[geocentrism] Re: Did NASA do it?
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 21:44:55 -0000
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 4:18 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Did NASA do it?
Hi Robert,
Just a few comments on your comments. I warn you that it is quite long because
I have included an article about the space suit air conditioning.
Gary has already touched on a few things that still need answers and I include
a few more.
>
> Bart Sibrel, the movie's producer, says he is a former television journalist
> with NBC, when in fact he did no more than work once as a part-time editor
> at NBC's Nashville affiliate for a couple of months. (NBC has disowned him
> entirely.)
The first thing to do when faced with someone who is likely to cause some
embarrassment is to assassinate their character. Neville has some first hand
experience of this. Ask him about it.
It makes no difference to me who says these things, I'm not being asked to give
a character reference but to evaluate the facts that is presented.
> NASA's policy is not to respond directly to moon-hoax theorists, but the
> airwaves and the Internet are full of scientists and others who offer
> dismissive rebuttals of Sibrel's ideas. For example:
I find that rather interesting. Without any comment from NASA how do we know
what is being said on their behalf is true?
>
> 1. CLAIM: The videotape of the Earth in the ''window shot'' was taken from
> Earth orbit
>
> RESPONSE: Then the cloud cover would have been moving quickly, since an
> orbiting spacecraft would have been travelling at 17,500 miles an hour.
What apparent speed would they be at that height?
> 2. CLAIM: The image of the Earth was created with the help of a photographic
> transparency somehow attached to the porthole.
No it was a view through a circular window. What about the appearance of an arm?
Have you actually viewed the footage? If not I would be happy to send you a
copy of it.
> 3. CLAIM The moon landing was faked on a movie set. Proof: there are clearly
> two sources of light in the movies and stills taken on the moon. Since there
> is only one source of light in the sky (the sun) how can we explain the fact
> that even in shadows there is obvious "fill" light that illuminates various
> objects that, back lit from the sun, should be in near total darkness. Much
> of the show was spent on this point as they showed photo after photo, film
> after film, of "filled in" photos. Fill light is exactly what you would see
> on a studio set.
>
> ANSWER There were actually three sources of light on the moon the sun, the
> earth that reflects the sun's light, and the moon itself, also reflecting
> light. The albedo (reflectivity) of the earth is quite high because of the
> amount of clouds, so the sun acted as the light filler via the earth. And
> the moon was, to say the least, rather close, and also reflected light.
So why are the shadow and the shade part of large rocks not also illuminated in
the same way?
Why do the 2 astronauts standing near each other in one photo have very
different length shadows?
On a surface that is clearly level, why do so many shadows have converging
directions?
> 4. CLAIM The American flag was "waving" in the allegedly airless environment
> of the moon. How can this be? Proof: film footage showing the astronauts
> planting the flag, with the flag clearly waving.
>
> ANSWER Of course the flag was "waving" while the astronaut was fiddling with
> it back and forth as he jammed it into the ground. But the moment he let go
> of the flag, it mysteriously stopped waving. Coincidence? I don't think so.
Again I ask you have you viewed the footage for yourself?
You seem to have taken your answers direct from websites with seeing for
yourself. I was as sceptical as you until I saw for myself. I wanted to believe
that the Moon had been conquered but once I had seen the evidence myself and
the subsequent 'answers' I became a disbeliever.
>
> 5. CLAIM There was no blast crater beneath the LEM lander. Proof:
> photographs of the LEM with no blast crater and a NASA painting made before
> the first landing, showing what a NASA artist thought might happen when the
> LEM landed (big blast crater).
I accept this may be true but it doesn't explain why there was not a vestige of
dust on the lander's feet yet their was plenty around close to the LEM for
footprints.
> ANSWER (1) The LEM engine was variable--the astronauts could control the
> thrust and, of course, as they eased their way down to the surface they
> throttled back on the engine.
The thrust would still have to be powerful enough to allow the LEM to 'float'
even in the 'supposed' low gravity of the Moon.
> 7. If there was so much moon dust all over the place, being kicked up by the
> LEM engine, by the rover, by the astronauts, why is everything so clean?
>
> ANSWER It wasn't. Moon dust was a problem because, in fact, it got all over
> everything and the astronauts spent hours after their moon walks cleaning
> their suits so as not to get the dust all over the interior of the LEM.
Have you seen how the dust behaves when thrown up by the Rover's wheels? I
believe its called a 'rooster tail'. This can only happen in an atmosphere. The
dust is kicked up and rises quickly but as it is slowed down by the atmosphere
it gradually falls back. If this really happened on the Moon, the path of the
dust would be more symmetrical, not a quick rise and slower fall.
