camers were not "air-conditioned" with the new "thermodynamics discovery laws" that the NASA seems to have access to! (How did NASA get the film to withstand the incredible heat, hereto-fore unknown in photography?

The shadows of objects in pictures published by NASA had widely different angles, within the same picture. If the light source was the SUN, all shadows should have been parallel, and also indicating the identical angle of elevation. Surprisingly, some pictures showed different shadow angles, sometimes as much as four or five different light source origins.

The picture of Armstrong and Aldrin placing the American flag have radically different shadow lengths, indicating two separate light sources, with resultant different angles of elevation to the light source, most certainly not the SUN! The angles of elevation of the sun, from the surface of the Moon can be KNOWN for any date, relative to any location on the Moon's surface by the principles of Astronomy and spherical geometry. This embodies the mathematics of Astronomy, and Navigation, which has been perfected during the last two hundred years.

The angles of elevation to the Sun, from measurements taken of shadows seen in photographs published by NASA do not agree with calculated actual Sun angles of elevation for the time periods of the published excursions. The only explanation is that the light source in NASA photographs is NOT THE SUN! No picture of the Moon's surface, published by NASA, shows any stars in the sky.

The "NO ATMOSPHERE" of the surface of the moon, would have been a literally breathtaking sky-view, with MORE stars visible than any living man has EVER SEEN on the earth. Not only would it show in every Moon photo with the horizon and sky in the background, but the Astro-Nots themselves would have been commenting frequently in amazement, and been in absolute awe. NOT ONE SINGLE COMMENT FROM ANY ASTRO-NOT of the stunning sky and view of the Heavens above!

NOT ONE SINGLE STAR IN ANY PHOTO! If NASA had decided to put stars or constellations in the "FAKE" sky on their movie set, it wouldn't have take too long for some very clever Astronomers to take the published "Moon landing" dates, done some angle of elevation calculations, and discovered incontrovertible evidence of fraud, because star placement would be either exactly right (which would be so if all photographs were taken on the Moon), or very, very wrong. Star and Planet positions in the heavens are a fixed, and immovable landmark in the sky.

So, NASA choose to have a sky with NOTHING WHATSOEVER IN IT, and avoid the chance of being caught with their "pants down"! The one most spectacular, single sight which could EVER BE SEEN by any human in history would be a view of the Earth while standing on the Moon, with the most incredible array of stars and planets ever seen, surrounding the view of Earth. The Earth is approximately fifteen times larger than the Moon, and is bathed in an ever changing myriad of clouds, intense blue oceans, colored land masses, and dramatic lightening flashes arcing beneath the clouds, revealing a startling display, as has been photographed from orbiting space craft about 180 miles above the Earth.


NOT ONE PHOTO OF THE EARTH FROM THE MOON PUBLISHED. Should we even ask, WHY NOT? (Because the Astro-Nots weren't on the Moon.

The soil beneath the Lunar Lander was undisturbed in the published NASA photographs. The Lander supposedly used a powerful rocket engine blasting downwards to prevent the whole module from crashing into the surface. The sustained, many, many seconds long rocket blast of litterally THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS of pounds of FORCE, as the module slowly lowered itself to the soft, rocky soil surface of the Moon, would have sent huge clouds of rock, dust and debris blasted out of the ground zero landing spot, onto the surrounding terrain, and the dust would also have fallen back onto the Lander itself.

In the published NASA photo's, the soil beneath the Lander is UNDISTURBED, with NO RETRO-BLAST CRATER, the surrounding rocks have NO DUST whatsoever, and the Lander is squeaky clean. One photo even shows a "footprint" beneath the Lander! The moon horizon in the NASA published photo's is not sharp and distinct.

The pure vaccuum on the moon would have no atmosphere to cause a fuzzy, indistinct line. However, this is exactly the kind of horizon one gets in an Earth photo. The helmet visors of the Astro-Nots have many unexplained bright light sources (that could not be the Sun), and wierd shapes.

No explanations have ever been forthcoming from NASA. The electric vehicle the Astro-Nots used to travel about, was over ten feet long. The storage space in the side of the Lander measures five feet in length.

No pictures exist of the vehicle being removed from the Lander. Data is collected daily by NASA, the Naval Observatory, and NOAA, regarding Solar flares of the Sun, and radiation on a systematic and regular basis, for UHF, Radio, Television, Navigation, and Satellite monitoring purposes. High solar activity would produce dangerous, DEADLY RADIATION to any space activity, interrupt radio communications, and be deadly to men working on the Moons suface without any atmospheric protection, or the Van Allen Belts.

ALL SOLAR RADIATION DATA for the exact dates of the Lunar missions is UN-AVAILABLE! UN-AVAILABLE FROM ANY SOURCE! The photo's supposedly taken inside the Lander while on the Moon, have no rocket engine protruding into the inside area.

