Friday, June 05, 2009
Space archaeology to support NASA forgeries: One giant lie for a mankind
Look at the Apollo 11 picture right. There is Earth in background but there are no stars behind ! That is impossible for camera to register. Even moreimpossible because camera is still able to shoot astrounaut in Lunar module shadow. What a NASA forgery !Any professional photographer will tell you it cannot be done. Virtually every photo was a different scene or in a different place, requiring travel. As much as 30 miles travel was required to reach some of the photo sites. Extra care had to be taken shooting some stereo pairs and panoramas. Each picture was taken without a viewfinder, using manual camera settings, with no automatic metering, while wearing a bulky spacesuit and stiff clumsy gloves.
The agency wants the world to believe that 5771 photographs were taken in 4834 minutes! IF NOTHING BUT PHOTOGRAPHY HAD BEEN DONE, such a feat is clearly impossible...made even more so by all the documented activities of the astronauts. Imagine...1.19 photos every minute that men were on the Moon –- that's one picture every 50 SECONDS!
The secret NASA tried to hide has been discovered: The quantity of photos purporting to record the Apollo lunar EVAs could not have been taken on the Moon in such an impossible time frame. So why do these photos exist? How did these photos get made? Did ANY men go to the Moon? Or was it truly the greatest hoax ever?
The final frontier already has some historic sites -- such as Tranquility Base on the moon -- that deserve protection from well-meaning but potentially destructive private projects in outer space.
Provided Apollo 11 landing site exists at all.
Please notebelow shadows from astronaut and flag opposite directed. Flag is hit by wind !
Who would enforce law at Moon?Which court is in charge for Moon sues?
Who will protect landing site: police or Moon Army ?.
Lunar police rover performance (Apollo 15 technology):
Weight: 200 kg; Could carry 490 kg of payload, including 2 astronauts, PLSS's, tools, equip't, & 27 kg of lunar samples each trip.Power was supplied by two 36 V silver zinc batteries with sufficient power for a range of 65 km at speeds up to 17 km/h.
Why NASA didn't sell this great technology able to pass 65km carrying 690kg for Earth use? Using the same capacity batteries from your car - 120Ah. For full range of 65km it will use thus 30A. At 36V it is 1KW. Thus, one KILOWATT ROVER IS ABLE TO DRIVE 690 kg? Perpetuum mobile is discovered at Moon !! Rover that is powered by the same amount of power as an ordinary home aspirator. Provided all the others rover power consuming devices are switched off. Why no one shot showed me a simultaneous falling feather and a hammer at Moon? They should fall with the same speed ,and I would be convinced. Unless the feather is not the golden one. At least for that particular Apollo mission.Why to cheat at all? It is much cheaper, faster and safer. And all of that NASA needed desperately.
Introducing as a remedy a brand new trackless Moon rover below. Why trackless? Look ma, no tracks behind the wheels.
THIS LINK posted by Joseph Bell : 9:40 AM
Comments:
<< Home
Please, next time you talk about Apollo hoax don't say that flag is affected by wind when every man+dog should know it's a wire that is keeping it up the way it is. You are just making yourself sound stupid when you say it's the wind. Had you not written that your post would have looked much more credible.
Please note the shadow of flag and astronaut. In opposite direction.
Two Suns are visible from Moon?
Or those are simply two reflectors aside?
One of those solutions two must be correct. Choise is of course yours.
BAD SHADOWS
Two Suns are visible from Moon?
Or those are simply two reflectors aside?
One of those solutions two must be correct. Choise is of course yours.
BAD SHADOWS
What makes you think it's a shadow of the flag? That shadow just doesn't match up with the flag at all. Just look at how long are the shadows of the rock and the guy on the picture. At best you might see the shadow of the pole but not the shadow of the flag itself as it's waaay outside the picture frame.
http://sse.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/gallery/Moon_Flag.jpg
Somewhat retouched image with higher resolution, shadows are exactly the same as on the linked picture. Clearly the shadow is not originating from the flag pole.
If there was a second bright light source that would make the shadow to left of the flag then it must have been between the astronaut and the flag or the image was "photoshopped" together.
http://sse.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/gallery/Moon_Flag.jpg
Somewhat retouched image with higher resolution, shadows are exactly the same as on the linked picture. Clearly the shadow is not originating from the flag pole.
If there was a second bright light source that would make the shadow to left of the flag then it must have been between the astronaut and the flag or the image was "photoshopped" together.
1.Find at Youtube video with flapping flag.
2. One KILOWATT engine ROVER IS ABLE TO DRIVE 690 kg of Moon cargo? Perpetuum mobile is discovered at Moon !? You need 40 times more power at Earth for the same task.
3. Computer simulation of shadows discover side reflectors in numerous Moon photos.
4. In a few photos reflectors are even directly visible.
5. Inevitable conclusion: Many, if not all of Moon photos are ridiculous hoaxes.
I need to analyze all of photos to say no one is genuine. However, if you can show me Moon landing sites photos for all Apollo missions from independent source you will disprove all my conclusions. But 40 years later still no single one ! There are though Apollo laser reflectors at Moon, but they can be delivered there by automated landers too. Right?
Moon rocks? Well, I am not moonologist.
People around the Moon? Why not.
But, more than that you have to prove. I simply can't.
2. One KILOWATT engine ROVER IS ABLE TO DRIVE 690 kg of Moon cargo? Perpetuum mobile is discovered at Moon !? You need 40 times more power at Earth for the same task.
3. Computer simulation of shadows discover side reflectors in numerous Moon photos.
4. In a few photos reflectors are even directly visible.
5. Inevitable conclusion: Many, if not all of Moon photos are ridiculous hoaxes.
I need to analyze all of photos to say no one is genuine. However, if you can show me Moon landing sites photos for all Apollo missions from independent source you will disprove all my conclusions. But 40 years later still no single one ! There are though Apollo laser reflectors at Moon, but they can be delivered there by automated landers too. Right?
Moon rocks? Well, I am not moonologist.
People around the Moon? Why not.
But, more than that you have to prove. I simply can't.
1) learn about gravity and how pendulums work. Also it would be fun to know how you would expect a flag to behave in 6x lower gravity with zero atmosphere. Just look at those videos you suggest me to look and tell me if any flag could act like this in environment with 1 at atmospheric pressure?
2) Right, next thing you say is that average soccer mom requires 3 ton truck with 5L engine and 400hp to drive his children to school.
Why isn't 1kW enough? On Moon stuff weights 6x less than on Earth. 1Kw is plenty enough for moving ~100kg on earth at the speeds that rover drove (210kg empty at up to 17km/h). It's not like they were racing laps around there and for any slow moving that 1kW is more than enough. Also, rover had electric engines that are MUCH more effective at converting power to effective work than gasoline ones. That 400hp engine you have will at best put half of it to wheels vs 95%+ for electric ones.
My father owns a near-ancient tractor (~70y old) that weighs nearly two tons and has engine with ~10kW. It travels at most 5km/h though so the engine power is enough thanks to the gearbox transferring relatively high engine rotations to slow wheel rotations. Basic physics.
3) Link? Are those computer simulations taking moon surface and Earth into account as potential lightsources? You know, just as well as moon lights during the night on Earth, Earth will also light quite well on the moon only even better thanks to being much bigger and relatively well reflecting.
4) Link some more
5) Right, it's so because you say so. As for independent sources, see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#Apollo_11
"However, if you can show me Moon landing sites photos for all Apollo missions from independent source you will disprove all my conclusions"
It's hard to take a direct picture of the landing site from Earth thanks to the position and small size of the landing module. Atmospheric noise is huge (keyword: adaptive optics) and there are no space telescopes with nearly good enough resolution to identify objects of that scale.
"But, more than that you have to prove."
Can you first prove the things you wrote in your first post about the flag shadow that you seemed to think as being 100% truth? Funny how you ignored it in your second post :)
Post a Comment
2) Right, next thing you say is that average soccer mom requires 3 ton truck with 5L engine and 400hp to drive his children to school.
Why isn't 1kW enough? On Moon stuff weights 6x less than on Earth. 1Kw is plenty enough for moving ~100kg on earth at the speeds that rover drove (210kg empty at up to 17km/h). It's not like they were racing laps around there and for any slow moving that 1kW is more than enough. Also, rover had electric engines that are MUCH more effective at converting power to effective work than gasoline ones. That 400hp engine you have will at best put half of it to wheels vs 95%+ for electric ones.
My father owns a near-ancient tractor (~70y old) that weighs nearly two tons and has engine with ~10kW. It travels at most 5km/h though so the engine power is enough thanks to the gearbox transferring relatively high engine rotations to slow wheel rotations. Basic physics.
3) Link? Are those computer simulations taking moon surface and Earth into account as potential lightsources? You know, just as well as moon lights during the night on Earth, Earth will also light quite well on the moon only even better thanks to being much bigger and relatively well reflecting.
4) Link some more
5) Right, it's so because you say so. As for independent sources, see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#Apollo_11
"However, if you can show me Moon landing sites photos for all Apollo missions from independent source you will disprove all my conclusions"
It's hard to take a direct picture of the landing site from Earth thanks to the position and small size of the landing module. Atmospheric noise is huge (keyword: adaptive optics) and there are no space telescopes with nearly good enough resolution to identify objects of that scale.
"But, more than that you have to prove."
Can you first prove the things you wrote in your first post about the flag shadow that you seemed to think as being 100% truth? Funny how you ignored it in your second post :)
<< Home
