An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Could someone be so kind as to put up a picture of the lunar lander with its gold foil (excuse me, aluminum coated plastic sheets) and black draped cloth on the top (or whatever that special stuff is Agent said) and just put it up here, and let us decide if we think the lunar lander landed with the stuff like that all put around and over it?

Thanks.

As I asked - what exactly do you think could affect it anyway?
Please - I really want to know - was it the gale force winds? The heat generated during atmospheric re-entry? **chuckles**

Considering back in 2001 NASA managed to land a probe that wasn't designed to be landed, and by remote with a significant communications delay - it really doesn't seem that improbable at all.

The thing could have been covered in tissue paper but as there was no atmosphere to interact with it then it's not an issue. Pretty simple really.

The NEAR asteroid landing in 2001:

(CNN) -- A NASA robot ship ended a deep space odyssey by touching down on an asteroid on Monday, despite having no landing gear.

Shortly after the first landing on an asteroid, excited mission managers were considering an almost unthinkable encore: coaxing the NEAR-Shoemaker craft from its resting spot for another flight.

NEAR (Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous) engineers should decide within hours after landing whether to command the resilient robot to fire up its thrusters for a return to space, mission director Robert Farquhar said.

"I am happy to report that the NEAR has touched down. We are still getting signals. It is still transmitting from the surface," said Farquhar as NEAR engineers cheered and clapped their hands.

archives.cnn.com...

[edit on 7-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Agent -- That is not a good picture. That doesn't show the foil and black cloth on top. There are lots of pictures that show it. Can you get us one of those?
Thanks. Otherwise, I might have to figure out how to do it myself, and then I'll know how to put pics up myself, and that might be dangerous for you guys.

I haven't read all 28 pages of this post, but was there a reason for the intersecting shadows, or has that been explained yet. And the lack of burn marks, or disturbed land below the lander, has that been explained? I'm just trying to tie up some loose ends on the debunking.
Thanks

Originally posted by resistance
Agent -- That is not a good picture. That doesn't show the foil and black cloth on top. There are lots of pictures that show it. Can you get us one of those?

Sure here you go:

Thanks. Otherwise, I might have to figure out how to do it myself, and then I'll know how to put pics up myself, and that might be dangerous for you guy.

Really? LOL what, would you start putting up 'smoking guns' like this:



And answer this question I keep asking - even if it was covered in tissue paper - what exactly do you propose would affect it or damage it during the entire process of orbiting and landing on the moon?

I and others have the decency to answer your questions, but you do not appear to show the same in return. Surely you have a basis for your ideas? what are they?

Is it because it's not aerodynamic? Is it because the heat on entry into the Moon's atmosphere would cause it to burn up? Is it because the hign winds would rip the coverings off? Maybe a sandstorm? LOL

Do you still believe what you see on the outside constitutes the main body of the craft? I can't believe anyone would think that to start with to be honest...

You keep talking about wisdom and common sense and even claim to be an adult - unfortunately your the way I was when I was a teenager and show many common psycological traits associated with them - so I think someone's telling porkies! Oh what fun it was when we thought we had the answers to the Universe and everyone else were just maaaadddd sheep....

"Thy Lord is my Shepherd"

[edit on 7-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I haven't read all 28 pages of this post, but was there a reason for the intersecting shadows, or has that been explained yet. And the lack of burn marks, or disturbed land below the lander, has that been explained? I'm just trying to tie up some loose ends on the debunking.
Thanks

These should answer your questions my friend:

www.clavius.org...

www.clavius.org...

In fact the whole site is very good, also check out www.badastronomy.com...

[edit on 7-11-2005 by AgentSmith]

Nice shot of the "foil".

No damage. I wonder why that is? Maybe because it was made and tested to withstand the harshness of space? As Agent Smith said, there wouldn't be anything to damage the LM; there's no atmosphere on the moon so it wouldn't get heated up by friction; doubtful that solar winds are going to reach it; micro-meteors are the only real possible problem that I can see that would damage the LM, but it's been stated before that the odds of being hit by them are close to none.

