| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"freemason" |
| Date: |
21 Jun 2007 02:01:58 AM |
| Object: |
NASA blows it! They just exposed their Apollo moon landing hoax! |
Was it an accident?
Or are people getting fed up maintaining the lies?
http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
NASA exposes their Apollo moon landing hoax!
Did they realize what they were doing? Or are
some NASA employees getting tired of supporting the lies?
The image above is at the NASA site, Astronomy Picture of the Day, for
tomorrow, 21 June 2007:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html
It is a drawing of what the Earth's sky would look like during the
daytime if the atmosphere did not scatter sunlight.
NASA admits that even with the sun shining, the stars would be
visible.
Eric Hufschmid's Science Challenge asked if Apollo astronauts would be
able to see stars while they were on the moon:
www.EricHufschmid.net/Science_Challenge_24.html
And would astronauts see stars as they traveled to and from the moon?
Would astronauts in the space shuttle be able to see stars?
NASA has been claiming for decades that it is nearly impossible for
astronauts to see stars, but now the Astronomy Picture of the Day admits
that without an atmosphere, we would see stars even when the sun was
shining.
Have you seen the Apollo press conference when Neil Armstrong and Mike
Collins said they didn't see stars? The video is on this page:
www.EricHufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html
What is going on?
The man who drew the picture is Jerry Lodriguss. He is a professional
photographer, and his website is full of photographs of the universe:
www.astropix.com/INDEX.HTM
In Hufschmid's more detailed PDF file about the Apollo moon landing
hoax, he mentioned this particular man on page 15:
www.EricHufschmid.net/ApolloMoonHoax.pdf
http://www.erichufschmid.net/Interview-with-Bart-Sibrel.html
Hufschmid sent him an e-mail a couple years ago to "Get a clue!" Has
Jerry Lodriguss finally figured out that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax?
Or has he known it was a hoax for many years?
Why would NASA put this on their website and admit that stars would be
seen during daytime when there is no atmosphere to scatter the sunlight?
Is it possible that people are starting to rebel against the
corruption? Is it possible that people are tired of maintaining the Apollo
moon landing hoax? Are American men finally behaving like men rather than
frightened children?
Or didn't NASA realize what they were doing when they put this page on
their site? Will this particular page be deleted as soon as they realize
what they just did? Will they frantically struggle to devise a flimsy excuse
to explain this page?
http://www.iamthewitness.com/zionism.html
http://www.iamthewitness.com/deception.html
.
|
|
| User: "Phoon Hencman" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA blows it! They just exposed their Apollo moon landing hoax! |
21 Jun 2007 07:46:01 PM |
|
|
On 2007-06-21 03:01:58 -0400, "freemason" <free@mas.on> said:
Was it an accident?
Or are people getting fed up maintaining the lies?
http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
NASA exposes their Apollo moon landing hoax!
Did they realize what they were doing? Or are
some NASA employees getting tired of supporting the lies?
The image above is at the NASA site, Astronomy Picture of the Day, for
tomorrow, 21 June 2007:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html
It is a drawing of what the Earth's sky would look like during the
daytime if the atmosphere did not scatter sunlight.
NASA admits that even with the sun shining, the stars would be
visible.
*****. Pure and simple. Pure *****. What proof? O.K.! Set your
camera to take a photo in normal daylight. Now using that setting go
out on a clear noght when stars are PLAINLY visible and take a photo of
them using those same settings. Guess what? NO STARS in the photos.
Go a head asshat, DO IT.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BDK" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA blows it! They just exposed their Apollo moon landing hoax! |
21 Jun 2007 10:23:12 PM |
|
|
In article <467b1bc9$0$31297$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
says...
On 2007-06-21 03:01:58 -0400, "freemason" <free@mas.on> said:
Was it an accident?
Or are people getting fed up maintaining the lies?
http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
NASA exposes their Apollo moon landing hoax!
Did they realize what they were doing? Or are
some NASA employees getting tired of supporting the lies?
The image above is at the NASA site, Astronomy Picture of the Day, for
tomorrow, 21 June 2007:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html
It is a drawing of what the Earth's sky would look like during the
daytime if the atmosphere did not scatter sunlight.
NASA admits that even with the sun shining, the stars would be
visible.
*****. Pure and simple. Pure *****. What proof? O.K.! Set your
camera to take a photo in normal daylight. Now using that setting go
out on a clear noght when stars are PLAINLY visible and take a photo of
them using those same settings. Guess what? NO STARS in the photos.
Go a head asshat, DO IT.
Please, for a kook to do a scientific experiment would be committing
sacrilege! That might lead to doubting the kook gospel, and that
wouldn't do, would it?
BDK
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "BradGuth" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA blows it! They just exposed their Apollo moon landing hoax! |
22 Jun 2007 04:34:40 AM |
|
|
On Jun 21, 5:46 pm, Phoon Hencman <H...@ican.net> wrote:
On 2007-06-21 03:01:58 -0400, "freemason" <f...@mas.on> said:
Was it an accident?
Or are people getting fed up maintaining the lies?
http://www.iamthewitness.com/NASA-exposes-Apollo.html
NASA exposes theirApollomoonlanding hoax!
Did they realize what they were doing? Or are
some NASA employees getting tired of supporting the lies?
The image above is at the NASA site, Astronomy Picture of the Day, for
tomorrow, 21 June 2007:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070621.html
It is a drawing of what the Earth's sky would look like during the
daytime if the atmosphere did not scatter sunlight.
NASA admits that even with the sun shining, the stars would be
visible.
*****. Pure and simple. Pure *****. What proof? O.K.! Set your
camera to take a photo in normal daylight. Now using that setting go
out on a clear noght when stars are PLAINLY visible and take a photo of
them using those same settings. Guess what? NO STARS in the photos.
Go a head asshat, DO IT.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Been there, done that a million times. You're still a born-again
liar, exactly like our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).
Here's certainly further proof, as to how extremely bright the planet
Venus actually is compared to the illuminated surface of our
physically dark, somewhat salty and otherwise downright nasty moon.
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occultations/2007-06-18_Venus_and_Moon.jpg
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occultations/2007-06-18_Venus-occultation-reappearance.jpg
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occultations/2007-06-18_15h22m12s.jpg
Especially if having been utilizing an unfiltered camera/lens and if
being situated upon the naked moon would have to make Venus all that
much more so vibrant than depicted by these nifty images obtained by
Pete Lawrence "Lunnar occultation of Venus - approach phase".
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sci.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/73262dc8481cfb4a/d4886c0b640dfbc0?hl=en#d4886c0b640dfbc0
Too bad the best our hocus-pocus NASA/Apollo wizards could manage is
having included a few rather dull images of Earth along with Apollo
stuff illuminated as though by way of a Xenon lamp spectrum, without
their having any hint of raw solar UV or of the secondary/recoil worth
of having anything near-blue as skewed about their Kodak moments at
that.
In other honest to God words, we didn't actually walk on that moon of
ours, did we. It's not possible to have walked on our physically dark
and nasty moon without their having gotten a few FOVs worth of having
included Venus.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phoon Hencman" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA blows it! They just exposed their Apollo moon landing hoax! |
22 Jun 2007 07:36:33 PM |
|
|
On 2007-06-22 05:34:40 -0400, BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> said:
*****. Pure and simple. Pure *****. What proof? O.K.! Set your
camera to take a photo in normal daylight. Now using that setting go
out on a clear noght when stars are PLAINLY visible and take a photo of
them using those same settings. Guess what? NO STARS in the photos.
Go a head asshat, DO IT.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Been there, done that a million times. You're still a born-again
liar, exactly like our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush).
You are a fuckwit. Pure and simple. We ALL know it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BradGuth" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA blows it! They just exposed their Apollo moon landing hoax! |
24 Jun 2007 10:39:11 AM |
|
|
On Jun 23, 6:59 pm, Phoon Hencman <H...@ican.net> wrote:
On 2007-06-23 12:21:27 -0400, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> said:
On Jun 22, 3:02 pm, Phoon Hencman <H...@ican.net> wrote:
On 2007-06-22 05:27:26 -0400, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> said:
Venus is not a star, it's so much brighter and on at least three
Apollo missions it was certainly close enough and easily within a few
FOVs for a good Kodak moment or two.
Venus has nothing to do with it. They weren't there to photograph the
night sky on theMoonfor one thing you assclown. Secondly, shutter and
aperture settings on the cameras were for the Lunar SURFACE, not night
sky. The moon's surface is HIGHLY reflective. Effectively washing out
star light.
Take a photography coarse or two dipshit.
Yet another sucking and blowing Zion, with the usual butt loads of
infomercial crapolla that suit a given Old Testament thumping minion
like yourself.
You silly folks don't even have the necessary Kodak physics or even
the required fly-by-rocket capability for getting nearly 50 tonnes
into orbiting our moon alon with a crew of three rad-hard astronauts,
much less having a spare fly-by-rocket lander for getting to/from that
physically dark, somewhat salty and otherwise totally naked and
unavoidably reactive anticathode of a moon that's much worse off than
any Van Allen badlands.
Christ almighty on another stick: "The moon's surface is HIGHLY
reflective"?
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
BradGuth
You are a total, complete fuckwit. Congratulations!
Alt.politics removed.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Christ almighty on another stick: "The moon's surface is HIGHLY
reflective"?
And the very best science or law of physics you've got for that one is
"You are a total, complete fuckwit. Congratulations!"?
Are all Zions of your infomercial butt spewing kind that pathetic?
The reflective surface of our moon is more like an open-pit coal mine,
except darker than most such terrestrial coal mines.
If that moon were half as reflective as you say, we'd be blinded by
the planetshine of our moon. Now which one of us is the "complete
fuckwit"?
Here's certainly further independent proof (and I've got lots more to
share that'll include Saturn and Jupiter), as to how extremely bright
the planet Venus actually is compared to the illuminated surface of
our physically dark, somewhat salty and otherwise downright nasty
moon.
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occultations/2007-06-18_Venus_and_Moon.jpg
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occultations/2007-06-18_Venus-occultation-reappearance.jpg
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occultations/2007-06-18_15h22m12s.jpg
Especially when that Kodak moment was utilizing an unfiltered camera/
lens as being situated upon the naked moon would have to make Venus
all that much more so vibrant than depicted by these nifty images
obtained by Pete Lawrence "Lunnar occultation of Venus - approach
phase".
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sci.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/73262dc8481cfb4a/d4886c0b640dfbc0?hl=en#d4886c0b640dfbc0
Too bad the best our hocus-pocus NASA/Apollo wizards could manage is
having included a few rather dull images of Earth along with Apollo
stuff illuminated as though by way of a Xenon lamp spectrum, without
their having any hint of raw solar UV or any of the secondary/recoil
worth of having anything depicted near-blue, as the least bit skewed
about their unfiltered Kodak moments.
In other honest to God words, we didn't actually walk on that moon of
ours, did we. It's simply not possible to have walked on our
physically dark and nasty moon without their having gotten a few FOVs
worth of having included Venus, especially as otherwise viewed from
such a nearby orbit.
-
"whoever controls the past, controls the future" / George Orwell
-
Brad Guth
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: NASA blows it! They just exposed their Apollo moon landing hoax! |
24 Jun 2007 12:54:03 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 15:39:11 -0000 there was an Ancient BradGuth
<bradguth@gmail.com> who stoppeth one in alt.conspiracy
Christ almighty on another stick: "The moon's surface is HIGHLY
reflective"?
Yup. Albedo: 0.12 Compare that to the Earth's albedo of 0.367
And the very best science or law of physics you've got for that one is
"You are a total, complete fuckwit. Congratulations!"?
Are all Zions of your infomercial butt spewing kind that pathetic?
Brad, when exactly did you go off your meds?
The reflective surface of our moon is more like an open-pit coal mine,
except darker than most such terrestrial coal mines.
Wrong. Much of the lunar surface is basalt, a light gray crystalline
mineral. It does a great job of reflecting sunlight. A coal mine
would have an albedo of 0.01 or so.
If that moon were half as reflective as you say, we'd be blinded by
the planetshine of our moon. Now which one of us is the "complete
fuckwit"?
That would be you. Most people can read by the light of a full moon.
Here's certainly further independent proof (and I've got lots more to
share that'll include Saturn and Jupiter), as to how extremely bright
the planet Venus actually is compared to the illuminated surface of
our physically dark, somewhat salty and otherwise downright nasty
moon.
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occultations/2007-06-18_Venus_and_Moon.jpg
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occultations/2007-06-18_Venus-occultation-reappearance.jpg
http://www.digitalsky.org.uk/occultations/2007-06-18_15h22m12s.jpg
Especially when that Kodak moment was utilizing an unfiltered camera/
lens as being situated upon the naked moon would have to make Venus
all that much more so vibrant than depicted by these nifty images
obtained by Pete Lawrence "Lunnar occultation of Venus - approach
phase".
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.sci.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/73262dc8481cfb4a/d4886c0b640dfbc0?hl=en#d4886c0b640dfbc0
Too bad the best our hocus-pocus NASA/Apollo wizards could manage is
having included a few rather dull images of Earth along with Apollo
stuff illuminated as though by way of a Xenon lamp spectrum, without
their having any hint of raw solar UV or any of the secondary/recoil
worth of having anything depicted near-blue, as the least bit skewed
about their unfiltered Kodak moments.
Venus' albedo is 0.65. But Venus is also 26 million miles away from
us at its closest approach. That's over a hundred times farther away
from us than the Moon is.
In other honest to God words, we didn't actually walk on that moon of
ours, did we. It's simply not possible to have walked on our
physically dark and nasty moon without their having gotten a few FOVs
worth of having included Venus, especially as otherwise viewed from
such a nearby orbit.
They weren't there to take pictures of the sky. They were there to
take pictures of the lunar surface. The cameras were set to handle
the lighting of the lunar surface.
These are facts, Brad. Deal with them.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
"Where is the prince who can afford so to cover
his country with troops for its defense, as that
ten thousand men descending from the clouds, might
not,in many places, do an infinite deal of mischief
before a force could be brought together to repel
them?" - BENJAMIN FRANKLIN-1784
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
