10-31-2005, 06:06 AM
i can give you dozens of scientific reasons to prove that man never landed on the moon. i can lay out at great length what radiation and extreme temperatures would have done to any astronaut. i could explain how the laws of physics, gravity, and photography could not have produced any of the "proof" that NASA has released, but i am not an expert in radiation or physics. what i am an expert in is conspiracies, and the moon landing has "FAKE!" written all over it.
in 1961, russia announced that it had launched the first man into space, yuri gagarin. during the cold war, russia was the united state's greatest enemy. if they could convince everyone that they had a man in space, they could convince everyone that they were capable of launching weapons from space. so the united states had to one-up them in the "space race" and immediatly announced that they were going to land an american on the moon. through blurry video feed and photos, they did just that. it was more important to convince the world that they had landed on the moon than actually landing. apollos 14, 15, and 16 did just that.
in the 1960's automobiles and airplanes were still in their infancy. every attempt at manned spaceflight had been a colossal failure. and yet, they want us to believe that NASA was able to make a great stride forward and fly to the moon with not one but three perfect flights - a feat that forty years later we have yet to duplicate. no nation had the technology necessary to land on the moon. the landing crafts and spacesuits were not yet designed to withstand the radiation and extreme temperatures. america didn't even have the technology for direct communication with a space ship, and yet despite these seemingly insurmountable hurdles, NASA safely and successfully landed three crews on the lunar surface and broadcast the feed back to televisions in every living room.
people all over the world found it hard to believe that NASA could land a man on the moon, so NASA produced evidence, and that evidence will be their undoing. millions of people watched the first moonwalk on TV. they sat in awe as the american flag fluttered gently in the breeze, although there is no air in the vacuum, atmosphere-less surface of the moon. none of the still pictures match up with the film footage. the reason that the video quality was so bad was that news crews were only allowed to film the footage projected onto a large screen inside of NASA.
the video feed may have been poor, but the pictures were perfect, too perfect in fact. a professional photographer working under normal conditions will get one or two really good pictures off of a roll of film. the astronauts, not photographers at all, produced thousands of perfect pictures. each picture was perfectly focused and exposed even though they were supposedly working under extreme lighting conditions.
normal film would melt in the temperatures found at the moon, so a special film was developed just for this expedition. the astronauts had cameras mounted on their chests, and working with unfamiliar film through thick gloves without the ability to focus, meter, or properly compose their shots came back with perfect pictures every time.
take a good look at the pictures. here, we see the most famous of photographs. it shows the shuttle on a hard surface, without any imprint. yet a simple footprint left a deep impression in the dust? it shows a perfectly black night sky devoid of any stars. every part of the picture is perfectly lit even though the only possible light source was from the sun. the shuttle and flag have shadows to the right even though there must be a light source behind the camera man in order to illuminate the picture. look closer, where is the astronaut's shadow? other photos show shadows going in separate directions and reflections of light sources in the visors that could not be the sun.
whether these pictures were created in an elaborate studio or if they were pieced together, the result in the same. the pictures are nicely done fakes. if the only evidence of america's flight to the moon is false, and the possibility that NASA could have conducted a lunar landing is slim, they add up to only one thing. man has yet to set foot on the moon.
http://www.envasion.net/2002/moon.html
in 1961, russia announced that it had launched the first man into space, yuri gagarin. during the cold war, russia was the united state's greatest enemy. if they could convince everyone that they had a man in space, they could convince everyone that they were capable of launching weapons from space. so the united states had to one-up them in the "space race" and immediatly announced that they were going to land an american on the moon. through blurry video feed and photos, they did just that. it was more important to convince the world that they had landed on the moon than actually landing. apollos 14, 15, and 16 did just that.
in the 1960's automobiles and airplanes were still in their infancy. every attempt at manned spaceflight had been a colossal failure. and yet, they want us to believe that NASA was able to make a great stride forward and fly to the moon with not one but three perfect flights - a feat that forty years later we have yet to duplicate. no nation had the technology necessary to land on the moon. the landing crafts and spacesuits were not yet designed to withstand the radiation and extreme temperatures. america didn't even have the technology for direct communication with a space ship, and yet despite these seemingly insurmountable hurdles, NASA safely and successfully landed three crews on the lunar surface and broadcast the feed back to televisions in every living room.
people all over the world found it hard to believe that NASA could land a man on the moon, so NASA produced evidence, and that evidence will be their undoing. millions of people watched the first moonwalk on TV. they sat in awe as the american flag fluttered gently in the breeze, although there is no air in the vacuum, atmosphere-less surface of the moon. none of the still pictures match up with the film footage. the reason that the video quality was so bad was that news crews were only allowed to film the footage projected onto a large screen inside of NASA.
the video feed may have been poor, but the pictures were perfect, too perfect in fact. a professional photographer working under normal conditions will get one or two really good pictures off of a roll of film. the astronauts, not photographers at all, produced thousands of perfect pictures. each picture was perfectly focused and exposed even though they were supposedly working under extreme lighting conditions.
normal film would melt in the temperatures found at the moon, so a special film was developed just for this expedition. the astronauts had cameras mounted on their chests, and working with unfamiliar film through thick gloves without the ability to focus, meter, or properly compose their shots came back with perfect pictures every time.
take a good look at the pictures. here, we see the most famous of photographs. it shows the shuttle on a hard surface, without any imprint. yet a simple footprint left a deep impression in the dust? it shows a perfectly black night sky devoid of any stars. every part of the picture is perfectly lit even though the only possible light source was from the sun. the shuttle and flag have shadows to the right even though there must be a light source behind the camera man in order to illuminate the picture. look closer, where is the astronaut's shadow? other photos show shadows going in separate directions and reflections of light sources in the visors that could not be the sun.
whether these pictures were created in an elaborate studio or if they were pieced together, the result in the same. the pictures are nicely done fakes. if the only evidence of america's flight to the moon is false, and the possibility that NASA could have conducted a lunar landing is slim, they add up to only one thing. man has yet to set foot on the moon.
http://www.envasion.net/2002/moon.html