Quote:

Prova att hålla dig till ämnet i tråden!

Här förutsätter du massa saker som inte är sant.

Jag jobbar dagligen med detta!

‘Quote:

Ja, jag skulle ha gjort det samma.

Du för med lögner igen.

Fakta är att Grumman Aircraft Engineering byggde månlandaren

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_Aircraft_Engineering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module


Bill Kaysing jobbade på företaget som byggde Saturn 5 raketen, den som bar astronauterna och månlandaren.


Bill Kaysing är varken ingenjör eller vetenskapsman, han har en Bachelor of Arts in English from the University of Southern California från 1949.

Han jobbade med publicationer för Rocketdyne.

Rocketdyne var en stor leverantör åt NASA mellan 1957 och 1963.
Så jag kan inte se hur Bill Kaysing kan veta så mycket om vad som hände efter 1963.

1997 stämde Bill Jim Lowel (Apollo 8 och Apollo 13) för förtal, för att Jim Lowel kallat Bill "Wacky". Det gick inte så bra för Bill, stämningen ogillades och Jim Lowel gick fri.

Så Bill Kaysings tyckande om Apollo har provats i en rättegång.


Bill Kaysing är inte en relevant person att ta upp som ett vittne då han hade hand om papper på ett företag som jobbade med NASA fram till 1963.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Kaysing



Du Lightsaber, du har aldrig funderat på att kolla upp saker innan du skriver här i tråden , det är fakta fel i var och vartannat inlägg. Detta tar max 5 minuter att kolla upp.

Innan du nu försöker förklara dig med fler fakta fel och lögner så betänk då att jag jobbat och levt med detta sen 1971, så jag vet vad jag talar om.

Så skall du nog sluta att klistra in saker du inte kan verifiera, det är saker som Bill Kaysing skriver, ingen kan bekräfta detta.
Men du sväljer det med hull och hår.

Bill Kaysing är inte något du kan lita på, han är ett stort psykfall.

Här kommer lite frågor och svar från Bill Kaysing.

So, Bill Kaysing, are you saying that Roberta Bondar, Canada's first women astronaut, never actually made it in space, 'cause she was on the Shuttle. Well, I'll tell you what - the Shuttle is a possibility. After all, it's low altitude. I haven't done a great deal of research on the Shuttle, but several people have said that the Shuttle is actually faked, also.

Så här börjar käre Bill tvivla på att Rymdfärjan ens existerar!
Ja det blir värre!


How 'bout any actual atmosphere, like John Glenn in space, Yuri Gargarin - were they actually in space? I doubt it.

Nu vet Bill helt plötsligt allt om Sovjetunionens rymdprogram också!

I filmen som startade alla foliehattars intresse ""Did we land on the Moon?" Säger Bill Kaysing så här.


Bland annat menar Kaysing att samtliga scener från månen är inspelade i en studio i Nevadaöknen, "troligen Area 51". Ingen Apollo-farkost eller astronaut landade någonsin på månen utan cirklarade runt jorden under drygt en vecka för att sedan inför tv-kameror och press landa i Stilla havet.

Då ter det sig lite märkligt att att Bill ändrar sin historia i ett senare tillfälle.

So what happened, then, if they saw it take off? The rocket took off - if we didn't go to the moon, what actually happened when Apollo 11 took off? The Apollo 11 vehicle, or Saturn 5, was sent out of people's sight, and then it was jettisoned into the South Atlantic, where all of the six that were launched now reside. There were no astronauts, of course, on board. They were hidden away carefully, to be returned, allegedly in their command capsule, by being dumped out of a C5A transport plane. It was easy to do all of this, because they had total control of everything.

Så glöm Bill Kaysing, han har inte någonting att tillföra debatten, vi hamnar bara mer i från det som tråden handlar om.

Så ta en sak som Bill säger då, lägg fram en sak som han säger och så tar vi det.

Inte saker som tar en massa onödig tid för att du inte har rätt fakta klart för dig.

Bill Kaysing är inget psykfall, han är död.

