Humint Events Online: Politics, Partisanship, the Media, the 9/11 Attacks, Are All Just Distractions

Sunday, October 07, 2007

Politics, Partisanship, the Media, the 9/11 Attacks, Are All Just Distractions

from this--

56 Comments:

Blogger Early Wynn said...

Very interesting. Thanks for making it available on your blog.

It's unfortunate that not enough time was available for critical questions.

Several things that begged for explanation, at least to me, include:

* One presenter said that he worked on designs for "planes" that could fly at speeds upward of Mach 6. Isn't that fast enough that it could explain some of the sightings of UFOs that viewers said were traveling at extreme speed? If so,
isn't that evidence for sightings of objects that in reality, are NOT UFOs, but rather secret US military aircraft/vehicles?

* One presenter said that some of the aliens whose UFO had crashed, could touch an object in the dark and tell what color it was. Does that mean the aliens spoke English?
If so, is that their native language or did they learn English as a second/third/fourth etc. language? Do they speak all (known) languages or just some?

In any case, it was definitely a provocative presentation and I'm glad to have had the opportunity to view it.

10:11 PM  
Blogger BG said...

I still support some of your posts.

I think your take on the Disclosure Project (as a glimpse into the Mother of All ???) is simply 100% wrong.

You perplex me almost as much as Nico. (This isn't a good thing).

10:49 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

bg-- perhaps you could explain why you have problems with the disclosure project.

Early-- the answer to the first question would be that early on, the US didn't have these craft, then later back-engineered them. To the second question-- how on earth would I know? Are you casting doubt on this point or seriously wondering?

7:13 AM  
Blogger Early Wynn said...

In response to my points about claims about aliens supposedly being able to touch objects and then tell what color they are...Spooked said:

"Are you casting doubt on this point or seriously wondering?"

YES, I'm casting doubt on those claims unless and until the points I raised are answered. Only a very naive person, in my opinion, would accept claims that a being from outer space could suddenly appear on planet Earth as an English speaking humanoid...or whatever life form s/he/it supposedly was/is.

Are you saying that YOU don't need any proof to believe such claims as were made in the video?

9:21 AM  
Blogger spooked said...

One presenter said that some of the aliens whose UFO had crashed, could touch an object in the dark and tell what color it was.

It's not clear to me that they said the aliens could speak english; there could be other interpretations for this. However, if as I think there might be, ETs who have been observing human development for thousands of years, it would not at all be surprising if these ETs could speak english. So what?

IMO, I think it very likely that the phenomena described over and over by witnesses in the project, were from ETs, and not of human origin. I think this is the most logical explanation, for a number a reasons. If you don't like this idea, perhaps you could explain why you think it is improbable.

10:56 AM  
Blogger spooked said...

In other words, I think it highly improbable that all the witnesses in the project are lying, or that they are crazy, or that they are mistaken about what they saw.

But that is only one reason to believe their testimony. Another reason is that their testimony fits with many many other lines of evidence.

10:58 AM  
Blogger Early Wynn said...

Spooked -

I'm surprised that you don't seem to have any doubts whatsoever about even the most astonishing claims made in the presentation.

Aren't you concerned about the lack of physical evidence?

12:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If beings are far more advanced than us, as their craft and technology demonstrates, it is no big deal for them to "speak English."

If they have been here all along, this also answers that.

12:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting how this discussion gets sidetracked about "speaking English" when the Disclosure project demonstrates that NASA workers observed bases on the Moon, and NASA workers then had to erase that from videos and photos before releasing them to the public.

1:07 PM  
Blogger Early Wynn said...

Interesting how someone who is obviously sensitive about questions concerning claimed encounters with beings from outer space and how they conversed in English, tries to sidetrack such a highly questionable claim by saying that "NASA workers observed bases on the Moon" - maybe thru a pair or binoculars?

Yes, it IS interesting. All of it.

1:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i agree that it is all very interesting indeed but it is a shame that these eyewitnesses to alleged events never seem to have any photos to present.
i accept these eyewitness claims as being true but i would not be surprised to learn that they are false.

what i do not accept is that the ridiculous "lunar lander" of 1969 could actually descend slowly and safely to the surface of the moon - it would take massive amounts of fuel to do that - and then to lift off from the lunar surface? even more fuel to do that!
the moon has 1/6 of earth's gravity - that is a lot of gravity to overcome.
nor do i accept that the astronauts could survive for even 1 minute on the moon - either in the sun; 250F or in the shade; -390F.
ridiculous to think those stupid tinfoil suits could power an AC or a heater to counter those extremes.

if the govt would lie about something as obvious as that then what else would they lie about, and why?

2:00 PM  
Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

what i do not accept is that the ridiculous "lunar lander" of 1969 could actually descend slowly and safely to the surface of the moon - it would take massive amounts of fuel to do that - and then to lift off from the lunar surface? even more fuel to do that!

You malignant twit.

I watched a RAF Harrier Gr.2 do exactly that at an airshow with my own eyes against a force of gravity SIX TIMES that of the moon.

Are you proposing that the evil space j00s faked that with holograms too?

3:07 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

I'm surprised that you don't seem to have any doubts whatsoever about even the most astonishing claims made in the presentation.

I don't know how you got that conclusion. I never said I had no doubts. Just that overall, I think these people are highly credible, and what they say overall fits with lots of other evidence.

Aren't you concerned about the lack of physical evidence?

Not so much. Though I'm not sure what you mean by "physical evidence". In the book I have on this, there are official memos that support these peoples' testimonies.

As far as photos and films, obviously these would be kept under tight security.

Early, I really don't understand you qualms about the speaking english claim. I must admit that I haven't been able to see that testimony myself as the video keeps stalling when I load it today.

3:07 PM  
Blogger spooked said...

what are "space jOOs"?

3:09 PM  
Blogger Early Wynn said...

The gentleman who claimed to have had
encounters with aliens (the English-speaking beings who apparently didn't need space suits in outer space, unlike U.S. & other astronauts) was, in my considered opinion, an agent provocateur.

His act was very Rove-like: combination of facts mixed in with BS
so as to discredit the entire Disclosure Group and their efforts.

I'd bet money that he was/is an agent of one of the numerous intelligence agencies operating around the clock to baffle the confused.

4:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fascinating that some (one) person(s) commenting, and either did not see the video, or we have the usual disinfo agent(s) calling others intelligence assets. He's well known here for what he is--desperately trying to stop people from seeing what is there.

If that is too long to watch for the troll(s), try this short youtube that has several NASA workers describe what they saw and how NASA airbrushes it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3wGLC_sjTQ


So why ask "where are the photos", "where is the evidence"? When it's all altered.

This is one of the biggest jobs for NASA--faking the photos and videos (like the Apollo joke) and removing what is real from other photos and videos.

And here is a good new set of sites on the Apollo joke.
http://apolloreality.bravehost.com/

5:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow a harrier jet!
i was hoping that you would bring that up...
what is the diameter of the 2 jets of a harrier?
what IS a jet and how does that differ from a rocket?
how many astonauts and the phony batteries that powered their phony in-suit climate controlled systems were contained in the alleged lunar lander?
hmmm.
how big was the fuel tank of this lunar lander and what exactly WAS the fuel that enabled it to descend gently like a leaf onto it's little phony landing gear legs?
by the way, since it was 250 degrees F on the lunar surface then it was also 250 degs F as soon as it left the earth's atmosphere.
how many days did it take to allegedly reach the moon?
what kind of batteries would it take to power such a magic climate-control system for that many days with 1969 TECHNOLOGY!? and how much would these batteries weigh?
hey, again, how many days were they "gone" and how much would the oxygen tank that they would need actually weigh?
and don't forget about the weight of the lunar rover that left no tracks behind itself in the lunar DUST - not to mention the weight of the 1969 tech BATTERIES that would have to power this phony monstrosity - as it left no tire tracks in the lunar DUST!
unfucking real.

this latest sword of comedy hour was brought to you by the #'s 9 and 11 and by the letters J, O and O.

moron! you should just go get brian.

5:15 PM  
Anonymous PhantomWolf said...

Anonymous wrote: what i do not accept is that the ridiculous "lunar lander" of 1969 could actually descend slowly and safely to the surface of the moon - it would take massive amounts of fuel to do that

17,000 lbs for 11-14 and 18,000 for the J-Class missions due to the extra weight of the rover. (note this is combined Fuel and Oxidiser)

Anonymous wrote: and then to lift off from the lunar surface? even more fuel to do that!

Around 4,900 lbs.

Anonymous wrote: the moon has 1/6 of earth's gravity - that is a lot of gravity to overcome.

No, it's only 1/6 what we have to defeat to get off Earth, and on the moon you have the added advantage of no atmosphere to cause drag and a lower orbit.

Anonymous wrote: nor do i accept that the astronauts could survive for even 1 minute on the moon - either in the sun; 250F or in the shade; -390F.

Well then just as well it isn't. The maximum temperature on the Moon is around 120°C, but this is in the late lunar afternoon after the sun has been heating the surface for over a week. Similarly the low is about -150°C and just before lunar sunrise after the surface has been in shade for 2 weeks. The Apollo missions were all during the Lunar mornings before the Tempurature had gotten much over 80°C.

Anonymous wrote: ridiculous to think those stupid tinfoil suits

The suits were not tinfoil, they were made up of several garments. The first was the LCG, or Liquid cooling Garment, then the pressure suit which was made up of around 20 layers of nylon and kapton film with the outer layer being teflon and glass fibre beta cloth. This resulted in a suit that was entirely insulated from temperatures between -180°C and 155°C. The cooling system was required to remove the Astronaut's own body heat, not protect from the heat being emitted by the Lunar Surface or transmitted from the sun.

Anonymous wrote: could power an AC or a heater to counter those extremes.

It didn't need too, the suits worked to keep out the heat being transmitted to the suit, and prevent the suit from releasing the heat it had. Because the suits opperate in a vacuum, only radiated heat is a factor. The white suits were designed to reflect most radiated heat, the shoes and gloves were layered to protect the astronauts just like a steel workers gloves and boots protect him from molten steel at 1500°C. There is not ambient air temperature on the Moon so this is not a factor. What is a factor is expelling the Astronaut's body heat since the suit will keep his heat in, just as it keeps outside heat out. This was done by the LCG which would transfer the body heat to the subliminator. There water, frozen on a porus plate, would absord the heat and sublimate (become a gas directly from a solid) and remove the heat from the water in the LCG. Air was treated the same way, passing the heat to the sublimator to sublimate the ice on the plates and be expelled. This system is still used, almost unchanged, in the Space Shuttle and ISS suits.

Finally I'd point out two things. People can survive in a kitchen where a roast is cooking at 200°C and firemen can survive in buildings burning at over 500°C. How is this possible?

8:16 PM  
Blogger Early Wynn said...

The phony physicist is still in denial of the truth and still trying to convince others that s/he's not what is plainly obvious to one and all.

At least s/he's stopped promoting the insane idea that JFK's limo driver shot him to death in broad daylight in a motorcade being viewed by 100s.

Progress: it cometh slowly, by degrees.

9:08 PM  
Anonymous PhantomWolf said...

Anonymous wrote: what is the diameter of the 2 jets of a harrier?

Size actually works against you. The larger the noozle, the less the pressure flow from it, basic physics there. The fact that the Harrier's noozle is smaller than the LM's and the pressuse is far higher then the LM's means that the Harrier is putting a far greater force against the ground than the LM did. Add to that the the Harrier is in air, which focuses the blast more (in a vacuum the plume spreads out far more,) is operating lower than the LM engine did (the LM engine was about 8 feet above the surface at engine off,) and that a Harrier has to hover before landing whereas during most of the Apollo landings the LM was moving as it landed rather than hovering over the surface, and your case is what ends up cratered. Besides, on Apollo 11, both Neil and Buzz commented about there not being a crater, but that the area had been swept clear of loose dust and stones, and photos from 11 and the subsequent flights show that the ground that the LM flew over was affected in that the upper layers of dust and stones had been blown clear. In the High Res photos you can even make out radial patterning of lines on the surface directly under the engine, created by the movement of dust and stones.

Anonymous wrote: what IS a jet and how does that differ from a rocket?

As far as the physics is concerned very little. Mechanically there is some difference, though the largest is that a rocket carries its own oxidiser, while a jet engine collects the oxidiser from the surroundings, compresses it and releases that into the combustion chamber.

Anonymous wrote: how many astonauts and the phony batteries that powered their phony in-suit climate controlled systems were contained in the alleged lunar lander?
hmmm.


Apart from the fact it wasn't phoney… The LM had two crew, the CMD and the LMP. As to the batteries, this differed depending on the mission. There was one 16.8 volt, 279 watt-hours battery (these were upgraded to 370-watt hour batteries for the J-type missions) per astronaut per EVA, so 2 on 11 and 6 on 17. The spare batteries were kept in the MESA and unloaded during the first EVA along with spare lithium hydroxide/charcol filters for the PLSS and LM. The PLSS originally contained a single Battery and Litium hydroxide filter. Water and Oxygen were recharged between EVA's using the LM's supplies. The "climate controlled suit" used a LCG and subliminator virtually the same as the Space Shuttle and ISS crews use today. The only major change is in the order that the air passes through the filter and subliminator.

Anonymous wrote: how big was the fuel tank of this lunar lander and what exactly WAS the fuel that enabled it to descend gently like a leaf onto it's little phony landing gear legs?

There were two tanks onboard the Lunar Module Descent Stage and two main tanks on the Ascent Stage (The RCS also had tanks separate from the main engine's). The Descent Stage fuel tank contained around 7,000 pounds for the early missions and was increased to 7,500 lbs for the J-type missions. The oxider tank contained around 11,300 lbs for the early missions and was increased to over 12,000 lbs for the J-type missions. The Ascent Stage had around 2,000 lbs of fuel and 3,300 lbs of oxidiser in all missions.

The LM didn't land "as gently as a leaf" in fact it dropped from 6 feet above the surface, and the legs were specially designed, and rigerously tested, to take the impact. They had a shock compression system inside based about a honeycomb like synthetic material that absord the impact and compressed the leg. During testing on the original design, it broke and they had to rework them to make them work. Note here that NASA had nothing to do with the way the LM worked. They told Grumman what they wanted and the restrictions they had (weight, size), the engineers at Grumman designed, built, and then tested it to the extreme long before NASA got their hands on one. The only real imput from NASA was from the Astronauts, who would tell the engineers what they liked, and what they didn't.

Anonymous wrote: by the way, since it was 250 degrees F on the lunar surface then it was also 250 degs F as soon as it left the earth's atmosphere.

It wasn't 250 degrees F on the Lunar surface. The lunar surface heats up to around 250°F over the course of TWO WEEKS. On Apollo 16 the Temperature of the lunar surface as of EVA 3 was only 120°F.

The rest of this statement is senseless. Space is a vacuum. Temperature is a property of matter. Since a vacuum is the absence of matter, space can not and does not have a temperature.

Anonymous wrote: how many days did it take to allegedly reach the moon?

about 4-5 days

Anonymous wrote: what kind of batteries would it take to power such a magic climate-control system for that many days with 1969 TECHNOLOGY!? and how much would these batteries weigh?

The CSM was a "shirt-sleeves" environment, they weren't in the suits the entire time. The CSM did not use batteries, but fuel cells to power it, and its cooling systems were radiation based, (no not nuclear radiation, thermal radiation.) As to the 1969 technology, we're still using it today, heck the 747, the SR-71, Concorde and the F-14 were all late 1960/early 1970's technology.

The Batteries in the PLSS weighted 4 pounds on Earth, so just 2/3 of a pound in lunar gravity.

Anonymous wrote: hey, again, how many days were they "gone" and how much would the oxygen tank that they would need actually weigh?

The crews were gone for around 10-14 days. Gemini had already done a 14 day stint with a smaller capsule than the Apollo craft. The Oxygen tanks were part of the craft. If you mean the Oxygen tanks on the PLSS, then these were only used during EVA and they were recharged before each EVA. The entire PLSS weighted 26kg on Earth, or about 64 lbs. On the moon that would have been just over 10 lbs.

Anonymous wrote: and don't forget about the weight of the lunar rover that left no tracks behind itself in the lunar DUST - not to mention the weight of the 1969 tech BATTERIES that would have to power this phony monstrosity - as it left no tire tracks in the lunar DUST!

I'm not, and NASA didn't either. They added in the extra fuel required for the J-Type missions, as I noted above. They also increased the battery life, the pressure of the oxygen tanks and the water bladders in the PLSS so that they would have extended lifetimes and allow for longer EVAs.

BTW, there are plenty of photos of rover tracks so the idea that they didn't leave tracks is completely bogus. Even those images that HBs like to claim don't have tracks, most of them do, or there are good reasons for the track being obscured, mostly because the Astronauts have been walking over, around the tracks, though on occasion is it merely the lighting direction making it harder to see the tracks.

9:34 PM  
Anonymous PhantomWolf said...

Minor correction. I used the wrong number in conversion from kg to lbs. 26kg is only 57lbs (or 9.5lb on the Lunar Surface).

9:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Early Wynn, proven liar, disinfo agent, troll, shill. Said Spooked was blocking him, when he never did. Would be good if that were true. Never said an honest or intelligent thing here. Today he even lied about what is and isn't on the Disclosure Project video. Never said a word of truth in his life--like all foul, black operators.

You know well that SS Agent Greer shot Kennedy, you were in on it from what you said that Greer and Kellerman deserve commendation. Where the hell were you on Nov. 22, 1963. Only someone who wanted Kennedy dead could say that Greer and Kellerman deserve consolation and commendation.

Now I get a kick out of this New Zealander, following the South African BS artist. This New Zealander can really repeat the lies over and over again. Whether its the laughable spacesuit that wouldn't have protected them from the temp extremes, on the Moon, or the solar radiation there; or anything else said here such as lying about the Rover tracks now! We've all seen the photos here, shill. And heard the laughable excuses.

But just watch the TVFakery of the laughable "lunar lift-off" without an atom of rocket "exhaust" coming out of the bottom of the "LM."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXs4tncQcAE

The LM was lifted up the same way the Astro-nots/Actor-nauts were--only with a much bigger device.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

Find my article Apollo Hoax (TVfakery) here at covertops, go to it, and view all the links.
A picture--even the doctored ones--and the videos can be worth a thousand words.