The Lander on display at the Smithsonian shows the rocket engine nozzle at the bottom of the lander, with the rocket motor itself supposedly protruding up into the INSIDE THE LANDER. The NASA sound track (8/05/2004 5:556), played to audiences around the world, of the Lander descending and the voice of Neil Armstrong reading out the changing altitude to "control", as the Lander "descends", has NO SOUNDS of any rocket engine whatsoever, when he supposedly was within feet of a rocket engine, inside of the very capsule which supposedly also enclosed the main engine, (without mufflers folk's) producing THOUSANDS OF POUNDS OF ROCKET THRUST (RAW POWER)! A Rocket engine is a CONTROLLED EXPLOSION.

A Rocket engine is one of the HIGHEST DECIBEL SOUND LEVEL DEVICES EVER MADE BY MAN! In one of the published NASA photo's, a rock in the foreground has the letter "C" clearly etched into the surface. Is this a "prop", accidentally turned to expose it's "prop letter"?

Scientists and Historians have repeatedly asked NASA to aim the multi-$billion$ dollar Hubbel Telescope at the Moon, and take pictures of the landing sites from the Apollo missions. (1) The moon is too bright, and would damage the scope. (2) The scope cannot focus on an object that close.

Astronomy journals have subsequently published several excellent photo's of the Moon, taken by the Hubbel Telescope. NASA has "no comment"! The son of "Gus Grissome", one of the early Astronauts trained for the Apollo Mission, has stated publically, that he believes his father was "murdered", after working many years to determine the cause of the "mysterious Apollo capsule fire" that killed his father during testing.

Grissome was known by all as fearless man, very outspoken and unafraid to make his opinion known. He was not a "company man". He was closer to being a rebel, yet highly qualified.

(Was his and the other Astronauts terrible "death by fire", a warning to others that their lack of co-operation would be dealt with in the harshest way possible?) 21. No Astro-NOT has ever been diagnosed with Leukemia, Cancer, or effects of radiation sickness, hair loss or physical debilitation, immune system failure, which would result from long exposure to high radiation, and X-Rays, Gamma Rays, or Solar Flare radiation. Billy Kaysing says he would not be inclined to settle his pending lawsuit against former astronaut James Lovell because his "goal is to reveal to the American public that the government lies about important things." "They lie to us, they cheat us, and I want to open the lid to Pandora's box," he said in an early June telephone interview.

"I want only to appear in court without any attorney, on my own in front of a jury, and present my complete case." Kaysing, a former technical writer for Rocketdyne, a California corporation that worked on rocket engines for the Lunar Module (known as the LEM) which supposedly landed on the moon six times between 1967/01/2004 10:3033, and author of "We Never Went To The Moon" filed a malicious libel suit against Apollo astronaut James Lovell last August because Lovell called him a "wacko" in an article which appeared in San Jose's "Metro Weekly Magazine" 23. A Nashville, Tenn.

Producer is currently working on a video but thus far has been unsuccessful in getting Neil Armstrong to answer some lingering questions, Kaysing said. "The first time he got turned away, and the second time, Neil told him if he came back again he would get arrested." (If the "Moon landing" were true, why won't Astro-NOTS even allow interviews, except those staged by the "Mainstream Media" (and the pre-arranged questions), after 30 YEARS! If the event actually happened, wouldn't these few men on the earth who supposedly have had the most unique experience in the history of the world, be more than happy to share their memories for professional writers and filmakers, and the general public?

The strange facts are that they would rather call the Police, than even speak to "those other" writers, filmmakers or the public. This is akin to the baseball star "Mark McGuire", after hitting 70 homeruns, and smashing the 35 year old record of Rodger Maris and Babe Ruth, giving the fans and admiring kids the finger, refusing to speak to anyone and calling the police! However, McGuire has always been a cheerful, friendly gentleman, giving fans and the press, his time and patience.

Haven't you ever wondered how and why "Superhero" Neil Armstrong has remained out of public scrutiny for 30 years? What are you hiding Neil? Is your conscience bothering you, maybe just a little bit?

Afraid of questions, Neil?) 24. This 2-hour report by James Collier, author of "VOTESCAM: The Stealing of America" includes new evidence videod in the Johnson Space Center in Houston -- and questions whether NASA was guilty of spending billions of taxpayer money -- to stage the greatest theatrical hoax of all time. This video demands answers from the U.S. Government before we go to Mars.

"Was It Only A Paper Moon?" -- $7/01/2004 10:3035 Grade-A Productions 270 Sparta Ave 104-234 Sparta, NJ 07871 25. These facts regarding the physical problems, radiation problems, light angles, photo incongrueties, Solar radiation missing records, Thermo-dynamics of cooling, sound recording anomalies, common sense questions, observations, and the strange behavoir of the public Astro-NOTS, are only a partial list of questions posed by Physicists, Photographers, Engineers, writers, and the public, for thirty years. Questions, that remain UNANSWERED by NASA, or any of the Astro-NOTS to this day.

If the representatives of the United States government, NASA, and the Astro-NOTS have stonewalled for thirty years, the American public DOES INDEED know the true answer to these questions. Truth and lies are not compatible, and by their silence and inability to speak truthfully, directly and clearly to these and other anomalies, U.S. Government once again shows it's true face: lies, lies and more lies. Lies cannot bear the light of scrutiny.

The "Moon Landing" was indeed, a giant fraud and deception, executed on film and sound recording equipment, with some very expensive "props". That is all the evidence that exists, to create the "fact" firmly in the public mind. Anniversary, you posturing, smirking, lying, "Apollo ASTRO-NOTS".

"You can fool all of the people, some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time, ......... 29. All names, missions, landing sites, and events in the Apollo Space Program, echo OCCULT METAPHORS, RITUALS, AND SYMBOLOGY OF PAGAN RELIGION. The name "APOLLO", is the sun God "Osiris".

Listen up America! It's Thirty Billion $dollar$ down the black hole of NASA and the CIA, for their OCCULT RELIGION, and this RELIGION IS THE NEW WORLD ORDER! How were the suits cooled, since the atmosphere was a VACUUM, and WHERE and or HOW was the HEAT transferred from the suit? You know, how would you get your refrigerator to work if the radiator was enclosed in a vacuum chamber?

JPL: Good question John, however I don't have a clue. Try some of the official NASA sights. Me: Did NASA ever put animals i.e.

, monkeys or chimps into orbit to test the danger of passing through the KNOWN High radiation danger of the Van Allen Belt? JPL: No, never. Me: Did NASA ever put animals i.e.

, monkeys or chimps into orbit OUTSIDE the Van Allen Belt, to determine the danger of Solar Flares, and cosmic radiation on living organisms? JPL: No, never. Me: How were the astronaughts able to protect themselves if a SOLAR FLARES or ERUPTION happened while they were on the Moon, or traveling to or from?

They made six round trips between 7/01/20049 2:301 and 1/07/2004 11:450! JPL: There have been no flights above the belts with organisms from the U.S. Lots of unmanned flights have taken radiation data (electrons, protons, and ions ("cosmic rays")) inside and outside the belts. So, we understand the nominal environment reasonably well.

Probably the largest dose to the astronauts occured when passing through the belts on the way to the moon. This is true only if there are no solar flares or ejections of high energy particles. If there are flares,etc.; people are in big trouble.

They were watching the sun closely as part of the launch philosophy and they lucked out. There is still no way to predict well what the sun will do. In fact, the station will have a "safe room" built into it to "hide" if there is a flare.

This has also been identified as a big deal for the manned mars missions of the future. Here are the answers given to me by a 35 year mechanical engineer (personal friend for 40 years), at JPL, who is sent all over the wold by NASA, has lived in Virginia for two years doing duty on Federal liason work with major world contractors in the US, Spain, Russia, France, England and Germany. I love it!

The more questions I asked, the crazier it gets! Not ONE SINGLE INTELLIGENT answer. Just a lot of blah, blah!

To make interstellar travel believable NASA was created. The Apollo Space Program foisted the idea that man could travel to, and walk upon, the moon. Every Apollo mission was carefully rehearsed and then filmed in large sound stages at the Atomic Energy Commissions Top Secret test site in the Nevada Desert and in a secured and guarded sound stage at the Walt Disney Studios within which was a huge scale mock-up of the moon.

All names, missions, landing sites, and events in the Apollo Space Program echoed the occult metaphors, rituals, and symbology of the Illuminati's secret religion. The most transparent was the faked explosion on the spacecraft Apollo 13, named "Aquarius" (new age) at 1:13 (1313 military time) on 8/05/2004 5:552 which was the metaphor for the initiation ceremony involving the death (explosion), placement in the coffin (period of uncertainty of their survival), communion with the spiritual world and the imparting of esoteric knowledge to the candidate (orbit and observation of the moon without physical contact), rebirth of the initiate (solution of problem and repairs), and the raising up (of the Phoenix, the new age of Aquarius) by the grip of the lions paw (reentry and recovery of Apollo 13). 13 is the number of death and rebirth, death and reincarnation, sacrifice, the Phoenix, the Christ (perfected soul imprisoned in matter), and the transition from the old to the new.

Exploration of the moon stopped because it was impossible to continue the hoax without being ultimately discovered. And of course they ran out of pre-filmed episodes. No man has ever ascended hig

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.

Related Questions