> 9. On earth, the LEM lander simulator used by the astronauts for practice
> was obviously unstable. In fact, shortly before the Apollo 11 flight Neil
> Armstrong barely escaped with his life as his simulator crashed and he
> ejected just seconds before impact. Imagine how tricky it would have been to
> land the actual LEM, with two astronauts shifting around inside and all that
> additional weight. Fox even managed to find a physicist named Ralph Rene who
> proclaimed that it would have been impossible to land the LEM because of its
> inherent instability.
> ANSWER Armstrong did indeed barely escape with his life in the simulator.
> But practice makes perfect, and these guys practised, and practised, and
> practised until they got it down.
As I understand it, this was the only time Armstrong flew a LEM simulator! If
this is indeed the case then the achievement is all the more remarkable.
>
> 10. There are no stars in the moon sky, yet when you look up at night from
> earth you see lots of stars.
> ANSWER How many stars do you see in photographs taken at night, on earth, of
> terrestrial objects? That's right. None. Well, okay, MAYBE you'll see Venus,
> but that's not a star. If you want to shoot stars in the night sky you have
> to aim your camera and leave the shutter open for at least several seconds.
> The astronauts were not there to take pictures of the sky. Also, since it is
> very bright on the moon (no air to scatter the sunlight) and the astronauts
> were wearing white space suits, the camera F-stop would have been set way
> down, and the shutter speed quite fast. Stars are too faint to appear on the
> film emulsion.
Quite right! If you went to the Moon do you think that you might just want to
take pictures of the stars? Also Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins said that they
did not 'recall' seeing any stars at any time on the mission. Yet Collins in
his book spoke of seeing the stars. Aldrin spoke of navigating by them.
>
> 11. If you run the moon film footage at double speed it looks like it was
> filmed on earth; ergo, it WAS filmed on earth.
>
> ANSWER Double speed doesn't look at all like it was filmed on earth.
You really must see this stuff Gary. What is more extraordinary is that to
demonstrate one sixth gravity, one of the astronauts did a vertical jump. In
one sixth gravity this could have been a very dangerous thing to do. He looked
as if he went up about 18 to 24 inches. I can do that here on Earth. A better
demo would have been to throw something like a rock perhaps or a golf club. No
I'm afraid that jump was pathetic to say the least.
> 12. Why are the photographs so nicely framed and in focus, etc.
>
> ANSWER Because these are the few photographs that we get to see from the
> thousands of photographs taken. There is a beautiful book released last year
> with some of the very best moon photographs. It is magnificent. One glance
> through it makes it clear that these photographs were indeed taken on the
> moon which was aptly described by Buzz Aldrin as "magnificent desolation."
I doubt very much that Armstrong and Aldrin took that many pictures between
them. So how many did they take? The fewer the number the worse their case.
Incidentally why did Armstrong take a first picture of Aldrin exiting the LEM
then take a number of pictures of the Lander's feet and then go back and take a
further photo of the exiting Aldrin still on the ladder? The sequence is
numbered.
>
> ANSWER Wrong. If you blast right through the Van Allen belts it is no
> problem, which is what the Apollo astronauts did. X-rays would be lethal
> too, if you sat there soaking in them long enough. A very real problem,
> however, are cosmic rays. They are not a problem on a short flight like to
> the moon, but in long flights that might last years, like to Mars, they
> could be a serious problem.
Van Allen didn't think so. Why does the x-ray machine operator have to operate
the machine from behind a lead shield. The exposure is only a second or two.
How many seconds are there in 1.5 hours (the time it would take to clear the
Van Allen belts)? I would suggest that if a radiographer was exposed for that
length of time she would be very sick. Bill Kaysing suggested in his video that
if the space suits were that good then they ought to be able to go in and clean
up 3 Mile Island and I would say or even Chernobyl!
>
> ANSWER The FOX show began by saying that the moon conspiracy was hatched
> late in the game when NASA realised they would never make it, yet we are to
> believe that years before they had been planning the hoax, Grissom caught on
> to it and decided to go public, and then they killed him. But that's not the
> real answer here. The real answer is that, like most conspiracy theories,
> there is no positive evidence in support, only negative evidence in the form
> of "they covered it up." Like the curse of the mummy, anyone who died within
> 20 years of the discovery of Tut's tomb, died because of the curse, not
> because people die. Let's face it, being a test pilot and an astronaut is
> not the safest job in the world. People died because it is an inherently
> dangerous job.
I think Gary's answer to this one is spot-on. Statically astronauts have a much
greater chance of dying than any other group of people.
> ANSWER G. Gordon Liddy was asked about conspiracy theories. He said three
> people can keep a secret as long as two of them are dead. To think that
> thousands of people would keep their mouths shut is too ridiculous to
> consider.
Ok What about 'D Day', what about the Manhattan project? This project had
129,500 people working on it and the secret never leaked out. The 'Star Wars'
data was rigged to scare the Russians. You will have to wait until 2017 to
officially find out about the Kennedy assassination investigation. Yet the
people that were involved are maybe still out there.
> 17. CLAIM Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In
> front
> of a world-wide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the
> ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the
> ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.
> ANSWER The functional word here is "teased". Mission control was, as said,
> merely teasing him. There is no way for anyone to be able to tell
> exactly which way the ball went. And even if you could, maybe he wasn't
> holding the club straight, so the head hit the ball on an angle.
I think that this answer is correct! It's the angle that counts.
>
> 18. CLAIM "A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Lander lifting
> off
> the Moon. Who did the filming?"
>
> ANSWER Mission Control. If you watched the miniseries "From the Earth to
> the
> Moon", you would know that there was a guy in mission control,
> controlling the pan/tilt functions on the TV camera tripod. If you want
> to bring up the 7 second radio delay due to distance, he actually sent
> the command to tilt up with the ascending lander 7 seconds before it
> happened, and it all worked out.
This answer stands up too. I thought the claim was daft.
>
> 19. CLAIM One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong
> about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have
> been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the
> Moon, then who took the shot?
>
> ANSWER A lack of knowledge is a dangerous thing. There was an arm attached
> to the lander that
> was deployed just before Neil Armstrong opened the hatch. This arm had
> a television and a still camera mounted to it.
>
Why was this camera a poor quality B/W camera when they had the technology to
use a higher definition and in colour too. They carried one with them in the
module.
> 20. CLAIM "The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a
> football.
> The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but
> were seen freely bending their joints."
>
> ANSWER Were they just sent them up there in an airtight
> jumper? NO. From the NASA Kids Web site: The space suit is made of
> hard materials with jointed sections to allow
> movement. The upper and lower torso sections are put on separately. The
> two pieces are connected at the waist to allow the flow of water and gas
> lines. Gloves and helmet create a sealed protection against meteoroids
> and radiation. On Earth, the space suit weighs about 100 pounds. In
> space, the suit weighs much less. Under normal conditions, a space suit
> should last about 8 years.
> There is a hard layer of plastic, among many other things,
> protecting the astronauts from the vacuum of space.
I suggest you read the following which will explain much about space suits and
one of NASA's lies about water on the Moon.
The following argument, which I traced as being from the website of a one
William Cooper (1943 - 2001), is nicely put :
To make interstellar travel believable NASA was created. The Apollo Space
Program foisted the idea that man could travel to, and walk upon, the moon.
Every Apollo mission was carefully rehearsed and then filmed in large sound
stages at the Atomic Energy Commissions Top Secret test site in the Nevada
Desert and in a secured and guarded sound stage at the Walt Disney Studios
within which was a huge scale mock-up of the moon.
No man has ever ascended higher than 300 miles, if that high, above the Earth's
surface. No man has ever orbited, landed on, or walked upon the moon ...
The tremendous radiation encountered in the Van Allen Belt, solar radiation,
cosmic radiation, temperature control, and many other problems connected with
space travel prevent living organisms leaving our atmosphere with our known
level of technology. Any intelligent high school student with a basic physics
book can prove NASA faked the Apollo moon landings
If you doubt this please explain how the astronauts walked upon the moons
surface enclosed in a space suit in full sunlight absorbing a minimum of 265
degrees of heat surrounded by a vacuum. NASA tells us the moon has no
atmosphere and that the astronauts were surrounded by the vacuum of space.
Heat is defined as the vibration or movement of molecules within matter. The
faster the molecular motion the higher the temperature. The slower the
molecular motion the colder the temperature. Absolute zero is that point where
all molecular motion ceases. In order to have hot or cold molecules must be
present.
A vacuum is a condition of nothingness where there are no molecules. Vacuums
exist in degrees. Some scientists tell us that there is no such thing as an
absolute vacuum. Space is the closest thing to an absolute vacuum that is known
to us. There are so few molecules present in most areas of what we know as
"space" that any concept of "hot" or "cold" is impossible to measure. A vacuum
is a perfect insulator. That is why a "Thermos" or vacuum bottle is used to
store hot or cold liquids in order to maintain the temperature for the longest
time possible without re-heating or re-cooling.
Radiation of all types will travel through a vacuum but will not affect the
vacuum. Radiant heat from the sun travels through the vacuum of space but does
not "warm" space. In fact the radiant heat of the sun has no affect whatsoever
until it strikes matter. Molecular movement will increase in direct proportion
to the radiant energy which is absorbed by matter. The time it takes to heat
matter exposed to direct sunlight in space is determined by its colour, its
elemental properties, its distance from the sun, and its rate of absorption of
radiant heat energy. Space is NOT hot. Space is NOT cold.
Objects which are heated cannot be cooled by space. In order for an object to
cool it must first be removed from direct sunlight. Objects which are in the
shadow of another object will eventually cool but not because space is "cold".
Space is not cold. Hot and cold do not exist in the vacuum of space. Objects
cool because the laws of motion dictate that the molecules of the object will
slow down due to the resistance resulting from striking other molecules until
eventually all motion will stop provided the object is sheltered from the
direct and/or indirect radiation of the sun and that there is no other source
of heat. Since the vacuum of space is the perfect insulator objects take a very
long time to cool even when removed from all sources of heat, radiated or
otherwise.
NASA insists the space suits the astronauts supposedly wore on the lunar
surface were air conditioned. An air conditioner cannot, and will not work
without a heat exchanger. A heat exchanger simply takes heat gathered in a
medium such as freon from one place and transfers it to another place. This
requires a medium of molecules which can absorb and transfer the heat such as
an atmosphere or water. An air conditioner will not and cannot work in a
vacuum. A space suit surrounded by a vacuum cannot transfer heat from the
inside of the suit to any other place. The vacuum, remember, is a perfect
insulator. A man would roast in his suit in such a circumstance.
NASA claims the spacesuits were cooled by a water system which was piped around
the body, then through a system of coils sheltered from the sun in the
backpack. NASA claims that water was sprayed on the coils causing a coating of
ice to form. The ice then supposedly absorbed the tremendous heat collected in
the water and evaporated into space. There are two problems with this that
cannot be explained away. 1) The amount of water needed to be carried by the
astronauts in order to make this work for even a very small length of time in
the direct 55 degrees over the boiling point of water (210 degrees F at sea
level on Earth) heat of the sun could not have possibly been carried by the
astronauts. 2) NASA has since claimed that they found ice in moon craters. NASA
claims that ice sheltered from the direct rays of the sun will NOT evaporate
destroying their own bogus "air conditioning" explanation.
Remember this. Think about it the next time you go off in the morning with a
"vacuum bottle" filled with hot coffee. Think about it long and hard when you
sit down and pour a piping hot cup from your thermos to drink with your lunch
four hours later... and then think about it again when you pour the last still
very warm cup of coffee at the end of the day.
The same laws of physics apply to any vehicle travelling through space. NASA
claims that the spacecraft was slowly rotated causing the shadowed side to be
cooled by the intense cold of space... an intense cold that DOES NOT EXIST. In
fact the only thing that could have been accomplished by a rotation of the
spacecraft is a more even and constant heating such as that obtained by
rotating a hot dog on a spit. In reality a dish called Astronaut a la Apollo
would have been served. At the very least you would not want to open the hatch
upon the crafts return.
NASA knows better than to claim, in addition, that a water cooling apparatus
such as that which they claim cooled the astronauts suits cooled the
spacecraft. No rocket could ever have been launched with the amount of water
needed to work such a system for even a very short period of time. Fresh water
weighs a little over 62 lbs. per cubic foot. Space and weight capacity were
critical given the lift capability of the rockets used in the Apollo Space
Program. No such extra water was carried by any mission whatsoever for suits or
for cooling the spacecraft.
On the tapes the Astronauts complained bitterly of the cold during their
journey and while on the surface of the moon. They spoke of using heaters that
did not give off enough heat to overcome the intense cold of space. It was
imperative that NASA use this ruse because to tell the truth would TELL THE
TRUTH. It is also proof of the arrogance and contempt in which the Illuminati
holds the common man.
What we heard is in reality indicative of an over zealous cooling system in the
props used during the filming of the missions at the Atomic Energy Commissions
Nevada desert test site, where it is common to see temperatures well over 100
degrees. In the glaring unfiltered direct heat of the sun the Astronauts could
never have been cold at any time whatsoever in the perfect insulating vacuum of
space.
NASA claims that the space suits worn by the astronauts were pressurised at 5
psi over the ambient pressure (0 psi vacuum) on the moon's surface. We have
examined the gloves NASA claims the astronauts wore and find they are made of
pliable material containing no mechanical, hydraulic, or electrical devices
which would aid the astronauts in the dextrous use of their fingers and hands
while wearing the gloves. Experiments prove absolutely that such gloves are
impossible to use and that the wearer cannot bend the wrist or fingers to do
any dextrous work whatsoever when filled with 5 psi over ambient pressure
either in a vacuum or in the earth's atmosphere. NASA actually showed film and
television footage of astronauts using their hands and fingers normally during
their EVAs on the so-called lunar surface. The films show clearly that there is
no pressure whatsoever within the gloves... a condition that would have caused
explosive decompression of the astronauts resulting in almost immediate death
if they had really been surrounded by the vacuum of space.
If you don't believe it try it yourself... it is a very simple experiment and
does not require a rocket scientist to perform. These are just two of over a
hundred very simple and very easy to prove valid scientific reasons why NASA
and the Apollo Space Program are two of the biggest lies ever foisted upon the
unsuspecting and trusting People of the world.
In addition most, if not all, of the photos, films, and videotape of the Apollo
Moon Missions are easily proven to be fake. Anyone with the slightest knowledge
of photography, lighting, and physics can easily prove that NASA faked the
visual records of the Apollo Space Program. Some are so obviously fake that
when the discrepancies are pointed out to unsuspecting viewers an audible gasp
has been heard. Some have actually gone into a mild state of shock. Some People
break down and cry. I have seen others become so angry that they have ripped
the offending photos to shreds while screaming incoherently.
C. Fred Kleinknect, head of NASA at the time of the Apollo Space Program, is
now the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Council of the 33rd Degree of the
Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction.
It was his reward for pulling it off. All of the first astronauts were
Freemasons. There is a photograph in the House of the Temple in Washington DC
of Neil Armstrong on the moons surface (supposedly) in his spacesuit holding
his Masonic Apron in front of his groin.
The effect upon the people of the world was, that if we could go to the moon
other creatures from other worlds could travel to our Earth.
(From http://www.mt.net/~watcher/masonapollo.html as at 15 January 2005.)
Also of interest is the fact that Bill Cooper "was killed by the Apache County
Sherrifs Department during a [SWAT] raid on his home in November of 2001. He is
now buried on a hill in Eagar, Arizona." The post mortem report showed that Mr.
Cooper was murdered by way of four bullets to the torso and one to the head.
This was during "a search of his home," after which they took away his computer
"for examination."
>
> 21. CLAIM The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't
> America
> make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would
> have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium
> flares."
This is also a daft suggestion
> 23. CLAIM The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark
> line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to
> the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow?
> And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon? &
> How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And
> where, in all of these shots, are the stars?
>
> ANSWER Speaking of conspiracies, consider that somebody (not NASA) has
> doctored this photo badly to make a stronger case
> against NASA.
This can be so easily refuted by NASA. With so much other evidence against them
why would anyone want to fake that particular photo. So it helps I'll
completely ignore it as possible evidence against.
> 25. CLAIM If the Moon landings were successful, why haven't we returned in
> 30 years?
>
> ANSWER A real head in the sand. Who would fund billion dollar programs that
> repeat old missions? Not the US public/Congress.
Hang on a minute. Where exactly did the money go? It wasn't lost out in space.
All the money is still in America, the only things that have been lost is the
food eaten by the payroll, the energy used and the hardware that is still in
space or burnt up in the atmosphere. So to revisit the Moon all that needs to
happen is for the money to be redistributed to all the same people again in
return for supplying hardware and fuel etc.
>
> 26. CLAIM NASA silence implies a hoax:
> If there were a cover-up of the fake Moon landings, NASA would be silent.
> But NASA is silent
> So there is a NASA cover-up
>
> ANSWER The most popular of the logical fallacies among the paranoid: the
> effect produces the cause !
No its the lack of cause that has produced the effect.
> Perhaps the only convincing hoax evidence........
>
> CLAIM A speech reversal can be found on Neil Armstrong's legendary 'One
> small step for man, one giant leap for mankind' statement. When the tape is
> played backwards Neil seems to say 'Man never space walk.'
Another daft claim.
>
> Enough time has been wasted on this off-topic side-trip. Let's return to
> geocentrism or else re-label this list as 'Moon hoax paranoia'.
I think not Robert, NASA and geocentrism are incompatible with each other.
Other related posts:
