Lost Bird Proves Apollo Inauthenticity

reply to post by AFewGoodWomen

Wish we could see more.....

Has to do with the resolution( www.telescope-optics.net...) limitations of our telescopes to a significant degree.

Given where we are, Earth, where the landers are said to be, MOON, and the limitations of the equipment, resolving power, we cannot make the landing sites big and clear enough to make out the requisite details.

Think about being asked to run down the lines of letters on a visual acuity chart. As the letters become smaller(similar to a moon-like object becoming more distant) , your eyes' own resolving power is pressed to its limit and you get to a point where you cannot discern G from D, P from B, your eye cannot make the image any sharper, nor can it make it bigger. You've hit a wall of sorts, and there is nothing one can do about it.

There is no question that we have left hardware on the moon and you might actually have to get up pretty close to this stuff in order to see if there was any hanky panky. In other words, just because there is something that looks in some broad generic sense to be similar in appearance to a lunar module, the Eagle say, parked at Tranquility Base, it doesn't mean Neil Armstrong landed it there. It could EASILY have been landed robotically. You might need to get really close, have a very good look to tell one way or the other. This is why the US has off limits rules for its Apollo landing sites. They don't want no Japanese Rover strolling by with a 60 megapixel Nikon and sending back shots that bust Neil Armstrong's chops.

Originally posted by decisively
This is why the US has off limits rules for its Apollo landing sites. They don't want no Japanese Rover strolling by with a 60 megapixel Nikon and sending back shots that bust Neil Armstrong's chops.

edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: comma

edit on 4-6-2012 by decisively because: caps

There are no "off limits rules." You are making things up. Twisting NASAs words in order to fit your agenda.

reply to post by decisively


what about the flags?

reply to post by paradox

The game would be over instantly

Yes there are, or perhaps best said, WILL BE. SayonaraJupiter posted a nice references on this. Search through his recent posts and you shall find it. I have to run, but will link it for you later if you cannot find it.

No way they will allow photos up close of these areas by third parties. The game would be over, instantly. By that I mean, what we know here now, know in our small ATS group, know that Apollo is full on bogus, off the hook fraudulent , this would be publicly known and accepted as truth once close up photos were taken of those sites.

The fraud would not hold up. First of all, the details of the terrain, as it appears in the Haselblad 70 mm images, say in the official Apollo 11 shots there at "Tranquility Base", these would not look the same at all, would not look like terrain as would be imaged by a Japanese rover rolling by the alleged Tranquility Base coordinates.

The ballgame would be over, BOOM, done.

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by paradox

 

The game would be over instantly

Yes there are, or perhaps best said, WILL BE. SayonaraJupiter posted a nice references on this. Search through his recent posts and you shall find it. I have to run, but will link it for you later if you cannot find it.

There are no rules. They were recommendations to preserve historical sites. No rules. No enforcement. No laws. But feel free to speculate some more.

After all, that is the only thing you do.

reply to post by decisively


75m is not far with a HD camera.. those guidelines are only advisories.. you can clearly photograph a flag from 75m meters away..

the guidelines are reasonable its not like they are being unreasonable and saying you must not get within a 10 miles radius of any landing site..

if they dont want anyone to take any photos the guidelines will be much different. compare the stay out zones of area 51 to the guidelines of the apollo missions.

reply to post by decisively

No way they will allow photos up close of these areas by third parties.

I suppose this has to be restated several times in every one of these stupid threads.


Only the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 (the first and last) landing sites have general ground exclusion zones; 75 meters for Apollo 11 and 225 meters for Apollo 17.

The other 4 landing sites only have exclusion zones for the individual items:

Descent stage – 3 meters buffer distance
Lunar rover (LRV) – 1 meter buffer distance
ALSEP experiments – 1 meter buffer distance
Sampling sites – 1 meter buffer distance
All other artifacts (flag, tools, storage bags, etc.) – 1 meter buffer distance
No restrictions on footprints/LRV tracks outside the identified exclusion zones.

Yup, impossible to get good images with those ridiculous regulations. Oh wait, they aren't regulations either.

The USG continues to maintain ownership of NASA hardware and other property on the surface of the moon, including the Apollo artifacts. These recommendations are not legal requirements; rather they are technical recommendations for consideration by interested entities.

www.nasa.gov...

If you are suggesting "Apollo was real" because look at all of this hardware, you would get no argument from me there

I think it probably was faked, and the any equipment there was from a robotic mission. It looks like the moon photos are studio pictures photoshopped onto crappy long distance background shots from a satellite or robotic lander.

Would you call this anaylsis "speculation". They are after all NASA's OWN NUMBERS. Care to take a shot at defending the PERPS here ?

reply to post by paradox


What is your take on these bogus Apollo 11 Mission Report Numbers paradox ?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by CB328

I think it probably was faked, and the any equipment there was from a robotic mission. It looks like the moon photos are studio pictures photoshopped onto crappy long distance background shots from a satellite or robotic lander.

:





Hallelujah brother CB328, sho 'nuff can say that again.

reply to post by decisively


how did a robot plant the flags?? was it a bi-pedal robot? or was it on tracks? you seem to have this information pls divulge.

reply to post by choos


Got a pic of a flag ?

reply to post by choos


I heard tell NASA had a pic of a flag getting hit by lightning up there at 0.6875 north and 23.43 east. Any truth to that ?

reply to post by decisively


what about psep? retroreflectors?? were they autonomously landed on the moon? or was it a bipedal robot that put it in place from the autonomous lunar module?

reply to post by decisively


was it shown to the public in 1969-72?

reply to post by choos


Of course the LRRRs were landed without the "assistance" of men.

reply to post by choos


Best way to help you with this choos is to make the obvious point that hey have way way way way more sophisticated equipment than LRRRs and what not in earth orbit, on the moon, and in libration points, all placed during the Apollo era. They may well have placed lasers in space.

You don't need men to put this junk in space, and I do mean JUNK.

reply to post by decisively


citation?? photo of propulsion system? method of doing so?? any idea of how that is possible?

p.s. i forgot, how does nasa maintain communication with it? i want to see its antenna.


p.s. you seem to know alot about all these advanced sophisticated equipment.. in earth orbit and libration points during the apollo era.. can you show me some please?

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by loveguy

 

I am having trouble understanding your question loveguy. Please help me a bit more if you could.

You seem to be saying something like " I understand the astronauts might have been expected to see the McDonald argon laser when they were on the moon, but that may NOT necessarily have been the case were they standing in the shade ."

Is that it, or something like that ? You may need to kind of spell it out a little for me if you can.

thanks ........

Hi,
Kinda, well, I'm just imagining myself trying to see from Armstrong's perspective; it's gotta be like trying to look through a funnel, from the thinnest end on up/down? Or the opposite? Vacuum and bending light.

It's kinda hard for me to follow. I don't get groovy with numbers and formulations that well. But in a triangulation being conducted by our top scientists, and the guy couldn't see it!? The guy could've said "yes" and didn't really have to actually be @ said co-ords, or the moon for that matter! He said no b/c he HAD a conscience and knew he was lying!

I just follow my gut when any real life lesson should matter.

If we weren't lied-to and our 'conscious thought processors' constantly tested; we wouldn't know to follow such a trail of deceit, just to get to the truth. And them truths hurt good and plenty...

Just to learn another lesson how to forgive, or let it eat at us like a cancer.

This topic encourages conscious thought processes, but it's really just a non-issue with me. It seems last millennium, as opposed to 9-11 having longer legs.

Who stole my government from me?

Concerns regarding Apollo Inauthenticity are very much present tense concerns loveguy

reply to post by loveguy



In general, US manned space efforts served and SERVE (present tense) to cover anything they(miltary dudes) want to do in space that is "illegal", that is, in violation of treaties and what not.

Because this stuff is all military, and because it involves ongoing lying to congress and the American People, it is critically important to expose , PRESENT TENSE. Military is not bad, but it is over the top wasteful. There is no need to spend so much energy preparing to kill people. It is irrational and irresponsible in all senses.


In a very real and meaningful sense, the Apollo Inauthenticity issue is a GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY for our side, becasue the PERPS are so vulnerable here. By that I mean the ruse was partucularly shoddy. VERY EASY TO SHOW IT WAS/IS FAKE. Average high school students can handle this no problem, follow the argument. As such, this is a crackable nut, and not inconceivably, might lead to some genuine governmental reform.

In a sense it is all about ongoing rogue Executive Branch stuff. The military convinces the prez they need such and such. Let's make something up for the sake of argument here, say NUKES IN SPACE. That would definitely be a NO NO. You could not get a lot of hard line hawks even to go for something that nutty, but a pitch is made, and before you know it, everybody's life's at risk.

These people are nuts and do not know it. Adolescent you know......

Whatever they are hiding, whatever Apollo coverd for, hangs over your head loveguy this very instant, threatens your life and that of your children. About this, there can be absolutely no question. Why else do they go completely nuts, rabidly whacked out, stonewalling and pretending this super fake thing happened ? Ever look at the pics ? About as authentic as von Braun's metal teeth are natural.

Think of the worst social injustices, the very worst, presently perpetrated by our community now, and there are many. Busting Apollo open would go a long way to creating a less onerous America.

Cracking Apollo is quite literally about patriotism, about copping to folly and becoming something better, something more honest, something more true, something more self respectful.

We are in a funny situation here in the USA, 300,000,000 immigrants, our land's natives all gone, disappeared. Doesn't your heart break ? We owe it to them, to their memory, to make good in some way on this thing. We have to find ourselves. Copping to the fraud that is Apollo would be such an important step in the right direction in that regard, and it is very much a PRESENT TENSE CONCERN of yours and mine today, and of young people as regards the health of their future lives here, super important. You don't build a great culture on absolute JIVE. Doesn't work, won't , can't , impossible........

Don't let this thing stand loveguy. Don't let it go. I am not saying crucify Armstrong. He is, relatively speaking, a smallish fish, though he needs to stand and take a bit of a public beating, one well deserved. Armstrong and his cronies need to have their chops busted right good, and there will be haymakers landing on their jaws in the near future to be sure. But this is not about "getting back", not about publicly embarrassing the astronauts, as much as this is inevitable on many levels, rather, it is about holding ourselves properly accountable here by forcing the PERPS to spill the space beans, having them tell the world everything within reason, and take away the money of those that profited in ANY WAY as well. Any personal gains should be ruthlessly erased, immediately.

This is important stuff loveguy, important to us TODAY.....