It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Smoking Gun - Apollo 11

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Perhaps interesting for the ladder discussions, watch and listen how far Buzz Aldrin fall down before he reaching the ground.

Buzz Aldrin steps onto the Moon

en.wikipedia.org...

Watch and listen to the remarks in Neil's ladder descent and first step onto the surface

history.nasa.gov...

Journal Text: 109:22:06 to 109:25:44. QuickTime Video Clip: (3 minutes 51 seconds; 2.7MB).
Gary Neff created a split-screen film clip showing synchronized views from the lunar module sequence camera and the television camera of Neil's ladder descent and first step onto the surface.

Well, after watching, compare closely many pictures, videos, and the mistake are made by comparison pictures of Apollo 11 with pictures of Apollo 15 to proof the different of gold foil covering of the shock absorbers,

And the claims made on,
Fig. 5 ¬ Televised live first step on the moon. THIS IS THE SMOKING GUN. Compare the ladder stringer (RED arrows) shown here to the image in Fig. 4. THE STRINGER DOES NOT MATCH.


is this my opinion of the so called

Rence.Com
Smoking Gun - Apollo 11
'Live' Broadcast Faked
By Ted Twietmeyer
12-26-7

I really think that this gun has no smoke at all.

It is absolute not for the reason that I am fully 100% convinced that Apollo 11 has really land on the moon, but because of the lack in this case to proof that it didnt.


[edit on 30/12/07 by spacevisitor]




posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Regardless of what I think about the Apollo 11 missions, and whether it did go to the Moon, the original article proves nothing. Zip. Nada.

I'd go as far to say as it is totally clutching at straws, and bordering on claptrap!

A few photos of dubious provenance, and some red arrows, and we have a smoking gun?

Seriously. Stuff like this makes me so mad, all in the name of sensationalism. :/



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Originally posted by Fraank Fontaine



Regardless of what I think about the Apollo 11 missions, and whether it did go to the Moon, the original article proves nothing. Zip. Nada.



Thanks for the post Fraank. I guess you have missed the point of the thread as that is what we are talking about. Whether or not NAZA photos were faked during Apollo 11.

The 'original article' that you refer to proves that there were at least 2 different types of ladders for the lunar lander. One that was built very sturdy and could accommodate a 170 pounds man with another 150 pounds of equipment in a one 'G' environment.

Another thinner, skinnier type of ladder was to simulate what might be needed in a one sixth "g" environment.

The article was showing photos that proved that NAZA used both types of ladders, the heavier more sturdy one and the lighter, thinner one in photos alleged taken during the alleged Apollo 11 mission.

For instance this picture shows the thinner, lighter ladder:






And this one shows the heavier, sturdier ladder.




Note also that the background 'stage' that NAZA used to film the 'real' One small step or man…" and the 'fake' One small step for man…" are the same identical angles but different ladders.


I'd go as far to say as it is totally clutching at straws, and bordering on claptrap!


Again, you have missed the point of the original article and have not addressed the issue set forth therein.


A few photos of dubious provenance, and some red arrows, and we have a smoking gun?


Again, you have missed the point here Fraank. The red arrows point to the difference in shock absorber covering and ladder railing thickness.

The arrows point to the strut differences, ladder differences and point out the elevated stage these photos were taken on.

It was made quite clear that these photos came from the NAZA files so I am not sure how you figure they are of "dubious provenance". You can look them up yourself.


Seriously. Stuff like this makes me so mad, all in the name of sensationalism. :/


Don't take it so seriously Fraank. It's just a debate here on whether or not the photos that NAZA says were taken on the Moon were actually taken on the Moon or on a stage here on Earth.

It's obvious that some photos allegedly taken on the Moon were in fact taken on a stage here on Earth.

But that doesn't mean the Apollo mission didn't go to the Moon.

All it means is that NAZA was hiding something that they didn't think the public should know and several of those things they didn't want the public to know were:

1. That the moon has a breathable atmosphere
2. That the moon has at least .64% pf Earth's gravity
3. That the color of the daytime sky on the Moon is not black.
4. That the lunar lander did not use rocket propulsion
5. That secret NAZA astronauts had been on the moon since 1962 or before.
6.That other humans live on the farside of the Moon.
7. That the Moon is actually a gigantic space ship.