Originally posted by resistance
That doesn't show the foil and black cloth on top.

Why do you insist on using the wrong names for things? - do you think it adds integrity to what you are saying by referring to the Kapton (plastic) Foil as simply 'foil' (thereby conjuring up the image of kitchen foil) and by referring to the Nickel-Steel Alloy sheets as 'Cloth' when they are not even constructed from textiles?

Surely if you actually had a point or were right, you could argue the point a lot better and actually prove it rather than resorting to Kindergarten tactics like using the word 'Astro-NOT', repeating the same thing to try and give the impression it has not been addressed (an examply being the discussion on the space suits which was discussed in detail on page 21) and by refusing to refer to items by their proper names - thereby giving the impression that materials and items used were of less use or quality than they actually were.

I especially like your tactic of running the conversation in circles and then going back to a point that has been concluded - even having the nerve to say it hasn't - a few pages later. Is this your technique to recruit more people to your cause, by creating the illusion that after 28 pages key points have not been addressed or explained - *CLAPS*
Sad thing is it is quite effective - I commend you on your basic yet effective skills.

Your techniques are a text-book example of someone trying to prove a point that has no founding.

If you represent the 'good' side then it sucks, if it's a choice between a bunch of people like you and the NWO then I know what I'm voting for.

Thanks Agent Smith for the informative bit on the questions I had posted. I do believe we made it to the moon, but once we got there aliens told us to scram.

www.space.com...

qoute:"Unfriendly Moon

Bush's first planned stop in the cosmos is the Moon. Its danger is, interestingly, not as well charted as that of Mars.

The Apollo astronauts made some measurements of radiation on the Moon, but the results don't provide as complete a picture as what scientists now have of the red planet. But Zeitlin said the Moon would be more dangerous since it has no atmosphere -- probably about half as dangerous as free space (again, someone on the Moon would be protected by the Moon itself on one side).

"The Moon would be worse than Mars and worse than the space station," he said. Short stays, perhaps one to two months, will be the norm early on. "That's a small enough dose of the galactic stuff that you're actually going to be more concerned about the solar particles, especially if you're near solar max," the intensely active part of the 11-year solar cycle.

Lunar visitors won't have the option of just sitting inside some protective shell. The president's vision makes exploration NASA's primary goal. So astronauts will presumably be called on to inspect the lunar countryside. That would present the risk of someone getting caught on a long rover excursion as a solar storm hits.

Warning times for Sun storms can be as little as 18 hours. Far less time is available to make firm predictions of the expected effect of a flare-up.

Zeitlin says a more extensive warning system will need to be established. This is especially true for Mars, which when it's on the far side of the Sun can be hit by solar tempests that don't even register with terrestrial scientists.

And there's more to do.

"We have to get smart about how we design the space suits and do everything we can to limit exposure to solar particles," Zeitlin said. "You can't stop everything with a space suit, but there are better and worse ways to design it."

The Apollo-era suits were not will equipped.

"They would not have done much," Zeitlin said. "We will try to improve on that.""


[edit on 7-11-2005 by Wind]

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Thanks Agent Smith for the informative bit on the questions I had posted. I do believe we made it to the moon, but once we got there aliens told us to scram.

Wouldn't surprise me at all to be honest, there is a popular speech used by Hoax Believers of Armstrong at the white house a few years back, making a rare public appearance, in which he says:

"...we have only completed a beginning; we leave you much that is undone... there are... breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truths protective layers. There are places to go beyond belief..."

HB's usually miss out the "There are places to go beyond belief..." and cut it off any videos/audio from what I've seen.

They tend to try and twist this somehow into implying we didn't go, but I don't see that from any angle to be honest - I do think though that he was letting on about something fantastic. Perhaps technology or contact.

Originally posted by Wind
www.space.com...

qoute:"Unfriendly Moon

Bush's first planned stop in the cosmos is the Moon. Its danger is, interestingly, not as well charted as that of Mars.

The Apollo astronauts made some measurements of radiation on the Moon, but the results don't provide as complete a picture as what scientists now have of the red planet. But Zeitlin said the Moon would be more dangerous since it has no atmosphere -- probably about half as dangerous as free space (again, someone on the Moon would be protected by the Moon itself on one side).

"The Moon would be worse than Mars and worse than the space station," he said. Short stays, perhaps one to two months, will be the norm early on. "That's a small enough dose of the galactic stuff that you're actually going to be more concerned about the solar particles, especially if you're near solar max," the intensely active part of the 11-year solar cycle.

Lunar visitors won't have the option of just sitting inside some protective shell. The president's vision makes exploration NASA's primary goal. So astronauts will presumably be called on to inspect the lunar countryside. That would present the risk of someone getting caught on a long rover excursion as a solar storm hits.

Warning times for Sun storms can be as little as 18 hours. Far less time is available to make firm predictions of the expected effect of a flare-up.

Zeitlin says a more extensive warning system will need to be established. This is especially true for Mars, which when it's on the far side of the Sun can be hit by solar tempests that don't even register with terrestrial scientists.

And there's more to do.

"We have to get smart about how we design the space suits and do everything we can to limit exposure to solar particles," Zeitlin said. "You can't stop everything with a space suit, but there are better and worse ways to design it."

The Apollo-era suits were not will equipped.

"They would not have done much," Zeitlin said. "We will try to improve on that.""


[edit on 7-11-2005 by Wind]

You forgot to mention the following bits too:

Also, the Odyssey data was collected just after the peak in a known 11-year cycle of solar activity. The levels would be greater during the peak and less at the trough. It might seem, then, that the first human trip to Mars should take place at solar minimum, a 2-3 year stretch every 11 years when sunspots and flares are almost nonexistent.

An astronaut in a six-month journey to Mars -- the time required with conventional propulsion -- would be exposed to about 0.3 sieverts, or 0.6 on a round-trip. Eighteen months on the surface (if it takes so long to get there, you might as well stay awhile!) would bring another 0.4 sieverts, for a total exposure of 1 sievert.

Limits set by NASA vary with age and gender but range from 1 to 3 sieverts.

A 2-1/2-year trip to Mars, including six months of travel time each way, would expose an astronaut to nearly the lifetime limit of radiation allowed under NASA guidelines.

The Moon, with no atmosphere, is more dangerous than the surface of Mars. Lunar forays will have to be brief unless expensive shielded habitats are built.

Mission planners knew the Apollo astronauts would be at grave risk if a strong solar flare occurred during a mission. The short duration of each trip was a key to creating favorable odds.

You see, the previous missions were done when the Sun was relatively inactive and also were of a very short duration.

These new missions are talking about over 2 years in space instead of just a couple of weeks. But even in the article a 2.5 year mission would be the maximum dose an astronaut could have in his career.

These are problems we need to overcome to have a permanent presence in space.

But I have heard that during the Apollo11 there was a very huge solar flare!!!
Anyways, the site says that they gambled in their missions.

Agent -- Yep, thanks. That last pic is good. And actually it IS covered in cardboard and paper.

Now if YOU want to believe we flew to the moon in a cardboard spacecraft, that's up to you.

Me? I stopped playing with makebelieve toys when I was about six. I think my make-believe toys were sturdier than this laughable thing they call a lunar lander.

I guess if the thrust coming out the end hadn't enough power to even blow any dust away, why should it blow away cardboard and foil covered plastic wrap?

Ha!

Res.

If this was a fake then why wouldn't they make it a little more convincing for people like you? I guess if the Lander was made of a foot of iron and steel it would be more beliveable? what do you think the lander should really look like?

I guess you don't belive that a submarine could withstand the water pressure under the ocean. I guess you think that airplains can't really fly? Maybe you shouldn't drive anymore cause that's probably a fraud too.

[edit on 7-11-2005 by Halfofone]

Originally posted by resistance
cardboard and foil covered plastic wrap? Ha!

It is sad that these guys are taking alot of time and effort, to refute your claims.. when quite obviously, you are not worth arguing with. You are acting like a troll, if you want to be taken seriously then you need to write your posts with a bit more common sense and logic... but I suppose that's too difficult when your trying to argue for something that isn't true.

I suggest you read the entire clavius.org site with an OPEN mind. Then we'll see if you have any 'evidence' for a hoax that is worthy of discussion. Though I can pretty much guarantee you won't have any.. so give up the game.

If you want to investigate something more worthwhile, then look into what Armstrong might have seen, while on the moon...

Originally posted by resistance
Agent -- Yep, thanks. That last pic is good. And actually it IS covered in cardboard and paper.

Now if YOU want to believe we flew to the moon in a cardboard spacecraft, that's up to you.
(Blah, Blah, Blah)

I’ve long ago come to the conclusion that you are just trolling the boards for points and reactions.

That post confirmed it to me. You are nothing more than a troll. I am also willing to bet that you really don’t believe the crap that you post, either.

I guess if the thrust coming out the end hadn't enough power to even blow any dust away, why should it blow away cardboard and foil covered plastic wrap?

Maybe you should watch this video

apollo 11 last 40 sec of landing

you can clearly see the dust flying, but it's definatly not a lot, certianly not enough to make a "crater".

And you can hear them saying "kicking up some dust"

so it DID blow some dust, but not with enough power to 'burn' the 'foil' or blow it away.
besides they didn't just glue the stuff on with Elmers.



[edit on 7-11-2005 by Halfofone]

Originally posted by Wind
But I have heard that during the Apollo11 there was a very huge solar flare!!!
Anyways, the site says that they gambled in their missions.

Yes they did gamble, but every leap we take in trying out new technologies is a gamble. Getting in a car or plane every day is a gamble - it's normal every day life. Without life threatening gambles we would still be banging stones together in caves.

And yes, they nearly got caught - but didn't - what you've heard is more than likely 'chinese whispers' from this :

To die, you'd need to absorb, suddenly, 300 rem or more.

The key word is suddenly. You can get 300 rem spread out over a number of days or weeks with little effect. Spreading the dose gives the body time to repair and replace its own damaged cells. But if that 300 rem comes all at once ... "we estimate that 50% of people exposed would die within 60 days without medical care," says Cucinotta.

Such doses from a solar flare are possible. To wit: the legendary solar storm of August 1972.

It's legendary (at NASA) because it happened during the Apollo program when astronauts were going back and forth to the Moon regularly. At the time, the crew of Apollo 16 had just returned to Earth in April while the crew of Apollo 17 was preparing for a moon-landing in December. Luckily, everyone was safely on Earth when the sun went haywire.

"A large sunspot appeared on August 2, 1972, and for the next 10 days it erupted again and again," recalls Hathaway. The spate of explosions caused, "a proton storm much worse than the one we've just experienced," adds Cucinotta. Researchers have been studying it ever since.

Cucinotta estimates that a moonwalker caught in the August 1972 storm might have absorbed 400 rem. Deadly? "Not necessarily," he says. A quick trip back to Earth for medical care could have saved the hypothetical astronaut's life.
science.nasa.gov...

www.aulis.com...

Parts needed to build your own high-tech, scientific, STURDY,
multimillion dollar spacecraft:

lots of big sheets of cardboard
big roll of roofing paper
a few old curtain rods
some floodlight holders
an old antenna
a roll of gold foil
lots and lots of scotch tape to hold it all
together in the HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT OF
THE MOON SURFACE

by Jack White, of JFK Conspiracy fame, recently deceased (or murdered)

Click above to see the authentic NASA picture of their
lunar lander, the picture that Agent took off
because he decided to take the Fifth Amendment
and then decided to put it back again now that
my post is up here.

When you click on here you can also see
lots of ADHESIVE TAPE USED IN APOLLO 15.

Have a look! It's masking tape, possibly mylar tape,
but it's tape without a doubt. See for yourself.

www.aulis.com...


[edit on 7-11-2005 by resistance]