[geocentrism] Re: Nasa Photo
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 09:59:14 +1000
Yes Jack I could easily explain all of your objections.
My first up covers most of them.
No one may deny that photos are studio productions, for the very reason you
enumerated. The originals were probably poor quality for media propagation
for the same reason.
Even videos, likewise.
As regards the radiation, most of the problem I believe is within the van
allen belt close to the earth. The orbiters would have a greater problem
than the moon men, especially during severe solar erruptions. I never saw
the suits as being much more than required to deal with heat radiation.
Current mayhem on the sun recently put all aircraft particularly long
flights down to low altitudes simply because the x radiadion was excessive.
Unusually so.
My observations and yours would have to be made using videos of the actual
transmissions as made from the moon, and which were rebroadcast over the
networks. These were poor quality synonomous with such sources, yet with
sufficient detail to show the exhaust gases and the dust movement as
disturbed in a vacuum which I mentioned.
At that time, it was after I left Woomera and Nasa, that I was inbetween
jobs working for the 7 network who gave full continuous coverage of the moon
walk. Knowing my cynicism of science which I mentioned previously, rest
assured I was ever watchful with a critical eye and ear, for some sign of it
being a fraud, as many people were in thase days still flat earthers.
I had not checked on shadows, but I will next time I have the opportunity.
Meanwhile what is your point, other than to say corporate science is capable
of misrepresentation for financial gain and promotion. We do not need faked
fotos to prove that. I have no objection to promotional photos for the
public at large, to satisfy their needs of excitement, so long as access is
not restricted of the scientific community to the real ones.
Joke?: Notice that most astronauts claimed a feeling of being closer to God.
If it was faked, the feeling would be closer to Hell. And to the Nasa
Bosses. It proved they were being physcologically unbalanced by space.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Lewis" <jandj.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 8:04 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Nasa Photo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 5:51 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Nasa Photo
> When you closely look at the b/w videos of the moon walk, you will see the
> sand/dust kicked by their dragging feet rise and collapse without any dust
> cloud, which is consistent with kicking dirt in a vacuum under gravity.
Dear Philip,
Please consider the following taken from detailed analysis of the evidence:
1 NASA photos show no dust on the LEM landing pads caused by the engine
exhaust.
2 There is far too much reflected light from the Moon's surface
illuminating those parts of the LEM that is in shadow.
3 Shadows on the Moon's surface show different directions consistent with
more than one light source.
3 Photo shows a Moonscape without the LEM and exactly the same scene
(superimposed one on top of another) without the LEM. It was supposed to be
a totally different location.
3 The same as above but this time on video, including superimposition,
one showing astronaughts and one not. The video was supposed to de in to
different locations.
4 The LEM prototype was only tested once on Earth by Neil Armstrong and
he couldn't control it and had to eject just prior to it crashing to the
ground. Do you really believe that Armstrong was happy to fly the real thing
in a totally alien environment?
5 If the space suits protected them so well against the formidable
radiation of space, why aren't they used by technicians to sort out nuclear
accidents.
6 Have you noticed how expertly the photos were framed by the
astronaughts using a camera with no viewfinder and fixed to his chest such
that he couldn't see what he was doing? The camera designer at Hassleblad
has no explanation how they could have done it so well.
7 This same designer cannot explain how cross-hair lines etched on the
camera lens (for scaling purposes) could, in many cases, be covered by the
subject of the photo?
Jack
Other related posts:
