Smoking Gun - Apollo 11

I just wanted to post this so that if any of you were wondering WHY Mr. Twietmeyer would have any reason to be suspect in the first place.
I'm fairly sure this has been posted on ATS already,so I don't want to start another thread on this but would like to post it again for background on motivation.

Causation of inquiry

Let me also state clearly, that I do NOT endorse any information that I have posted; However, it does make me go "hmmm"

Originally posted by IvanZana

I think this one is bunk. No conspiracy here.

reply to post by thedigirati


An interesting link, to say the least. There does seem to be some questions that need clearing up on the issue.

zorgon, did you warn Mr.T T that his work was going into the lions den here, and would be looked as closely as the dental work of a fresh bride by her new mother-in-law?

Thanks for that link.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

The dust that WAS pushed out of the way would not create a cloud around the LEM, because for a cloud to be created there would need to be a thick atmosphere. For the engine to create a cloud, the dust would need to be suspended in the air -- and since there is no air, there is no supension of dust.

From Apollo 11 The NASA Mission Reports Volume 2 ISBN 1-896522-49-1 Page 65 (9.2.28) Touchdown:

Armstrong: I think I was over controlling a little bit in lateral. I was confused somewhat in that I couldn't really determine what by lateral velocities were due to the dust obscuration of the surface. I could see rocks and craters through this blowing dust.

There were obviously clouds of dust obscuring Armstrong's vision.

Thanks for the post.

reply to post by johnlear


Does the word "controlling" not imply that Armstrong was still at the point where the thruster was firing? If this was prior to shut off, above the five foot area, then dust would still be being scoured from the underlying surface and the material pushed outward as a dust cloud.

Originally posted by thedigirati
Zorgon could you also reference your photos please as well?

Well I could do so but since I pulled that photo out of the PDF file that John linked to, you know the one from Honeysuckle Creek that has many more photos in it... I did not feel it necessary to repost the link as I knew you had all taken the time to actually LOOK at the link?

Uh huh yeah right



Oh wait since no one else pointed to it maybe NO ONE looked at the file

no wonder we can't get anywhere



(sorry pet peeve )

reply to post by zorgon


My apologizes, I was being rushed by the lovely Avatar on the left to go shopping for clothes and didn't have time to look at all the links, I have now, thank you for your reply

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
I bet you don't even own technology.

I can assure you that my tent is equipped with the best stuff available in 1506

How do you account for the testimony of the astronauts?

Curious that you put 'astronauts' in quotes

"Today we have with us a group of students, among America's best. To you we say we have only completed a beginning. We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of the truth's protective layers. There are places to go beyond belief..." -Neil Armstong in a VERY nervous speech at the White House

Originally posted by thedigirati
I was being rushed by the lovely Avatar on the left to go shopping for clothes

Ah! Well that explains it priorities

Originally posted by johnlear
...There were obviously clouds of dust obscuring Armstrong's vision.

Thanks for the post.

Right...He was looking down at the surface for a landing spot and the dust being thrown out by the thruster was between him and the surface, thus obscurring the view of the surface. This doesn't mean that the LEM was consumed by a cloud of dust.

and thanks for your response.

Same ladder.

View from left. Left side of ladder visible (barely)...


yellow lines = thin ladder rail
red lines = wider structure
green = my interpretation of astronauts left arm and hand on ladder


View from right. right side of ladder visible....


yellow lines = thin ladder rail
red lines = wider structure

I don't see the mystery in these photos.

Originally posted by thedigirati


I have always believed we DID go to the moon, but this disturbs me greatly, the Lunar landing was what got me started in Astronomy in the first place

what do you think? Is this guy nuts or does he have a leg (or ladder) to stand on? Please debunk this, it shakes me to the core

www.rense.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

don't feel bad. I still think we have been to the moon, and if i could re live my life, i would try to be an astronaut... but i always believed the video we saw was FAKE.

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. Did they land on a 'Moon base' manned by black projects personnel who helped in some way in the landing? Or were ET spacecraft all over the landing area forcing NASA to show pre-recorded video footage taken here?

This implies that NASA was privy to alien presence on the Moon and taken the necessary precautions.

This, needless to say, seems as far fetched as a faked Moon landing! But what is the truth? Will we ever get to know?

[edit on 27-12-2007 by mikesingh]

Your a cool guy mike.
I agree with you completely

i don't mind hearing or reading arguments over this subject because it certainly is interesting but safe to say with all this discussion you cannot call this a 'smoking gun'.

reply to post by Odessy


Please, stop swelling Mike's head with compliments, he'll never get that helmet off.

Seriously, there is likely some truth in a certain amount of fakery being possible on Moon pics. This was an important political coupstick for American leaders during the cold war, and it is reasonable to assume that "bad press" was not an option. (Besides, Hugh Heffner was airbrushing playboy centerfolds, so it was the American thing to do.)

But some manipulation or enhancement effects are far from a smoking gun that we 1)never went to the moon, 2) were surrounded there by alien ships and structures, or 3) both of the above.

If something along these lines are to go further than places like ATS, then the proof will have to be of such a nature that it cannot fit in with the missions in any way, shape, fashion, or form.

We just have to keep looking for a smoking gun, if that's what one thinks.

reply to post by benign.psychosis


Umm... It is in no way anti-American to suggest that we did not land on the moon. If anything, it is *distinctly* American to be able to freely suggest that our government has lied to us. And though I hate to mix and match threads, by your own logic, isn't it, say, anti-American to post threads suggesting that our country is responsible for the slaughter of Jews during WWII and not the Nazis, as you recently did? I'm literally amazed that you feel there is "too much proof" to suggest that we didn't land on the moon, but in your Holocaust thread, you feel there is insufficient proof to suggest that the Nazis were responsible for the Holocaust.

Or am I supposed to take this post as some sort of ironic defense of yourself after being figuratively eviscerated for your Holocaust thread? I just don't think I can bring myself to read any more of your posts. They all seem to be designed specifically to rile us up rather than to discuss anything.

As for the topic at hand, I have never been completely convinced that we landed on the moon *when we said we did.* We are, after all, the brilliant country that was trying to kill Castro by planting dynamite in a seashell (source) that was painted pretty colors and placed near his favorite diving spot. One wonders how we ever managed to split the atom...

Nevertheless, I am not convinced that this is hard and fast proof that we didn't make it to the moon. And for whomever it was who said "this might be a smoking gun" -- the gun is either smoking or it isn't. In this case, it just isn't. It's going to take more than these photos to unravel the moon landing. If nothing else, they are potentially a start.

/tn.

Edited to add citation on my Castro claim, just in case anyone thought I was joking. I wasn't. Additionally that plan (and others) was covered on a recent History Channel episode of "History Rocks."


[edit on 27-12-2007 by teleonaut]

reply to post by johnlear


Thanks John, I was about to respond to Soilent Green's post and am glad I read on prior to posting. I have read and hear many times the debate about the dust on the moon and how there was or was not a cloud of dust upon landing and the many explanations pertaining to the lack of dust on the crafts.



I have always wondered though, with all of these explanations and sound reasoning, why there are still so many footprints on the moon surface surrounding and in some cases below the landing craft? If there is only 1/6 gravity on the moon, and no dust billowing about due to the landing, then how in the world can an astraunaut weighing the equivelant of 60 pounds with his gear on, create such deep depressions into the surface?

Nice high quality photos....but STILL no STARS, which were abundant in the Surveyor probe photos of equal quality.

Originally posted by johnlear
From Apollo 11 The NASA Mission Reports Volume 2 ISBN 1-896522-49-1 Page 65 (9.2.28) Touchdown:

Armstrong: I think I was over controlling a little bit in lateral. I was confused somewhat in that I couldn't really determine what by lateral velocities were due to the dust obscuration of the surface. I could see rocks and craters through this blowing dust.

There were obviously clouds of dust obscuring Armstrong's vision.

How do you get "clouds of dust", from "dust obscuration of the surface"? Have you ever watched a video of an LM landing? If not, here you go...

Apollo 11 landing here [16mb .mov]. Youtube link here

As you can see, the dust blows out radialy across the surface. Almost completely obscuring it at times. Never does it billow and cloud around the LM.

Originally posted by ibgrimme
Nice high quality photos....but STILL no STARS, which were abundant in the Surveyor probe photos of equal quality.

Do you have a link to these photos? As for the Apollo photos, you can't get faint star light to appear with daylight exposure settings. It can take anywhere from 30 seconds to several minutes to get stars to appear in a photo.