Our Entire Space Program Is A Hoax And A Massive Deception , page 99

reply to post by captainpudding

---

Cap well said sir .

reply to post by captainpudding

---

People who think it's fake: Librarian, television producer...

Hey hey hey, wait.

I used to be a librarian during 4 years of undergraduate and graduate work.

Don't lump librarians in that category.

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by captainpudding

---

People who think it's fake: Librarian, television producer...

Hey hey hey, wait.

I used to be a librarian during 4 years of undergraduate and graduate work.

Don't lump librarians in that category.

Not librarians just a librarian, the guy who started this whole hilarious mess and in the 40 years since not one person has been able to prove any of his idiotic theories right.

reply to post by denver22

---

We saw the saturn v rockets go up and then we were shown the space capsules floating in the ocean and everything else was a televised and fabricated event,special effects movies,a tv show and surely those re-entry capsules were dropped by parachute from high altitude,by military cargo planes,with the astronauts placed within those capsules onboard those airplanes,or put inside them,after waiting on the decks of the nearby naval ships that sailed to rendezvous with them and the vast majority of us would remain gullibly unaware of what "they" were doing to "us",just how severely the sheeples own wool was being pulled over their own eyes...

reply to post by blocula

---

who are made to follow the pre-determined,pre-arranged guidelines of the currently enforced belief structures

What is an enforced belief structure and how is it enforced?

Which elements of your OP do you still believe are true?

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by denver22

---

We saw the saturn v rockets go up and then we were shown the space capsules floating in the ocean and everything else was a televised and fabricated event,special effects movies,a tv show and surely those re-entry capsules were dropped by parachute from high altitude,by military cargo planes,with the astronauts placed within those capsules onboard those airplanes,or put inside them,after waiting on the decks of the nearby naval ships that sailed to rendezvous with them and the vast majority of us would remain gullibly unaware of what "they" were doing to "us",just how severely the sheeples own wool was being pulled over their own eyes...

Not more drivel bloc, you have posted this countless times when faced with the truth..
And no evidence at all.

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by denver22

---

We saw the saturn v rockets go up and then we were shown the space capsules floating in the ocean and everything else was a televised and fabricated event,special effects movies,a tv show and surely those re-entry capsules were dropped by parachute from high altitude,by military cargo planes,with the astronauts placed within those capsules onboard those airplanes,or put inside them,after waiting on the decks of the nearby naval ships that sailed to rendezvous with them and the vast majority of us would remain gullibly unaware of what "they" were doing to "us",just how severely the sheeples own wool was being pulled over their own eyes...

Riiiightt.... So, still no proof then?

reply to post by blocula

---

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.

In many photographs the shadow side of the astronauts appear illuminated, while the shadow side of rocks appear totally black.

This Apollo 17 photograph
is a good example of the above hoax claim. The explanation is apparent from the photo itself. Look at the astronaut's feet and you will see that the shadow in this area is just as dark as that of the foreground rocks. The lunar surface acts as a reflector to illuminate the shadow side of the astronaut. At the elevation of the astronaut's feet, and the foreground rocks, this reflector surface is mostly covered by the adjacent shadows. However, at the elevation of the astronaut's head and torso, the shadows cover a much smaller percentage of the surface. For example, on a flat surface the angular distance from horizon to horizon is 180 degrees. At an elevation of five feet, a one-foot wide shadow subtends an angle of 11.4 degrees, or only 6% of the distance from horizon to horizon. At two inches above the ground, this shadow subtends an angle of 143 degrees, or nearly 80% of the surface. Furthermore, the rocks are darker and less reflective than the astronaut's white space suit.

Shadows cast on the lunar surface should be parallel. Some shadows in the Apollo photos are not parallel indicating more than one light source, thus the photos are fakes.

