🚀 go-pugleaf

"xganon" <remailer@xganon.com> wrote in message
news:b98cf42e767c9fa27c66099eb83bb028@xganon.com...
> "Don H" wrote:
> >Did NASA land men on the moon, or was it all just a hoax?
> >Recent TV program claims it was a hoax
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> That's right. More than mere claims as the facts
> in evidence prove the whole thing was a big fake.
>
> Flags fluttering in the high-desert breeze, sand
> buggies & actors running along in their deflated
> monkeysuits-obviously recorded on highspeed film,
> conspicuous absence of blast craters, impossibly
> silent running under invisible exhaust emissions,
> laughably obvious backdrops that contrast sharply
> against the nearby high-desert terrain, etc. etc.
>
> Plainly, the directors & producers of nasa's "men
> to the moon" movies went to great lengths to make
> certain that anyone who watches their movies, and
> scrutinizes their photographs, also considers the
> intense radiation of the Van Allen belt and up to
> TWO- MILLION MILE-PER-HOUR RADIOACTIVE SOLAR WIND
> beyond the safety of the Van Allen belt, they made
> sure anyone can see the whole thing was a big fake.
> I'm reminded of the song "might as well be walking
> on the Sun"--i.e. the radiation would've fried 'em!
>
> Be sure to bookmark & study these fact-filled links.
> The evidence proves irrefutably that NASA are liars,
> and not very good liars at that. They are found out:
>
I'll just run through them and tell you the first stupid thing I find
in each so that I don't have to bother with rest of it.

>
>  http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo1.htm

"Images and video, of the lunar ascent and descent modules (LM),
allegedly taken from the surface of the moon and from the Apollo
Command/Service Module (C/SM), do not show flame or exhaust."

From the surface of the moon? By whom? Moon people?

From the CSM many miles up in the sky, how would you photograph
exhaust directly and visibly exhaust *under* the LM?

(I've seen someone point out since I first wrote this that you wouldn't see
the exhaust anyway, because the brightness you see once the exhaust has left
the confines of an exhaust pipe down here on earth is the result of
continuing combustion in the atmosphere. That, of course, doesn't happen in
the vacuum of space.)


>  http://www.aulis.com/nasa.htm

"The classic still photograph of Buzz Aldrin standing alone was
apparently taken from a surprisingly high position (abt. 2 feet higher
than chest height) when such pictures should have been taken from a
camera fixed to a bracket on the chest (see graph).
The photographer reflected in the gold visor is neither standing on an
object/rock to give him extra height, nor is he holding the camera at
eye-level."

This this photo would have been impossible on Earth as well. Which
means something is wrong with the analysis either way.

"David Groves has determined that the terrain does not undulate more
than a few inches where Aldrin is standing,...."

How could he make such a fine determination if he doesn't believe the
only evidence available that provides the degree of precision
necessary to ascertain such a thing?

>  http://www.grade-a.com/moon/

"Trying to understand how the moon aquired a ten-foot layer of top
soil without wind, rain or water to erode the volcanic-crystaline
surface, I spoke to a geologist at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology in Boston."

That's why the hypothesis exists that the moon once had one or more of
these things. Also, if there was volcanic activity--you familiar with
volcanoes? You're aware of all the, well, *DUST* that they deposit all
over everything? Remember Mount St. Helens? Oh, and meteors--you
think maybe they pulverize rock just a little bit?

>  http://www.apollohoax.com/

"Well, to tell you the truth, I see footage all the time where there
is only a 0.5 second delay on a two way broadcast to the moon and
back."

Bull. I *watched* it that day. The delays were clear, and that's why
the reporters were so quick to explain them to everybody.

As someone pointed out, there is of course *no* gap between a communication
from the moon and the response from the people sitting where the recording
is being done. There certainly was a gap before the lunar explorers
responded to ground control.

>  http://www.moonmovie.com/

"The goal was to fool the Soviet Union about US strategic capability
during the height of the cold war."

What strategic capability do you imagine would have been implied by
our reaching the moon? (We already had satellites. What advantage would be
had by putting weapons the moon, farther away than our satellites?)

>  http://www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/MoonShadows/MoonShadows.htm

"A Brief Description of the Krishna Conscious Understanding"

'Nuff said.

OK, I lied--here's something else: "For instance, lets assume that we
did go to the moon, and that we have sent probes all over the solar
system. Than what is so great about the Space Shuttle?"

Umm...this is no secret. What was great about the space shuttle was
that we had a *reusable* space vehicle for the first time, which could
make a normal landing at the end of a trip instead of crashing into
the ocean. This has nothing to do with whether we had reached the
moon before.

>  http://www.geocities.com/nasascam/

"It is now common knowledge throughout the world that the Apollo Moon
landings were faked by NASA back in the 60's"

A lot of people may believe it was a hoax, but it is not "common
knowledge". That in itself is a ridiculous thing to say, which shows
the writer to be prone to wild assertions.

Well, I've got to go now, but I think I've established your propensity
for offering "evidence" that is less than completely sound. Bye.

>  http://www.ari.net/b2m/0198.html
>  http://myspeedtest.net/backwards/moon.html
>  http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/2666/MoonHoax2.html
>  http://advweb.com/kw/forum/misc/messages/689.shtml
>  http://clydelewis.com/dis/gorsky/gorsky.html
>  http://galactic-guide.com/articles/8S12.html
>   http://www.ari.net/b2m/0198.html
>   http://myspeedtest.net/backwards/moon.html
>   http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/2666/MoonHoax2.html
>   http://advweb.com/kw/forum/misc/messages/689.shtml
>   http://clydelewis.com/dis/gorsky/gorsky.html
>   http://galactic-guide.com/articles/8S12.html
>   http://geocities.com/bradguth/moon-02.htm