And we are about to get it now, because this shill comes with his boiler plate crap streaming out of him. We are in for thousands of words of balderdash. They couldn't do it with quality, so they are now trying with quantity. It is indeed Spam. Maybe now with what is coming, Spooked...

Remember what I said earlier today. One knife is sufficient to burst a balloon, or a great lie.

Anonymous Physicist

10:18 PM  
Anonymous PhantomWolf said...

Anonymous wrote: This New Zealander can really repeat the lies over and over again.

Show me where I have lied? I have quoted figures and presented the information. All you are doing is waving your hands in the breeze. Show me where I am wrong? So far you haven't even got the basics right.

Anonymous wrote: Whether its the laughable spacesuit

What is laughable about the spacesuits? Do you know what Kapton or Beta Cloth are?

Anonymous wrote: that wouldn't have protected them from the temp extremes, on the Moon,

What extreme temperatures?

Anonymous wrote: or the solar radiation there;

What solar radiation? What type? What was the flux? What was the desinty?

Anonymous wrote: or anything else said here such as lying about the Rover tracks now! We've all seen the photos here, shill. And heard the laughable excuses.

I bet I have seen more photos that you have, I bet I have seen more of the footage than you have (I own all 3 J-Type Mission DVD sets.) I bet I can point to more images with tracks that you can that don't, and I bet that the ones you can show that don't all have footprints near where the track would be. Do you have anything other then handwaving? Thought not.

Anonymous wrote: But just watch the TVFakery of the laughable "lunar lift-off" without an atom of rocket "exhaust" coming out of the bottom of the "LM."

The Ascent module burns Aerozine 50 as a fuel, the same stuff that is used in the Titan 2 booster. The resultant plume is transparent and so is not visible. If you look at the SSME you'll see that it's plume is transparent as well. The cloud you see on the launch of the Space Shuttle comes from the SRBs, not the SSME.

Check out this picture of the SSMEs firing. The plume is almost invisible, the main visible part being the "cones" where the three plumes interact with each other.

http://enterfiringroom.ksc.nasa.gov/S0007Simulation/images/SSME/SSME02.jpg

Honestly the rest of your handwaving rant is hardly coherent let alone worthy of rebuttal. How about you start coming up with some facts rather than waving your hands and frothing at the mouth about Shills and other garbage.

Anonymous wrote: Remember what I said earlier today. One knife is sufficient to burst a balloon, or a great lie.

Well so far you have brought a toothpick to a gun fight. I suggest you actually bother studying the Programme before continuing to show off your ignorance.

BTW, if you really want to debate in a place where there is the ability to add video and images, I'm more than happy to take this to ApolloHoax, BAUT or JREF.

11:03 PM  
Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

Anonymous wrote: But just watch the TVFakery of the laughable "lunar lift-off" without an atom of rocket "exhaust" coming out of the bottom of the "LM."

Excellent response Phantomwolf. In addition to what you wrote in response to the above claim by Fizzle-pissed, I would add that the all the flames he has observed have been here on earth. He fails (refuses?) to take into account the lack of atmosphere on the moon.

Open flames are visible here on earth because the surrounding air contains and concentrates the incandescent gasses. On the moon, the molecules of a rocket exhaust have unlimited room to expand and upon leaving the nozzle will fly until they hit something. But they are not going to stick around, hang out with each other and pose for the camera.

You know... a physicist would understand that things work differently in a vacuum than they do in an atmosphere. What do you do for a living again, AP?

11:30 PM  
Anonymous PhantomWolf said...

Sword of Truth wrote: You know... a physicist would understand that things work differently in a vacuum than they do in an atmosphere. What do you do for a living again, AP?

A physicist would also understand the basics of heat transfer and thermodynamics, basic concepts taught very early on in high school. AP doesn't even have a rudimentary understanding of them.

A firefighter entering a burning buildings will have to put up with ambient temperatures up to 500°C (that is what their gear is rated for, hotter than that and they get out of the bukilding asap.) In this they have to deal with radiant heat from any fires and conducted heat from the air itself. They have suits that are designed to handle it and keep them alive for long periods of time, supplying them with oxygen as well. This is a fact, men and women do this every day, and yet AP seems unable to understand that that same is possible for a situation where there is no ambient temperature and all that is required is the protection from radiant heat. A real Physicist would see and understand this immediately.

He also has shown that he has no understanding of the rest of the Apollo equipment other than what he has read on HB sites and seen on HB YouTube clips. I doubt that he has even walked past a book on the subject matter.

Essentially he makes all the basic mistakes that I see all the time, he is not a physicist, and he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. He merely is parroting HB claims and hoping that he can bluster past those with as little knowledge and can shout anyone that knows more then he does down by calling them a shill. I really doubt that he'll be willing to take the debate to a platform where he has to provide well reasoned answers and evidence because he simply has none.

11:48 PM  
Blogger Early Wynn said...

"You know... a physicist would understand that things work differently in a vacuum than they do in an atmosphere. What do you do for a living again, AP?"

My bet is that the phony physicist is NOT gainfully employed and is most likely housebound and very bitter about her/his situation. So much so, that s/he's an easy mark for peddlers of convoluted, bizarre paranoia such as what you'd expect from Lyndon LaRouche.

Is the phony physicist a LaRouchie?

11:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The trouble with you shills is that you may start to believe your own stupid lies.

Looking at the shuttle photo you cited, which is probably not at all relevant to the LM discussion, one can see how bright everything there is including all the engine nozzles themselves. In the atmosphere-less Moon (and very dark space above it), the plume and the nozzles. etc would have been quite bright. Interesting how you don't go to the LM photos and videos themselves.

Likewise your utter crap on the Rover photos without tracks was discussed here at length, just saying the Astro-nots somehow completely erased these tracks shows you have nothing. You've brought zilch, but repeated balderdash, to a gunfight.

It is up to you to provide proof that your "Kapton or Beta Cloth" could protect against solar radiation and the temperature extremes. Just using words like that which is like the old excuse for no LM rocket exhaust--screaming hypergolic fuel-- did nothing to deter investigators--using the names of those "fabrics" means nothing.

Since you say you do this day and night (I hope the regime is paying you well with full bennies--and no I don't necessarily buy that you are a NZer or that the other shill was a S. African--he protested too much), why don't you provide the flux density. I presume you meant density, I don't know what "desinty" is. And after you provide the solar flux (which I can check), then simultaneously provide absolute proof that these "materials" protected against that. Unfortunately I don't see how I can check the lies you would then provide. Any suggestions?

Part of the discussion we had, on the rover, is from Spooked and Rob:

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007_06_01_archive.html

See June 16.
It begins:
"I love the footprint right where the front tire should have left a track.

Source: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/images15.html

AS15-88-11901 (OF300) ( 176k or 928k )

167:49:38 Rightward of 11900. Dave took this photo as part of a pan at the VIP site. It shows the Rover at it's final parking place. At the back, we can see the rake, but neither of the tongs. Keith Wilson notes that this frame shows a red bible that Dave has just placed against the handcontroller. See the detail produced by Kipp Teague; see, also,the discussion following 167:49:38.

The red bible is just the icing on the cake.

(Thanks to Rob for the tip)"


The photo:

http://bp0.blogger.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/RnLf90cBP_I/AAAAAAAAAR4/Bk8zCve5vrA/s1600-h/AS15-88-11901HR.jpg

can be blown up and it is crystal clear that there are no tracks (front and back) and no Astro-not boot imprints wiping the tracks out either.

You have nothing but lies. I guess when the gestapo regime saw that Spooked and I wouldn't waste our time upon an "invitation" to the shill sites, their shills were sent here. Be gone shill. No one but your fellow trolls here believe a word of your lies. The people here (not counting all the trolls) are not desperate, mindless ones that want to be lied to like anyone who would actually go to your "forums."

Your own site playing up the bogus cold war with the "Russkies" and playing up the bogus next cold (or hot--as the fucking PTB--your bosses want it) war with the "Chinks", the next bogeyman created by the PTB, makes your purpose crystal clear.

You want to sucker people into thinking, and supporting a "war" of some sorts with the Chinese or other Asians that will justify this bullshit--next bogus Moon landing program.

And ignoramus, I have already released herein the ultimate truth that homo sapiens is not allowed to leave near-Earth orbit--never did and never will, unless OTHERS are defeated by your masters, shill. Find my article on that, and/or look up Michael Tsarion.

This, of course, is both the bottom line, and the ultimate truth. As I released, this is the reason for nuking the near Earth space in the late 50's and early 60's, the reason it was stopped by OTHERS, and the reason the two hidden allies, (USA and USSR) tried to nuke the back side of the Moon, including Carl Sagan (shill) who was claiming (at the same time) that there was no evidence of E.T., while trying to nuke the bases on the back side that the post today by Spooked from the Disclosure Project HAD SEVERAL NASA WORKERS TESTIFY TO.

I don't know what your clearance level is/was by your intel masters, but only a few knew this until Tsarion and I (added much to this about nukes and bogus "Space race") and others released this info. But you can now learn something.

So it is a real waste of my time proving to a shill that "we" didn't go to the Moon, when I know this is forbidden. And I sure hope your evil masters never succeed.

If they ever are successful in breaking through the grid/quarantine/bio-net, rest assured, shill, you will be killed just as much as I will--and everyone else as well.

Anonymous Physicist

12:02 AM  
Anonymous Rob said...

I just LOVE how the latest SHILL assigned to this site a.k.a "phantomwolf" (STILL with the same lame tired excuses) simply & ever so casually brushes aside the fact that this picture of the Lunar Rover, taken as NASA states at its FINAL RESTING PLACE AFTER SUPPOSEDLY BEING DRIVEN ALL OVER THE MOON, has NO TRACKS LEADING TO OR FROM IT.

To all: look at it again for yourselves, in all its LAUGHABLE HIGH-RES GLORY:


http://bp0.blogger.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/RnLf90cBP_I/AAAAAAAAAR4/Bk8zCve5vrA/s1600-h/AS15-88-11901HR.jpg


See everyone!?

There are NO TRACKS LEADING TO, OR FROM THE ROVER ANYWHERE AROUND THIS ROVER AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE!

So 'phantomshill'...precisley HOW did the Rover arrive at its final resting spot WITHOUT LEAVING TRACKS again???

:-)

Funny, the cute little Moon Booties left nice, identifiable imprints...Hmmmm

12:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting that now PW says the Moon has "no ambient temperature."

So it is at absolute zero all the time? What a joke. Yeah, shill I know the difference between radiant and conducted heat.

"The lunar surface temperature varies from l00 K at night to
400 K in daytime"

From:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:UwoTcZSCaKoJ:www.ias.ac.in/jess/dec2005/ilc-22.pdf+%22lunar+surface%22+%22temperature+varies+from%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us&client=opera

Bottom line here, you are absolutely right, but not as you state, when firefighters' gear cannot handle some fires they get the hell out.

Your Astro-nots didn't have that choice!!

Now shill, do YOU know the difference between ludicrous propaganda and reality?

With a Lunar module that never worked in practice, and couldn't in reality, with "spacesuits" that show no venting of C02 or any other signs of being functional, the Astro-nots were allegedly completely successful (except for Apollo 13 where they made "a square peg fit in a round hole" and "miraculously" safely "returned" Hint: in Earth orbit the whole time, like the rest of them) in every attempted lunar landing and lunar lift-off, when 30 years later, they have a significant failure percentage with vastly simpler Earth orbiting and returning.

So they can't somewhat often successfully complete a far simpler task with far greater technology and computerization?

That's the difference between propaganda and proven reality.

Give it a rest shill. And I stand with what I said at the end of my last post. Which makes a mockery of all your idiocies on the rover, LM, spacesuit etc.

Explain the real reason your bosses in the USA nuked the near Earth space in the late 50's and early 60's, explain the real reason that it was stopped, explain the reason for the hidden allies--the USA and the USSR--tried to nuke the back side of the Moon, and the real reason they couldn't.

I will once again wait till Hell freezes over for an honest explanation, other than what I have provided. That answer, of course, provides also for the laughable Apollo Hoax.

Anonymous Physicist

1:11 AM  
Anonymous PhantomWolf said...

Anonymous wrote: Looking at the shuttle photo you cited, which is probably not at all relevant to the LM discussion, one can see how bright everything there is including all the engine nozzles themselves. In the atmosphere-less Moon (and very dark space above it), the plume and the nozzles. etc would have been quite bright. Interesting how you don't go to the LM photos and videos themselves.

The noozle on the LM is also very bright, that doesn't make a transparent plume any more visible. The reason I didn't give picutres of then LM is because I was at work and didn't have access to my DVDs to upload the images I wanted.

http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/images/Apollo_17_Launch_001.png
http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/images/Apollo_17_Launch_002.png

The above images are taken from the Apollo 17 footage and clearly show not only the the brightness inside the engine bell, even on poor TV and from a distance, but the first also shows the initial ignition plume, which due to the incorrect ratio mixing of the oxidant and fuel in the first seconds of ignition, is actually visable. What I don't see, however, is anything lifting it up at that altitude.

Anonymous wrote: Likewise your utter crap on the Rover photos without tracks was discussed here at length, just saying the Astro-nots somehow completely erased these tracks shows you have nothing. You've brought zilch, but repeated balderdash, to a gunfight.

Oooo, I a big man I can use Bart Sibrel's Astro-nots, woooo. The tracks have quite obviously been covered in the images, when you present the real picture. While I am sure you will continue to deney it regardless, I'm sure that those with more open minds will like to take a look at the real evidence.

Anonymous wrote: Part of the discussion we had, on the rover

AS15-88-11901HR.jpg


To which I respond AS15-88-11903HR.jpg (You can find it easily enough in the ALSJ images library). Why? Because AS15-88-11901 is one of a number of images taken in a pan of the area. AS15-88-11903 is further to the right and it shows exactly what is behind the rover, including the tracks that were left as the rover was parked AND the footprints of the astronaut who walked over the top of them to go and place the memorial card just beyond the rover tracks. The track behind the far wheel can be seen as a darker grey on the surface, the track from the nearer wheel has been obliterated by the passage of the astronaut. As to the foot print being right were the track from the front wheel would have been, what do you expect? That is where the Astronaut had to stand to get off the thing. Do you think they should have jumped several feet just to make sure they didn't disturb the tracks? Of course the final thing on the whole "There aren't any tracks" is that it raises the question, "who in their right mind would lift a rover onto the set when they could have just driven it there?" Especially when they had to drive it around to create the rest of the tracks that are there.

Anonymous wrote: It is up to you to provide proof that your "Kapton or Beta Cloth" could protect against solar radiation and the temperature extremes.

No, you're attempting to burden shift, it's up to you to prove that there is actually solar radiation and extreme temperatures on the moon that the Astronauts needed protection from, you haven't do that.

Anonymous wrote: Since you say you do this day and night

Where do I say that I do it day and night? You read my website introduction, you know what I do for a living. It means I have access to the Net at work, and at Home. Personally I'd rather be playing SWG or working on my MUX, but as long as there are lairs like you out there, I'll defend Apollo with the truth.

Anonymous wrote: I hope the regime is paying you well with full bennies--and no I don't necessarily buy that you are a Nzer

Attempts to poison the well noted. I hope you have fun proving that aq) I get paid to do anything, if I did my site might actually be finished, or b) that I'm not a New Zealander. (I know that would surprise my mother, and likely the NZ Interal Affairs Department which issued me both a New Zealand birth certifcate and passport.)

Anonymous wrote: why don't you provide the flux density. I presume you meant density, I don't know what "desinty" is. And after you provide the solar flux (which I can check)

Big deal I made a spelling mistake sue me. As to the rest, YOU are the one claiming that the Astronauts needed protection from solar radiation, so it is up to you to prove that they did actually need it. Why should I do your work for you? I'd lay odds on the fact that you didn't even know what Flux and density mean in association to radiation until I posted it above.

Anonymous wrote: then simultaneously provide absolute proof that these "materials" protected against that. Unfortunately I don't see how I can check the lies you would then provide. Any suggestions?

Hang on, firstly you already declare that anything I say is a lie, then you want me to tell you how to check what I say? That's the sort of stupidity that gets you issued with a rubber room. First it's up to you to prove that they needed it, which you haven't done, you sinmply claim they did, and second if you are going to claim that the suits weren't enough protection and anything I say is a lie, then you find the data and show that the suits couldn't have done what was claimed of them. Of course you won't, but then I doubt you even know who made them.

Anonymous wrote: You have nothing but lies.

You can keep saying it, but that doesn't make it true. I suppose that if all you have is denial though….

Anonymous wrote: No one but your fellow trolls here believe a word of your lies.

Oh? That's funny, last time I saw a poll on it, those that believed Apollo was hoaxed was only 4%, that's a lot of no-ones, 96% in fact…

Anonymous wrote: playing up the bogus cold war

Well that explains a lot, how old are you? 14? Perhaps you need to learn a little bit about the world pre the fall of the Berlin wall. Start out by reading up on the Cuban Missile Crisis and then have a Look at the Korean War. For those that lived through the time of the Cold War there was nothing bogus about it. It's only ignorant kids that can't remember the 80's cause they weren't born and have never been out of their mother's basements that would think that the Cold War wasn't real.

Anonymous wrote: Your own site playing up the bogus cold war with the "Russkies" and playing up the bogus next cold (or hot--as the fucking PTB--your bosses want it) war with the "Chinks", the next bogeyman created by the PTB, makes your purpose crystal clear.

Nice to see that you are obviously racist as well. There is nothing on my site that that has anything to do with future cold wars. The only part on the Cold War was the setting of the early space race, something you obviously have no idea about. Perhaps you need to go and ask your Grandparents how people feel after the lunch of Spunik, and whether they had to do Nuclear Bomb drills at school. As to me bosses, the only boss I have wants nothing more than me to be administrating the database I run effectively and properly. The rest is your paranoia, as is the rest of your posting. I suggest professional help for that. By the way, what will you be claiming when the Russian start doing their Lunar Tours in a few years. How will they manage to fool people into paying $100,000,000 for a trip around the moon if they don't actually do it? What about the Chinese, will you claim they are going to fake it too when they land? How about the Indians? They are planning a mission too, are they planning to fake it as well?