Again there is a sound explanation; it is a simple a matter of perspective. A photo is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional world, hence parallel lines may not appear as such on film. We all know how lines on a highway appear to diverge as they approach the observer, yet we know they are parallel. Another important factor that comes into play here is the slope of the ground. Let's consider two shadows - one cast on an upward slope and the other on a downward slope. If viewed from the side, these shadows would appear to go off in different directions. However, if viewed from high above, they would be seen as parallel. In other words, looks can be deceiving. There is no evidence of NASA trickery here. This photograph
, taken on Earth, is an excellent example illustrating how perspective causes shadows to appear non-parallel when seen on film. In this example
the astronaut on the right is standing on a small rise. The sloping ground has caused his shadow to elongate and appear at a different angle than the shadow of the astronaut on the left. Also note, if two spotlights produced the shadows then each astronaut would have two shadows.

Here you go bloc some educational 101 facts for you to get your noodle around .

reply to post by blocula

---

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 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.

Bill Kaysing claims that NASA has perpetrated the lie that stars cannot be seen in space to validate the lack of stars in the Apollo photos. This assertion is utterly ridiculous; in fact, NASA has released many photos in which stars are visible. Common among these are long-exposure nighttime photographs of aurora taken by space shuttle astronauts. This example
is a four-second exposure taken from the flight deck of the shuttle Endeavour.

Your charlatan debunked again . ooh dear bloc this is getting embarasing isn't it

reply to post by blocula

---

Many Apollo photographs show lighting "hot spots", as well as a darkening of the surface toward the horizon. Sunlight should not produce hot spots, nor should the surface fade in an airless environment.

The "hot spots" are the result of the lunar soil's tendency to reflect light back toward its source. There are many reasons for this, but it is mostly due to countless tiny glass spheres found in the lunar soil, and formed by meteorite impacts. When you see a photo taken "down sun", away from the Sun, you see what looks like a spotlight around the shadow's head. This is because the light is strongly reflected back toward the Sun, so the soil around the head of the shadow looks very bright. This phenomenon also explains why the surface fades so drastically toward the horizon. It is brightest near the foreground due to sunlight being preferentially reflected back toward the camera. Farther away, the sunlight is preferentially reflected away from the camera, making the ground look dark. This phenomenon can also be observed in wet grass on Earth, as spherical water droplets act like the glass spheres. The technical term for this phenomenon is Heiligenschein, and is the result of light refraction, reflection, and diffraction on the surface of and inside the glass spheres and/or water droplets. This Apollo 11 photo is very good example
of Heiligenschein.

Only two men walked on the Moon during each Apollo mission, yet there are photos in which the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

The Apollo astronauts carried cameras that were attached to the front of their spacesuits. In this Apollo 12 photograph of astronaut Alan Bean
, taken by Pete Conrad, one can clearly see Bean's camera mounted to his chest. The astronauts aimed and operated the cameras while they remained in this mounting. If you look closely at Conrad's reflection in Bean's visor, you can see Conrad's camera, which he is operating with his right hand.

In an Apollo 11 photograph of Buzz Aldrin the horizon is located at eye level; however, if the camera was mounted to Neil Armstrong's chest, the horizon should be at chest level.

The referenced photograph is the most reproduced image in the entire Apollo archive
. The claim of the hoax advocates assumes that Aldrin and Armstrong were standing on level ground; however, if Armstrong were standing on higher ground, the apparent elevation of the horizon would rise accordingly. If we look at Armstrong's reflection in the visor, we see the horizon is located at his chest. This shows Armstrong was indeed standing on higher ground with his chest located in approximately the same horizontal plane as Aldrin's eyes. Given this camera position, we see the horizon across Aldrin's eyes as expected.

The hoax advocates also point out that the top of Aldrin's backpack should not be visible if the camera was attached to Armstrong's chest. Again, the hoax advocates fail to recognize that Armstrong is standing on higher ground. In addition, Aldrin is leaning forward, thus exposing the top of his backpack to the camera. Due to the weight of the astronauts' backpacks, a slight forward lean was required to maintain balance.

There is one photograph of an astronaut standing on the surface of the Moon in direct sunlight, yet he casts no shadow, which is impossible.

The photo to which the hoax advocates refer is one of astronaut John Young saluting the Stars and Stripes
. They often reference this photo as evidence of fraud, however they are very wrong. Young's shadow is clearly visible on the ground below him and to the right (his left). How can his shadow not be attached to his body? The answer is simple; Young was leaping off the ground and was elevated about two feet when the photo was taken. There is also some very good corroborating video of the event. This is one of the most famous of the Apollo photos and it is surprising that the hoax advocates would be unfamiliar with the story behind the photograph. read and weep bloc , want some more ?

reply to post by blocula

---

Not one still photograph matches the video footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.

This statement, made by David Percy, is entirely untrue. For evidence I submit the above-mentioned photograph of astronaut John Young
. There is some excellent corroborating video of the event captured in this still photo. In the video, the TV camera is positioned behind Young and to his right. The video shows a leaping John Young, the flag (which is not fluttering) and Charlie Duke, who took the photograph. There are other examples as well.

Mr. Percy claims that the triangular shaped piece of fabric located on the top of John Young's backpack, and seen in the still photo, does not appear in the video. This is not true - the tip of the fabric can be seen when one closely examines the video. Percy's claim fails to take into consideration the relative camera angles, the fact that Young in leaning forward, and the fact the fabric is attached at the front edge of the backpack.

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.

Two photographs show an identical mountain background, yet in one the Lunar Module is present while in the other the LM is absent. The mountain scene must be an artificial backdrop.

The above example, which was presented in the FOX TV program, is just one of many hoax claims about "identical backgrounds" and "artificial backdrops"
. If someone is going to claim the backgrounds are identical, they had better be IDENTICAL. In this case, as in all such claims, the backgrounds are clearly not identical. If you examine the photos with scrutiny, differences can be easily identified. For example, look closely at the hill on the right of each photo and you will notice that the angles of view are significantly different. It is obvious the photos were taken from different camera positions, thus we see different foreground terrain. In the right photo it appears the LM is off-camera to the left.

Another factor to consider is, due to the lack of an atmosphere, distant objects on the Moon appear clearer than they do on Earth, thus the background mountains may be more distant than they appear to be. As such, a change in camera position may, at first observation, have a nearly unperceivable affect on the appearance of the background. However, close examination will reveal otherwise. You need more mr bloc , do i have to spoon feed you more of the truth?

Originally posted by denver22
reply to post by blocula

---

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.

Why are the stars too faint? We see multitudes of stars from earth and we have to view them through a vision obstructing,disruptive atmosphere and so when looking through the supposedly no atmosphere sky from the surface of the moon,the astronauts should have seen and the films and photos should have shown hundreds,perhaps thousands of vibrantly flickering and clearly visible stars and we dont...

The real reason why we dont see them,is because back in the late 1960's early 1970's,nasa and their secret special effects designers and their psychops photo shop technicians couldnt figure out how to accurately reproduce them upon the high ceilings within their lunar surface mockup soundstages that were built inside massive aircraft hangers,upon military bases and so they just spoon fed us scientific sounding excuses,lies and deceptions used to cover up the painfully obvious,blatant lack of visible stars in their films and photos...

New Crop Circle Hackpen Hill Cube
  Posted 16 days ago with 92 member flags

Get ready to find yourself in a whirlwind of other worldly activity
  Posted 17 days ago with 50 member flags

Crop Circles Explained - Hidden Messages From Aliens & ET\'s ?
  Posted 13 days ago with 24 member flags

Man Made Ancient Pyramids Found on Antarctica???
  Posted 9 days ago with 23 member flags

The Flat Earth theory, With Interviews from believers
  Posted 1 days ago with 22 member flags

James Cameron the revealer & programmer?
  Posted 10 days ago with 9 member flags

Secrets Revealed 2
  Posted 16 days ago with 8 member flags

Mars: The Old Earth?
  Posted 10 days ago with 8 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: