Duane Daman

It doesn't matter whether we are talking about quick trips or longer stays .... Deep space radiation is completely detrimental to humans and nasa scientists know this .... That is why they are now trying to figure out what type of shielding to develop, which will keep their astronauts alive while trying to get through the Van Allen belts and onto the moon .

And until this monumental probem is solved and new shielding is developed , no one is ever leaving this planet , except to go where they always gone .... LOW EARTH ORBIT .

"I'd be a bit sick if I'd been hounded for months and years by some nutter who kept on arranging interviews under false pretences, then calling me a xxxx, coward and a thief."

Get your stories straight ... Sibrel never called John Young these names ... These accusations were directed to Buzz Aldren and Bart deserved to be punched in the face for being so obnoxious towards him .

I watched Sibrel's documentary again to look at the "smoking gun" footage , suppossedly taken from LEO ... It doesn't look like what is being shown on You Tube in nasa's defense ..... There does appear to be a round window being used at some point because the Earthshine can be seen coming in on the lower rim of the window , distorting the shape of Earth . .... I'm not sure what was taking place in this part of the video but I can see where Sibrel got the idea that a round window was in use .... I haven't had time to check out the Apollo 11 LM but I could have sworn it did have a round window in it .

Anyhoo , what Sibrel showed in his documentary was that the camera was taking the picture of Earth from the rear of wall of the cabin ... That's why things kept getting in the way .... So then I watched the unedited version of the video where Sibrel got his clip from , and it still didn't look anything like what is now being shown on You Tube .... The camera taped the entire 30 minutes from the rear of the cabin , but Armstrong claimed that the TV camera was completely filling up the window .... So something is not adding up here at all ...

Could nasa have edited or even created a new tape to refute Sibrel ? ... The part not showing any astronots of course ... After all , it's Bart's "smoking gun" footage that has convinced many people that Apollo never left LEO and was a complete hoax ... So with all that at stake and considering nasa's record of telling fibs , I guess anything is possible .

What color is the sky on Mars?

At night, of course, it's black. During the daytime, scientists once expected to find a blue sky because of Rayleigh scattering (the process that colors the sky blue on Earth - the shorter wavelengths of light are more easily scattered, so it is mostly the blue light from the Sun that we see elsewhere in the sky.) However, when first the Vikings and then the Pathfinder landed on Mars, they saw a pink sky. This color comes from the ubiquitous Martian red dust which is stirred up by the winds and carried up into the atmosphere so much that the sky takes on the color of the dust.

http://meridiani2.usc.edu/faq/mars.html#17

NOT TRUE ! ... This is just some science web site misinformation covering nasa's fibs .... Here' the real story .

According to DiGregorio’s narrative:

"At about 2:00 P.M. PDT, the first color image from the surface of another planet, Mars, began to emerge on the JPL color video monitors located in many of the surrounding buildings, specifically set up for JPL employees and media personnel to view the Viking images. Gil and Ron Levin sat in the main control room where dozens of video monitors and anxious technicians waited to see this historic first color picture. As the image developed on the monitors, the crowd of scientists, technicians, and media reacted enthusiastically to a scene that would be absolutely unforgettable – Mars in color. The image showed an Arizona-like landscape: blue sky, brownish-red desert soil, and gray rocks with green splotches ...

"Gil Levin commented to Patricia Straat [his co-Investigator] and his son Ron, ‘Look at that image! It looks like Arizona’ [below].

"Two hours after the first color image appeared on the monitors, a technician abruptly changed the image from the light-blue sky and Arizona-like landscape to a uniform orange-red sky and landscape [below]. Ron Levin looked in disbelief as the technician went from monitor to monitor making the change. Minutes later, Ron followed him, resetting the colors to their original appearance. Levin and Straat were interrupted when they heard someone being chastised.

It was Ron Levin being chewed out by the Viking Project Director himself, James S. Martin, Jr. Gil Levin went immediately and asked, "What is going on?" Martin had caught Ron changing all the color monitors back to their original settings. He warned Ron that if he tried something like that again, he’d be thrown out of JPL for good. The Director then asked a TRW engineer assisting the Biology team, Ron Gilje, to follow Ron Levin around to every color monitor and change it back to the red landscape.

"What Gil Levin, Ron and Patricia Straat did not know (even to this writing) is that the order to change the colors came directly from the NASA Administrator himself, Dr. James Fletcher. Months later, Gil Levin sought out the JPL Viking Imaging Team technician who actually made the changes and asked why it was done. The technician responded that he had instructions from the Viking Imaging Team that the Mars sky and landscape should be red and went around to all the monitors ‘tweaking’ them to make it so. Gil Levin said, ‘The new settings showed the American flag (painted on the Landers – below as having purple stripes. The technician said that the Mars atmosphere made the flag appear that way."

As someone who was also at JPL that afternoon, and vividly remembers a similar shock -- when the "Arizona Mars" initially flashed on the JPL monitors was suddenly transformed into a Martian "Red Light District" – I now kick myself for not asking lots more questions.

But, it was 1976 -- and we all trusted our Space Agency back then ….

One of the basic questions that I should have asked involves the physics behind JPL’s abrupt color alterations. Or, as Gil Levin put it:

"If atmospheric dust were scattering red light and not blue, the sky would appear red, but since the red would be at least partially removed by the time the light hit the surface, its [the direct sunlight’s] reflection from the surface would make the surface appear more blue than red. There would be less red light [in the direct sunlight illumination] left to reflect. And what about the sharp shadows of the rocks in the black and white images yesterday? If significant scattering of the light on Mars occurred [from lots of red dust in the atmosphere], the sharp shadows in those images would not be present, or at best, would appear fuzzy because of diffusion by the [atmospheric] scattering [emphasis added]!"

Levin was describing the well-known phenomenon of "Raleigh scattering" -- whereby the similar-sized molecules of all planetary atmospheres (be it the primary nitrogen of Earth; the carbon dioxide atmosphere of Mars; or even the predominantly hydrogen atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn!) all produce blue skies when sunlight passes through them.

If you examine the long Martian photographic record – which encompasses hundreds of thousands of images, acquired by dozens of observatories even before the Space age dawned – you can see blatant evidence that Levin’s right and JPL is wrong … regarding the scientifically expected “color” of the Martian atmosphere.

.................................................

"Both Ron Wichelman [of JPL’s Image Processing laboratory (IPL)] and I were responsible for the color quality control of the Viking Lander photographs, and Dr. Thomas Mutch, the Viking Imaging Team leader, told us that he got a call from the NASA Administrator asking that we destroy the Mars blue sky negative created from the original digital data [emphasis added] …."

Destroy official NASA data?!

This bizarre sequence of events raises too many disturbing questions … like … why was the Administrator of NASA so determined to conceal the "true" colors of Mars from the American people and the world, in 1976? Why would he order the head of the Viking Imaging Team to literally eliminate an important piece of historical evidence from the official Mission archive – the original "blue-sky negative" – if the initial release was only "an honest technical mistake?!" Wouldn’t that record be an important part of the ultimate, triumphant story of "NASA scientists eliminating initial scientific errors, in their continued exploration of the frontier and alien environment of another world …?"

And, why would a young teenager – and the son of one of the key investigators on the Viking Mission, no less! – actually be threatened with expulsion by the Director of the entire Project … for simply "tweaking a couple of color monitors" around the Lab …?

In truth, none of Ron Levin’s story (or Van Der Woude’s significant confirmation), makes any scientific sense … unless … certain individuals in NASA in 1976 felt compelled to hide – and at all costs – the visible appearance of the actual Martian surface ….

Thirty years have now gone by, and some of us (unfortunately, when it comes to NASA) are considerably wiser. In the interim, because of the continued democratization of computer technology (and the existence of the Web), a whole new generation has now been enabled to revisit those original Mars images … and the crucial questions that go with them … to investigate for themselves this bizarre chapter in an "altered Martian story."

From the startlingly simple process of merely reinstating the original Viking surface color data (now available at certain official NASA websites), so the flag appears as "normal" (!) (like in this version, produced by Barry Arneson in 2001 – below), one gets the distinct impression that "certain individuals" in NASA – three decades ago – for some arcane reason, didn’t feel Americans were "ready" then … to see the real "Red Planet."

Oops again !

Read the entire story here .... NASA ... Never A Straight Answer .

http://www.lunaranomalies.com/colors.htm

"This applies to many things - and especially when it comes to trying to understand Apollo photos, taken under circumstances that are beyond our experience, if not our comprehension. "

This is not rocket science we are taking about here ... It's the fact that there are NO bootprints leading up to where Conrad is suspended from his fly system ... The few bootprints which ARE in the photo show that he didn't walk up to his position .... So he was either droppped in by cable or his image was superimposed over the background and the bootprints were added in later in the wrong place .... Take your pick .... but whichever you pick , the fact still remains that there are NO BOOTPRINTS walking up to where he is dangling for this photo shoot .

You know what the most annoying thing is about Apollo defenders ? ... They can never admit it when an Apollo photo is proven to be a fake ... It doesn't mean the missions were fake Dave ... Just the photos ... but then if nasa told fibs about where the photos were really taken , then I guess they could possibly have told a few little fibs about their missions too , right ?

Speaking of telling fibs ... Have you seen those red tinted pictures of Mars that nasa tried to pass off to an unsuspecting public as being the real colors of the RED PLANET !!! ... They are too funny for words ! ... Those clowns actually ordered the photos coming in from the Mars rover to be changed , so that the BLUE SKY of Mars would be PINK and the BROWN DIRT of Mars would be RED ! .... Oops again .

I think I will post them here so we can all see how deceptive nasa really is when it comes to their missions to other planets .

There are no tire tracks in this photo and there are no tire tracks covered over by dust either .

Now you claim this ... "Of course, on the moon, with 1/6th g, clumps of lunar dust get kicked even higher and further."

I'm sorry but didn't you just show me a video clip of the way dust behaves in a vacuum opposed to the way dust behaves on Earth ? ... It seemed to me that the dust that got kicked up by the dune buggy on Earth got kicked up higher and further than the dust that got kicked up by the lunar buggy allegedy in a vacuum on the moon ....

So which is it now ? ... You keep contradicting yourself to justify each argument .... If dust drops immediately , like a rock in a vacuum , then it could not be kicked up higher and further and therefore could not have been kicked up enough to cover over every tire track in dozens of buggy photos ....

Let's get real here ... There are no tire tracks in this photo because the set decorators and the photo fakers forgot to put them in the photo ...It was staged ... Just like everything else about Apollo .

Wow ... For being photographed in a vacuum , thoses astronots sure did kick up an awful lot of dust !

It doesn't matter if there is one bootprint or twenty between the front and rear tires , because the point is there are NO TIRE TRACKS in this photo ... Not between the tires or behind the buggy either .

Dave once again has refuted his own claims ... He stated that the buggy was moving ... but if the buggy was moving , then it would have been creating tracks in that thick , soft moon dirt as it moved ...

Yet we can clearly see that there are no tire tracks in the dust and that the few bootprints between the front and rear tires could not possibly have kicked up enough dust to have completely erased and covered over all of the tracks ... especially since the buggy was allegedly moving and creating more tracks .

You keep asking me to prove my arguments , but I don't see any of you who defend these bogus photos , proving yours ....

You can't explain away Conrad dangling from his fly system leaving little sideways hopping bootprints and you can't explain away why so many of the photos taken of the lunar buggys have NO TIRE TRACKS in them .

And "dust and bootprints covering over the tracks" has to be one of the lamest excuses I have ever seen coming from the pro Apollo side of this debate ..... But then I guess there isn't really any other plausable explanation is there ? ... Except for the simple truth , which none of you would ever admit to .... Which is this ... There are no tire tracks in these photos because there never were any tire tracks in these photos and the reason why there never were any tire tracks in these photos is because these photos were STAGED on a moon set .

Look ma ... NO TIRE TRACKS !! Oops again .

If men could travel safely through the Van Allen radiation belts then they would have continued with the moon missions .... The future projections were to have lunar bases set up by now and moon trips a common occurance .

The fact that nasa can't manage to send a manned mission through or beyond the belts in over 38 years says it all .... and please don't tell me it's because people lost interest in space travel .... Since when does the military industrial complex care what people are interested in as long as they are calling the all shots and making lots of money ? ... I believe it was over 8 billion dollars in profits per mission with Apollo .

Smart 1 crashed into the lunar surface using new technology .... nasa plans to so the same in the future ... crash land .... Then send robotic missions and then possibly manned one's , IF they can figure out to protect the astronauts from deep space radiation .... nasa has admitted they need to invent NEW shielding for their craft and also for their spacesuits ... What more proof do you need that Apollo was a sham ?

Ok , I will start a new thread on this then because it is the main reason the Apollo photos look so fake ... Along with the mountains , which look like painted scenery ... Plus , there is ALWAYS a dividing line between the foreground and the background that looks like the stage ending and the painted backdrop beginning .

Many times this painted line is covered with small rocks , but that hardly disguises the line ... The backdrop mountains are always smooth looking and usually a whiter color than the grey, rock strewn foreground .

And why don't the moon photos from unmanned missions have this appearance , if this a typical occurance of photos taken in a vacuum ? ... Do different cameras or different types of lenses create different looking photos ?

I will post these questions , along with photos showing this effect .... This is not a question of no 3d depth in 2d photographs , because photos taken on Earth and Mars show distance and they are 2d photos .

Craig .... As for your evidence which you claim refutes Jack's , how is that ? .... Jack has always claimed that multiple light sources were used on the moon sets and you have confirmed this fact .... The only difference being your light sources are the sun , wide open sky ( Earthshine ) , and snow ( lunar surface ) .. and Jack's are studio lights .

So how have you proven your case and he hasn't ? .... Multiple lights sources and multiple shadows can be caused by either.

Because Jack ENHANCING a shadow , looking for non existant bootprints , is not the same thing as ALTERING a photo with photoshop , by BENDING a shadow that is straight , to fit the posture of the one suppossedly casting the bogus shadow .

Steve .... Yes , I read that also ... but I also read where the Smart 1 craft kicked up plumes of dust long enough and high enough to be seen on Earth and be studied by scientists .... but considering how dust acts in a vacuum , I was surprised that it would stay up long enough to be studied .

Dave ... I watched part 4 and 5 and I now understand why Sibrel changed his opinion from the shot being taken from a round window of Earth in low orbit .... He changed his mind later and agreed with Percy that it was a transparency being used .... But didn't the LM have one round window ? .. Not that it would be needed if a transparency was used .

I will have to admit that what they show on You Tube is an amazing piece of nasa propaganda , but it is still coming from the source of the fox , so to speak .... and if they can fake six missions to the moon , including all of the photography , then faking the images in this video , allegedy on their way to the moon , would be a piece of cake for them .... Ever heard of SIMULATION ? .... nasa is famous for passing off simulated missions as real ones , including lunar landings .

What about the way John Young acted when Sibrel confronted him about the window transparancy in the Apollo 10 and 11 videos ? .... He didn't look confused , like he didn't understand what Sibrel was talking about ... but instead he looked frightened at the prospect of being caught ... Then he threatened to knock Sibrel in the head for asking him to swear on the Bible that he walked on the moon and then he ran away from him as fast as he could ...

I'm sorry , but these are the actions and the behavior of a guilty man with much to hide about his alleged Apollo missions .... He was the one the Apollo 11 astronots were talking to at mission control while they were comparing his Apollo 10 picture of Earth to their Apollo 11 picture , allegedly taken 130,000 miles out .... Something about the white spots not showing up on the 11 footage like it did with 10 ....

Sorry , but I don't believe this is proof that the astronots really left LEO and landed on the moon .

I read several articles today about Smart 1 , so if it's not in the links I posted I will try to locate it again .

There were several that mentioned the huge dust plumes being studied but the second link I posted didn't work and might be lost now ....

No , I haven't watched the clips yet .... I'm gonna grab some dinner and check out part 4 and 5 out now .

I don't think it's absurd to wonder why scientists are so pumped up now about studying lunar dust as if they had never seen any before .... But the real point I was making is why would huge plumes of dust be shooting up into the air long enough for scientists to study it , if dust in a vacuum doesn't plume up but rather settles down immediately ?

This information seems to be a direct contradiction to the way the alleged lunar dust behaved in the Apollo videos ... and more in keeping with what I have read in the past about lunar dust billowing up after the unmanned missions landed on the moon .

NASA is not and never has been a civilian organization ... They are part of the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned the Nation about , along with many other government organizations including the NSA .

Plus , I believe that all of the Apollo astronauts were military test pilots and also Freemasons .

Craig .... I don't believe you have thrown anyone's photographic evidence in the dust bin ... Jack's explanations make sense to me and so do Jones' .... Maybe this has more to do with perception than photographic shop talk .

One of the main reasons I have always believed the Apollo photographs to be fake is the fact that there is no depth perception in any of them ... and what I mean by that , is that the allegedly huge mountains which are suppossedly many miles away from the subject being photographed , look like they are only a few yards away from the foreground and not very large at all .... So instead of looking like a planet , the photos look like they were taken on a stage set , no larger than about 50 to 100 feet or so ...

This strange anomaly has been explained away by the moon having no atmosphere and therefore distances can not be photographed or judged properly.

Yet I have seen other moon photos , taken by unmanned missions, where this lack of depth perception and distance perspective was not a problem ....

Can you explain why this was only a problem with the Apollo photos and not the photos from the unmanned missions ? ... Did they perhaps use a different type of camera lens ? .... and also is there is any type of lens which could have been used for Apollo, which would have shown the actual distances of the mountains or the actual large size of them ? ... Or can depth perception and distances never be photographed in a vacuum ?

Kevin ... You just never can admit it when you're wrong about something .

But then that does seem to be the typical stance taken by all who defend the bogus Apollo photography .

Oh wait ... You DID admit that you're wrong ..

"All you can see in those shadows is the lense flare and the graininess of the scan."

And NO BOOTPRINTS , right ?

what are you talking about jack? They not only brought back 'dirt', they brought back 6 foot long cores.

If this is true , then why are scientists today so excited by the dust plums of Smart 1 ?

Why would they be studying the dust plumes to determine what the lunar soil might be composed of , if they already know and have 6 foot long cores of it in their possesion ?

Jack ... I thought the Apollo astonots brought back lunar dirt too ... but if not , then chalk up one more anomalous little alarm bell for the conspiracy side !

When I was reading Armstrong's biography in Barnes and Noble when it first came out ( and now seems to have changed text ) I remember reading that Buzz asked Neil where the soil sample was , as it was allegedly the first experiment that Neil did when he hit the lunar surface .

But guess what Neil told Buzz as they were getting ready to blast off the lunar surface ? ... He told him that he forgot about it and left it in the zippered pocket of his spacesuit which he had just tossed out on the lunar surface !!!

Oops too late ... The cabin was repressurized and the boys were suitless , so there was no retrieving the soil sample .

Now if Evan tells me this dialogue is not in Armstrong's biography , then I will know I read this conversation and the other conversation I mentioned before about them taking their scheduled nap , in another book .

As for the amount of rocks the astronots scooped up , again we only have nasa's word for it .

Don't you find it interesting that of all the 840 pounds of rocks allegedy gathered from the moon during Apollo , that there is not one color photo showing a rock being held up by any of the astronots, from any of the missions, that can be matched to any moon rocks now being featured on certain nasa web sites ? .... Hmmmm ... again .

Thanks Jack .... Send it to me if you can via e-mail and I will post it for you .

I knew there were no bootprints in the leg shadows , but it's nice to have confirmation of that fact .

Oh , you're right Steve .. The links I posted didn't mention that the plumes of dust went miles into space ... That information was from another link posted by a very kind gentleman who goes by the user name of Waspie_Dwarf on the Unexplained Mysteries forum .... I had so many links up and that I must have taken that one out by mistake .

I will see if I can find it again , as from that link , he provided many long and interesting articles about how scientists don't have a clue as to what the moon is really made of .... and how proud they all are that they managed to crash a spacecraft into the lunar surface , so they could study the lunar dust plumes reaching miles into the lunar sky .

So what was Dave saying about how dust behaves in the vacuum of the moon ? .... Hmmmm ... again .

* edit * Here's the Smart 1 link I left out ... It is two pages long and has other links off of it .. It explains the dust plumes ... I will see if I can fix the link not working in the above post too.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...p/t67914-0.html

It just seems that you enjoy disagreeing with whatever the post topic is , no matter what it is about .

If you look at the photo links Mathew posted here it is obvious that it's a Bin Laden look alike in the CIA video ... The nose it too short , the hairline is too low and the ears are too small and low on his head .... Plus he is too heavy and his skin is darker .

I was watching the Fox Noise Network several months ago , when our current inept administration was pretending to be hunting for the real Bin Laden again , and they were showing a slide show of Bin Laden pictures , one right after the other .... Then right in the middle of the side show of probably about twenty different pictures , this CIA still picture was planted , and it stuck out like a sore thumb .... Taken out of context all alone , one might be easily fooled into believing this is a picture of Bin Laden ... But in the context of seeing about twenty other pictures of the real Bin Laden , it was very evident that this guy is an imposter .

If he had turned around in place , there would be bootprint evidence of that fact ... and there isn't .

Plus if you read the ALSJ dialogue that goes along with this particular photo shoot , you will see that there is no mention of him turing around for any reason .

The bootprints don't show any forward movement but rather a little side step dance ... If you watch the documentary ' What Happened on the Moon" , you will see where Percy proved that the leaning forward , hopping motion of the astronots in the videos allegedy taken on the moon are IDENTICAL to the leaning forward , hopping motion of the astronots in training , while suspended from their cables .... IDENTICAL .

Why do you say that I think wrong ? ... I've said all along that multiple light sources were used on the moon sets .

You're the one that admitted that there are multiple light sources and multiple shadows in the Apollo photographs .

But they're not caused by the open blue sky , because nasa blacked out the open blue sky from all of their phony

photos and blacked out the moon set ceilings too .

So that leaves stage lights and a real big spotlight causing the multile light sources and MULTIPLE SHADOWS !

Aren't you the one who explained how there were no multiple shadows in the Apollo photos when we were discussing the possible use of footlights on the set ? ... You made the claim that if extra stage lighting had been used , then we would see multiple shadows in the Apollo photos , and there weren't any .. but now you are claiming that we DO see multiple light sources and shadows in the Apollo photos .... So which is it ? ....

It's OBVIOUS that the Apollo photos have multiple light sources and multiple shadows ... but both Neville Jones and Jack White explained to you that a good photographer could minimize those shadows using the proper balance of lighting .

There are no bootprints in the shadow of his legs .

And even if there were , it still doesn't explain the position of the bootprints which ARE in the photo ...

It's these bunny hop prints which are the dead giveaway for a cable being used .

Speaking of moon dust and how it behaves .. I just read a few articles about Smart 1 crashing into the lunar surface and upon impact it sent up gigantic dust plumes, miles into space , which remained suspended for hours while the scientists studied them to get an understanding of what the lunar soil might be composed of .

Okay, two questions ... If the moon has no atmosphere and is a complete vacuum then how did the lunar dust reach miles into space above the surface and stay suspended for several hours ? ... Why didn't it just drop like a rock in the vacuum of space above the moon ?

And if the Apollo astronouts brought back 840 pounds of moon rocks , plus lunar soil samples , then why are scientists so excited about studying this dust cloud to see what the lunar soil might be composed of ?

Does this not send off just a few tiny little alarm bells among the most die hard Apollo fans that something is very wrong with the entire Apollo picture ?

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/SMART-1/SEMI0USMTWE_0.html

"I'm sure you're about to rewrite the article but I have to say I was tickled by the "huge plums of dust" (yes plums) from the impact... not cheese after all then..."

"Even without the mission controllers' help, the moon's gravity inevitably would cause SMART-1 -- now out of fuel --

to crash. But the agency has designed the spacecraft's final course to kick up enough debris so astronomers can analyze the cloud with instruments linked to their telescopes to gather more information on the composition of the lunar surface. "

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG5HKUCSQ1.DTL

Well I must say that little checkerboard trick is quite impressive .... The colors sure look different to me , but then I don't know how to Photoshop images to prove it one way or another .

But this still doesn't explain why there are no bootprints leading up to where Conrad is doing the bunny hop on the moon set .

So I gather from your distraction tactics with the checkerboard picture that none of you can refute the evidence which shows this photo to be bogus ?

No , I can't prove that Conrad was suspended from a fly system , but from the position of his dancing bootprints , the lack of any bootprints leading up tp his position , and the way he is leaning forward , it appears that a fly system cable would be the most logical answer as to what is obviously wrong with this picture ..

Len ... Why do you always believe the government's story of every controversy out there ?

Don't you think it's possible that your sources might be wrong sometimes ? ... It seems to me like you just go along with the forced fed official version on everything from who really murdered JFK, to Apollo really landing on the moon , to who really attacked America on 9/11 .

And before you come back and ask me why I believe every "conspiracy theory" out there , I don't ... only the one's that obviously are conspiracies and cover-ups .... Like the above mentioned .