Dark Mission: NASA's dirty little secret.

[trouble]

I believe this subject (whether or not Nasa went to the moon) is something that would take weeks and months of careful analysis in order for a person to be able to come to some kind of conclusion about....
...But yet again i see people argueing the toss in favour of a few selective facts and possibilities they have picked up from somewhere, be it from Nasa or from the skeptics
The only way to be able to have any idea of the truth is to study all of the evidence available and then make a conclusion based upon logic and reason, not by blindly following those we want to trust.

I will not make a comment on whether or not i believe Nasa actually landed on the moon in 1969 because as i have not taken the time to judge for myself, i do not feel i deserve to have a say, because all that say would be, could only be at best an ill-informed opinion.

I just wish those people who delve into a subject that really matters, such as the attacks on 9/11, would do the same and take the time to study both sides of the debate, one needs to know and understand the official version of events, then study the "supposed" events, then come to some kind of conclusion upon exhausting every avenue of research available.
That is what i did with regards to 9/11 - that is why i believe i deserve to voice my views on that subject, because it is one i understand.

And anyone who believes the official version of the events that day is nothing more than a hopeless, mindless gullible lunatic. The reality of course, like this subject, is that 99% of those supporting this version have not even studied it for themselves.

Oh, I beg to differ Backdoorman, from your post it's obvious that you cant wait to put on your little tin-foil hat and start selling some Purple Kool-Aid.

Of course what do I know, according to you I'm just one of those hopeless, mindless, gullible lunitics that doesnt wish to base my belief's on some High School Drop-Out's conspiracy web-site.



....

 

[Backdoor man]

Oh, I beg to differ Backdoorman, from your post it's obvious that you cant wait to put on your little tin-foil hat and start selling some Purple Kool-Aid.

Always the same tired old put downs.

Of course what do I know, I'm just one of those hopeless, mindless, gullible lunitics according to you that dont wish to base my belief's on some High School Drop-Out's conspiracy web-site....

"High school drop outs" just what and who are you refering to?
Now answer me honestly - Have you read and studied the official government version of the events of 9/11?
I know you havent, yes im being presumptious but i know that the majority of people have not actually read for themselves and digested the ridiulous supposed facts that the US government claims happened.
And that is probably the most damning thing about 9/11 and the real tragedy of how and why it happened in the first place - that people have become so docile and easily manipulated that not only was it possible to get away with murder in broad daylight but also to get away with the worst cover-up in history.

 

[newbgrow]

Fact is with 9/11 there are many credible "whistleblowers" from the FBI ect who have not kept quiet about what they know.
I dont want to take this way off topic and onto 9/11 But those "usual suspects" trying to put the 9/11 "conspiracy theory" on the same shelf as Aliens and castles on the moon are again deflecting via the use of the old Straw man, and this needs to be pointed out for all to see.

I hope you're not talking about me , because I believe in the possibility of a 9/11 conspiracy. Unfortunately in this case, the "usual suspects" aren't trying to put the 9/11 on the same shelf as Aliens and castles on the moon, S2D is!

Again, I have no problems with your musings on conspiracy theory, only it gets repetitive when someone thinks everything is a conspiracy theory. I only begin to question his personal motives... maybe insecurity... but that's just my passive observation. I only ever feel the need to criticize someone when he fears the shadows on his walls.

 

[Guest]

Nice OG Kush Beez!!

 

[Linenoise]

Proof we did NOT go to the moon...Too many photos, too perfect for clumsy cameras attached to space suits with no viewfinder and no automatic shutter or aperture. Not to mention the hundreds of anomolies.

Every Apollo photograph appears to be perfectly composed, focused and exposed, despite the fact the astronauts used cameras without viewfinders and light meters.

The implication is that the astronauts could not have achieved this apparent level of perfection. The obvious answer is that they did not. The photos to which the hoax advocates refer are publicity photos released by NASA. Surely, NASA isn't going to release the foul-ups and blunders. Also, what appears to be perfect composition is, in many cases, the result of cropping. If all the photographs were uncropped, the number, size and pattern of crosshairs would be identical in every photo, which clearly is not the case. I don't mean to take anything away from the astronauts because they performed a remarkable job, which can be explained in three words: practice, practice, and practice. Perhaps no humans have ever been better prepared for a job than the Apollo astronauts.


And I guess I will go ahead and cut you off at the pass...


There can't be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt in the 250° temperatures.

The Apollo astronauts used what was, at the time, a special transparency film produced by Eastman Kodak under a NASA contract. The photosensitive emulsions layers where placed on an ESTAR polyester film base, which had previously been used primarily for motion picture film. The melting point of Estar is 490° F, although some shrinkage and distortion can occur at around 200° F. Fortunately the film was never exposed to this kind of temperature. The cameras were protected inside a special case designed to keep them cool. The situation on the airless Moon is much different than in your oven, for instance. Without convection or conduction, the only method of heat transfer is radiation. Radiative heat can be effectively directed away from an object by wrapping it in a material with a reflective surface, usually simply a white material. The camera casings, as well as most of the astronauts' clothing, were indeed white.

The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.

This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of the Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don't appear in the pictures. The hoax advocates often argue that stars should be visible, and some of their claims are valid, however they fail to recognize the difference between "seeing" stars and "photographing" stars. The astronauts could have recorded star images in their photos by increasing exposures, but they were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts' activities on the surface of the Moon.

The astronauts should have seen a beautiful star-filled sky above them, yet they never mention it.

Even though there was a black sky above them, the astronauts still had to contend with the glare of a brightly lit lunar surface. The bright landscape prevented the astronauts' eyes from becoming dark adapted, thus making it nearly impossible to see faint stars. It would be like trying to see stars at night on Earth while someone is shining a flashlight directly into your eyes. Some astronauts reported that, while inside the LM, they could see stars through the upper rendezvous window. Also, astronaut Gene Cernan said that, while standing in the shadow of the Apollo 17 LM, he could see some stars while he was outside.

There are several photographs of objects that are in shadows, yet they appear lighted and with surprising detail. Objects located in shadows should appear totally black.

The problem with this statement is that it fails to consider reflected sunlight. Next to the Sun, the largest source of light on the Moon is the lunar surface itself, which reflects large amounts of sunlight. At the Earth-Sun distance, maximum solar illumination is about 10,000 lumens per square foot; however, if the Sun is not directly overhead its rays will strike the surface obliquely. This decreases the intensity of sunlight per unit area. A typical Sun elevation during the Apollo landings was about 20 degrees, thus the illumination per square foot was about 3,400 lumens. Since the Moon's surface reflects about 10% of the light it receives, each square foot of surface reflected about 340 lumens. This is equivalent to the luminosity of a 35-watt light bulb. This amount of light easily explains the illumination observed in the Apollo photographs.

If Neil Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who shot the video of him descending the ladder and taking his initial steps on the lunar surface?

The TV camera was stowed in an instrument pallet in the LM descent stage. When Armstrong was at the top of the ladder, he pulled a lanyard to swing open the pallet, which was hinged at the bottom. The TV camera, which was attached to it, also swung down. Buzz Aldrin then switched on the camera from the LM cabin. The camera was pointing at the ladder of the LM so that TV pictures of Armstrong's initial steps on the Moon could be relayed to the world. The camera was later removed from its mounting and placed on a tripod some 30 feet from the LM, where it was left unattended to cover the remainder of the moonwalk.


Do I really need to continue this silly song and dance routine?
Please provide reliable sources from people who have appreciable credentials and lack hidden agendas (like selling books, or promoting websites filled with ads, or vandettas against former colleagues)

Seriously, it is fun to debate but when you keep popping off the 5 or 6 same points of contention that have been soundly disproven you really look like nothing more than either a troll or a person that disregards facts for passion.

 

[Babombeez]

Nice OG Kush Beez!!

Thanks man, this stuff is tasty and POTENT! quite the strong buzz!

Beez

 

[Guest]

Linenoise. Funny stuff, really. How did they focus setting aperture and exposure on a device attached to their chest and get such good lighting in the shadows on the moon? There are many BLATANT lies in what you posted, but I'm not going to argue every one of them. I will point one out though.

Can stars be seen from the moon? Would they show up in pictures? The answer is YES, but NASA wants you to believe the moon is SO bright the stars don't show up, yet the moon is one of the WORST reflectors of light in the sky. Here's a link: http://erichufschmid.net/Science_Challenge_24.html

This person has done a lot of research on the appolo moon landings. Look here: http://erichufschmid.net/Apollo_NASA.html

newbgrow - Don't put words in my mouth. Don't start with your insecurity bullshit either. There are SO many things that don't add up with the moon missions, 911, and many other "truths" we hear about. The problem is not people who QUESTION the stuff, it's people who take it as GOSPEL.