Det faktum att han reviderade en del av sina påståenden gör honom inte per automatik mindre trovärdig. Alla seriösa forskare måste vara beredd att revidera sina slutsatser, Freud gjorde det åtskilliga gånger.

Men i så fall kanske NASA chefen Dan Goldin också är ett psykfall?

Vad var det karln sa egentligen?

“MANKIND CANNOT VENTURE BEYOND EARTH ORBIT UNTIL THEY CAN OVERCOME THE DANGERS OF COSMIC RADIATION!”


Hur kan platser som sägs vara filmade på olika ställen av månen ha identisk bakgrund? Jag såg själv i en av dokumentärerna en bild där månlandaren var med och en där den var borta, trots att bakgrunden helt klart var likadan. Hur gick det till? Flyttade de på månlandaren? se nedan:
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

Smått komiskt var det ju att se förklaringen till varför månstenen man kan se i länken du hänvisade till i förra påståendet har bokstaven C på sig. Det beror på att det är ett hårstrå säger man. Well, i så fall är det ett hårstrå som formar bokstaven C
på marken framför stenen också. Se nedan:
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

Eller så beror det kanske på följande:

"The use of the letter C on film props is well known by the people in Hollywood and is used to show where the centre of the scene should be."

Det sades också att på originalbilderna så finns det inget C.
Varför inte släppa originalbilderna då?

Varför sa Jan Lundberg på Hasselblad i en av dokumentärerna att han inte kunde förstå hur de kunde ta sådana perfekta bilder med kamerorna fastsatta på magen och tjocka handskar?

Är han också ett psykfall?

Varför har inte Neil Armstrong ETT ENDA foto från "månlandningen
men flera från testflygningarna han gjorde. En av historiens största hjältar utför en odödlig bedrift men han vill inte ha en bild av det och vägrar prata om det.

Varför säger astronauterna som var med på den första "färden" emot varandra när de tillfrågas om man kunde höra motorn i månlandaren?

Sen har vi ju dessa frågor som väntar på ett svar:

1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?

4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)

5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.

6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.

7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?

8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the Moon).

9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?

10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?

11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.

12) Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?

13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.

15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.

16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?

17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.

18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.

19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM.

20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did.

21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.

22) With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, 'Hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can't even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.' This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race.

23) Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?

24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.

25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!

26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!

27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."

28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.

29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LEM go?

30) In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.

31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, dated by NASA three days after they left for the moon. It shows the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!".

32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?


Dessutom finner jag det intressant att du skulle ha vägrat att debattera med Bill Kaysing men att du gladeligen gör det med "okunniga lögnare" på vaken.se.

Blir ju lite lätt svårt att debatera med Bill när han som DU säger DÖD.
Men att fara med lögner och fakta fel har ni gemensamt.

Sen var inte Bill Kaysing forskare eller vetenskapsman. PUNKT.

Och äntligen tar du upp konkreta saker som Foliehatten Kaysing påstår i sin "dokumentär"

Vi tar en fråga i taget, du säger till om det jag förklarar är fel och inte bara går vidare till nästa fråga, en fråga i taget.


Du bör ta en lektion i perspektivlära.

Du kan lätt få samma fenomen själv.

Vad i bilden är det som ser ut att vara på samma plats? Är det det som ligger i förgrunden eller det som ligger i bakgrunden?

Ja i detta fall är det det som ligger i bakgrunden.


Här är dom 2 bilderna.

http://www.ufo.se/fakta/artiklar/vymed2.jpg

http://www.ufo.se/fakta/artiklar/vyutan2.jpg

Det är INGET konstigt med detta, eftersom bergen ligger så långt bakom föremålet vi jämför med så kommer bergen att förflytta sig väldigt lite i förhållande till det som du har närma dig.

Att inte folk vill fatta detta säger mer om foliehattarna än Apolloprojektet i sig själv!

Så det var en fråga som jag nu anser utredd.
Accepterar du förklaringen och jag kan ta nästa fråga som du själv inte skrivit utan bara kopierat in från en foliehatt-sida?

om man väljer att hålla fast vid att amerikanerna varit på månen så är man antingen väldigt rädd för sanningen eller helt enkelt en ologiskt tänkande individ..

det senare finns det en massor av anledningar till eftersom programmeringen som skapar ologiken i en själv är mer än komplicerad och dessutom mesta dels sublim..

Muhammed: vilken film har du missat av dessa??

"A Funny thing happened on the way to the Moon"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc ... 16867782932&q=moonlanding

"Astronauts Gone Wild - An investigation into the authenticity of the moon landings"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc ... 47&q=Astronauts+Gone+Wild

Foxs : Conspiracy-Theory

Dark.Side.Of.The.Moon-Moonlanding.Conspiracy

http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc ... 2&q=Dark+Side+Of+The+Moon

den sista är vitahusets egna version på vad som hände där man skyller allt på dåvarande presidenten Nixon samt stanley Kubric som målas upp som duktiga syndabockar.

det finns fler oxå om du nu skulle behöva..
men jag antar att du kommer fortsätta att gräva ner huvudet i enkla bortförklaringar om hur många som jobbade åt nasa eller hur många som var inblandade osv..
faktum är att NASA i självaste verket är NAZI.

Ja här lyckades du med ett inlägg fullt av fakta och EGNA tankar.

Men jag är inte förvånad, för att tänka själv är ju jätte farligt.


Jag har sett alla dom, det roliga är att den sista som handlar om Stanley Kubrick har gått på SVT för ett par år sedan, och det är en film som skall visa hur enkelt man kan lura människor till att vissa saker är "skumma.
Klippen kommer bla. från "Presidentens män" som visats på SVT.

I den franska pseudodokumentären så säger dom att NASA flög till England och spelade in månlandningarna.

Hur skall ni ha det? Bill Kasing säger ju Area 51 i öknen!

Men det var ett bra exempel du tog, för det finns fortfarande skratt som ekar efter den visningen.

Så ditt inlägg var också rent felaktigt, varför orkar du inte ta dig den tiden att leta upp sanningen om filmerna, varför sätter du / ni etiketter och felaktigaupphovsmakare på "filmerna" som inte är sanna?

Svagsint!

Sen tycker jag att Light saber gjort ett gott jobb att hittat ett antal konkreta frågor och påståenden som jag nu skall arbeta av en för en, häng på vet ja, istället för att lägga in rena felaktigheter.

Quote:

min svaga sida orkar inte egentligen diskutera saker som är självklara, därför postade jag länkar till vissa filmer som kan få dig å tänka efter lite..

men som jag sa innan antingen är du för rädd för sanningen eller så är du helt enkelt en hjärntvättad idiot..

det blir inte svårare än så..


"Så ditt inlägg var också rent felaktigt,"

OK.. då utesluter jag räddsla som din orsak..
hur kan mitt inlägg vara felaktigt om jag bara länkar till dvs filmer..??

MUHAMMED .. vakna snälla nån..

en sak till oxå om den här filmen som rumsfeldt har huvudrollen i..

Dark side of the moon. (Tvålen)

har du någonsin tvättat dina händer nångång??

nu vet du hur "dom" tvättar dina tankar..

Vad duktig du är att argumentera för din sak, vilken fin kille som håller sig till fakta och sanningen.

Undra vem som skall behöva väckas!

Ditt första inlägg är felaktigt därför att det är INTE vitahusets egna film, det är en FRANSK film som man gjort för att väcka upp konspiratörer och foliehattar.
Klippen är tagna ur andra samanhang, denna "film" stödjer ej din sak, den gör ett hån av den!

Här är mer uppgifter som talar mot den officiella versionen:

Enligt NASA har 12 astronauter gått på månen mellan 1969-72. Under den tiden tog de 5571 fotografier på 4834 minuter. Det betyder att det togs i snitt 1,19 fotografier varje minut de var på månen. En ganska imponerande bedrift minst sagt.

Här är ett litet utdrag från en artikel av en kille som lagt ner tid på att studera ämnet:

Anyone with even elemental math skills and common sense can look at the facts, do the calculations, and come to their own conclusions about the alleged MASSIVE VOLUME of lunar surface photography in such a LIMITED TIME.

Here is my conclusion: IT COULD NOT BE DONE.

It boils down not to just studying the photographs for signs of fakery, though I have examined every available Apollo photo for more than three years (and discovered many fakes). Very simply, it amounts to a study known to many businesses...A TIME AND MOTION STUDY.

The elementary question is: was it possible to take the known number of photos (from NASA records) in the amount of time available (from NASA records)? But before you read my study, to understand it you need to know some basic information about the Apollo missions:

1. Of seven Apollo missions to put "men on the Moon", six were claimed to be "successful". (Apollo 13 was "aborted".)

2. Each of the six successful missions landed two astronauts "on the Moon" in a flimsy craft NASA originally had called the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM, later shortened to LM), an unproven craft which never had an opportunity for a lunar landing test flight. But it landed and then took off six times with spectacular "success" on Apollo missions 11 and 12, and 14 through 17...once even landing within 200 feet of a pre-selected target.

3. Two astronauts rode each LEM to the Moon surface while one remained in the orbiting Command and Service Module (CSM) awaiting their return.

4. During their Extra-Vehicular Activity (lunar surface exploration) each of the two wore a bulky inflated spacesuit with clumsy gloves, greatly limiting mobility. On their backs they wore a huge and heavy Life Support System (PLSS) backpack containing an oxygen tank and circulating water air conditioning system which pumped refrigerated water throughout the suit to counteract the 200+/- degree heat (and cold) of lunar conditions. Pumps circulated both refrigerated air and water to the liquid cooling undergarment, as well as dehumidifying, removing carbon dioxide, and providing all other functions needed to survive harsh conditions in the confining suits.

5. The principal objective of all six missions was SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH projects to be carried out by the two astronauts. Most of the projects, which numbered about a half dozen each mission, were remarkably similar on all six missions. All of these science experiments involved unpacking equipment from stowage bays, assembling it, transporting it to its location, setting it up, and then doing the experiments. As you might imagine, each of these research projects would require a major portion of the TIME of the two men for each experiment.

6. Another major project besides operation of the packaged experiments was the Geological Study, which involved searching for different specimens of rocks and soils in various locations, documenting and collecting samples to return to earth. This obviously occupied much of their TIME.

7. Considerable TIME was needed for "housekeeping chores". After landing, the LEM had to be inspected to make sure it had not been damaged. Communications equipment to put them in contact with Earth had to be set up and operated, including radio and television antennas and TV cameras. The US flag was planted in the moondust on each mission. All of this was done before any experiments were initiated. Oh, and don't forget the "ceremonial" chat with President Nixon during Apollo 11.

8. The first three missions required the astronauts to walk to each experiment location. The last three missions were supplied with a Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) to travel to distant locations miles away from the LEM. The partially pre-assembled LRV was attached to the outside of the LEM. The rover floor served as a pallet which was hinged to the outside of the LRV. The wheels were folded under. The "pallet" was lowered by hand to the lunar surface, and the wheels rotated into position. After the wheels were down, the vehicle had to be outfitted with all of its considerable equipment from various storage bins of the LEM. Oddly, not a single photo exists in the public domain (at least that I could find to date) of the astronauts assembling and equipping the LRVs. The battery-powered rovers had a top speed of about 8 mph, only slightly faster than walking...much like a golf cart. During the LRV travels ("traverses"), both men rode, and when moving, had no opportunity for photography. Also, the time taken in assembling the rover was not used for any photography. Though I could find no time given by NASA, surely it is reasonable to guess that it took at least an hour to unload, assemble and equip and test a rover?

9. Almost incidental to the main astronaut tasks was PHOTOGRAPHY. Each astronaut had his own camera. (Apart from the Apollo 11 EVA.) It was a square-format specially-built Hasselblad. It was mounted on a chest-plate for the astronaut to operate. The astronaut had to manually set the shutter speed and apertures while wearing bulky, pressurized gloves and without being able to see the controls. The cameras had NO VIEWFINDER, so the astronaut could only guess at what was being photographed. Each camera had a bulk film magazine holding more than a hundred exposures. The film (mainly Ektachrome color film) had a very narrow exposure range, which required PERFECT aperture and shutter settings, because according to NASA, the cameras did not have automatic exposure capability.

10. It is important to know that although each man had his own camera, they ALMOST NEVER USED THEM AT THE SAME TIME. Usually one of them was photographing the other doing some task. Therefore having two cameras DID NOT TRANSLATE TO TWICE AS MUCH TIME FOR PHOTOGRAPHY, as one might surmise. Now that you understand the missions, here is my discovery of NASA overzealousness, which has been successfully hidden till now.

A TIME AND MOTION STUDY

For more than three years I have been collecting and analyzing nearly all the significant photos from the Apollo missions. These official photos are readily available on multiple NASA websites for downloading. Recently I noticed they were taking up many gigabytes of memory on my computer's external hard drive, so I began organizing them and deleting duplications. I did a rough estimate of the number of Apollo photos, and was amazed that I had thousands!

I visited several official NASA websites to find HOW MANY PHOTOS WERE TAKEN on the surface of the Moon. Amazingly, NASA AVOIDS THIS SUBJECT almost entirely. Two days of searching documents and text were fruitless. But Lunar Surface Journal, one of the sites, lists every photo with its file number. So I undertook to make an actual count of every photo taken by astronauts DURING EXTRA-VEHICULAR ACTIVITY (EVA), the time spent on the surface out of the LEM.

Here is my actual count of EVA photos of the six missions:

Apollo 11........... 121
Apollo 12........... 504
Apollo 14........... 374
Apollo 15..........1021
Apollo 16..........1765
Apollo 17..........1986

So 12 astronauts while on the Moon's surface took a TOTAL of 5771 exposures.

That seemed excessively large to me, considering that their TIME on the lunar surface was limited, and the astronauts had MANY OTHER TASKS OTHER THAN PHOTOGRAPHY. So I returned to the Lunar Surface Journal to find how much TIME was available to do all the scientific tasks AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHY. Unlike the number of photos, this information is readily available:

Apollo 11........1 EVA .....2 hours, 31 minutes......(151 minutes)
Apollo 12........2 EVAs.....7 hours, 50 minutes......(470 minutes)
Apollo 14........2 EVAs.....9 hours, 25 minutes......(565 minutes)
Apollo 15........3 EVAs...18 hours, 30 minutes....(1110 minutes)
Apollo 16........3 EVAs...20 hours, 14 minutes....(1214 minutes)
Apollo 17........3 EVAs...22 hours, 04 minutes....(1324 minutes)

Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes.
Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.

Hmmmmm. That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon, REGARDLESS OF OTHER ACTIVITIES. (That requires the taking of ONE PHOTO EVERY 50 SECONDS!) Let's look at those other activities to see how much time should be deducted from available photo time:

Här finns hela artikeln:

http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html

Men eftersom han inte tror på den officiella versionen så måste han väl också vara en okunnig foliehatt.


Liksom den prisbelönte brittiske fotografen David Persey som efter att ha undersökt fotografierna från "månlandingen" också
är övertygad om att det är fake. Det här är vad han har att säga om saken:

The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and, in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.

The American flag and the words "United States" are always brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow.

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

The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly.

The shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and, in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.

The American flag and the words "United States" are always brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow.


David Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there by "whistle blowers", who were keen for the truth to one day get out. If Persey is right and the pictures are fake, then we've only NASA's word that man ever went to the Moon. And, asks Rene, why would anyone fake pictures of an event that actually happened?

Och vad ska man säga om följande:


The questions don't stop there. Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth's Van Allen belt. But the Moon is 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.

John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, "about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil". How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer--not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on their way to the Moon when a big flare started.

"They should have been fried," says Rene. Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first to the Moon) was plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. Just one defect could have blown the whole thing.

"The odds against this are so unlikely that God must have been the co-pilot," says Rene.

Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon"--was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface
Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life. Virgil Grissom, a NASA astronaut, was due to pilot Apollo 1. In January 1967, he baited the Apollo program by hanging a lemon on his Apollo capsule (in the US, unroadworthy cars are called lemons) and told his wife Betty: "if there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it's likely to be me."

Nobody knows what fuelled his fears, but by the end of the month he and his two co-pilots were dead, burnt to death during a test run when their capsule, pumped full of high pressure pure oxygen, exploded. Scientists couldn't believe NASA's carelessness--even a chemistry student in high school knows high pressure oxygen is extremely explosive. In fact, before the first manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were dead. Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a car smash. Now this is a spectacular accident rate.

"One wonders if these 'accidents' weren't NASA's way of correcting mistakes," says Rene. "Of saying that some of these men didn't have the sort of 'right stuff' they were looking for."
NASA won't respond to any of these claims, their press office will only say that the Moon landings happened and the pictures are real. But a NASA public affairs officer called Julian Scheer once delighted 200 guests at a private party with footage of astronauts apparently on a lunar landscape. It had been made on a mission film set and was identical to what NASA claimed was they real lunar landscape.

"The purpose of this film," Scheer told the enthralled group, "is to indicate that you really can fake things on the ground, almost to the point of deception." He then invited his audience to "come to your own decision about whether or not man actually did walk on the Moon". A sudden attack of honesty? You bet, says Rene, who claims the only real thing about the Apollo missions were the lift offs. The astronauts simply have to be on board, he says, in case the rocket exploded. "It was the easiest way to ensure NASA wasn't left with three astronauts who ought to be dead," he claims, adding that they came down a day or so later, out of the public eye (global surveillance wasn't what it is now) and into the safe hands of NASA officials, who whisked them off to prepare for the big day a week later.

And now NASA is planning another giant step--project Outreach, a one trillion dollar manned mission to Mars. "Think what they'll be able to mock up with today's computer graphics," says Rene chillingly. "Special effects was in its infancy in the 60's. This time round will have no way of determining the truth."
Space oddities:

Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Lander lifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?

One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?

The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely bending their joints.
The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America make a signal on the Moon that could be seen from Earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.

Text from pictures in the article show only two men walked on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering?
How can the flag be brightly lit when its not facing any light ?
And where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a bigger dent in the dust.
The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired...

Här är hela artikeln:
http://www.chennaiads.com/articles/nasa.asp

Så har vi uttalandet från Dr Frank Greening, en expert på Van Allen bältets strålning:

An expert on the Van Allen Belt Dr. Frank Greening, proves
that even traveling within the Van Allen Belt, one could expec
to receive enough radiation (coming & going) - that - "you would
be dying upon reentry whether outer space contains radiation or is as
radiation free as NASA claims it is. [The CASE SHOULD CLOSE RIGHT HERE...but
Bush wants to go to Mars, so let me add one other tidbit...like...the Apollo
17 mission, at 12 days long was the longest flight made. With at least a
million seconds in 12 days, at .32 rads/sec., the total exposure for each
astro-not would be 320,000 rads.

Artikeln som innehåller flera intressanta uppgifter om ämnet finns här:
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html

hehehe.. fakta ja..

hmmm här var det inga mörkeltal med heller.

appropå fakta, gravitation atmosfär??

hur kan flaggor svaja utan sådan?!

Quote:
Bah, vet du inte att månen har gravitation!?!
Oj, här var det sämre ställt än jag hade trott.

Kanske borde läsa igenom http://www.clavius.org/ innan ni framför fler dumheter som kan avfärdas på 15 sek?

Ang flaggan: http://www.clavius.org/envflutter.html

Quote:

ser du inte problemet när det hånas uppe ifrån ner??

behöver dom det om det inte är sant..??

finns det någon medicin för dig/er?

spelar det nånroll om det va en chines eller en engelsman som gjort filmen??

den handlar om vita husets och nasa's affärer på den tiden ellerhur!??!


stör dig inte faktum att samma krigsförbrytare som mördade tusentals engelsmän men sina V1 raketer deceniet senare är hjälte genom att ha tagit mänskligheten till månen??

Quote:

Pinsamt att du inte kan hålla dig till ämnet i tråden.

Det är inte Vitahusets film, PUNKT slut!

Det är ett franskt team som tagit lösa utalanden som inte alls handlar om NASA eller månfärderna.
Så vad dom säger är inte relevant för debatten.

Lightsaber.

Är du nöjd med svaret på din fråga jag fick av dig?

En fråga i taget, att googla fram mer uppkräkningar som gjorts i detta ämne tillför inte debatten något.

Du behöver ju bara svara ja eller nej!

Sen fortsätter vi!

Quote:

Utan gravitation???

Ja ha, du är på den nivån.

Då är det bäst att jag förklarar för dig att månen har en alldeles egen gravitation.
Därt emot så är den bara 1/6 av jordens gravitation.

Leta på en bild eller video på när flaggan vajar och det inte är någon som håller i pinen till flaggan!

Så tar vi det där ifrån.

Men det blir väl fler roliga inlägg från din sida i ställlet för att svara på frågor eller tala om att du begripit något!

Quote:
Problemet är att han inte fattar att man tog foton samtidigt som man utförde andra aktiviter, så därför kan man inte dra bort tiden för andra aktiviteter från tillgänglig fototid, och sen hade man två astronauter på månen som hade varsin kamera, vilket multiplicerar den tillgängliga tiden med 2, vilket han inte tar hänsyn till.

Resonemanget har slagits sönder här:
http://www.flashback.info/showthread.php?t=80170&page=38

Citerar Cyborg-A1:
Quote:

Quote:

Ganska kass människa som räknat på detta.

Dom var 2 st samtidigt på månen.

Så det skall vara 0,6 bilder / minut.

Jag fattar inte att ni tänker till LITE i allafall innan ni lägger in detta skräp.

Tänk efter före.....

O,6 bilder per minut, well, det känns ju också trovärdigt. 5571 bilder blev det i alla fall så det fotades rätt frenetiskt på rätt kort tid.

Inga kommentarer till fotografen David Perseys slutsatser?

Eller Dr David Greens synpunkter på Van Allen bältet?

Fortfarande ingen kommentar till Jan Lundberg på Hasselblads
kommentar om att han inte förstod hur de kunde ta de bilder de tog?

Intressant att konstatera att så fort någon av de som forskat på saken och hävdar att det var fake har något fel i sina slutsatser
så drar du slutsatsen att allt de säger är skräp. Einstein hade inte rätt i alla sina slutsatser, innebär det att allt han sade ska misskrediteras?

Är det inte så att tekniken som drev dåtidens "månraketer" är likvärdig med tekniken hos en miniräknare av idag?


"How is anyone supposed to believe that a space-craft with the total computer power of a pocket calculator made it to the moon and back?"

Sorry, jag köper inte historien.

Lightsaber
En fråga i taget... svårt att fatta?

Quote:
Ja, läs här så får du se vad man kan säga:
http://www.clavius.org/bibmilne.html (en bit ner på sidan börjar det)

Quote:

Ja det borde du väl ha märkt vid det här laget min käre Mohamed
eftersom du måste upplysa mig hela tiden om hur fel jag har och
vilket skräp alla okunninga foliehattar skriver som hävdar motsatsen till vad du tror.

Lightsaber

Om du skriver felaktigheter och rena lögner så SKALL jag upplysa andra om detta.

Eller vill du att jag skall censurera dina felaktigheter?

Är det så du vill ha en fri debatt?


Sen åter till ämnet.

Förstår du nu varför ett objekt på långt håll INTE ändra plats i förhållande till ett objekt som finns på nära håll?

Ja eller nej?

Ja det förstår jag, precis som jag förstår att foton kan manipuleras. Men som jag sagt förut Mohamed,
du kan ha rätt i din övertygelse om att vi varit på månen men har du någonsin ställt dig frågan att du kan ha fel?

Jag är öppen för att jag ka ha fel, men jag är inte övertygad och det vore inte precis första gången i världshistorien som den styrande eliten lurat massan i så fall.

Under alla omständigheter lär man sig alltid något.