reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
As regards the issue of "STARS", what Apollo Historians object to is the INCONSISTENCIES in the tellings of when stars could and could not
The star photography issue is very much a non issue. It is one of those topics that was/is intentionally pressed to distract and confuse the rank and
file curious. People that don't really have the time and energy to study Apollo, but are a bit curious about "Hoax" claims, are intentionally exposed
to a hearty helping of these silly subjects; flag waving in a vacuum, invisible exhaust, shadow problems, where are the stars ??? in the photos
The casually curious wind up thinking this is what Apollo research is all about, a bunch of nonsense. A very potent tool, powerful strategy for the
official story side. In essence, official story insiders, the PERPS of today, the keepers of the smelly stanky fraudulent fire, attempt to "control"
the terms of the Apollo debate. You never see a doctor on television, someone like myself or a friend here in my medical center that does Apollo, lay
it out there for the public, tell people how it is that we know with absolute certainty Apollo is fraudulent based on our simply taking a look at what
the official story claims as regards the alleged astronaut medical problems; Shepard's Meniere's Disease, Slayton's bogus atrial fibrillation Vitamin
cure, Borman's stinking up cislunar space with his phony diarrhea ( see my recent short academic essay, "WAS FRANK BORMAN AN ALIEN WITH ACID FOR
DIARRHEA AND PUKE ? ", www.abovetopsecret.com...
You don't see a guy like SayonaraJupiter on television speaking, or read his searing critiques of the bogus Apollo narrative in any mainstream
rag/publication. Every serious Apollo historian knows Apollo to be fake. It is impossible to study the narrative without coming to that conclusion,
too many irrationalities, inconsistencies, internal incoherencies. "Apollo" is a long winded narrative, 10 plus internally incoherent, and so,
Of course there are no stars in the photos. No serious Apollo historian argues that ridiculous point, and modern PERPS, the keepers of the stinky
stanky fire, know that, but they would have you believe that is what we think to discredit us.
What Apollo historians object to is not the Apollo missions' photographic results regarding the absence of stars, but rather the INCONSISTENT STORIES
the PERPS tell about seeing stars. We know very well that were one to try and take photos under said circumstances the stars' images would not be
seen. Our problem has to do with INCONSISTENT AND THEREFORE NECESSARILY UNTRUE CLAIMS AS REGARDS STAR VISIBILITY. We all know that Neil Armstrong
claimed he and Aldrin never saw stars from the surface of the moon. He made that statement for us clearly, made it twice; once at the 08/12/1969
Houston post Apollo 11 Press Conference, and once in the storied 1970 Patrick Moore 1970 BBC interview.
There is a statement however in Alan Shepard's and Deke Slayton's book MOONSHOT claiming that stars were easily seen by moonwalkers. Here is the
relevant quote from that book by Slayton, Shepard, and coauthor, NASA sycophant and astronaut rump magnet, Jay Barbree;
“Where were the stars?” the myth believers then asked.The cameras that NASA sent to the moon had to use short-exposure times to take pictures of
the bright lunar surface and the moonwalkers’ white spacesuits. Stars’ images, easily seen by the moonwalkers, were too faint and underexposed to
be seen as they are in photographs taken from space shuttles and the International Space Station."
Note above, in the book MOONSHOT, we find this very clear statement that star images were EASILY SEEN BY MOONWALKERS, an explicit and very direct
CONTRADICTION to Armstrong's once famous and now infamous claim.
It is important to keep in mind that this contradiction is pervasive throughout the bogus Apollo narrative. IT HAS MANY TELLINGS. Stars were said to
have been seen, and then under the very same circumstances, denied. Telling the wildly risky LIE that star images were NOT easily seen was
essential to the "fraud's logic" for many reasons. If one can see stars, one can see the McDonald Observatory argon laser for example, and to see the
laser, or to claim one definitely saw it, was a one way ticket to being busted big time, found out.
Those on my side of the Apollo debate, and specifically, those educated, those scientifically literate, NEVER CLAIMED, NOT EVER, THAT STARS SHOULD BE
SEEN IN THOSE PHOTOS. To be sure, well intentioned, scientifically illiterate "researchers" have made such claims. But certainly, these well meaning
souls cannot be faulted for their misunderstanding, and those of their ranks so capable, acknowledged their mistake, accepted the correction, and
hopefully moved on. But for the most part, THIS NONSENSE ABOUT THE STARS' ABSENCE FROM THE PHOTOS COMES FROM THE OFFICIAL STORY SIDE. Those posing
as genuine Apollo historians, posing as members of my community, those conventionally referred to as "shills", not to mention those non posers,
honest believers of the official story that press this point from their official story side, not understanding that in fact, we are way ahead you,
thank you very much, we've studied this and then some, these are the people responsible for the "no stars in the photos nonsense".
One of our roles as scientifically literate Apollo historians is to expose this sort of "false point" thing as the rubbish that it is. Indeed its
importance is paramount, and as such, it is the topic of an upcoming dedicated thread.
edit on 11-6-2012 by decisively because: fixed
edit on 11-6-2012 by decisively because: caps,
edit on 11-6-2012 by decisively because: result>We know know very
well that were one to try and take photos under said circumstances the stars' images would not be seen. added "Our problem has to do with
inconsistent and therefore necessarily untrue claims about STAR VISIBILITY"
edit on 11-6-2012 by decisively because: added, "It is
important to keep in mind that this contradiction is pervasive throughout the bogus Apollo narrative. IT HAS MANY TELLINGS. Stars were said to have
been seen, and then under the very same circumstances, denied. Telling the wildly risky LIE that star images were NOT easily seen was essential to
the "fraud's logic" for many reasons. If one can see stars, one can see the McDonald Observatory argon laser for example, and to see the laser, or to
claim to one definitely saw it, was a one way ticket to being busted big time, found out."
edit on 11-6-2012 by decisively because:
it>them, removed "to"
edit on 11-6-2012 by decisively because: added, "Indeed its importance is paramount, and as such, is the topic
of an upcoming dedicated thread. "
edit on 11-6-2012 by decisively because: added "it"
edit on 11-6-2012 by decisively
because: removed "know"
edit on 11-6-2012 by decisively because: added "it"