Whay NASA DID land on the moon.

POSTED AT: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

Subject: Why NASA DID land on the moon.
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:47:17 -0400
From: "Kyle Connolly" prospyrus@livemuse.com

Organization: Point Of View Productions

I am writing to argue that NASA really did put men on the moon. Here
are my 9 responses to your nine "space oddities".

1. "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."
The functional word here is "teased". Mission control was, as you said,
merely teasing him. There is no way for anyone to be able to tell
exactly which way the ball went. And even if you could, maybe he wasn't
holding the club straight, so the head hit the ball on an angle.

2. "A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off
the Moon. Who did the filming?"
Mission Control. If you watched the miniseries "From the Earth to the
Moon", you would know that there was a guy in mission control,
controlling the pan/tilt functions on the tv camera tripod. If you want
to bring up the 7 second radio delay due to distance, he actually sent
the command to tilt up with the ascending lander 7 seconds before it
happened, and it all worked out.

3. "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?"
You really ought to learn more about the missions before you start
attacking them like this. There was an arm attached to the lander that
was deployed just before Neil Armstrong opened the hatch. This arm had
a television and a still camera mounted to it.

4. "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."
Did you really think that they just sent them up there in an airtight
jumper? OK. I'm gonna make this real easy for you. Here is a quote from
the NASA KIDS website. so you should be able to understand it. "The
space suit is made of hard materials with jointed sections to allow
movement. The upper and lower torso sections are put on separately. The
two pieces are connected at the waist to allow the flow of water and gas
lines. Gloves and helmet create a sealed protection against meteoroids
and radiation. On Earth, the space suit weighs about 100 pounds. In
space, the suit weighs much less. Under normal conditions, a space suit
should last about 8 years." So. assuming you can read. you have just
learnt about an American space suit. There is a hard layer of plastic,
among many other things, protecting the astronauts from the vacuum of
space.

5. "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."
That's like saying 'Why don't the ISS astronauts light up the sky with
millions and millions of flares?' CAUSE THERE'S NO POINT!!!! What
you're saying is. because they didn't put a massive flare on the moon.
they never actually went. (Oh.. and by the way. have fun igniting a
magnesium flare without oxygen).

6. "Text from pictures in the article said that 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?:

As you can see from this photo of Pete Conrad on Apollo 12, astronauts
didn't hold cameras like you do whn you're taking a picture of your
grandmother, the camera was attached to their suit at the chest. Most
small tools used by astronauts were attached to their suits, so they
would not be lost.

7&8. "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 if there is no air or wind on the moon? &
How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And
where, in all of these shots, are the stars?"

Do you honsetly mean to tell me that you believe that this photo hasn't
been played with? Somebody (no.. NOT NASA) has doctored this photo
really badly to make people like YOU think that you have a stronger case
against NASA. That astronaut was copied and pasted into that photo.
And as for the flag.. that shadow goes to the side with the face clearly
lit because it's not exactly parallel to the sun's rays! It's on a bit
of an angle, which anybody will tell you, is enough to clearly light the
flag. And as for the fluttering.. less drugs for you, man. it's not
moving at all. Do you know what happens when a flag is stowed for
several weeks, all folded up? You guessed it.. It gets wrinkled! Look
at getting some better glasses. As for the stars. in photography, to
prevent an over-exposure (phonetically: Ovur-ekspojur) you must close
the iris a bit, or in this case, a lot. The sun is much brighter here
than the brightest day on earth. Whith the iris down far enough to
prevent over-exposure, there is no way you would ever, EVER see ANYTHING
in the sky other than the sun and the earth.

9. "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."
A few things you're forgetting.. It's mas was 17 tonnes, yes, however
since weight is relative to gravity, and the moon has 1/6th the earth's
gravity, the WEIGHTof the lunar lander was only 17/6 tonnes (2.833
tonnes). Now I'm not saying that this is light, there was dust stirred
up when it landed, but no more that when a chopper landes here on earth.

Some of your points (which I'm sure you didn't come up with on your own)
were ALMOST valid. Please e-mail me back when you read this. I'd love
to read your defending points.

-Kyle Connolly
(P.S. Your spelling sucks)
Kyle Connolly
phone: (613) 220-2532
fax: (613) 727-3849
email: pointofview@rogers.com

==================================================

Nasa pulls Moon hoax book
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2424927.stm

======================================================
A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon.
http://www.moonmovie.com/

Why the Americans NEVER landed on the moon.

Why the
Americans NEVER
landed on the moon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why they would fake it
The Soviet Union had been making all the early advances and the greatest progress in the great Moon race.
The Soviet Union launched the first man and the first women in space in 1961 & 1963 and were also the first to orbit the Earth.

With the above happening the US Government had to make some kind of success with President Kennedy promising that the US would put a man on the moon by the end of the 1960's.

Many people believe that NASA had released that it was not possible to go to the moon with the technology available
(Computer chips being as powerful then as a modern washing machines chip) so they resorted to faking the landing to ensure a
victory of the Soviet Union and keep the dollars coming in for real space projects.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Pictures
NASA have never offered any explanation whatsoever for the numerous
errors in the photographs, despite repeated questioning.
These errors include:
The Apollo 11 pictures show the ground in the distance being much darker
than the ground in the foreground, as if the Astronauts were standing in
a pool of light.

Several photos show evidence of extra lighting (as a professional photographer
would use fill-in lights) but no such lights were supposed to have been
used.

Some photos clearly show the light coming from "impossible"
angles. In one instance, Aldrin's boot is lit from below as he descends
the ladder.

Some photos contradict the TV camera pictures of the same events.

Some photos of one astronaut taken by the other are clearly taken from
slightly above the eye level of the subject, but in his visor, the reflection
of the astronaut with the camera shows it being held at chest level.

The length of the shadows in the Apollo 12 pictures don't agree with
the angle which the Sun should have been at.

Some wide area photos show shadows pointing in different directions.

In the sound recording of the lunar landing, you cannot hear the sound
of the engines. As the astronaut calls out the remaining distance to the
surface, he is only a few feet away from a rocket engine which should have
been producing 10000 lb of thrust.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sounds
The major point which has helped convince me that the moon landing was faked was the fact that when the control room asked a question to the Astronoughts the replies were instant with no delays. This seems strange as even with technology in the 1990's there is a delay from satellite links from the UK to the US. There is about a 0.7 second delay from London to California so how is it possible for instant replies from the Moon ?
There is also evidence that when people go into space that there voice goes tense although the Astronaughts voices have been analyzed and found to be normal, and 7/10 people said it sounded like someone reading from a script.

When Houston are talking to the module you should not be able to hear the responses at least when the module is landing and the infamous "eagle has landed" quote, this is due to the noise that should have been created by the rocket motor which generates several hundred thousand pounds of thrust 20 ft below the astronaughts. The noise would have completely drowned
the vocals out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Radiation
An American author has researched and found out that he believes the Apollo Spacecraft would have needed to be two meters thick to prevent cosmic radiation from cooking the Astronaughts inside.
Also in addition to the radiation protection for the astronaughts similar protection would be required for the films + cameras, NASA's official explanation of how the films were protected was that the cameras were painted with a coat of aluminum paint,
yeah right.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010407065641/http://thepeoplesrevolution.tripod.com/moonlanding.htm