Am I an idiot for questioning 911? Zionists?? The moon landing?? JFK?? Nope. If I just accept everything I'm told about those subjects, I would have to gladly accept the idiot label. I think the problem really lies with people like yourself who can't dare have anyone shake the foundations of what they think they know. You are a danger to yourself and to everyone else becaus of your inability to think critically.

Keep my name out of your mouth. Period.

 

[PhenoMenal]

Some people just shouldn't be allowed to watch shows like The X-Files.

All conspiracy theories aside, here's a FACT - THE HARDWARE IS STILL ON THE MOON! So you know what you can do with your "How did they focus setting aperture and exposure on a device attached to their chest and get such good lighting".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_laser_ranging_experiment

The ongoing Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment measures the distance between the Earth and the Moon using laser ranging. Lasers on Earth are aimed at retroreflectors previously planted on the Moon and the time delay for the reflected light to return is determined. The distance has been measured repeatedly over a period of more than 35 years.

The experiment was first made possible by a retroreflector array installed on July 21, 1969, by the crew of the Apollo 11. Two more retroreflector arrays left by the Apollo 14 and Apollo 15 missions have contributed to the experiment.

The undeniable presence of the reflectors on the Moon's surface has been used to refute claims that the Apollo landings were faked.

Note the words UNDENIABLE PRESENCE!

Here are the locations of the three Apollo reflectors and two Russian reflectors that were set down by unmanned Lunokhod 1 & 2 rovers in 1970 and 73:

I also find it AMUSING how it's never governments that dispute the Apollo 11 moon landing, just conspiracy theorists. Well, the US isn't the only country that uses the reflector arrays left by Apollo 11/14/15. Here is a document about it by the Technischen Universität München in Germany - the Germans have their own laser ranging system in Wettzell in the Bavarian Forest that bounces their own laser off the Apollo reflectors.

... or are you saying the Germans are also involved in the conspiracy?

Thankyou, and good night.

 

[Guest]

Hah, wikipedia?

 

[PhenoMenal]

ROFL, you can't dispute any of that can you. All you can do is attack Wikipedia. If you don't like Wikipedia then it's simple - take your pick out of the THOUSANDS of other pages from countries around the world that explain lunar laser ranging in even greater detail, including from the many universities around the world that use it:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=lunar+laser+ranging

And btw, http://tau.fesg.tu-muenchen.de/~fesg/web/forschung/llr/llr.php?&lang=en ..... uhhh, that's not Wikipedia, that's a German university. A German university who has their own laser to bounce off the Apollo reflector arrays that according to your X-Files conspiracy theory don't exist.

But I know that when you're confronted with undisputable facts that prove that you're just a gullible individual who's fallen for what is nothing more than an X-Files conspiracy then it's easier to try and dispute other things instead of the subject at hand, so I'll let you avoid the topic and go back to finding something bad to say about Wikipedia

 

[PhenoMenal]

Ooh, I thought you might enjoy this ... it's a map of all the lunar laser ranging stations around the world, each of which use the Apollo reflector arrays which supposedly don't exist if your X-Files theory is correct ... :smile:
As you can see they're literally scattered all over the globe, in dozens of countries - hell, even Beijing has a few laser telescopes of its own that use the Apollo arrays, and you can also see Germany's Wettzell laser clearly marked.

Courtesy of the International Laser Ranging Service NASA website:
http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stations/index.html

 

[genkisan]

Pheno, S2D believes that The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are real, and that Nesta Webster was a serious expert on politics and the like as opposed to what she actually was.......... a ranting wingnut of the highest order.


Might as well try convincing David Duke to date Oprah.....

 

[Guest]

Pheno...you might want to re-read what I've said about those reflectors. Then you'll have somewhere to start your argument.

genkisan....don't make me swat your beetle.

 

[genkisan]

genkisan....don't make me swat your beetle.

OOOOOOO....witty response there, 'noidboy.....


When you learn the value of credible sources, mebbe people will take you seriously.

Until then, I consider you comic relief on par with sproutco's chickenleg-munching crack whore.

 

[Guest]

NASA exposes their
Apollo moon landing hoax!
20 June 2007

Was it an accident? Did they realize what they were doing? Or are some NASA employees getting tired of supporting the lies?



The image above is at the NASA site, Astronomy Picture of the Day, for tomorrow, 21 June 2007:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html
It is a drawing of what the Earth's sky would look like during the daytime if the atmosphere did not scatter sunlight.

NASA admits that even with the sun shining, the stars would be visible.

Trying to help open your mind. Not working.

 

[PhenoMenal]

Trying to help open your mind.

I've seen X-Files episodes more convincing than your loony lunar conspiracy theories. Hit us with some FACTS from some CREDIBLE sources and then people might "open their mind" to your hocus pocus.

And why don't you quote your sources anyway??? I have with everything I've said here. Is it perhaps because http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html isn't a very credible source? JUST LOOK AT ITS FRONT PAGE!!!! rofl. Good one - you're posting quotes from extremist websites now.

And if NASA has apparently 'exposed their Apollo moon landing hoax' then surely you could easily find me a .nasa.gov page about it, and surely this iamthewitness.com site wouldnt be the only place reporting it.

ps. gotta love iamthewitness.com's description of themselves - "The ground shaking radio show that will snap your neck in odd directions if you listen for a while". heh, yeah real credible.

 

[Guest]

Actually, the page belongs to Eric Hufschmid, and that's where it came from. The evidence is in the post right above yours. Anything intelligent to say about it? NASA says stars can't be seen on the surface of the moon. They stuck their foot in their mouth back in June when they released their composite of what the sky would look like without an atmosphere.

Totally blew their wad. You want to ignore it or question it, that's up to you.

The information is credible, if not, show where. NASA said you can't see stars, then NASA releases a composite picture and says otherwise. Did you miss the deception?

Here is the source I've been using and linked to earlier in the thread:
http://erichufschmid.net/Apollo_NASA.html

Here's a .pdf file for those that still wonder if we went to the moon and it's by Eric Hufschmid: http://erichufschmid.net/ApolloMoonHoax.pdf

I have no problem with sources that provide reliable information. Unfortunately, wikipedia is not one of those sources. The sources I link provide factual information that one can research for themselves. When researching wikipeCIA's files it is often found they are full of shit.

Make your choice. Beleive we sent men to the moon two weeks after we killed a monkey flying around in orbit....or you can use common sense to deduce that a tiny capsule just big enough to fit the men carried enough fuel to travel half a million miles.

On your retroreflectors...I'll say it the thirtieth time so you can grasp it. Their presence does not prove we landed on the moon. They were likely crashed onto the surface like everything else before or since.

(starts digging hole for people to stuff head in)

 

[PhenoMenal]

you're a funny young man S2D. Don't worry buddy, we believe you.

This is one of your funniest ones so far

On your retroreflectors...I'll say it the thirtieth time so you can grasp it. Their presence does not prove we landed on the moon. They were likely crashed onto the surface like everything else before or since.

Thats funny because the reflector arrays need to be pointing upwards back at Earth at a specific angle - notice the intentional slant? But I'm sure you've got a good explanation of how they could simply crash the reflector into the moon, then clear up around it so no dust has been disturbed and no other debris left except for the reflector itself, as seen in this image:

src: physics.ucsd.edu

Even the Russians used unmanned LUNAR ROVERS to deliver their two reflector arrays - not crashing.

This was your other funny -

(starts digging hole for people to stuff head in)

Because yep, you sure as hell are digging a hole there buddy

 

[Pops]

S2D, you are apparently unaware how space vehicles work. They don't need enough fuel to travel a half million miles. They only need enough fuel to get up to a certain speed,then the engines cut off. Since there is no atmosphere and therefore no drag, the space craft continues to go at that speed until it reaches its destination. The remaining fuel is used to slow down the space craft for re-entry.

 

[Nubie Biatch]

Great sources again S2D. About as credible as a hooker selling chastity belts.

On the sites front page there are ridiculous statements, for example:

Alex Jones; a Zionist agent

Ninjas to fight Illuminati?
Will the Chinese and Japanese be tricked into believing that the Rockefellers are the primary enemy?

The War On Britain's Jews
As people realize that Zionists were involved with 9/11 and other crimes, the Zionists fight back by calling us "anti-Semites", as in this "documentary" from Britain:

"I see the Zionists as being analogous to an organization of cats who work together to catch thousands of stupid, unorganized mice. Why should I feel sorry for the mice? Why should I hate the cats?"

Get real S2D! Your sources are as plagued with fallacies as your entire argument.

Nice to know how you feel about us poor mice being manipulated by the big bad Jew cats.