2:29 AM  
Anonymous PhantomWolf said...

Rob wrote: I just LOVE how the latest SHILL assigned to this site a.k.a "phantomwolf" (STILL with the same lame tired excuses) simply & ever so casually brushes aside the fact that this picture of the Lunar Rover, taken as NASA states at its FINAL RESTING PLACE AFTER SUPPOSEDLY BEING DRIVEN ALL OVER THE MOON, has NO TRACKS LEADING TO OR FROM IT.

Dealt with above, see the image AS15-88-11903 which shows the entire area behind the rover, including the tracks, rather then cutting that part from the frame of the image. If you only show half the picture, I guess you can claim anything right?

Just in case you can't find it.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-88-11903HR.jpg

Dang, tracks all over the place, don't you hate it when you get things wrong. Try a bit of research next time rather then relying on others to tell you what to think.

2:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shill, just one bogus photo (and there are hundreds of bogus photos and videos)--where your boys fucked up, big time, IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT--as I said about bursting great lies and balloons.

You have nothing!!

So they doctored most photos. IF JUST ONE IS QUITE IMPOSSIBLE--you are toast. And you are!

You should have the guts/lunacy of your buddies at Clavius and just say "The Astro-nots picked up the rover and carried it about", instead of the opposite. What a joke you all are.

As Rob indicated, you are a seemingly smooth talking liar, and as I said, with well rehearsed massive amounts of utter balderdash.

As always, analysis of ALL the photos and videos from NASA itself proves the laughable Apollo Hoax.

And, of course, you skirted the issue of how these Astro-nots can't frequently successfully do a safe Earth orbit and return; but absurdly could do the vastly more complicated lunar landing and return 30 years ago with ancient technology and computerization, with alleged 100% success (on attempted lunar landings and returns). You damn well better not try to explain that!

Idiot, when I used terms like "Russkies" and "Chinks" I put those terms in quotes, as I was being sarcastic, and used the scaremonger terms that you, and your kind, used before, and are about to use again.

Sarcasm, like truth, is lost on you.

And your comments above show you know nothing of ultimate truths, and just spout the surface lies of official "history", cold war crap and such. Read up ignoramus, you might learn what it is ALL about... Should you ever find an honest bone in your body, you will then thank me and Spooked.

Be gone shill. No one here--other than fellow paid shills--wants you here.

Anonymous Physicist

3:30 AM  
Anonymous PhantomWolf said...

Anonymous wrote: Interesting that now PW says the Moon has "no ambient temperature."

So it is at absolute zero all the time? What a joke. Yeah, shill I know the difference between radiant and conducted heat.


But you obviously have zero idea what Ambient Temperature means. Again your lack of physics knowledge is showing. Let me make it nice and easy for you…

Ambient Temperature = Air Temperature.

Get it? No air, no air temperature. There is no ambient temperature on moon because the moon is in a vacuum and a vacuum has no temperature.

Do you understand yet? Do you need me to explain in smaller words?

Suggesting that no ambient temperature mean Absolute Zero really shows your ignorance. Absolute zero is still a temperature -273.15°C or 0K if you prefer. Since a vacuum doesn't have a temperature, it isn't Absolute Zero. Wanting the temperature of a vacuum is as meaningless as wanting the colour of one.

Anonymous googled: "The lunar surface temperature varies from l00 K at night to 400 K in daytime"

I really wonder why you bothered quoting this because you obviously didn't read it. I suggest you do and look really carefully at the part that says "lunar surface." What's the Lunar surface? Take a look at a second part "varies". What does "varies" mean? It means that depending on the circumstance, the temperature of the lunar surface can be anywhere between -150°C at night, and 120°C during the day. It doesn't mean that the temperature of the lunar surface goes instantaneously from -150°C to 120°C as soon as the sun hits it. It takes time to heat up and cool down. If you time it right then you can find times that the moon is between 0°C and 100°C, while it it warming up, or cooling down. Since it cools when it's dark, that'd be a bad time to land, whereas Morning, when it's warming up is good. All of the Apollo missions landed during the Lunar morning, while the lunar surface was warming up. By the time they had left it was close to 100°C, but they never had to deal with extreme temperatures beyond that. Compare that with people on Earth that deal with objects and enviroments that are over 100°C on a daily basis.

Anonymous wrote: Bottom line here, you are absolutely right, but not as you state, when firefighters' gear cannot handle some fires they get the hell out.

Your Astro-nots didn't have that choice!!


The Astronaut's suits could handle temperatures up to 180°C, 30°C hotter then the moon can actually get. Why would they have to leave when their gear was made to handle the heat given off by the lunar surface? That was one of the requirements the suits makers had to meet. You did know that it was a private company that made the space suits and not NASA didn't you? NASA just told them what they wanted, someone else made them, just like the LM and the rover and the Saturn V….

Fire fighters get out when Temperatures (ambient ones, not surface ones) get over 500°C, which is over 300°C more than the Apollo suits were designed to take. If we can make suits for firemen (and could back in 1969) that will protect them, and gloves and boots for steel workers that will protect them, why not the Astronauts from contact with surfaces so much cooler?

Anonymous wrote: With a Lunar module that never worked in practice

The LM compoents were extensively tested by Grumman before they handed it over to NASA. It was tested unmanned on Apollo 5, and tested manned on Apollo 9, 10 and 11. What do you mean, "never worked in practice"?

Anonymous wrote: with "spacesuits" that show no venting of C02

My God, it's full of ignorance!

Don't you read anything I say? The PLSS had a Lithium Hydroxide filter in it. That absorbs the Carbon Dioxide out of the air, it wasn't released outside of the spacesuit. The PLSS is exactly the same (except for the order that the air passes through the sublimator and filter) as the Shuttle and ISS ones. Do you claim they are hoaxes as well? Why are they still using the exact same type of gear as Apollo if it didn't work?

Anonymous wrote: Hint: in Earth orbit the whole time, like the rest of them

And the ignorance just keeps getting bigger and bigger. You do realise that not only was the CSM/LM stack a naked eye object clearly visible (the same as we can see the Space Shuttle or ISS) but every day people tracked it with ham radios and telescopes. It was possible to see the cloud of debris from the Apollo 13 accident through a telescope.

www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm
www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

Add to that, that it is impossible to track a fast moving CSM in Earth orbit using the large tracking dishes at Canberra and Madrid that are pointed at the moon, or are you about to claim that the Australians and Spainish were all in on it too?

By the way, I have personally spoken with people at Parkes, have you? Do you even know where and what Parkes is?

Anonymous wrote: they have a significant failure percentage with vastly simpler Earth orbiting and returning.

Rubbish. The Space Shuttle has flown 118 missions with 2 failures, that’s a 1.7% failure rate, that is not significant. Apollo had 2 failures (1 & 13) out of 12, a failure rate of 16.6%. That is signifficant and one of the main reasons the programme was canned early.

Anonymous wrote: So they can't somewhat often successfully complete a far simpler task with far greater technology and computerization?

Lanching a Space Shuttle is not a far similar task, and it's one they have done successfully 117 times. Apollo did it 11 times, 10 if you only count manned Saturn Vs (Apollo 7, the ASJP, and Skylab manned missions were all Saturn 1Bs.) Try using a few facts. Since we're on the Space Shuttle, care to explain why their suits are built using the exact same technology as the Apollo ones, and their PLSS are all but identical to the Apollo ones but don't exhibit any of the things you claim the Apollo ones should? I thought not.

Anonymous wrote: That's the difference between propaganda and proven reality.

Well you know all about propoganda since you're the one throwing it about. I'll stick over here with reality. It beats paronia any day. Again I'll ask, if Apollo was hoaxed, why do the Shuttle Astronauts use so many of the same things that were developed and employed during the Apollo programme. If they didn't work for Apollo, why would they be working for the Shuttle crews?

Anonymous wrote: Give it a rest shill. And I stand with what I said at the end of my last post. Which makes a mockery of all your idiocies on the rover, LM, spacesuit etc.

You know you need to be careful, waving your hands that hard make actaully make you lift of that ground. By the way, why do the Space Shuttle crews use Space Suits and a PLSS based on those designed for Apollo again?

Anonymous wrote: Explain the real reason your bosses in the USA nuked the near Earth space in the late 50's and early 60's

You know, when you think that everyone that opposes your stupidity and ignorance is working for the some shadowy people in the USA, you either need to get off the drugs, or on the right ones. If you want to know why the US and USSR did near space tests, look up Starfish Prime. If you want to know why they stopped, look up the Nuclear Weapons Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963, which bans the testing of Nuclear Weapons in space.

As for either of them attempting to nuke the moon, please… stop before you do yourself a brain injury with this stuff.

Anonymous wrote: I will once again wait till Hell freezes over for an honest explanation

While is probably how long it will take you to admit that you are totally ignorant of reality, both history and physics, even though your obvious acceptance of the Shuttle Programme and its equipment is incompatable with your claims that Apollo couldn't have have used much of the same exact same equipment.

