Matthew Lewis

You're accusing Jack of attacking the messenger ? .... Now that IS funny! .... Neither he, nor I can post one freaking word here without lamson the sociopath , Evan the robot soldier , Greer the geek , and Len the xxxxx , stomping us both into the ground with their uncalled for personal insults.

You military boys are all alike ... programmed like little robots, to defend your country , even when what you are defending is your country's lies .

I said "seems like" it is attacking the messenger. If I can be shown to be wrong then fine. But neither of you have had anything to say about what I said except implying that it was clavius and badastronomy disinformation when only a small part of my post came from one of those sites and then only a math equation. You have yet to comment on that equation or anything else in my post. So far you've only commented (obsessed?) on my military status which has never been hidden nor has it entered into this discussion until Jack brought it up. You've praised Jack's detective work when all he did was remember one fact, that my location used to say a military base. He was wrong about my photo and behind the times about my change of location. I change it sometime before September of last year.

Most of my post was in my own words from my own memory. I did not use anything from Clavius and the only thing I took from Bad Astronomy was the calculations for the thrust from the engine bell. Perhaps you could show how that is somehow disinformation.

Am I the only one who noticed that Lewis has changed his location ID to MIDDLE GEORGIA

instead of a certain AFB which he used to have? But he has changed his photo to one in

Air Force uniform on a motorcycle. Do his postings represent the view of the Air Force?

Jack

Nice detective work Jack ! ... Looks like you just outted another one of the nation's military/industrial complex's brainwashed drones .

What a good little soldier , defending his country's lies about landing men on the moon .

What detective work? All he has shown is he remembered what I used to have as a location and he was wrong about the photo. And outed? When have I hidden the fact that I am in the Air Force? My first post on this forum which is my bio says I am an Air Force officer. And you have yet to show any evidence of brainwashing. I believe Apollo happened as advertised because of years of personal research during my down time, not because anybody told me to.

Most of my post was in my own words from my own memory. I did not use anything from Clavius and the only thing I took from Bad Astronomy was the calculations for the thrust from the engine bell. Perhaps you could show how that is somehow disinformation.

Am I the only one who noticed that Lewis has changed his location ID to MIDDLE GEORGIA

instead of a certain AFB which he used to have? But he has changed his photo to one in

Air Force uniform on a motorcycle. Do his postings represent the view of the Air Force?

Jack

Keeping tabs on me Jack? I changed my location long ago as it is more easily identifiable to people that may not know where Robins AFB is located and I no longer live on base. I can definitely assure you that I am not wearing an Air Force uniform in the photo. I am wearing jeans and a blue and black motorcycle jacket. How you could possibly think you could determine what I was wearing from a picture that is less than 64 by 64 pixels is beyond me though. Regarding my postings, have I ever once said that they represent the view of the Air Force? No, I haven't. I post here in my spare time from home. My postings do not in any way represent the views of the Air Force. Why would you think they did? Oh and the photo was not changed, it is the first I have ever posted. Or do you not remember your irrational insistence that I must use a photo as an avatar even though there was not any rule stating I should. One last thing Jack, why does your post seem like it is more of attacking the messenger and not the message? Or do you just have an obsession with me? I can assure you that you are not my type.

Most of my post was in my own words from my own memory. I did not use anything from Clavius and the only thing I took from Bad Astronomy was the calculations for the thrust from the engine bell. Perhaps you could show how that is somehow disinformation.

From Neville Jones

The developing and printing techniques he talks of are relevant where there is reasonable contrast over the exposure. On the Moon, there would be extreme contrast, so much so that areas would either be burnt out completely or not exposed in the least. There is no way that such images could be corrected as he implies, to the degree necessary to produce such sharp photographs. (By the way, I did outdoor and studio portrait photography, both colour and black and white, together with video photography for over ten years. I, too, have developed my own films, colour negative and positive, and black and white negative.) I no longer do this, because I hold that the creation of images of living creatures is contrary to Scriptural instruction. This is the reason that you will not see photographs of people or animals on the website.

Anyone with any real experience would plainly see that the images coming from NASA are simply faked, studio shots, perfectly exposed and composed, where the level and type of studio lighting is completely controlled and metered. The astronots did not even have an exposure meter! Neither did they have a viewfinder! Anyone with experience of the Hasselblad 500EL, such as myself, will tell you that guesswork would not produce magazine after magazine of perfectly exposed and composed images. They will also tell you about the telltale signs of hotspots (indicating the proximity of highly directional light source) and infill (indicating the use of standard portrait reflectors).

There was no protection of the Hasselblad for extremes of temperature (Kodak Ektachrome, the film type used, crinkles up at well below the supposed temperature on the Moon), nor against radiation, which would have caused irreversible fogging on all images.

His comment, “given the poor quality live video presented on world television,” is a little misleading, because television networks were not allowed any “live” feeds at all. They were actually broadcasting pictures off a large screen. The images on that screen were produced by NASA. In absolutely no way can one claim that the television broadcast was of a live event.

Then he says there was no protection for the extremes of temperature or radiation. True but a vacuum does not have a temperature which he would know if he were really a physicist. The only part of the moon that would have a temperature would be the surface and as they landed during lunar morning on all the missions, would not have heated up fully yet. As for the radiation, he hasn't shown that the amounts of radiation would be significant. He says nothing about types of radiation (as some types could easily be stopped by paper or thin metal) or flux. Again he appears to be repeating claims originally put forward by other hoax proponents.

Lastly, he comments on the filming of the images off of a screen at NASA. This was only done for Apollo 11 as the video format on that mission was not compatible with television directly and they did not have a converter. This technique was not used on later missions. Yet again this sounds exactly like an argument found on other sites.

He states, under “no evidence of air,” that, “The dust kicked up in rooster tail fashion which traced out the expected parabolic shape.” However, after having watched James Collier’s video, “Was It Only A Paper Moon,” I do not understand how he could have missed the undeniable evidence of air. Unless, of course, he has been watching NASA footage that has been “enhanced,” just as the “C” was airbrushed off the famous rock picture. (Just a thought here, why would NASA be touching up old photographs anyway?)

Within the same section, he states that, “some hoax advocates [say about the LM takeoff that] there should have been a huge flame which would destroy the LM platform and flag.” He may be right, but I have never heard this claim before.

His next comment, however, is just plain rubbish: “Besides, to keep from damaging man and machine, the thrust builds up slowly so that most of the thrust and thus the exhaust blast takes place too high above the surface to disrupt the dust.” Anyone who has seen this “thunderbirds”-style takeoff will recall the phenomenal rate of acceleration off the supposed lunar surface, and, of course, the exhaust must be pushing on something. So we are told that there is enough dust to leave zillions of footprints, but that this layer was not blasted away in all directions upon firing the engine! I do sometimes wonder about Dr. Bouw.

I have also watched Ralph Rene (whose book, "NASA Mooned America," is well worth reading) very effectively demonstrate the disruption caused by a hand-held leaf blower on a pile of gravel, as well as the almost impossible movement of his fingers in a glove pressurized to 5 psi above vacuum.

I've seen "Was it Only a Paper Moon" also and the dust being kicked up appears to me to behave exactly as we would expect in a vacuum. There is no clouding like we would find in an atmosphere on Earth. The rate of fall of the dust corresponds to the 1/6 gravity found on the Moon. Then he mentions the "C" rock. Not only does the "C" not exist in the same picture after, it does not exist in the same picture before. Also, the "C" does not match any common font. The simplest explanation is that the "C" is a hair that was on the scanner when it was scanned for the Internet. Indeed, if you zoom in on the "C", it looks suspiciously similar to what a hair on a scanner looks like. I've never seen any evidence that film or stage crews use letters to mark prop locations anyway. If marking props with letters of the alphabet is common practice, it should be simple to find a few examples in any of the films and television shows that exist or have existed.

He claims that the rate of acceleration for the takeoff from the surface is too fast but of course gives no figures to show so. One thing to note is that part of the way we perceive acceleration and speed is by how long an object takes to travel it's own length. The LM had a relatively short height and appears to move quicker. Then he claims that the exhaust must be pushing on something. Is he serious? He's really supposed to be a physicist and doesn't understand Newton's third law of motion? That's the one that is commonly paraphrased as "For every action force there is an equal, but opposite, reaction force." A rocket doesn't need to push on anything. Then he comments on why the dust was not "blasted away in all directions." Obviously doesn't realize that the ascent stage separated from the descent stage and thus the thrust from the ascent stage didn't impact the surface at all.

Then he mentions the clip of Rene with the leaf blower not realizing that the pressure from the leaf blower would be much greater than the rocket engine. The descent stage was throttled down to about 3000 puonds of thrust on landing. Then we have the engine bell was 54 inches across giving it an area of about 2,300 square inches. This means that the thrust at the engine bell would have had a pressure of about 1.5 pounds per square inch. Due to being in a vacuum the thrust would also spread out more rapidly than in an atmosphere lowering the pressure even more. Then he mentions Rene's glove experiment. Rene used a simple rubber glove in his box. Firstly the space program would definitely be using something more substantial than a rubber glove. Secondly the suits and gloves used on Apollo were also used on the Apollo missions that occurred in Earth orbit and for Skylab and they are not that dissimilar from the suits used today. All of those astronauts were able to move their fingers. Why would the ones on the Moon not be able to?

Overall, again he seems to be taking arguments directly from other sources. Nothing so far is the least bit original.

I may post more later if I get around to it. Some of the photographic arguments though can be better addressed by others or already have as they again appear to be taken from other websites and other hoax proponents.

Except quite often one can see the background change ever so slightly because it is a 3d object and does have depth. There is not much of a change as the mountains are many kilometers away but there is a change. I already posted one such example earlier.

I think the fact that he first tried to buy less insurance (only $1.5 billion) and had to be talked up but still bought less than he could have is very telling.

http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/11/cx_da_0911silverstein.html

Matt .. The fact that the the blueprints to the LM and lunar buggy were destroyed have NOTHING to do with them taking up too much space ... What an absurd and lame excuse by nasa .... Do you think that's the reason that one ton of 700 boxes of telemetry tapes from every mission are missing also ? .... They took up too much room ? ... The fact that the blueprints were destroyed says it all .. and believe me , I didn't make it up ... Even the pro Apollo forum members know this is true , as shown by your copied post .

I think you missed the point. First, the FBI didn't order anything destroyed. It is a completely absurd idea that they did.Second, NASA isn't even the organization that held the blueprints. Grumman as stated in my previous post was the manufacturer and held the blueprints. Also, as stated in my previous post, Grumman has gone through multiple mergers and acquisitions since 1970. Not only does that increase the possiblility of stuff getting lost, that also increases the possibility of someone new and unfamiliar with the project coming in and getting rid of the documentation because they either saw it as a waste of money to store for a old project that they weren't working on or idn't even realize what it was and got rid of it because of that. Third, not all of the blueprints are destroyed. I posted a link earlier that had links to many, many documents of the LM and lunar buggy. I'll post it again

http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/lmpdf.htm

As for the tapes, in my opinion, they were probably never properly cataloged and as a result got misplaced or even written over. But that fact that we even know about the missing tapes is interesting in and of itself. It was NASA and an agency working with them that announced that the tapes were missing. Why, if they were trying to cover something up by misplacing the tapes, would they announce publicly that the tapes were lost? Does that even make any sense?

The hoax evidence has been classified top secret until the year 2026 and most likely won't even be released then , if the military /industrial complex has anything to do with it ... The fact that Evan wants us to believe that the only evidence being held classified is the medical records of the Apollo astro-actors , is beyond ridiculous ....

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that anything more is classified?

Matt ... Are you for real ? .... If something is CLASSIFIED it is a SECRET .

How could I possibly know what nasa is hiding about Apollo ? .... I was hoping that in my lifetime nasa would fess up to faking the Apollo moon landings ... but of course that was just wishful thinking on my part because that is something they are never going to admit to ... Even when 2026 rolls around , I'm sure they will find a good reason to continue the cover-up .... Just the way the corrupt American government continues to keep the truth of JFK's assassination classified and covered up .

Unfortunately most of the Apollo evidence has already been destroyed that could expose nasa's deceit ... The LM and lunar buggy blueprints were ordered destroyed by the FBI ... and the "lost" telemetry tapes will most likely never be found because they have either been hidden away under lock and key and gun point or they have been flushed down the toilet , where they probably belong anyway.

So in other words, no, you have no evidence whatsoever. Often when something is classified, one can still find out the title of the item. The only things there are evidence for being classified are medical records (for a darned good reason, would you really want your private medical records floating around the internet?) and a single military experiment on a single on of the missions. Since there is no evidence whatsoever for anything else being classified, don't you think it takes quite a leap in logic to assume that there is something and that that something is some crucial evidence?

As far as the blueprints being ordered destroyed by the FBI, do you have any evidence to back that up? Or is it just some claim that is continually repeated across the internet with nothing to back it up? Do you realize how much room a full set of blueprints for those vehicles would take up? Think on the order of a several large warehouse and go up from there. Every part was custom made so every part would have drawings, testing information, certification information, fitting information, etc. You ever stop to consider that the blueprints don't exist because nobody wanted to pay for several large warehouses to keep them in? Nevertheless, some documentation has survived. You can view some of it here.

http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/lmpdf.htm

Here is a good quote from another forum where this same subject was discussed

The allegation does not really make sense from the standpoint of how the FBI and other federal agencies are related. The FBI has general jurisdiction over all government entities to the extent of investigating and prosecuting wrongdoing. If NASA were alleged to have broken the law in any way, the FBI would investigate and possibly bring charges. The FBI does not have operational authority over any other agency. That the FBI "ordered" NASA to destroy the LM blueprints doesn't make any sort of governmental sense.

I know for a fact that some LM documentation was destroyed. I know people who salvaged keepsakes from dumpsters. I too have tried to get Grumman to survey exactly what they have, but today's Grumman has gone through so many mergers and acquisitions since 1970 that it's a distinct possibility no one there now has the faintest idea where the LM stuff is right now.

As usual, this means something only if you believe that "the blueprints" for the LM were some easily-managed sheaf of papers that ever existed together in one place. People don't understand the gargantuan amount of paperwork that accompanies the design and construction of a manned spacecraft, and that you don't need to retain all of it in order to satisfy historical needs.

Some other info to consider. Before 911, the only intercept by NORAD over the continental US was of Payne Stewart's jet. All other intercepts had been over international waters. That is what they trained for. Further, the intercept of Stewart's jet took over an hour and 15 minutes. Even then, the jet was intercepted not by an armed jet used for air defense but instead by and unarmed jet that was already airborne for another unrelated mission and diverted. The air defense jets got there much later.

Before 9-11, the only intercept by NORAD over the continental US was of Payne Stewart's jet. All other intercepts had been over international waters."

Between September 2000 and June, 2001, there were 67 scrambles/intercepts by NORAD, according to a joint statement released by FAA and NORAD on August 5, 2002. This was further reported the next week by the AP. The same sources stated that in the calendar year 2000, there were 129 scrambles/intercepts. FAA/NORAD estimated that 80-85% were of domestic planes flying in the continental U. S. There is evidence that an intercept took place in the skies near Fresno, California, in the week before 9-11.

Further, the Boston Globe, in an interview published 4 days after the attacks, quoted Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, NORAD spokesman as saying that "its fighters routinely intercept aircraft." Snyder then goes on to describe NORAD's graduated response--wing-waggling, overpass, tracer rounds--to an intercepted plane.

All info I've seen still indicates that all intercepts before 911 were offshore. That info indicates that the 67 intercepts all happened offshore in international waters. Do you have a source for this intercept near Fresno? Or a source that states where these planes are that are "routinely intercepted"?

Here's another viewpoint

http://www.911myths.com/html/67_intercepts.html

The hoax evidence has been classified top secret until the year 2026 and most likely won't even be released then , if the military /industrial complex has anything to do with it ... The fact that Evan wants us to believe that the only evidence being held classified is the medical records of the Apollo astro-actors , is beyond ridiculous ....

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that anything more is classified?

No he is not a physicist because his work and arguments betray the fact that he lacks knowledge of physics. Try reading the link next time instead of dismissing it based on the location.

Some good info against the possiblility of the calls being faked.

http://www.911myths.com/html/calls_faked.html

Particularly of interest is the passenger telling where her will was located and the combination of the safe that held it.

So now you're taking claims from a geocentrist?

Here's some more info on Jones

http://www.clavius.org/bibjones.html

It is clear he is no physicist.

The Payne Stewart example was already addressed well by Steve Ulman. As for the question about fighters from Langley, I don't believe Langley was one of the bases that had alert fighters. IIRC, there were only 4 fighters on alert status in the east that day. That was normal at that time with the drawdown with the disappearance of the Russian threat. Even if they did, there would be some time associated with getting the aircraft running (only in the most extreme cases are alert aircraft already running and ready to go), taxi to takeoff and get airborne. Then they have to climb to altitude. Depending on their alert status, they could be running and airborne in as little as 10-15 minutes also depending on the alert training they have had. Already addressed was the issue of going supersonic over land. I believe that the situation has changed now since 911 that they are allowed in the case of an emergency but they weren't before. Even if they had been allowed, it takes some time to get to an altitude to go supersonic (much easier to go fast at higher altitudes than at sea level, not to mention safer) and it takes some time to speed up. It is not instantaneous. There also has to be a consideration of how much fuel going supersonic will use. It does no good to get there fast on the afterburner if you can't do anything when you're there.

Some other info to consider. Before 911, the only intercept by NORAD over the continental US was of Payne Stewart's jet. All other intercepts had been over international waters. That is what they trained for. Further, the intercept of Stewart's jet took over an hour and 15 minutes. Even then, the jet was intercepted not by an armed jet used for air defense but instead by and unarmed jet that was already airborne for another unrelated mission and diverted. The air defense jets got there much later.

I vote complete idiot. Or were we not voting?

Especially since it wasn't just Nazis that worked on the program but hundreds of engineers in dozens of companies across the country. But those sneaky Nazis just fooled everyone right?

So why couldn't it be option 2?

Evan Burton posted that same link in post 32 of this thread on Dec 20. But you probably missed it. I know how quickly new posts can build up on a forum or thread if you don't look at it for a while.

Nobody else is making you look paranoid. You're doing that to yourself.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. If, and that's a big if, he actually went to the papers, they most likely didn't print it because they just didn't find it that interesting. Perhaps they didn't buy it either. There have been plenty of tv shows and movies on the subject though, as well as newspaper articles, that the idea that they couldn't print it because of national security sounds like a lot of bull. Even if the papers were government controlled, why not go to one in a different country? Why not take his story to one of the many, many independent papers (many cities have them) or a college paper? I've seen moon hoax articles in the independent paper in Columbus, OH and in the college paper when I was still in college. Why not post it all for free on a website? I wouldn't be surprised if he made it up for his book to make it look more important.

If it really was NASA altering those images, then again, why wasn't it noticed in the 30+ years before he looked at it? Every single image has been available from the very beginning to anyone who was interested. The internet has only made them more available. So why didn't somebody notice something as obvious as a papercup, or wildlife, or writing in the dust? Most likely because it was never there.

With ALL the photos going missing, it seems more likely that they never existed in the first place. Especially since the internet archive does not have them either. What would he have to gain? Just what I said in the last post. He wanted to sell a book. As for credibility, it remains to be seen if he has any.

Because Hawkins couldn't have possibly made the fakes himself.

You do realize that that is another explanation right? That he made it all up just to sell a book? Don't you think things like papercups, wildlife, and writing in the dust would have been noticed a lot sooner?

Sorry, I won't do your work for you. Even if what you claim is true, that they only listened to the radio transmissions, then that is still a kind of tracking. If the audio transmissions are coming from teh direction of the moon and do not disappear over the horizon every few minutes, then they are not coming from a craft in low orbit. Instead they must be coming from a craft on its way to the moon.

Now let's see. You claim n obody tracked Apollo to the Moon but provide no references. The opposing claim is that Russia did track them and an article is provided describing such. Hmmm, who are we to believe?