Smoking Gun - Apollo 11

Well, for whatever it's worth, right off the bat -- without even reading one post in this thread and only looking at the photo's, I can tell what the smoking gun is... none of these astronauts are diapered, right?.

One brand called (unrequited) Luvs disposable diapers comes to mind. They've got some that have cute tiny little rockets printed on them that's perfect for NASA's space program but whatever the case may be, I do know that NASA's Astronauts DO wear diapers and NONE of the astronauts in those photo's are wearing them!
Grrrrrr. I hate hoaxes!

(satire)

reply to post by Palasheea


would you be kind enough to elaborate on your claim of "hoax" please?

Do you honestly believe this was a deliberate deception some how?

please elucidate

Well, since it seems to be all about the ladder...how about I go over to the Nat'l Air and Space Museum tomorrow (Saturday) and take a few digital pictures of the LEM on display?

I could be mistaken, but I believe the Lander on display was destined for Apollo 18, so it had been built by Grumman, although certainly not completely equipped, i.e., electronics and whatnot...I will research the Smithsonian's data on this piece. BTW, the Apollo 11 CM is there as well...

Thing I am not sure how to do is upload from my digital card...perhaps some savvy computer expert will provide advice.

Thanks for your comments and assistance.

Originally posted by thedigirati
reply to post by Palasheea

 

would you be kind enough to elaborate on your claim of "hoax" please?

Do you honestly believe this was a deliberate deception some how?

please elucidate

I was only joshing dear about the diaper thing. That's why I put (satire) at the bottom of that post. I guess you didn't think it was funny but every time I look at astronauts these days I think of that one female astronaut who stalked that 'other' woman who was dating 'her man' who wore diapers on a cross country trip to confront that woman at an airport parking lot.


I have been reading over this thread though and when I'm done reading up on all of the posts, I will ask a few members here some questions about their comments on this very interesting topic.

Thanks for starting up this thread and my apologies if you were offended by my last post about diapered astronauts. I guess I have a weird sense of humor sometimes... lol, anybody who knows me will tell you that!

reply to post by Palasheea


Actually, Pala, I think I got it, saw your 'satire'. Not sure, though, whether Lisa Nowak was actually wearing a diaper, or just had them in her car.
Remember, she drove all the way from Houston to Orlando...would have to stop for fuel at least twice? She could have peed then....

It's a lot funnier to picture a diaper on her, of course, hence the Media's frenzied focus...disrespectful in the extreme, but sometimes people bring it on themselves.

Thanks

I feel sorry for her too so it's not nice to joke about her the way I did so once again, my apologies.

The media really went to town with that diaper thing but apparently her lawyer says it just ain't true. Well, whatever the case may be, that poor woman was clearly so stressed out, she finally just 'broke' and I hope she's better now and I'm sure she will eventually be vindicated.

Here is a good picture of the ladder with the thin railings allegedly traken on the moon.




And here the Honeysuckle images allegedly taken on the moon.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Well, since it seems to be all about the ladder...how about I go over to the Nat'l Air and Space Museum tomorrow (Saturday) and take a few digital pictures of the LEM on display?

Excellent idea weedwhacker. That would be most appreciated. Shoot at the angles we are looking at in the photos particularly the ones I just posted looking at the plaque and the "One small step for man..." angle. You will probably need a ladder so go to the desk and ask them to help you get a ladder.

Thing I am not sure how to do is upload from my digital card...perhaps some savvy computer expert will provide advice.

You need a little unit like a Ultra PRO-28U, not very expensive. It comes with a USB plug that plugs into your computor. You take the digital card out of the camera and plug it into the PRO-28 or whatever you buy, then go into whatever program you are using to view the photo, Adobe and Paint Shop. Size the picture to around 6 or 7 or 6 inches wide and resolution of 75 dpi. Save it then go to Imageshack or wherever (most are free) and upload it. When you get that far let me know and I will explain the rest.

Your mission to NASM will be very helpful and much appreciated by all on this thread.

JLs pic of the plaque perked my interest. No wide beam structure present behind the left ladder rail as in the other photos.

Here are a couple which clearly show the wide beam behind the left ladder rail..



The plaque is located between the 3rd and 4rth ladder steps from the bottom. In this pic (taken at mission time 109 hrs: 39 minutes) the wide structure is clearly visible, but when Neil took the photo of the plaque @ mission time 110 hrs: 41 minutes, it's missing.

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.

Well, I don't know about you but I'm seeing some very obvious differences in that tube thing showing in the top photo and that 'ladder stringer' showing in the bottom photo from the TV broadcast.
The design of each 'structure' looks different... anyone can see that. Are these photo' of the same craft?






[edit on 28-12-2007 by Palasheea]

reply to post by Palasheea


What kind of differences? Very little detail can be seen in the B/W still from the video.

The two photos I posted are both of the Eagle

Just look... it's obvious and even though the tv photo's are more at an angle than what's in the top photo, it's still very obvious to me that there's a difference in .. for the sake of simplicity, what we are calling the 'ladder stringer' in the top and bottom photo's.
In the photo on top, what does it look like behind that bar/tube thing that's behind the ladder? Are there additional metal tubes running vertical on it that we can't see due to the angle of that photo?

Edit: there must be a separate metal peice that's over the edge on the back side of that band thing.


In the TV photo's, why are seeing a wide-ish metal band sandwiched between 2 bright lines on the one side and the ladder on the other? What are those 2 bright lines??
The photo on top is not showing anything like that... is it the same craft?

Edit: there must be a separate metal piece that's over the edge on the back side of that tube thing -- and it's reflecting the light which explains what we are seeing in the TV photo's?


[edit on 28-12-2007 by Palasheea]

reply to post by Palasheea


I see what you're talking about, but I personally dismiss it as an artifact of the poor quality of the video. I really can't see any detail except the ladder rail with wrung attachments visible, and the wider structure directly behind it (with strange "tube like" features I attribute to glare/reflection???)

No doubt about it, they are reflecting a lot of light -- Odd that the camera registered those details on that 'ladder stringer' or band like that. Very bright!

Once again, it looks like there's a separate metal piece covering the edge of that metal band behind the ladder in the TV photo's. That separate metal piece looks like it's edges are rounded. It looks like the inside and outside edge of that band/tube that's behind the ladder has that separate metal piece on each of it's edges.

It's too hard to tell if the top photo's metal band is showing that -- but so far I'm not seeing that detail on that band in that photo.



[edit on 28-12-2007 by Palasheea]

reply to post by johnlear


Reply to johnlear, just a follow-up on my promise to go to the NASM (not to be confused with the other NASM...the National Assoc. of Sports Medicine! Sometimes acronyms can get confusing...).

Still Friday night, I'll go take pics this weekend, but as a teaser, learned this about the LM on display in the Smithsonian:

It is LM #9, originally built and destined for Apollo 15. As we know, the LRV went along on 15, so they used LM #10, as it was adapted to house the folded LRV. The LM #9 was stored, then transferred to the Smithsonian in March, 1973.

This info was from an outside source, namely, the Museum's website.

Easy enough to search their site, sorry I do not know how to cut and paste. Hey, it saves ATS server space!!

Have fun!

Just loaded the top photo into an editor and that metal band in that one also has that same edge as what's seen in the TV photo's. Here's a negative of that photo...


In that case... never mind.

[edit on 28-12-2007 by Palasheea]

can someone tell me how the hell that moon landing vehicle was able to land on the moon without breaking and how it went back into the atmosphere. because it doesnt look like its able to hold enough fuel to thrust back, and it also looks like its so fragile that it would break from a landing on the moon

reply to post by Swatman


Hello Swatman,

Well, the conventional explanation of the Lunar landers is easily researched at Wikipedia, among other sites. There are alternative theories and concepts presented here on ATS, hence it is a 'conspiracy' site, and others challenge conventional explanations.

But, the official story seems perfectly plausible given a near vacuum on the Moon and one sixth gravity. Therefore, the LM was obviously too fragile and underpowered to operate in Earth's atmosphere and gravitational field, so it may 'look' delicate in your expectation and experience of how things work on Earth.

What is being alleged here is 'fakery', or pointing out what appear to be anomalies. Obviously there are divergent opinions, some do not accept official NASA info.

Thanks for your question.

These remarks of 'Henry Deacon', a Livermore Physicist, fits in a way this discussion, and I thought is was proper to show them to you. I find them pretty remarkable myself.
He stated that "Most" of the missions did indeed go to the moon, so the question is then, which didn’t go?

Mr. Lear, can you say something more about those remarks of Henry Deacon and do you know this man personally?
Thanks in advance.

projectcamelot.org...

• We asked Henry if the Apollo astronauts had actually gone to the moon. This was a question that had not actually previously occurred to us in earlier meetings. There was a long pause before Henry replied saying: Yes, they had. But it was not a simple answer.

Most of the missions did indeed go to the moon, but some photos and film footage were fabricated for PR purposes, and - remarkably – some advanced technology was borrowed: a lightweight nano tech-skin shielding combined with a charged-field technology were utilized on some of the craft to provide very effective radiation shielding, combined with other technologies used to protect the astronauts from Gamma and other hazardous radiations and energetic particles during the journeys. Additional advanced “alien” technologies were added to land the Lunar Module and assist take-off from the moon.

Some Apollo astronauts were aware of these technologies (though only a couple were aware of the alternative space program). This accounts for some general reluctance to be interviewed or to speak openly on the subject. Their anger at those who claim they never went at all is understandable, because they did indeed reach the moon. They were very brave men... and they had some help.

Originally posted by spacevisitor

These remarks of 'Henry Deacon', a Livermore Physicist, fits in a way this discussion, and I thought is was proper to show them to you. I find them pretty remarkable myself.
He stated that "Most" of the missions did indeed go to the moon, so the question is then, which didn’t go?

Mr. Lear, can you say something more about those remarks of Henry Deacon and do you know this man personally?
Thanks in advance.

I don't know Henry Deacon or who he is. His information is accurate about the lunar lander. Because of the .64 gravity on the moon, rocket propulsion would have never landed it or taken it off because of the fuel requirements.

Regarding the Van Allen belt my understanding is that the Alpha particles could be blocked iwth cardboard. I am not sure if there was more of a threat however it does seem plausible.

As to which Apollo Mission didn't land on the moon I think it was Apollo 11, the first one and, of course, Apollo 13.

There is more and more evidence of photographic fraud by NAZA to support the possibility that Apollo 11 didn't land on the Moon.

www.youtube.com...
www.thelivingmoon.com...