Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits

[WitchyOoman]

Re: Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jah_yout</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
my greatest puzzle is why has it taken them so long to go back with technology so much more advanced now than all the times they supposedly went in the late 60's &amp; early 70's</div></div>
Because it didn't fulfill the goals of NASA.

NASA's stated goal is <span style="font-weight: bold">planetary &amp; space exploration</span> - just like Roddenberry saw it when he created Star Trek.

In order to put humans on the moon... or anywhere else in space, it requires a ratio of 10:1 of life support to experiment equipment.
Atmosphere, toilet, shower, food &amp; eating, etc - vs - equipment to explore and experiment in space.

The cost, for NASA and it's stated goal, is unjustifiable.

No one else has come up, since, with a company with a goal that <span style="font-weight: bold">does</span> justify it.

The relative cost of putting human beings in space again is simply not justifiable, given the current mission.
<span style="text-decoration: underline">Ex</span>: The cost of sending one person to the sapce station and back is $50,000,000 (that's 50 million dollars); tht's what it costs just for a ride on the shuttle.
The cost of putting one pound of computer gear is space to the station on a cargo rocket is $15,000.
<span style="font-weight: bold">UNNU do the math.</span>
That's a ratio of about 1000:1. And you don't need to feed or make special atmospehere for your cargo.

People will be back in space when we can set up self-sustaining off-Earth colnies, and we need not shlep it all back here again.

<span style="font-style: italic">THAT</span>'s ^ the reasons for us not going back into space or to the moon again. And they make financial sense.

[f0rTyLeGz]

Re: Will somebody kindly explain this strange sentence to me?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Correct me if I'm wrong or stupid, but I conclude from that sentence: they could get to the moon 40 years ago using primitive technology, but can't get there today with ultra-modern technology? </div></div>
What can I say... the US spent a huge part of their budget for years to accomplish the moon landings. NASA is a tiny part of the budget nowadays.

But Dr Dudd is correct, and I see now that there is nothing you can be told or shown that would ever make you believe that these guys landed on the moon many times.

[WitchyOoman]

Re: Will somebody kindly explain this strange sentence to me?


40legz - I already explained the reasons why we got into space, and to the moon, on our primitive technology, but DO NOT (not cannnot) do so now on our advanced technology.

It's got nothing whatsoever to do with technology; It's all about <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #006600">money</span></span>.


And conspiracy theorists will never change. It's beyond their ken to admit that they might be wrong. It's always about the conspiracy of the moment.

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Derek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: f0rTyLeGz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Apollo descent stages left on the lunar surface are too small to be seen by Hubble</div></div>

<span style="font-size: 14pt"><span style="font-weight: bold">How can it be too small to be seen by Hubble, when the moon is around a quarter of a million miles away, and Hubble can see galaxies in sharp focus that are billions and billions of miles away?</span></span> </div></div>Have you ever even thoughtabout the size of thes egalaxies?/
i meanthe are measured in light years. Justthink of it. They are as big as the distance light travels in on and sometimes.

[WitchyOoman]

Re: Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits


<span style="font-style: italic">Scientific American</span> once published that the human body could not withstand the stress of the speed of going 20mph in a car, too...

Wht they were thinking was that the uman body could not withstand the stress of a car travelling at 20pmh hitting a brick wall.

They <span style="font-style: italic">were</span> right about that... but it never occurred to them that if the human body was inside the car travelling at 20mph - then your body was <span style="font-style: italic">also</span> travelling at 20mph also... so as long as you didn't hit anything to sudden stop - your body were okay.

So, in practicality - they were wrong.


It's the same with how Derek's sseeing things, Dr D.

He's not considering the size difference between a piece of our space junk and any of the galaxies.

[f0rTyLeGz]

Re: Will somebody kindly explain this strange sentence to me?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WitchyOoman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
40legz - I already explained the reasons why we got into space, and to the moon, on our primitive technology, but DO NOT (not cannnot) do so now on our advanced technology.

It's got nothing whatsoever to do with technology; It's all about <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #006600">money</span></span>.


And conspiracy theorists will never change. It's beyond their ken to admit that they might be wrong. It's always about the conspiracy of the moment.</div></div>
Hiya Witchy!

Yes and yes... I understand. It's kinda interesting conspiracy believers are. I kinda want to help them, like I do with people who believe in extra terrestials that have magical powers... or folks who don't believe in evolution. All of them come on with the first same shots that go like,&quot;You think you are so smart, then why...&quot; and they attack some tiny piece of your proof. They don't hand you a video of the inside of the flying saucer and the space aliens that kidnapped them. They don't get Buzz Aldrin to go on Face the Nation saying it was all a hoax.

[WitchyOoman]

Re: Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits


<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">Top Ten Apollo 11 Hoaxes Debunked Stupid-Simply</span>:</span>

The Claim: The American flag appears to wave in the lunar wind.

The Science: If you look closely, you will notice the flag's edges are pulled taut. This effect, which was done purposely as to not allow the flag to just hang flat, it was created by inserting a stiff wire into the fabric. The &quot;flutter&quot; was created as the astronauts worked to erect the flag. As the wire was adjusted, &quot;Old Glory&quot; appeared to wave.



The Claim: If the astronauts had left the safety of the Van Allen Belt the radiation would have killed them.

The Science: The Van Allen Belts are created by Earth's magnetic field, and protect the planet from dangerous solar radiation. The belts collects this radiation, and traps it in a layer surrounding the Earth. But unless you deliberately caused your spaceship to hover within this layer, for many hours or days, the radiation exposure is well below dangerous levels. The Apollo astronauts passed through the Belts in less than four hours total for the trip. &quot;It's not much more serious than getting a chest x-ray,&quot; said Plait. Outside the belt, the radiation drops to low levels that are only dangerous over extremely long periods of time.



The Claim: Multiple-angle shadows in the Moon photos prove there was more than one source of light, like a large studio lamp.

The Science: The astronauts were taking their photos on a hilly, brightly-lit landscape while the Sun was close to the horizon. Imagine taking a photograph of someone on a rolling, uneven field of snow during a full, low-hanging Moon. The contours of the ground would produce shadows of many different lengths.



The Claim: In the Sun, the Moon's temperature is toasty 280 degrees F. The film (among other things) would have melted.

The Science: No one was leaving bare film out on the hot lunar surface. All material was contained in protective canisters. In addition, at the time the Apollo missions landed, they were either at lunar dawn or dusk. As a result, the temperature was more easily manageable.



The Claim: To leave a footprint requires moisture in the soil, doesn't it?

The Science: Not always. If you take some dry fine-grained dust such as talcum powder and dump it out, it's easy to make tracks in it that hold their shape. The particles hold their positions due to the friction between them.



The Claim: Space is filled with super-fast micro meteors that would punch through the ship and kill the astronauts.

The Science: Space is really amazingly big. While there are indeed an uncountable number of tiny pieces of debris travelling through the Solar System at speeds in the neighborhood of 120,000MPH, the volume of space keeps the density low. The chance of any given cubic yard of space having a micro-meteor passing through it is incredibly close to zero. Additionally, the astronauts suits included a layer of kevlar to protect them from any tiny fragment they might encounter.



The Claim: When the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) landed, its powerful engine didn't burrow a deep crater in the &quot;dusty surface.&quot;

The Science: Beneath the layer of dust, the Moon is made of fairly densely-packed rock. What dust and loose dirt there was though, was &quot;kicked up&quot; as referenced by the astronauts and captured in their landing films.




The Claim: How come in that one video of the LEM leaving the surface, the camera follows it up into the sky? Who was running that camera?

The Science: The camera was controlled remotely from Earth.



The Claim: There's no way that big moon buggy they were driving could have fit into that little landing module!

The Science: The rover was very cleverly constructed to be made out of very light materials, and designed to fold up to about the size of a large suitcase.




The Claim: Space is littered with little points of lights (stars). Why then are they missing from the photographs?

The Science: If you've ever taken a photograph outside at night, you'll notice that faint distant objects don't show up. That's not because the air blocks them -- it's because the brightness of the nearby objects washes out the film. In fact if you were standing on the day side of the Moon, you'd have to somehow block the landscape out in order for your eyes to adapt enough to pick out the stars.





What makes <span style="text-decoration: underline">me</span> laugh is the stupidity of people not knowing about remote photography - which was in use decades and decades before 1960. Or the inability to imagine how one could build somthing large, but lightweight enough, and of enough disassemble-able or foldable/crunchable pieces to fit in a tiny space. OMG! Talk about <span style="font-weight: bold">small minds</span>!


--

[WitchyOoman]

Re: Will somebody kindly explain this strange sentence to me?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: f0rTyLeGz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Hiya Witchy!

Yes and yes... I understand. It's kinda interesting conspiracy believers are. I kinda want to help them, like I do with people who believe in extra terrestials that have magical powers... or folks who don't believe in evolution. All of them come on with the first same shots that go like,&quot;You think you are so smart, then why...&quot; and they attack some tiny piece of your proof. <span style="font-weight: bold">They don't hand you a video of the inside of the flying saucer and the space aliens that kidnapped them. They don't get Buzz Aldrin to go on Face the Nation saying it was all a hoax.</span> </div></div>
Because.....
<span style="color: #CC0000"><span style="font-weight: bold">they can't</span></span>.


Like I said - small minds.

Small minds can only imagine small ideas.

[WitchyOoman]

Re: Will somebody kindly explain this strange sentence to me?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: f0rTyLeGz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I kinda want to help them, like I do with people who believe in extra terrestials that have magical powers... or folks who don't believe in evolution. </div></div>
I used to feel like that.

Nowadays - I'm too impatient to deal with <span style="font-style: italic">their</span> inabilities.
I'm not as kind as I once was... back in 1998 when I first joined j'com.

My M-i-L once said the older she gets, the more allergic she gets to B-S.

At the time, she seemed to be just a crochety old woman. But now, as I begin to understand it - I recall that she spent almost 70 yeas as a very good &amp; well-liked SpEd teacher who was said to have angelic infinite patience... and I realize just how right she was!

[neutral]

Re: Will somebody kindly explain this strange sentence to me?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WitchyOoman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


Like I said - small minds.

Small minds can only imagine small ideas.
</div></div>


Well *I* still do not believe they landed on the moon and thats that.
The whole thing was a big hoax,and some people are fooled,...and some are not,..the kind of technology that would have put men on the moon 40 years ago would now be so modified,tweaked,remodeled,reshaped, and advanced that it should now be possible to put men on most other planets in our galaxy......on a daily basis....absolutely bugger all to do with money,they just cannot do it,simple.
Nowadays they are barely able to send off a rocket at houston without the bloody thing blowing up after only a few feet in the air.

[WitchyOoman]

Re: Will somebody kindly explain this strange sentence to me?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: neutral</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WitchyOoman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


Like I said - small minds.

Small minds can only imagine small ideas.</div></div>
Well *I* still do not believe they landed on the moon and thats that.
The whole thing was a big hoax,and some people are fooled,...and some are not,..the kind of technology that would have put men on the moon 40 years ago would now be so modified,tweaked,remodeled,reshaped, and advanced that it should now be possible to put men on most other planets in our galaxy......on a daily basis....absolutely bugger all to do with money,they just cannot do it,simple.
Nowadays they are barely able to send off a rocket at houston without the bloody thing blowing up after only a few feet in the air. </div></div>
I'll try to lay it out for you in simple terms.

(1) It's been several years now since the last space shuttle disaster. Besides... no exploration is ever completely safe.

(2) It isn't at all impossible to move things around the galaxy - given enough money. But we're talking about people... and people are life forms with a relatively short life span.


It takes 4 days - with present technology - to get from Earth to the moon. That's one way.
It takes about 3 years - with present technology - to get from earth to Mars, the nearest planet to us in our galaxy. And that, too, is one way.
40,000 to 50,000 years
The Milky Way - our galaxy - is about 100,000 light years across... and ours is a relatively small galaxy. that's also one way.
Just to get across our own galaxy, the Milky Way, would take the best of our present technological dreams about half a million years. half a million years just to get there... and another half a million to return home to Earth.

So, given enough money, we could send out colonizing ships... but who's going to volunteer to leave home and never see one's home planet or loved ones ever again? Are you? I sure won't... neither will most people.

The basic facts of such long-term generational exploration have been done to death by Sci-Fi... Star Trek on T.V., the more recent movie Wall-E are a few examples... but the best, I think, is <span style="text-decoration: underline">The Stars My Destination</span>, by Alfred Bester.
The problems brought up by these authors &amp; moviemakers are still the same - and quite true. Few are willing to make such personal sacrifices. And, the truth is, even if we were - we (as the human race) would only f it up.

Like I said before -- it all comes down to two things: <span style="font-weight: bold">money</span> and <span style="font-weight: bold">need</span>.

There is not enough <span style="font-weight: bold">need</span> to justify such a large <span style="font-weight: bold">monetary expenditure</span>.

Ergo, it is not going to happen anytime in the near future.

We have the technology to go into deep space... and we've had it for my entire lifetime. (I'm almost 50)

Unless we conquer what Gene Roddenberry called &quot;warp speed&quot; technology - we're not going to the stars in one or two generations.

Until we have a good reason to pay all of the money that it will cost - we're not going to go back into space... or to the moon... again.

[f0rTyLeGz]

Re: Will somebody kindly explain this strange sentence to me?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: neutral</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well *I* still do not believe they landed on the moon and thats that. The whole thing was a big hoax,and some people are fooled,...and some are not,..the kind of technology that would have put men on the moon 40 years ago would now be so modified,tweaked,remodeled,reshaped, and advanced that it should now be possible to put men on most other planets in our galaxy......on a daily basis....absolutely bugger all to do with money,they just cannot do it,simple.

Nowadays they are barely able to send off a rocket at houston without the bloody thing blowing up after only a few feet in the air. </div></div>
This weekend, 40 years after man first landed on the Moon, more human beings than ever before are orbiting on a single spacecraft. In 1969, three men squeezed into Apollo 11's command module, a craft little bigger than a Mini.

Yesterday, the International Space Station, now as large as a four-storey house, yet speeding at 17,239mph, took on board the crew of the shuttle Endeavour: 12 men, one woman – seven Americans, two Russians, two Canadians, one Japanese and a Belgian. During a two-man space-walk, the crew added a four-ton porch – an outdoor shelf for experiments – to the station.

2010: A new space odyssey beckons
...........................................
A waste of money or a good investment?

The Obama administration puts the cost of Project Constellation – the plan to put people back on the Moon – at $187bn (£114bn).

That sum could, instead:

*Wipe out North Africa's foreign debt of £70bn – and still have £44bn left over.

*Cover the costs of swine flu absenteeism for 10 weeks. Experts put the toll of this at £1.5bn a day.

*Pay for the Olympic 2012 construction costs of £9bn 12 times over.

But Professor Stephen Hawking says: &quot;We need to renew our commitment to human spaceflight. Robotic missions are cheaper, but if one is considering the future of humanity, we have to visit other worlds ourselves.&quot;

Space Dates

2009 Sir Richard Branson has said that his Virgin Galactic spaceships will be completed and ready for testing by December and are &quot;on track to be carbon neutral&quot;

2010 The Yinghuo-1, China's first Mars probe, will be launched by a Russian rocket and will later go into orbit around the planet to study climate change

2011 The £100bn International Space Station is due for completion. It is currently being assembled in low Earth orbit

2020 America hopes to land on the Moon again – 50 years after Apollo 11. But it is in competition with China, which has vowed to do the same

[Dr.Dudd]

Re: Will somebody kindly explain this strange sentence to me?

So it look like US fool China,and Russia too!! I mean at th etim ewhen the US putman on th emoon itwas a race between USSR and the US toget a man there first.Once the US did, Russia didn't se it as a goal worth achiving anymore . Sonce both needed to out do eoach other not paly catchup.and top prove their superiority atwar.
Now China is going after it now prove that it is the <span style="font-weight: bold"> new super power on the block </span>

[Derek]

Re: Will somebody kindly explain this strange sentence to me

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WitchyOoman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's got nothing whatsoever to do with technology; It's all about <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="color: #006600">money</span></span>. </div></div>


But they can afford to send probes to Mars and further?

[Derek]

Re: Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WitchyOoman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
<span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">Top Ten Apollo 11 Hoaxes Debunked Stupid-Simply</span>:</span>

The Claim: The American flag appears to wave in the lunar wind.

The Science: If you look closely, you will notice the flag's edges are pulled taut. This effect, which was done purposely as to not allow the flag to just hang flat, it was created by inserting a stiff wire into the fabric. The &quot;flutter&quot; was created as the astronauts worked to erect the flag. As the wire was adjusted, &quot;Old Glory&quot; appeared to wave.



The Claim: If the astronauts had left the safety of the Van Allen Belt the radiation would have killed them.

The Science: The Van Allen Belts are created by Earth's magnetic field, and protect the planet from dangerous solar radiation. The belts collects this radiation, and traps it in a layer surrounding the Earth. But unless you deliberately caused your spaceship to hover within this layer, for many hours or days, the radiation exposure is well below dangerous levels. The Apollo astronauts passed through the Belts in less than four hours total for the trip. &quot;It's not much more serious than getting a chest x-ray,&quot; said Plait. Outside the belt, the radiation drops to low levels that are only dangerous over extremely long periods of time.



The Claim: Multiple-angle shadows in the Moon photos prove there was more than one source of light, like a large studio lamp.

The Science: The astronauts were taking their photos on a hilly, brightly-lit landscape while the Sun was close to the horizon. Imagine taking a photograph of someone on a rolling, uneven field of snow during a full, low-hanging Moon. The contours of the ground would produce shadows of many different lengths.



The Claim: In the Sun, the Moon's temperature is toasty 280 degrees F. The film (among other things) would have melted.

The Science: No one was leaving bare film out on the hot lunar surface. All material was contained in protective canisters. In addition, at the time the Apollo missions landed, they were either at lunar dawn or dusk. As a result, the temperature was more easily manageable.



The Claim: To leave a footprint requires moisture in the soil, doesn't it?

The Science: Not always. If you take some dry fine-grained dust such as talcum powder and dump it out, it's easy to make tracks in it that hold their shape. The particles hold their positions due to the friction between them.



The Claim: Space is filled with super-fast micro meteors that would punch through the ship and kill the astronauts.

The Science: Space is really amazingly big. While there are indeed an uncountable number of tiny pieces of debris travelling through the Solar System at speeds in the neighborhood of 120,000MPH, the volume of space keeps the density low. The chance of any given cubic yard of space having a micro-meteor passing through it is incredibly close to zero. Additionally, the astronauts suits included a layer of kevlar to protect them from any tiny fragment they might encounter.



The Claim: When the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) landed, its powerful engine didn't burrow a deep crater in the &quot;dusty surface.&quot;

The Science: Beneath the layer of dust, the Moon is made of fairly densely-packed rock. What dust and loose dirt there was though, was &quot;kicked up&quot; as referenced by the astronauts and captured in their landing films.




The Claim: How come in that one video of the LEM leaving the surface, the camera follows it up into the sky? Who was running that camera?

The Science: The camera was controlled remotely from Earth.



The Claim: There's no way that big moon buggy they were driving could have fit into that little landing module!

The Science: The rover was very cleverly constructed to be made out of very light materials, and designed to fold up to about the size of a large suitcase.




The Claim: Space is littered with little points of lights (stars). Why then are they missing from the photographs?

The Science: If you've ever taken a photograph outside at night, you'll notice that faint distant objects don't show up. That's not because the air blocks them -- it's because the brightness of the nearby objects washes out the film. In fact if you were standing on the day side of the Moon, you'd have to somehow block the landscape out in order for your eyes to adapt enough to pick out the stars.





What makes <span style="text-decoration: underline">me</span> laugh is the stupidity of people not knowing about remote photography - which was in use decades and decades before 1960. Or the inability to imagine how one could build somthing large, but lightweight enough, and of enough disassemble-able or foldable/crunchable pieces to fit in a tiny space. OMG! Talk about <span style="font-weight: bold">small minds</span>!


-- </div></div>
1. The 130,000 Mile Deception.
Apollo 11. July 18th, 1969. Neil Armstrong, having heard CapCom report Columbia's distance from the Earth at 130,000 miles out - begins the unofficial television transmission [to be edited and partially played later] by echoing the same distance of 130,000 miles. In view, out the Commander's Capsule window is a small ball of blue. We are meant to believe that the blue ball is Earth. It is not. This evidence is our top reason. There can be no doubt. The Apollo 11 Westinghouse camera was not zooming through deep space to see a distant Earth and zooming back out again through deep space. When truly understood, when one understands that the Earth could not have remained in view or suddenly appeared as large as when they zoomed into it - this proves the hoax. This is the 'smoking gun' of Apollo, and the top reason to not believe the official story. Raw footage of this is available on the DVD Apollo 11 Monkey Business with detailed explanations in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, and confrontations about it with 9 of the Apollo astronauts in Astronauts Gone Wild.

Bart Sibrel got it wrong in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon. He should have deeply consulted with other Hoax Researchers, but he did not. Sibrel thought it was an &quot;in-orbit' shot of Earth through a circular window. Neither is correct. The commander's window is not circular, and there's no way this was the real Earth at all.

Behind Michael Collins, hanging on Window Number 1 [the commander's CM window] was a transparency - used when they brought down the lights and adjusted the camera exposure. The transparency was a picture of the planet Earth. This was tested on an earlier flight, which can be examined in detail, through the research &amp; videography of Jarrah White (above) .

There is no room for &quot;theory&quot; here, in terms of whether or not Apollo safely sent men to the moon and back. The hoax is no longer simply speculation. It's an historical fact.

2. The Precedent of Secret U.S. Government Operations.
Japanese submarines at the mouth of Pearl Harbor were sunk many hours before the 'surprise' attacks commenced. The corrupt CIA and NSA were formed on the principal of insuring U.S. economic interests around the world and at home -- at any price. John F. Kennedy, who had plans to unite the space exploration efforts of the Soviet Union with those of the United States -- and thereby end both the Space Race and Arms Race, never lived to see that day. On June 8, 1967, US Navy intelligence ship USS Liberty was suddenly and brutally attacked on the high seas in international waters by the air and naval forces of Israel, under the direct orders of LBJ. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was also a staged event, meant to insure expanded involvement in Vietnam. Area 51 continues to be one of the most heavily protected U.S. installations known today, guarding who-knows-exactly-what.

Yes, covert operations have a prominent place in the U.S.A.'s recent sordid history. And although this reason in and of itself is not enough to prove the Manned Moon Landing to be a hoax, it certainly shows that the organizations are in place to carry out such an operation - 9 fake trips to the moon.

3. The Lunar Surface Photographic and Video Record.
Problems with lighting and the infamous C-Rock photo with it's &quot;C-less&quot; counterpart have been the subject of much debate between those who believe the photos have remained unaltered and others who believe the photos were completely staged. Still there are some photos that seem to fall into the retouched category. Countless photographic anomalies remain in question. There is no doubt that the more significant problem with the C-Rock photo is that it has obviously been altered, and the alteration we refer to has nothing to do with the rock, but the more serious problem is the cut and paste of the rover and astronaut. Also, few people notice the C on the ground, telling the set workers where to place the rock. It's there on the ground, directly below the C on the rock.

We do not focus on shadows, except for a few photos. This is because the photos focused on by some have become straw men, easily debunked. One such famous example is shown on the video above. We believe that the high-powered, fake sun reflected in the astronauts visors as a large circular object is a far stronger argument - and one that cannot be easily dismissed.

4. The Apollo 15 Flag Waving - Untouched.
In order to explain this one, the Apollo Believers must keep you guessing by resorting to claims of a static discharge with the astronaut's distant space suit. View the video for yourself, and see why this video alone hits a lofty number 4 in our top 10.

5. The Limitations of 1960's Computer Technology, small meteors, and the Van Allen Belts.

Almost 40 years ago, with *combined CSM and LM guidance computer memory totaling only 10.3% [152kb] of a common 1.4MB [1474.56kb] floppy disk, NASA claims to have traveled 60,000% as far as any other manned spacecraft has gone before or since. Basically a household calculator (or discount watch) took 27 men [Apollo 8 to 17] to the moon and back, with the help of slide rules - accounting for fuel consumption, angle of approach, lunar landing, rate of descent, and so on. Yet at a distance of under 300 miles from Earth, we have lost the lives of 14 Shuttle astronauts who never left Earth orbit. In 9 trips there were no incidents involving small meteors. Yes, Space is a big place - but no injuries or damage except Apollo 13's apparent self-inflicted wound? Van Allen made it clear in his 1958-59 report that travelers to the moon would need go around the belts, approaching the moon by first departing through the space directly above the the north or south poles of the Earth. These limitations alone, make the trip to the moon a theory, and not a fact.

6. &quot;Moon&quot; Rocks.
Wernher von Braun, a NAZI with the honorary rank equivalent of a major in Hitler's SS, took a team to Antarctica, while he was supposed to be perfecting Apollo's Saturn V rocket. This man signed papers to permit the use of slave laborers to build his V2 rockets, and over 20,000 people suffered daily and eventually died under his supervision. In addition, he sent countless V2 rockets into the heart of London - with plans to do so to Washington, D.C., New York, and Philadelphia. If he and his NAZI team were capable of such inhuman activities, it is clearly not a leap in logic to say they would have no problem continuing their unethical practices in this country as well. How? By falsifying the greatest purported evidence we have today for the manned landings -- by collecting meteorites to be later modified in a ceramic lab -- into forged moon rocks. Some say, we have tiny moon-made spheres! But these could have just as easily been collected by the unmanned probes we sent to the moon's surface.
7. The Testimony of Apollo Astronauts under Light Duress.
These men were professionals, trained to perform calmly under extreme pressure, but when it comes to defending the most important days of their professional career, they fall way short of producing the facts - resorting to threats of violence, unscientific statements, and absconding behavior. For example, in the film Astronauts Gone Wild, while defending the Apollo 11 footage of the Earth from 130,000 miles out, Buzz Aldrin said things like, &quot;They can do all kinds of things [with fake photography]&quot; and &quot;We're passengers. We're guys going on a flight.&quot; Kicking and punching - is that a behavior of someonw who knows they are in the right or someone angry at the threat of being exposed? And what about the Apollo 11 Press Conference (DVD)?

8. The Apollo One Fire.
The three men who died at Pad 34 did not have to die. We all know that, but why did they die? After years of investigation into the findings of the 90th Congress, we believe that the AS-204 crew were not simply victims of neglect - they were executed. The findings are detailed in the multimedia DVD The Apollo One Accident Report, along with the complete 3,500+ page report for your own investigation. Lt. Col. Gus Grissom, a man of the highest military integrity, pulled the largest lemon he could find off the tree in his back yard, and told his wife, &quot;I'm going to hang it on that spacecraft&quot;. This was 5 days after the famous media day pictures had been taken at Pad 34, and five days before he would die at Pad 34. Grissom also called a press conference to address grievances against NASA and North American regarding the failures of the CSM Block 1. There is no doubt that he, Roger Chaffee and Ed White [whose wife Pat was later 'suicided'] were on a path that would surely lead to heated confrontations and the public exposure of the manned moon landing hoax. They were sacrificed. There is no doubt about it. The evidence is clear.

9. The Means and the Motive.
Does life imitate art, or art imitate life -- or is it possible that sometimes art simulates and manipulates life? Some have claimed that Stanley Kubrick was involved in the production of the Apollo EVAs. And not long ago, a Canadian, tongue-in-cheek film was produced to make a mockery of this claim. We hold no clear position on the matter. In addition, since the 1950's Walt Disney was recruited to create widespread public acceptance of a very expensive trip to the moon, as well as the public approval of a group of NAZI war criminals, led by Wernher von Braun. The result was widespread disinformation, but the end motive is not all together clear. One must ask, &quot;Was the space race itself a fabrication, set up by those behind what Eisenhower called the &quot;Military Industrial Complex&quot;? See Reason 9.

Stanley Kubrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey proves that the technology existed to fake the dockings, landings, walks, and takeoffs from the moon's surface. The means existed. On that note, Google Search &quot;Lookout Mountain Studio&quot;.

10. The Fake Lunar Footage.
A model of the moon is used for the Apollo 11 descent footage. Anyone with basic knowledge of motion pictures can see it's a fake moon. Another example is the Lunar Ascent Module footage. It depicts a rotation that immediately commences at full speed, and after rotation, immediately stops. There is absolutely no indication of a drop off in speed or a gradual acceleration, as Newton's law of motion would necessitate. In addition, there are problems with the descent of at least two LEMs as well, as can be seen to the left in the Apollo 17 footage. We've gotten a lot of feedback on this, but perhaps if you'd seen the mislabeled tape sent to Sibrel from NASA's Johnson Space Center, you'd move this reason closer to number 1. The contents of that tape are available - Apollo 11 Monkey Business: False Photography Unedited. You'd better watch it while sitting down. We have accumulated and produced over 250 YouTube videos that you can watch for free. We are convinced that our YouTube videos alone, put together with Jarrah White's YouTube videos will convince any honest person that Apollo did not take men to the moon.

Sadly, our YouTube account was finally removed after a second wave of attacks by 'NASA worshippers'. After having had over 60 of our videos removed, we transferred them to a Justin.TV account and MySpace.com. Both crimes against our free speech were the result of our enemies' handiwork. We learned that the Apollo-Believer propagandists had flagged our videos for 'inappropriate content'.

http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/default.asp

I refuse to question the size of <span style="font-weight: bold">your mind</span>. Because I'm above that.