Its not about sensationalism Fraank, it's about the truth.

Thanks for the post and don't get mad…get even.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by thedigirati
 


Interesting how no government, no college department, and no scientist of note agrees with you. You might want to stick to playing your Wii or Playstation and leave the science to the experts.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Originally posted by Nunny




Interesting how no government, no college department, and no scientist of note agrees with you. You might want to stick to playing your Wii or Playstation and leave the science to the experts.



Thanks for your input Nunny. It is appreciated.

My Dad used to say something like that. He said: "Didn't you ever wonder why the whole world is out of step except you John Lear?"

My grandson Damien (6 years old) won't let me near his playstation. My job is to take him to the bike park when ordered. He doesn't have a Wii yet because Fry's sells out the instant the truck with the Wii's parks.

Thanks again for your post and input.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 04:03 AM
link   
There is much better evidence to suggest that the moon landings were hoaxed, such as:

1. The Van Allen belt, NASA's attempt to punch a hole in it using a nuclear weapon, detonated in high atmosphere (meaning the van alen belt was seen as a problem) ending up actually making it significantly stronger.
Transcripts from a shuttle mission where the astronauts experienced very high radiation, and could see it in the back of their retinas (something very inconsistantly reported by the astronauts whom allegedly went to the moon) and were ordered back to a lower altitude. This mission, was the highest any craft with humans had gotten above Earth, besides the alleged Apollo craft, which had worse radiation protection than the space shuttle does.

The fact that the moon missions were planned during a decade of heightened solar activity, making them incredibly dangerous. The heightened solar activity cycles were very well known and documented at the time.

2. The multi-direction Shadows in many pictures, indicating that they were shot in a studio
The film shot from Earth orbit, which was being faked to be from the moon orbit, where a piece of cardboard or something was placed on a window to make Earth seem very small in it.
The markings on some rocks on the "moon" in some pictures.
The identical backdrops always used in all moon photos and videos.
The inconsistencies between photographs of identical things filmed using cameras.
The lack of photographs of stars from the moon, using the correct exposure setting which would make those photos entirely possible.
Photographs which are clearly compilations, and NASA claims all are unedited.
Photos which are shot from outrageous angles, impossible unless it was done in a film studio.
Close light reflections in the Apollo craft and helmets.
Loads and loads of other photographic evidence.

3. The defensive nature of astronauts questioned about the landings, and the failure of many to swear on the bible that they have been on the moon. Their very low-key nature about the subject in general.

4. The fact that the power of the SaturnV rocket is highly unlikely to be anywhere near what is claimed and what is required to go to the moon. Von Braun's own words, saying it is impossible to go to the moon in one go, because the amount of fuel which would be required would be too heavy for any rocket to lift off the Earth.
This is backed up by modern moon missions planned by USA and Russia, both of which claim that the only feasible way to go there, is by assembling a craft in space, and using the ISS as a launching pad.
Furthermore, if SaturnV is as powerful as claimed, considering how relatively cheap it is to make it, why is the space shuttle not mounted on it, as opposed to the fuel tank and booster rockets, which are both more expensive to manufacture, and have significantly less lifting force.
Why is it, that USSR whom had significantly superior rockets and space tech, abandoned their Moon program (which they did have), citing it was impossible to do.

5. How would it look, if USA could not beat a communist country in the space race, at the height of the cold war? What kind of dissent would that raise? How would that change people's opinions about communism?

6. Whom would be held accountable to the enormous amounts of money spent on the moon missions, if it was admitted that they achieved nothing? Whom had ties to all the private contractors which profited big $$$ from the expenditure on the Apollo program?

The fact that the project report, or whatever it's called ( I can't remember atm) for the Apollo craft is ridiculously small, compared to any other complex vehicle, which costs even less.

Many things about the Apollo craft are either undocumented, not very thoroughly documented or complete BS. Such as the lack of lead, which needs to be used to conjunction with aluminium to create REAL radiation protection. Such as the non-documentation of any climate control systems the Apollo craft HAD to use.
The ISS relies on the high-atmosphere climate of the Earth, and the temperatures there range very significantly, and the ISS uses very extensive climate control systems to regulate interior climate.
It beats the hell out of me how the Apollo craft could have had these fitted on anywhere, especially seeing as how they would not be protected by the high atmospheric conditions of the Earth.


If people want to create outrageous claims of a "smocking gun", on some flimsly photo evidence, only to have it easily put into doubt, that's fine. And if others think something as small and insignificant as this one thing either proves or disproves the moon landings, that's fine.

I on the other hand, prefer to look at every single possible bit of evidence, compile them in a big list, and say, "Well hell, there is NO WAY they went to the moon. There is FAR too much evidence to disprove the moon landings".

>_>

[edit on 31-12-2007 by Manincloak]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Mr. Lear, reading your answer in this reply, I get the feeling that I missed the point of the ladders myself to.
But personally, I don’t see so much difference as you and others see.
So, I take again the ladders under the “looking glass”.
I decided to watch this video clip again, and seeing something that astonished me.
As I watching it very closely [without sound] I see something that I didn’t see before in this video.
Maybe because I was so focussed on the images alone, and not listen to what Neil is saying.

history.nasa.gov...

Journal Text: 109:22:06 to 109:25:44. QuickTime Video Clip: (3 minutes 51 seconds; 2.7MB).
Gary Neff created a split-screen film clip showing synchronized views from the lunar module sequence camera and the television camera of Neil's ladder descent and first step onto the surface.


In this video you see two different camera shots.
It is a split-screen film clip showing synchronized views from the lunar module sequence camera and the television camera of Neil's ladder descent and first step onto the surface.

My request to you is, will you take the time to look at it , and give my your opinion about it.
Here is the thing that I found very, very strange.
When the video is almost on half its length, you see something appear in the top camera image behind Neils Back and then disappearing again.
The weird thing is, that on exactly the same moment you see something happening with the image on the camera at the bottom to, and disappearing also again on exactly the same moment.
I have an idea of what it is, but that can’t “normally” happening in this case.
To me it looks as the appearing of legs of a person that grab something and go back again.
In a way total impossible.
So it must be the reflection of course.

By the way, may I ask what your reason is to write NAZA instead of NASA?
I don’t believe you can’t type,
so, is the S key on your keyboard “defect” or has you a “special” explanation for It?


Thanks in advance.





[edit on 31/12/07 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 31/12/07 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 31/12/07 by spacevisitor]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

>>Snip!>>

Its not about sensationalism Fraank, it's about the truth.

Thanks for the post and don't get mad…get even.



Thanks for your detailed reply John, much appreciated and welcomed!


I take on board some of your points, and they are very persuasive (I always like being forced to rethink even small aspects!). However, there are still some small problems to me, and I guess I didn't express them well enough in my 'semi-rant' earlier...

Firstly, the 'video footage' that is shown as a comparison... labeled as from;

history.sandiego.edu... images5/1969apollo11tstep.jpg

This footage is of 'dubious' origin, and not 100% genuine footage released from Nasa itself. The link is dead, and has been since I tried to first look at it when the thread was posted. There is discussion that it may even be from an advertising commercial... this is brought up on Rense, and brings the response:


"As for the video being an advertisement? That remains to be seen. Standard advertisements are always in 30 second or 1 minute blocks. This video runs 34 seconds. To date no one has found it. And if it is found somewhere, is it not be possible that real footage was found and simply used for an advertisement? Out-takes have probably been used before. If it had actually run on television in the UK as an advertisement, perhaps it was simply an ad for a television documentary." from Ted Twietmeyer


For me, this throws huge doubt on the provenance of the footage, an does nothing to dispel my fears that we are not comparing 'Apples with Apple', but 'Apples to Oranges', and for all we know 'CGI oranges'! If the footage had a decent pedigree, and was say hosted on Nasa/Gov servers, that adds more to it, but when the article writer does not know 100% where the footage originates, I don't see how he can be 100% sure of his results.

It is amazing what Advertising people can get up to...

Also, pictures used in the article are taken from both Apollo 11 and 15 missions, yet this is *not* made clear in the original article. The cynical part of me asks why? if this is such a forensic examination, that wants to be taken seriously, this is an elementary mistake... As a journalist says. *Always check your sources, and once you have checked them, check them again!* Ted's response to this is based on conjecture, with no foundation in testable truth...


"My photo search on the NASA website was for Apollo 11. I did not realize they may have mixed-up photos, but I should have known. NASA does not change their designs in the middle of programs. If Kurt EVER sold any systems to NASA, he would also be well aware of that. Once a design is tested and accepted they stick with it, right or wrong."


This just cuts no ice with me. How do we know they don't change designs? Has anyone officially stated this in documentation released to the public? If something doesn't work, you change it. Full stop. It is common sense, and the way engineering works whether I have 'sold any systems to Nasa or not!'
The fact that the ladder could have been changed between Apollos 11 and 15 is not out of the question to me theoretically, and until evidence is provided to definitely prove it either way, there is always doubt in my mind...

I guess I am just a little miffed at the '100% Proof' threads that are not based on the facts as we know them, and the facts as they stand in the real world. Maybe it is the lawyer in me, maybe I just demand a higher standard of proof.

Thanks again John for the interesting points you brought up, it is always good to meet people who back up their arguments with substance. I am always up for intelligent debate! :-)

Peace

FF

[edit on 31-12-2007 by Fraank Fontaine]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Whatever America does people jump on it (usually Americans). That does not mean America lied.

The technology was there to get people to the Moon, the people where there who were willing to take the risk. America is renowned throughout the rest of the world for chucking great wads of money at things they deem important. So when the speech about going to the Moon and other things was made, I really can’t see why it wouldn’t be made true.

Did Yuri Gagarin really fly into space? To deny America’s Apollo programme is to deny Russia their part too. At this point everything is fair game for denial.

If you’ve got to the point of building Saturn rockets then why is the comparably short journey to the Moon unreasonable? All you need is a survivable capsule able to land and return. Nothing in that programme was above the level of technology of the time.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Originally posted by HimOverThere



If you’ve got to the point of building Saturn rockets then why is the comparably short journey to the Moon unreasonable?


It wasn't the flight to the Moon that was the problem. It was landing on the Moon that was the problem.

The Moon has considerably more than one sixth gravity. On the nearside the gravity is about 64% that of Earth's, thats about 2/3 of Earth's gravity.

Apollo flew an average orbit of 60 to 70 miles above the lunar surface. That was because of the considerable gravitational pull. If it was really one sixth gravity they cold have orbited much lower.

So the problem was how to get out of a 60 miles orbit, descend to the Moon then fly back up into orbit.

The lunar lander only had about 22,000 pounds of fuel and 60 mile orbit and back would use a lot more than that in 2/3 gravity.

So there were only 2 options. Either we didn't land on the Moon or we used anti-gravity propulsion.

Gus Grissom, just before he was killed in Apollo 1 made the statement:

"This thing ain't going to fly in 2 years! This thing ain't going to fly in 10 years."

While NAZA didn't kill the 4 Apollo crew members directly, insiders claim that NAZA "let it happen".


All you need is a survivable capsule able to land and return.


This statement might be the over simplification of the millennium.


Nothing in that programme was above the level of technology of the time.


This statement is incorrect. We did not have the technology (known to the public anyway) to descend out of 60 miles orbit above the lunar surface, land and then take off and climb back into orbit.

Remember that the astronauts had no seats or chairs in the lunar lander. They stood up the whole time.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
It wasn't the flight to the Moon that was the problem. It was landing on the Moon that was the problem.


Was it?


The Moon has considerably more than one sixth gravity. On the nearside the gravity is about 64% that of Earth's, thats about 2/3 of Earth's gravity.


Baseless claim which contradicts a plethora of the available data.


Apollo flew an average orbit of 60 to 70 miles above the lunar surface. That was because of the considerable gravitational pull. If it was really one sixth gravity they cold have orbited much lower.


There is not an iota of physics or common sense in this statement.


So there were only 2 options. Either we didn't land on the Moon or we used anti-gravity propulsion.


There is also the third option, which is to conclude that your "64% gravity" is a frivolous claim and should be discarded. Of all three possiblities, this is by far the most likely.



[edit on 31-12-2007 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 07:09 AM
link   
This article and photo might be helpful.
www.jsc.nasa.gov...



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by GEORGE
 


Nice link there. Interesting reading. Many people look only at the scientific accomplishments of the moon missions. But the political ramifications were also very important. And at that time, the old USSR would have loved nothing better than to say that the US didn't actually go to the moon.

Some folks on this thread remind me of the old commercials for Terraton (sp) cigarettes that pictured a person with a black eye saying they would rather fight than switch. No amount of evidence will convince people who's emotional hold on the idea of no moon landing is stronger than their education and common sense.



[edit on 3-1-2008 by NGC2736]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by GEORGE
This article and photo might be helpful.
www.jsc.nasa.gov...


George, I owe you a beer for finding that article which confirmed my theory from page 5 of this thread...


I'm theorizing it was the container for the flag or some other surface equipment/experiment. The top photo cleary shows how it's attached to the ladder at top and bottom.


Picture from your link....


Text from link....

To make the flag easily accessible during the EVA, it was mounted on the left-hand side of the ladder on the Lunar Module (LM) (fig. 4).



posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by darkbluesky
 


You don't owe me anything my friend...It was a lucky find,
I truly 100% believe that men have walked on the Moon.

Whenever I meet someone who doesn't believe in the Moon landings, I always argue that the best movie special effects of the time (2001 in particular) look nothing like the "real" thing... Jagged mountains etc.,



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:29 AM
link   
I think that the information given by Ted Twietmeyer on Rense.com about this is not completely accurate. I've been looking closely at the photos and brief notes accompanying them and I've noticed a couple of things I thought I would share.

First of all, It is obvious that there is some kind of black covering over many of the smaller pieces of hardware (figure 1). Just because there isn't this same black covering on these pieces of hardware in the other photograph (figure 2) doesn't necessarily mean that this was filmed in a studio.
I'm not an expert on the lander and it's systems nor am I an engineer. But perhaps these coverings were some kind of safeguard (for small dust particles for example) that were meant to be removed before they took back off again (which would reveal the foil underneath the coverings in figure 2a). I've never heard of these coverings but that doesn't mean it must be a conspiracy.
In some cases the black coverings look either folded up or removed (where buzz aldrin is in figure 1 for example) while the coverings are folded down in figure 2. Not exactly hard evidence of a conspiracy IMO.

Second, the reflective capacity of gold foil combined with the 2 sources of light in the photo (the sun and the reflective surface of the moon) mean that there are going to be some inconsistencies from photo from photo of the gold foil itself. Not surprising.
Also, not only is the foil.. well... FOIL..the skin of the lander was extremely thin. This foil was probably movable and very thin itself (just like foil at home or thinner?). Which means that any time an astronaut touches it or touches it, etc.. the foil isn't going to remain in it's original state of "robustness" as it is on the strut in figure 2a.

Third, the ladder argument isn't rock solid either IMO. (Figure 5)
In this photo, Ted claims that the ladder is much larger than in the other photos (because of the need to support the weight of the astronaut under full earth gravity instead of moon gravity). The red arrow at the top is used by Ted to designate how wide the ladder is (because he is trying to prove that this was a larger ladder needed to support the fill weight of the astronaut).
If you look at figure 4 you can see that the ladder lays on top of one of the landing struts? Since the ladder lays on top of the strut, the two are, generally, aligned possibly making it look like a thicker ladder when it really isn't. Let's not forget that this photo is pretty horrible also. I'm not an expert in photographs but using this photo in particular in figure 5 as conspiratory evidence of any kind seems silly to me because of this.. You can't really tell what is what, which could lead people to think some things are not what they appear.
Some still claim, I guess, that since the ladder appears to reach to the ground in figure 5 while it doesn't in figure 4 is evidence of a conspiracy. Are these even photos of the same lander? Perhaps they decided to lower the ladder in missions after apollo 11 because of the design flaw. Also, there is no way to tell in figure 5 whether or not the ladder touches the ground anyway from what I see.
The ladder in figure 4 is approximately 3 feet off the ground. The ladder in figure 5, you can't tell so clearly. The shadow denotes where the ground is, but the shadow is also misleading. It makes the ground appear further up than it actually is. IMO, not exactly conclusive proof.

From what was talked about on rense, Ted also used some photos from apollo 15 and he is using them to prove something about apollo 11? It doesn't really make sense.

Also, I thought at first that perhaps figures 1 and 2 were opposite sides of the lander due to the differences in the hardware and their placement. After looking on the rense site, another poster (Sam Lockhart) noticed this and apparently told Ted about his error.

-ChriS



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
As Ted Twietmeyer say's, we probably went to the moon but the Apollo 11 "live broadcast" in 1969 was a fake. I tend to agree here.

There is no doubt that we landed on the Moon, but as to why the so called live broadcast was faked is something of a mystery.
[edit on 27-12-2007 by mikesingh]


With total crooked scum like LBJ and Nixon running things, is it really such a mystery why they would have cooked up a success story video so that come what may a success could be announced? When the actual experience included endemic UFO presence, ruins, a hollow moon and Christ knows what else that sealed the deal and made the Nazi scientist -run plan B a necessity.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by BlasteR
 


BlasteR

I think you're making good points.

BTW, the gold 'foil' isn't foil, in the sense of aluminum foil you find in your kitchen. Far too heavy...

This was innovative for the 1960s, but something we now are familiar with, commonly refered to as 'mylar'. The technology that gives you pretty balloons for your kid's party, then rises up because it's filled with helium, and shorts out power lines...a direct result of space technology.

It's the same stuff that wraps Power Bars too. Very different uses, but for essentially the same reason.

Well, on Apollo, it was about reflectivity. A balloon wants to be pretty, and less permeable to the helium inside, so it lasts longer. A Power Bar, same as the balloon...except, no helium...

Just stop for a moment, and try to imagine the late 1960s. Dial phones...color TV was 'new'...gasoline was $0.29... OK, bad example!

Another argument will be, 'well, the computers weren't powerful enough'...
Yes, computers were antiquated by today's standards, but this WAS cutting edge, and most of the hardware, the mainframe, was here on Earth. All they needed was a small processor onboard, able to accept the programs already written and tested in simulations before flight.

Even John Lear, bless him, has pointed out how his father was instrumental in developing the earliest auto-flight systems for commercial airplanes, even to include the first auto-land systems (which are quite prevalent today, BTW). AND, this was in the 1950s! So, while the Apollo were not landed on auto-pilot, much of the orbital guidance and final approaches were computerized, with constant human vigilance. Just as any automated system should be handled...constant human vigilance, then and now.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   
good points. Thanks for the clarification on the thin mylar.

I just don't believe that this was ever a conspiracy nor does the evidence actually point to conspiracy. My great grandfather told me before he died that he believed it was filmed in the desert. He was a true believer to the very end. I don't know why. He had grown up in Oklahoma back in the early 1900's and was a farmer. But he never had any hard evidence to back up his beleifs either. I think it just goes to illustrate how passionate people are about this.. Even if they don't have solid evidence.

-ChriS



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
OK...

The assist technology that was utilized, according to H. Deacon, was a type of gravity shielding technology. ref: xxx.lanl.gov... "gravity shielding" for an idea".

This type of shielding (cavorite) was written about in Jules Vernes "Men in the Moon".

I believe that Camelot did not leave this on there site for very long, but Henry Deacon had mentioned it... re: lunar landing and takeoff as well as noting the "lack of dust or cratering" below the lander.

If you ask Bill at Project Camelot, I believe he can verify this.

[edit on 10-1-2008 by baynard]

[edit on 10-1-2008 by baynard]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join