Anonymous wrote: That answer, of course, provides also for the laughable Apollo Hoax.

The only thing that is laughable is the drivel you keep coming up with, though the fact you obviously want to believe it just makes it really sad.

4:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

WOW!

Let's summarize, Phantomshill gets caught with his pants down, or more aptly with a clear cut violation of the laws of Physics and of logic, with NASA's bogus last Rover "photo." Phantomshill then begs for a pass on violating the laws of physics and of logic. Pleading, "but I have other, better [doctored] photos, pleeeeease..."

A.P. says, while there are hundreds of proofs from NASA's own "photos" and "videos", there is no "pass". One violation of Physics, and logic, suffices for our purposes here to burst the great lie. Because you can't violate the laws of physics.

You all (shills: Early, swart, phantom, Brian) got owned by Rob, A.P., and BY THE TRUTH.

Now we can see why NASA cancelled making their documentary "proving Apollo" and why when James Oberg (ancient "Space Race" shill/fake cold warrior), took on the task, then he chickened out also.

Guess what? Hollywood's Ron Howard now gets the job. He's making a "movie" "proving Apollo." And the proof? It will be interviews of the surviving Astro-nots/Actor-nauts--who have to do this crap ever since their buddies were burned alive in the Apollo 1 fire!

After all it makes sense, doesn't it? It was all Hollywood fakery to begin with, why not end it with Hollywood fakery?

And, of course, NASA announced in Jan '07, that they lost the original Apollo 11 tapes--the alleged crowning glory of Mankind (gasp, cough). First they announced it was definitely lost, then after the outcries of Aha!--they then said "well maybe we will still find it somewhere, sometime, somehow".

My prediction: before the next Moon Hoax gets going, they will "find" [re-create] them!

As if.

4:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this is the absolute stupidest photo of all time!:

http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/images/Apollo_17_Launch_001.png

phantomwolf, ha ha!
"ignition plume" as if!
where is the fuel tank on this phony monstrosity?
do you think that anyone believes that 1/6 earth gravity is negligable?
go get sword of "truth", at least he pretends that he is fooling anyone but himself.

4:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Imbecile, if you really knew low temp physics you would know that Absolute zero is unattainable, and there is always some temp. The Actor-nauts would have been exposed to the temp extremes I cited above--if they were there.

You have nothing, but as the last person above noted, a penchant for begging for a pass on the violation of the laws of Physics and logic.

Take a "rover", or a flying leap (without any tracks) and get the fuck out of here, and back to your land of the shills.

A.P.

4:32 AM  
Anonymous PhantomWolf said...

Shill

You realise that Debunkers consider being calling a Shill a badge of honer? It means we're getting under the Wackos skin. Glad to see you are already so upset when you are faced with reality. It makes people laugh harder at you.

just one bogus photo (and there are hundreds of bogus photos and videos)--where your boys fucked up, big time, IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT--as I said about bursting great lies and balloons.

Bzzzzt wrong. It doesn't matter if a photo is shown to be fake. Any authentic photo from the moon would prove that men went there. I hope you have fun saying why all 10,000 odd photos are faked, I am assuming that is what you are going to try now, cause all you have been doing so far is waving your hands in the air and screaming "fake." By the way, super-impose AS15-88-11901, 2 and 3, you'll see they are all of the exact same scene. Don't you hate it when the tracks get shown and all you have left is hand waving. I guess by your standards if I accidently cut off someone's head in a photo, they didn't really have a head right, cause all you have is a photo where the tracks have been cut out because the frame isn't big enough. Better luck next time.

So they doctored most photos. IF JUST ONE IS QUITE IMPOSSIBLE--you are toast. And you are!

No, if one is shown to be doctored it merely means that one is doctored. If one is real, they went, opps, who's the one in trouble now?

You should have the guts/lunacy of your buddies at Clavius and just say "The Astro-nots picked up the rover and carried it about", instead of the opposite. What a joke you all are.

The only part of this that you managed to get right is that I know the guy behind Clavius, pehaps I should send him this this URL so he can laugh at your nonsense too.

As Rob indicated, you are a seemingly smooth talking liar, and as I said, with well rehearsed massive amounts of utter balderdash.

Oh dear, can't you do anything but wave your hands and poison the well? Heck, why have I spend over 4 hours trying to educate you when I could have been blowing up TIE fighters….

As always, analysis of ALL the photos and videos from NASA itself proves the laughable Apollo Hoax.

The idea that you have actually seen all of the photos and Apollo footage is what is laughable. The idea that you know anything about photo or video analysis is a riot. Don't your arms get tired of all that waving?

And, of course, you skirted the issue of how these Astro-nots can't frequently successfully do a safe Earth orbit and return; but absurdly could do the vastly more complicated lunar landing and return 30 years ago with ancient technology and computerization, with alleged 100% success (on attempted lunar landings and returns). You damn well better not try to explain that!

Not skirted at all. I know you deludely think I do this as a living, but I don't, this is my free time, I'd rather be doing other things than taking time to try and correct and educate you, or failing that, since it's like trying to educate a rock, anyone that might be taken in by your luancy, not that there would be many after reading this exchange judging by your responses. I answered your shuttle rubbish above.

Idiot, when I used terms like "Russkies" and "Chinks" I put those terms in quotes, as I was being sarcastic, and used the scaremonger terms that you, and your kind, used before, and are about to use again.

Sarcasm, like truth, is lost on you.


Oh so you sarcastically used racist terms. I'm sure the Chinese and Russians would feel much better about that now.

And your comments above show you know nothing of ultimate truths, and just spout the surface lies of official "history", cold war crap and such. Read up ignoramus, you might learn what it is ALL about... Should you ever find an honest bone in your body, you will then thank me and Spooked.

Seriously man, give up the dope, it's called that for a reason…

Be gone shill. No one here--other than fellow paid shills--wants you here.

It is hard for you to lie and live in your delusions when reality gets pushed into your face isn't it. Tell you what. You give up the lying about Apollo, I'll give up the beating you over the head with reality.

4:37 AM  
Anonymous PhantomWolf said...

Anonymous wrote: this is the absolute stupidest photo of all time!:

And the ignorance just continues. It's not a photo, it's a screen grab of TV footage.

Anonymous wrote: "ignition plume" as if!

Go watch the footage, you'll see it for yourself.

Anonymous wrote: where is the fuel tank on this phony monstrosity?

Once more you prove your total ignorance. If you bothered to do even the smallest bit of research you wouldn't have to ask. Don't you feel stupid when you have to ask these basic questions? Doesn't the fact you don't know them make you actually stop and think that perhaps your ignorance is getting in the way of you using your brain? Gods man, go and do a little bit of research on the matter before opening your mouth to change feet.

Anonymous wrote: do you think that anyone believes that 1/6 earth gravity is negligable?

Yeah, but only those that are good at maths.

4:45 AM  
Anonymous PhantomWolf said...

Anonymous wrote: if you really knew low temp physics you would know that Absolute zero is unattainable, and there is always some temp.

You start a sentence with an insult then follow up with this? Please explain how you can have a temperature without matter? Do you know what Temperature actually is? Go and read a physics book.

Anonymous wrote: The Actor-nauts would have been exposed to the temp extremes I cited above--if they were there.

You haven't yet shown that the temperatures you cited were the temperatures of the lunar surface where the Astronauts were. I can find citations that state that the air temperature at the surface of the Earth varies between -89�C and 56�C. Does that mean that the temperature is either -89�C or 56�C and nothing in the middle? Do you really think that if you take a rock out of a shadow on the moon and put it in the sunlight it will instantly heat up to 120�C? Trust me man, dope does not help your brain.

Anonymous wrote: You have nothing, but as the last person above noted, a penchant for begging for a pass on the violation of the laws of Physics and logic.

Says the person that doesn't understand that a vacuum had no temperature and that seems to think that rocks go from -150�C to 120�C instantaneously. How about you actually start showing some physics and logic? Starting with showing how long the moon's surface takes to go from -150�C to 120�C would be good, and then going on to what type, flux and density the solar radiation is on the surface of the moon.

Anonymous wrote: Take a "rover", or a flying leap (without any tracks) and get the fuck out of here, and back to your land of the shills.

Reality really is a bitch when it shatters your delusions isn't it.

5:06 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, the laughable "ignition plume" is a recent add-on--if you know what I mean. It's not on older versions of this laughable "lift-off."

Good catch, h.

As if, indeed.
A.P.

5:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh TV footage! why didn't you say that to begin with?
as if.
so. where is the fuel tank again?
hmmm.

5:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh wait, a SCREEN GRAB of TV footage...
wow my mistake!
so there was a TV camera crew on the moon? let me guess...CNN?
that certainly clarifies things, doesn't it?
unfucking real.
h is for ha.

5:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The shill admits he knows all the other shills!!!

Calling all agents!

This agent's site says he is connected to the badastronomy shill that has convinced many a scientist that Apollo was a Hoax, and now admits he is with the Clavius (the Astro-nots picked up the rover is why there are no tracks!?) "forum."

He claims the nuking of the back side of the Moon is lunacy when I have posted the mainstream newspaper articles that the govts have admitted this. No, I won't re-post the links, I get a kick out of your ignorance for Physics, history, truth, everything, shill.

You "have better things to do," no your legend, like you, is toast. It is clear what you are. Does your mother know what you are? I doubt you are a NZer, they'd run you out of the country, unless things have changed that much.

Maybe it has, hell they have Echelon dishes there alas, so I can see how they might end up with this creature.

Now this shill actually admits NASA has doctored the photos!!!!

But says that is only proof that they doctored the photos!? They still went to the Moon--even if all the photos and videos are clearly fake, they still landed on the Moon!?

Now this has clear cut relevancy for the 911 TV fakery crowd--As I said months ago here. This creep is saying even if all the photos and videos are clearly doctored, all it means is that all the photos and videos are doctored-- he will still proclaim they landed on the Moon!? Sounds like some people RE 911 TV fakery. It indicates he knows people don't care. This is why I stressed to (also) put out the truth and the horror that the WTC was nuked.

He knows most people are sheep and, as Hitler said, will want to believe the big lie instead of confronting that their regime is a bunch of mass murderers.

And moron, YOU do not know any low temp Physics as I pointed out!!

As I said, absolute zero temperature is unattainable,
and the faker comes back with

"that a vacuum had no temperature."

Faker: that is the whole point of real physics and not reading the script they gave you. Just as absolute zero is unattainable, a total vacuum is also unattainable.

But you need a lecture on the third law of thermodynaics. Go to wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_law_of_thermodynamics

and read: "The third law of thermodynamics is an axiom of nature regarding entropy and the impossibility of reaching absolute zero of temperature. The most common enunciation of third law of thermodynamics is:“ As a system approaches absolute zero of temperature, all processes cease and the entropy of the system approaches a minimum value. ”

The essence of the postulate is that the entropy of the given system near absolute zero depends only on the temperature (i.e. tends to a constant independently of the other parameters)."

Retard, since there is no absolute vacuum on the Moon, or anywhere else, there is always some temperature. This is the difference between real Physics and reading the script they gave you.

But that solar flux you haven't provided--ah well, like you, it would have made those cheap "spacesuits" toast.

Indeed NASA has continued to change what they claim they were made of!, if you read the right books that cite the history of this. This shill just comes on and screams the latest names of the latest claimed fabrics, and wants a round of applause. Wowee! Abracadabra, he said and I quote: They were made of "Kapton or Beta Cloth."

Hey h, did you catch that "or" above.

As if!!

When it will be revealed that those fabrics couldn't have kept the Astro-nots alive, they'll proclaim it was really made of something else.

As if.

Anonymous Physicist

6:01 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

no, i wouldn't have caught that "or"...or most anything else that phantomwolf guy has said - but i hope for his sake that he is paid by the word!
a TV studio on the moon!
sword of unfuckingreal...

6:14 AM  
Anonymous PhantomWolf said...

AP wrote: Yes, the laughable "ignition plume" is a recent add-on--if you know what I mean. It's not on older versions of this laughable "lift-off."

Care to prove that claim? I thought not. It shouldn't be that hard to do it though. Come on, all you have to do is find the old footage that doesn't have it. Since you claim that it's not in the old footage you must have the old footage to compare it with, right? I mean you're not just making up these claims as you go along are you?

By the way, just for larks, did you know that the first person in the Hoax debate to notice the ignition plume was a Hoax Believer (either Sam Colby or Cosmic Dave, can't recall which offhand). His argument was that since the plume was supposed to have been transparent but you could see it on the start up, that means that it was hoaxed. Not sure how he worked that one out, but oh well. Really you guys need to actually get togther some time and work out a consistant story.

Anonymous wrote: oh TV footage! why didn't you say that to begin with?
as if.


So I'm to take it that you use your entire knowledge of the Apollo programme to determine it didn't occur, but you didn't know that they had a TV camera with them? The Oscar for Most Outstanding Ignorance goes to you.

h wrote: so there was a TV camera crew on the moon? let me guess...CNN?

On second thought, you might have to share that Oscar with h. I'm not sure which should embarrass you guys more, that fact you are so ignorant about what you try and claim didn't occur, or the fact you seem to revel in your ignorance as if it's something that should be embraced. You know at least you should spend 10 mins trying to learn a little bit about what you are dismissing before you do it, it'd save you looking like complete idiots later when you say things like, "There was a TV camera crew on the moon?" or "Where were the fuel tanks?" Small hint, Wikipedia has a picture that might help you with that one. If you can't at least find that, then you really are without hope.

Pop Quiz: What is the out-of-focus object in the foreground of this photo?

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-111-18036.jpg

AP wrote: The shill admits he knows all the other shills!!!

Oh wow, I know lots of other people who enjoy discussing Apollo and find lairs like you offensive, what a major point for you, apart from the fact I pointed out in my second post that I would happily take this to several boards, two of which JayUtah (Clavius' creator) posts on. BTW, can you add a few more "shills" into your next post, I need another 34 of them to get past SVector's record.

AP wrote: He claims the nuking of the back side of the Moon is lunacy when I have posted the mainstream newspaper articles that the govts have admitted this. No, I won't re-post the links, I get a kick out of your ignorance for Physics, history, truth, everything, shill.

Make that 33. (thought it might only be 31, I'll have to get back to you on if "agent" still counts as two "Shills" or if it is considered too easy to get these days and has been removed.) Back on track. Since you won't post the articles, I will.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/051400-02.htm

The plan to "nuke the moon" was called Project A119, it was developed by the USAF as a way of winning the space race. It wasn't an attempt to Nuke the back of the moon, it was to be aimed at the front of the moon where it was dark (though some suggested the edge so the "mushroom cloud would be lit by the sun." Personally I have to wonder how many of the brainiacs that thought it up were Generals and what scientists they asked. Though it never went ahead for several reasons (the thought that it would lead to public outcry, would "deface" the moon, and the mere logistics of getting the permission to do it) it would have been unlike to work like they wanted anyway (you need air to form a mushroom cloud.) In all the plan as revealed is very poor science and anyone that takes it as more than one of a dozen more weird ideas from the 1950's is a loon.

AP wrote: Now this shill actually admits NASA has doctored the photos!!!!

Woohoo, 32 to go. Now I'd just like you to quote exactly where I claimed that NASA has doctored the photos. I guess I shouldn't be surprised after your inability to read my previous posts correctly, or the information on Project A119, but really, I mean come on, anyone can actually scroll up and read what I wrote for themselves, you really are getting desperate trying to claim I said things I didn't.

Here's the quotes:

It doesn't matter if a photo is shown to be fake. Any authentic photo from the moon would prove that men went there.

No, if one is shown to be doctored it merely means that one is doctored.


Only someone with a reading comprehension of a three-year old would be able to get "NASA Doctored the photos" out of that.

AP wrote: But says that is only proof that they doctored the photos!? They still went to the Moon--even if all the photos and videos are clearly fake, they still landed on the Moon!?

More reading comprehension problems I see. Can't you even manage to get what I actually said correct? Are you in some kind of competition to see how many things you can get wrong? If so, I think you are winning.

AP wrote: as Hitler said

I call Godwin's Law.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

AP wrote: YOU do not know any low temp Physics as I pointed out!!

As I said, absolute zero temperature is unattainable,
and the faker comes back with

"that a vacuum had no temperature."


Actually let me correct that, again. I stated that a vacuum has no Temperature, YOU came back with the rubbish about me meaning that a vacuum is absolute zero. After that I have repeatedly stated that No temperature does not mean Absolute Zero and a vacuum has no temperature. You just haven't figured out what that means yet even though it is three really simple words, well okay two really simple and one you don't know the meaning of.

AP wrote: Faker: that is the whole point of real physics and not reading the script they gave you. Just as absolute zero is unattainable, a total vacuum is also unattainable.

This has nothing to do with Absolute Zero, YOU keep bringing that up because you don't understand what Temperature is. If you did you'd know that "No Temperature" is not the same as "Absolute Zero" in fact other than pointing out that Absolute Zero is a temperature and is set at –273.15°C, I haven't said anything about it, you keep on about it.

AP wrote: But you need a lecture on the third law of thermodynaics. Go to wiki

No, you need the lecture.

AP wrote: since there is no absolute vacuum on the Moon, or anywhere else, there is always some temperature. This is the difference between real Physics and reading the script they gave you.

Baloney, the difference is between reality and the fantasy world you live in.

Temperature is a measure of the average molecular kinetic energy in a sample. A vacuum (even an imperfect one) does not contain enough closely packed molecules to be considered a sample and as such no average molecular kinetic energy can be read. Since there is nothing to take the average from, there is no temperature. Again, claiming that a vacuum has a temperature makes as much sense as claiming that a vacuum has a colour. If you don't understand this then it's clear you have never cracked open a physics book in your life. Try reading one rather than using Google and Wikipedia, you might discover a few things.

AP wrote: But that solar flux you haven't provided

You mean the one I asked YOU for in my third post here? The one that I have repeatedly stated that I'm not going to give you because a) you wouldn't accept it, and b) since I asked YOU to provide it to back up YOUR claim that the solar radiation would have been harmful, I'm not going to do YOUR work for YOU.

AP wrote: Indeed NASA has continued to change what they claim they were made of!, if you read the right books that cite the history of this.

Excellent, then you should have no problems citing Book, Author, and page number for us on this.

AP wrote: This shill just comes on and screams the latest names of the latest claimed fabrics, and wants a round of applause. Wowee! Abracadabra, he said and I quote: They were made of "Kapton or Beta Cloth."

Hey h, did you catch that "or" above.


Oh excellent, another "reading error" or should I just call a spade a spade and you a lair.

Anyone can easily scroll up and see what I actually said, but for those too lazy to do so…

The suits were not tinfoil, they were made up of several garments. The first was the LCG, or Liquid cooling Garment, then the pressure suit which was made up of around 20 layers of nylon and kapton film with the outer layer being teflon and glass fibre beta cloth.

So where does AP get the "or" he claims from? Have a look at my next post where I ask him the question…

Do you know what Kapton or Beta Cloth are?

That’s right, he takes the three words out of the middle of me questioning him on if he knows what the materials are (something he's never answered by the way) and distorts it into my saying that the suits were made of "Kapton or Beta Cloth." Well done AP you have shown yourself up for the lair and the fraud you really are.

8:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow he really must be paid by the word!
so where is the fuel tank on that lander again?

10:21 PM  
Anonymous PhantomWolf said...

Anonymous wrote: so where is the fuel tank on that lander again?

Why do you keep asking the same question when 30 seconds of research and a trip to Wikipedia will give you the answer? They have an article with a cut away diagram of the LM complete with colours and labels so you can tell which are the oxidiser tanks and which are the fuel tanks. They show all six tanks, so you have no excuse to not know, now why don't you run along and do something intelligent for a change, like actually learning something.

By the way, since you guys all love wikipedia so much, while you are there, why not look up Beta Cloth, Kapton and Solar Radiation as well. There are topics on all three if you just bothered looking.

11:11 PM  
Anonymous Rob said...

PhantomWolf said...

Dealt with above, see the image AS15-88-11903 which shows the entire area behind the rover, including the tracks, rather then cutting that part from the frame of the image. If you only show half the picture, I guess you can claim anything right?

Just in case you can't find it.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-88-11903HR.jpg

Dang, tracks all over the place,...




Actually, not "dealt with" at all.

More like "Sidestepped".

You are partially correct; there are indeed tracks "all over the place".

Just not where they logically should be: either in FRONT OF, or immediately BEHIND the wheels.

I never asked you to provide other photos with tracks.

I have them as well.

That wasn't the issue at hand.

The issue is why the tracks don't go right up to the wheel of the LM.

Again I challenge to directly answer why the traks don't meet the wheel here:

http://bp0.blogger.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/RnLf90cBP_I/AAAAAAAAAR4/Bk8zCve5vrA/s1600-h/AS15-88-11901HR.jpg

-OR- here, at the photo you provided...which STILL fails to show the tracks meeting the wheel:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-88-11903HR.jpg



Remember...tracks usually FOLLOW a vehicle! Right up to the wheel even! hehe

...'cept on the Moon I guess?!?

;-)

12:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow that's quite a diagram of the lunar lander!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LEM-linedrawing.png

33,000lbs and it descended like a feather! totally believable!
i like the "environmental control system".
what is the temperature on the moon again? hmmm.
again; totally believable!

1:30 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

well i guess the lander would only weigh about 5500lbs on the moon - whatever was i thinking?
a veritable feather!

1:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Phantomjerk, you give yourself away with every stupid post.

Just as I pointed out your great difficulty in correctly spelling "government"--while, in general, your spelling is good. Now from your last several posts, I see that just about every time you try to write "liar", you end up with "lair". Handwriting experts and psychologists have detailed what this means. Obviously when you put them together, you get what you are: "government liar." Your subconscious is obviously crying out for you to stop your evil ways.

Your knowledge of real history (not shill history written and read by jerks like you), and politics is so ignorant and superficial, and you obviously can't read anything important or different, else you would have found what I wrote RE deeper truths, which is cited now twice at this blog.

I care little to educate such a foul shill, who is obviously paid to be a government liar--despite your not so clever legend. As I wrote at the outset, since Spooked and I would not take the ludicrous suggestion to go to shill "forums", the gestapo agencies sent their latest boy here. The gestapo agencies just can't stand to see a single word of truth anywhere on the planet and especially in the country that is presently picked to be the gestapo to the world and to do other things I have cited elsewhere. So they appoint and anoint the scum of the earth, well paid--in one form or another), of course, to interfere. A real waste of time dealing with a shill who I also wrote comes with massive boilerplate crap, well-rehearsed balderdash. But you got owned by Rob, and you think you can then get a pass on violating the laws of Physics and logic?

Now you've had a day to learn some Physics and get some help from your masters, who cares.

I saw no intelligent reply to the issues of claiming to successfully do a vastly more complicated feat 30-40 years earlier with primitive technology and computerization, and failing to do simpler tasks with greater computerization and tech., 30-40 years later. Shill, every thinking person on Earth knows this alone shows the whole matter is fake. Likewise with not "returning" to the Moon.

I saw no intelligent answer to NASA's "loss" of "original" Apollo 11 tapes, no intelligent reply to why this phony agency backed out of making their "Apollo proof documentary". Then Oberg also chickened out, then they gave it to a Hollywood faker, to complete the fakery.

Jerk, I don't have the time or inclination to re-do the books and videos I have seen that prove the case 1000 times over. And I certainly won't do it for a government liar (covert or otherwise)--which you so obviously are.

Spooked today put up some of NASA's own videos (which were among those I cited in my article) that show how laughably fake the Apollo "landings", etc. were.

Shill, on the issue of temperature, I already quoted a simple enough paragraph for you above, on the 3rd law of thermodynamics

"The essence of the postulate is that the entropy of the given system near absolute zero depends only on the temperature (i.e. tends to a constant independently of the other parameters)."

If you could read, and understand it is clearly talking about the temperature of a system even as it may be approaching absolute zero. And as I said, absolute zero is unattainable, likewise for a total vacuum, on the Moon or elsewhere.

As I said you were owned by Rob on the issue of the Rover, my article on the laughably bogus Apollo program posted here, and already read by the readers here, contains the references, book, and videos for everyone to see. NASA's laughably faked photos and videos are all the proof anyone needs.

The only people agents/filth like you might convince, I have said, are those so desperate to not realize the nature of their regime.

And Spooked has re-posted my article on why Astro-nots, or any other members of this species, are not allowed beyond low Earth orbit. Obviously this supersedes other matters, so stop wasting my time, and learn something your masters themselves didn't know, or tell you.

Phantomboilerplate, keep at it. Maybe they will give you a bonus, for repeating the same stupid lies.

Anonymous Physicist

2:13 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anyway, back to the disclosure project.
maybe area 51 is nothing more than a clubhouse where CIA/DOD types can gather in order to just hang out and play cards and dominoes etc!
"waiter, another round of margaritas if you please!"

12:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, and shills, any momentary brightness on top of the bottom half of the LM, at separation and lunar "lift-off", while likely painted on (a la the proven painted on blobs on JFK's head [right side] in the Zapruder film), can also be explained as the separation charges appear real, and their blast could have made a momentary brightness.

The point is that against the blackness of the lunar sky--of which no stars or planets ever shine!--we would have seen the plume and the bright nozzle area as well.

NASA didn't dare add even the brightest planets and stars to their TVfakery, as this would have been both very difficult to fake, and also easy to prove that the fakes were made on Earth, and not on the Moon, as they didn't have anything on the Moon taking photos of the sky. But I do love how Collins answers the reporter at the "post-landing" press conference, on whether they could see stars from the lunar surface, Armstrong cringes as Collins answers. I guess Collins, since he was in low Earth orbit along with the other two, figured he had as much right to answer as the others.

A.P.

4:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can see the tracks in 11903 right up behind the wheels.

Download a very high res copy of the image here.

ftp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/ISD_highres_AS15_AS15-88-11903.JPG

Import it into a suitable app such as paint.NET, which is a free download available here.

www.getpaint.net

Alter the contrast and levels, and you can clearly see the rover tracks, just behind the wheels.

9:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the most obvious fakes, since the Zapruder film frames.

And, on this doctored photo, they didn't bother to bring the tracks to within 5-10 feet of the "rover."

I guess, as in Clavius "forum", they want to try, "The Astro-nots carried the rover, a few feet." Thunderpuss said he is with the other fakers, and so got help with this one.

Of, course, there is no bump there necessitating this. And also if the Astro-nots can pick up and carry this vehicle--due to 1/6 g, why couldn't they jump higher than about a measly foot.

Always remember, above comment where thunderpuss phucked up, and admitted the photo is doctored, saying it's only proof that the photo is doctored--now he wants to take that back.

How?

Naturally by sending in better doctored photos, just as A.P. had predicted!!!

12:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://nasascam.bravehost.com/

This good website has much on the Apollo scam. Photo analysis and more. It even has the paths of the "Rover drives." Show the final resting place of rover was 4 or 5 kilometers from the LM. Asks, "did they walk back?"

They are deleting this person's sites, please go to and archive.

A.P.

1:54 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger