| THEORIES WITH PROBLEMS - MOON LANDINGS -> NASA LIES | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: NASA LIES |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 20, 2003 Views: 900 | RE: NASA LIES Thanks for clearing that one up Bart, we all understand now. The reason that spacesuits are abe to keep cool in a vacuum, adjust their internal temperature, deflect micrometeoroids, are flexible enough for the astronauts to work in, and allows the astronauts to do "intricate things" while wearing gloves, is because all this works just fine in low Earth orbit. I see, thanks for that. However, being a bit dumb - according to you - I do have a problem in trying to figure out why you say that a spacesuit is unable to do ANY of these things on the Moon, as you have said in other comments. Could you please explain this for me? The only point you mentioned was about radiation, and as you have already explained, we all understand now - that according to Bart - the radiation on the Moon is the same as generated by a hospital X-ray machine. I can't believe you really said that! That is just so ludicrous I am going to add it to my list of daft questions under "Are hoax believers stupid?" That one is a beauty! Sorry to be such a nuisance, but if you could just explain those points we would all really appreciate it. You see Bart, you have really confused silly old me. You started of by saying a spacesuit couldn't do ANY of those things, hence men could not have walked on the Moon, then you say that THEY DO all of those things! Oh dear, my head is spining around and around. Thanks a lot for sharing your infinite wisdom with us! We are all really looking forward to your very clever reply! |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Feb 27, 2003 Views: 878 | RE: NASA LIES Still trying to think up an answer Bart? Keep trying. Maybe though you should ask your hero, Bart Sibrel, as you are clearly unable to think for yourself. Bart Sibrel is a very clever scientist. Knows all about radiaton, orbital mechanics, vacuum, laws of thermodynamics, particle physics, spacesuit design and operation, rocket propulsion systems, gravity, wightlessness, and just about anything else you care to mention. Or is he just an sacked ex-video camera man who clearly knows less about these things than a 10 year old school kid? |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Mar 5, 2003 Views: 873 | RE: RE: NASA LIES Poor old Bart! Unable to come up with any answers, he runs away to his great hero, Bart Sibrel, to find some more daft questions to hide behind. Don't despair, you will find lots more stuff on this message board from Bart, and it just keeps getting better and better. You will not believe how stupid this jerk gets! |
| Posted By: Nunya Posted On: Jul 21, 2004 Views: 847 | RE: NASA LIES Both of yall are stupid!!!!!!!!!!!11 |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Nov 2, 2004 Views: 832 | RE: NASA LIES Yes NASA are liars. They NEVER went to the moon. NASA Numerous Anomalies And Scams Allowed ___________________________________________________________________ This web page is dedicated to NASA Chief Sean O'Keefe, NASA Historian Roger Launius, and the few remaining Apollo astroNOTS, who make themselves a worldwide laughing stock with their ongoing claim of having walked upon the Moon's surface. If the Internet and e-mail were around in 1968, I would have been glad to have a serious open debate with "Apollo believers" on whether the Moon missions were for real or not. However it is NOT 1968, but 2004 and as such, the authenticity of the Moon missions can no longer be debated. Neither does it fall into a "conspiracy theory" as the facts are well known. Conspiracy theories question what really took place, however it has been a well proven fact since the mid 80's, that the Apollo Moon missions were FAKED. Although it is common knowledge throughout the world that the Apollo Moon missions were faked by NASA back in the 60's, many gullible people still accept NASA's claim of landing men on the Moon, without bothering to carry out any research, or investigation, to see if NASA are indeed telling the truth. There are some who will NEVER accept the Moon landings were faked, regardless of how much factual evidence of a fake is put before them. Those who will not accept that Apollo was a fake, have been brain washed into believing 35 years of lies emanating from NASA, whereby they become brain damaged, and lose touch with reality. We've all come across them from time to time as they reiterate their ridiculous statements like, "I can see the flag through my telescope", or "I saw the rocket lift off, and the TV pictures, so it must have happened". They also make stupid remarks like "What about the Moon rock brought back by the Apollo astronauts". How do WE know its Moon rock, its only NASA's word, and if it is, then it was brought back by scoop and return probe, NOT ASTRONAUTS. If you are one who lives in a fantasy world, there is no hope, other than a brain transplant, however if you are one of those who has serious doubt about the Apollo Moon landings ever happening, then this site is for you. The comical aspect about NASA's 35 year Moon hoax, (Apollo 8), is how it's making a worldwide laughing stock of NASA, and the astronauts who claim to have traveled to the Moon. The most damning aspect however, is that NASA's Moon landing scam is confusing the younger generation, by giving them a disorientated view of current space travel and technology. For example, many youngsters who see the shuttle lift off from launch pad assume it is going to the Moon. They cannot understand why it's only going 150 miles into low Earth orbit, when NASA supposedly made 9 manned journeys to the Moon, (each mission being a return trip of over 500,000 miles), during a 3 year period which began over 35 years ago. Yes NASA made trips to the Moon look like a 10 minute bus ride to the local shops, and we suckers fell for it hook, line and sinker. If NASA did send men to the Moon, then space technology has gone backwards instead of forward. That seems bizarre when one looks at technology advances, particularly in the computer field. Of course space technology HAS NOT gone backwards. What is bizarre is NASA's outlandish claim. Since 1995, more and more encyclopedias are making less and less, and in some cases no reference at all, to the Apollo Moon missions. Evidently the publishers have "wised up" to the fact that the Moon landings were faked, and no man has landed on the Moon. "A HOLE IN HISTORY", as Arthur C. Clarke quoted back in 1969. During the 70's, a large percentage of the world population had doubt that the Moon landings were for real, however there was no material available upon which to base an investigation, other than the limited number of photographs shown in a few fictional/fantasy books which endorsed Apollo. It was the Internet which brought about the downfall and full expose of NASA's 35 year hoax, as people worldwide now have full access to NASA's web site pictures, and can see for themselves the pathetic way in which the photographs have been doctored with the SAME repetitive background. Prior to 1997 it was not possible to see these pictures, but you can now check them out for yourself. Sites exposing the Moon landings as fake, will soon outnumber the untrue Apollo Moon web sites. The so called lunar map used for Apollo 17 mission, the quality of which is crap, however scale is marked in Kms. Now perhaps some of you pro Apollo NUTTERS out there could tell me WHY this map is marked in Kms, when in the USA the Imperial system of measurement is ALWAYS used? Even today measurements are logged in miles, so they were most certainly using miles back in 1968. Note the alleged landing site marked X and journeys made in varying directions to the so called Stations which are numbered 1 to 10B. Note Station 8 and distance it is from LM landing site. This picture has been taken from Tuttle's Smithsonian site, and was supposedly taken by astronauts on the 17th mission. However the picture does not appear on the official Apollo 17 web site. The Moon's surface was, as we were told, very dry and dusty. If that be the case then why do those footprints show up so boldly. The only substance that would leave footprints showing that boldly would be damp sand, and it's more than likely what it is. Note curved light marking in top left hand of picture, and black crater between the rock and that contraption. There is no evident sign of the LM in this picture. Photograph shown on left is supposedly Station 6. Notice how the background is identical with the SAME curved light marking, and crater. However on the horizon, right of center, a white lump, presumably this is supposed to be a distant mountain, has suddenly appeared. This picture has been taken at some remote desert location, so the shadows one sees are natural occurring shadows from sunlight here on planet Earth. It is but a simple matter to black the sky out, and paste in a background mountain scene. Now this is supposed to be Station 9, but that SAME curved light marking, and crater are there in background, and picture was taken from exact SAME angle. This is Station 8, which is Cochise crater. S'funny innit the picture again shows SAME background, and yet again picture was taken from the SAME angle. Text accompanying this picture states "The final parking place of the rover prior to lift off". Looking at EVA map, Station 8 is the furthest point North from the LM landing site. Did they walk the 5 Kms back to LM? Now the picture shown on right is Camelot crater which is Station 5. Camelot crater is over 1 kilometer from the landing site in a totally OPPOSITE direction to Station 8, (which incidentally is over 4 Kms from Station 5). Low and behold that SAME curvature of light, but the crater has been obliterated in this shot. A classic example of shuffling the background imagery to try and create differing views. Tuttle did a poor job of blacking the sky in this picture. Look closely on a high resolution screen, and you will see traces of trees which surround the KSC testing ground within the blackness of space. NASA claim that picture on left is Station 7, however it is plain to see that background is again identical, with that SAME curved light marking, and the angle that picture was supposedly taken is also the same. This final picture was taken from the ALSJ web site and is portrayed as the Apollo 17 landing site. One does not need to be a space or photographic expert to spot that this picture, like all the others, has the SAME identical background. In a nutshell Tuttle has superimposed the SAME backdrop on pictures which NASA claim are genuine Moon photographs taken at differing locations. Note there are no cross hatch marks on this photo, and yet it was supposedly taken by the SAME camera. Questions for PANS, (Pro Apollo Nutters), to answer. If this picture was taken in 1972, WHY did it not appear in any books/magazines etc until 1994, when it first appeared in a newspaper, and WHY is it in color on the ALSJ site, when other pics are in monochrome, especially as they were taken by the SAME camera? If the astronauts covered an area roughly 8 Kms by 12 Kms, and panned their camera through 360 degrees at various locations, what are the odds against getting an identical background in each picture? Six separate locations which are supposedly miles apart, and yet each has the SAME identical background. In all the pictures one can see a relatively flat foreground, and an abrupt straight line where that foreground meets the background hilly area. This is conclusive proof that background hilly scene has been PASTED onto photograph, and the sky blacked out. If you look at final picture on the REALITY SITE, you will see that same flat foreground, and abrupt straight line where sandy foreground meets bushy area a few yards back. The evidence of false backdrops is not so noticeable in the earlier faked pictures for missions 11/12 and 14. It is the latter missions, ie, 15/16 and 17 where the anomalies are plainly obvious. When questioned about the authenticity of the Moon landings, NASA's reply is "We do not have time to answer any questions, the truth is in the photographs". The truth is indeed within the photographs, and the truth hurts. These photographs are FAKE, which means the Moon landings are also FAKE. |
| Pages [ 1 2 ] |