definitive proof we never went to moon--try to defy me

[InsideJob]

wheres is the coward blowhard, TF, never wants to phone me and debate so we can record it and link to this site, LMAO, wonder why, yet he will post for hours and lurk on sites

id reduce him to slag

[KTBKRUSHER]

you conspiracy guys crack me up.
inside thats funny..call you and debate.
people have lives i guess unlike you....
of course you can find sites where they make it look like we didnt go.
and there are sites that look like the earth is flat.
your wrong so no need to debate.
you can make any argument you want and someone else can conjur up something on the other side no matter what but.

we went to the moon.....get over it.

[KTBKRUSHER]

whats funny is you guys cut and paste and say look at video and you tube and stuff.
BUT NO ONE HAS EVER GIVEN DEFINITIVE PROOF WE NEVER WENT.
ITS NOT ON HERE.
DEFY THAT

[Wise Guy]

Originally Posted by KTBKRUSHER

...DEFY THAT

no, you're missing the point. What we are doing here is we are trying to set a record for the world's longest thread that never proves anything.

[InsideJob]

KTB,

youre a complete idiot sheeple, and bring nothong of substance ever ... tell me anything i have posted in this thread is wrong, point out the tire tracks to the LR (or should i say the incredible grasshopper ship), prove man could exist thru the VA belts, tell me why nauts say, "where are the guys with the hoses"

yeah thats what a thought, another moron blowhard with no research, no intuitive bent, no creative thirst ...

what a joke you are ... bring it on brother, debate me ...

[InsideJob]

hey doofus,

see the hands in the b.g. lmfao? ... yeah, you Crusher, mental midget cubed



if you google "AS10-34-5091", U can find it,

or heres a link too

Apollo Image Atlas, 70mm Hasselblad Image Catalog

[KTBKRUSHER]

I don't have to bother wasting the time researching.
you are the one trying to prove something didn't happen when it did.
the burden of proof is on you not me.
like reasonable doubt in a murder case.
sorry but the jury ruled 12-0 vs you and you are condemned to death.

[ironmike67]

WHERE IS DIME?

[Rando]

Originally Posted by ironmike67

WHERE IS DIME?

Hopefully, his hands got cut off so we don't have to see him post here anymore, or he died.







Or...he is really Inside Job. This is my conspiracy theory. Not so crazy to believe, though.

[scrimmage]

No question,IMO,that the US accomplished the feat of landing men on the moon,now 40 years ago.
What the actual motive was however is debateable[not just pure science as was advertised,there were other reasons],whether it happened isn't.
Controlling space is a strategic objective too,and the technology derived from the space program led to a boom in consumer/business/military applications.

Above and Beyond:
The Apollo Space Race to the Moon

History Today June 2009 | Volume: 59 Issue: 7 | Page 14-20 | Words: 4174 | Author: Balogh, André
From:
http://www.historytoday.com/MainArti...&amid=30286235

In 1969 men set foot on the Moon for the first time. The Apollo space programme that put them there was the product of an age of optimism and daring very different from our own, argues André Balogh.

It is 40 years since Neil Armstrong took his ‘giant leap for mankind’ on the early summer morning of July 20th, 1969. It was the high point of a vast and expensive space programme initiated by President John F. Kennedy in the early 1960s which ended when Apollo 17’s lunar module lifted off from the Moon on December 14th, 1972. In just under three and a half years, 12 US astronauts walked on the Moon,drove around in their Moon buggy and thrilled television viewers around the world with their barely believable pantomime on a celestial body 236,000 miles from Earth.

The end came suddenly and space has not captured the public’s attention in the same way since, except, in a very different way, in response to the tragedies of the space shuttles Challenger in 1986 and Columbia in 2003. The Apollo programme had to compete for attention with other major events: the large-scale unrest in the US over civil rights and against the Vietnam war; then, less than a year after the last Apollo mission, the Watergate scandal which brought down President Nixon. Throughout these upheavals, astronauts walked on the Moon, flew the American flag and displayed the might of US technology and resources to massive global audiences in what remains, arguably, the greatest technical achievement of mankind.

The Apollo programme was a child of the Cold War. The technological stakes had been raised by theSoviet Union's launch of Sputnik 1, the first Earth-orbiting artificial satellite, in October 1957. Apollo was the response of a technically fast-developing and confident nation with bewildering reserves of money and talent. It was also symbolic of a different mentality, optimistic, can-do and willing to confront the most awe-inspiring challenges. As Kennedy proclaimed: ‘We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.’

Soviet firsts in space sustained panic in the US over a perceived ‘missile gap’ and the launch of Sputnik ignited a space race which saw the two superpowers building and attempting to launch a variety of rockets that could double as Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). We say attempting, because in those early years rockets were less than reliable, with spectacular and very public failures on the launch pads or shortly afterwards at what became Cape Kennedy in Florida (it reverted to its orginal name Cape Canaveral in 1973). It is now known that the early Soviet rocket programme was also punctuated by failures but at that time such setbacks were concealed by the secrecy surrounding the Baikonur space complex in what is now Kazakhstan.

Yet Soviet scientists were soon confident enough to launch Yuri Gagarin into space for a single orbit of the Earth in his Vostok capsule on April 12th, 1961. It marked a new phase in the space race, demonstrating not only immense confidence but also the powerful appeal to the public of men in space. While NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), the then young and vigorous agency of US government in charge of the space effort, prepared to match Gagarin’s feat, it was clear that the superiority of the US could only be truly demonstrated by a qualitatively and quantitatively more spectacular achievement. The announcement of the Apollo programme to land a man on the Moon made by President Kennedy on May 25th, 1961, came just six weeks after Gagarin’s flight and was intended to neutralise and ultimately trump the Soviet achievement.

Kennedy’s speech to a joint session of Congress, always a solemn occasion, stated: ‘First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important in the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.’

This was to be the space project of the decade and would not be surpassed by any other country. It was to be a ‘giant step’ that would convince the world and reassure the American public that the United States, once moved, could do what nobody else could do. This point, the first of Kennedy’s proclamation, recognised that the most important and most convincing force in international politics is the perception of superiority. Gagarin’s single round-the-world orbit was impressive as it demonstrated the confidence of the Soviet engineers in the reliability of their rocket technology. It certainly impressed the people in the West and it increased the justified fear of the capability of Soviet missiles. This advantage was pushed to its limits the following year by the Soviet leadership, leading to the Cuban missle crisis.

Kennedy’s pronouncement that Americans would go to the Moon and back was an altogether different proposition, implying a much greater and broader based technical capability than lay behind Gagarin’s flight. The claim to open space for exploration by sending US astronauts to the Moon was the limit of the achievable in manned space exploration.

Kennedy claimed that the goal would be unmatched in its difficulty, an un-paralleled technical and human challenge. By the time of his announcement, NASA had been working hard on a broad technical front to build up a credible space programme from scratch in only three years.

This involved a vast and diverse effort, the use of small, suborbital rockets that could take scientific payloads to the edge of space but not into orbit, several medium-sized rockets for Earth-orbiting spacecraft (the best candidates as warhead-carrying missiles) and the large Saturn 1 rocket that was designed under the leadership of Werner von Braun, one of the leaders of Nazi Germany’s V2 rocket weapon programme. At the same time, spacecraft started exploring the Earth’s own space environment, leading to the discovery of the radiation belts named after James van Allen and the magnetosphere, the magnetic bubble around the planet that protects it from the direct effects of solar wind. These early discoveries were generally made in parallel by both Soviet and American scientists, though the findings of the more open US experts became much better known than those in the pay of the secretive Soviet regime.

NASA became focused on finding the technical solutions to the challenge of taking astronauts to the Moon and returning them safely. The key technical decision concerned the means of carrying them there and back. There were a number of options proposed but the one selected in the end and ultimately carried out involved the use of a vast launcher that did not exist at the beginning of the project, which was to carry all that was needed to the Moon, land a portion of it which would then be able to take off from the Moon and rendezvous with a pod that could carry the astronauts back to a safe splashdown in the sea. This solution presented very serious risks: astronauts would be required to dock in lunar orbit when such a rendezvous had not even been attempted in earth orbit. But those in NASA who proposed it were right to point out that technically this was the only scenario that could be carried out by the deadline.

And so the vast technical might of the United States was put into gear to design, test and carry out the project. A rocket, the Saturn V, was built, based on the Saturn 1A rocket design, a monument to man’s technological achievement that when assembled and ready for launch was about the height of St Paul’s Cathedral. The Apollo command and service module, as well as the lunar module, were built and tested starting in late 1961 to a very tight schedule. There was tragedy on the way: an accident involving the command module of Apollo 1 during pre-flight tests on January 27th, 1967 killed astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White (the first US astronaut to walk in space) and Roger Chaffee. Design changes were introduced and by Christmas 1968 Apollo 8 was capable of flying to and around the Moon and back to Earth. Though this flight was made without the proposed lunar landing module, Apollo 8 was able to test many aspects of the ultimate flight scenario. Orbiting the Moon on Christmas Eve, its three astronauts made an emotional live television broadcast of greetings to the Earth.

Apollo 9 was the first flight, in March 1969, of the complete Apollo package in Earth orbit to test all aspects of the final scenario except the Moon landing itself. Then came Apollo 10 in May 1969, a full-scale dress rehearsal. The lunar module was piloted to within 15km of the lunar surface, rejoining the command module in orbit and then returning to the Earth. The two astronauts who got so close were Thomas Stafford, later to command the American crew in the historic Apollo-Soyuz joint test-flight, and Ed Cernan, who later commanded the Apollo 17 flight, becoming the ‘last man on the Moon’ as he rejoined the lunar module for the final ascent. An iconinc image,Earthrise,was taken by the crew of Apollo 10 as it orbited the Moon.

Apollo 11 was launched on July 16th, 1969 with Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins as the first crew to fly to the Moon and land two astronauts upon it. Armstrong and Aldrin proceeded to plant the American flag into the lunar regolith (the upper layer that consists of rock fragments and dust). Apollo 11 carried a small array of scientific instruments, among them an aluminium sheet used to collect debris from the solar wind. The astronauts then rendezvoused successfully in Moon orbit and returned to a safe splashdown and quarantine on Earth. Kennedy’s commitment was fulfilled.

There were in all six successful Moon landings in a way each more successful than the previous ones, with increasingly higher quality television images and the enduring image of the Moon buggy racing across the lunar landscape. Even the flight of Apollo 13, the aborted mission that led to the famous phrase ‘Houston, we have a problem’, should be remembered for the remarkable technical recovery from a desperate situation, the stuff of Hollywood, which it later became.

While the Apollo programme was wholly motivated by strategic political considerations, the Moon landings also brought important scientific results through observations made on the Moon’s surface and by bringing back a total of about 368kg of lunar samples. Scientists began to understand from these the structure and past history of the Moon, almost completely unknown before, by dating the craters and the maria that cover the Moon’s surface. The findings of the Apollo mission also
support the scenario in which an early version of the Earth was impacted upon by a Mars-sized body that led to enough material being ejected to form the Moon during the dawn of the Solar System.

What about the bill? Kennedy did not put a figure on the cost when announcing the programme (that would have spoilt the effect of the speech) but recognised that no other space project ‘will be so … expensive to accomplish’. The cost was indeed very high: NASA’s budget shows a peak (in 1969 values) of close to $4.5 billion in 1966, with similar figures in the immediately surrounding years, of which about two thirds were devoted to the Apollo programme. Official figures show that the original budget for Apollo was estimated to be about $23 billion and ended up costing between $20 and $25 billion, thus being, seemingly, on budget, a remarkable feat considering its vastness, complexity and novelty. (These costs in current terms would add up to around $150 billion.) Any uncertainty in judging the final costs is due to the abandonment of three further Apollo flights and the difficulty of accounting fully for the expansion in NASA centres when the infrastructure put in place in the 1960s continued to serve the needs of other NASA programmes well beyond Apollo. This financial effort is amazing when the other, simultaneous commitments of the US are taken into account, not least waging a war in south-east Asia with a fully equipped army of almost half-a-million men and women.

The Apollo programme certainly fulfilled one of its principal aims: showing the Soviet Union who was boss in space and, by implication, frontline technology directly transferable to armaments. The relative ease with which the US paid for the programme, as living standards reached heights never seen before, must have impressed the Soviet leadership and their allies. As a weapon of the Cold War, Apollo was a total success, fulfilling its political aim of showing the superiority of the capabilities of the United States to the world. Almost incidentally, the race to the Moon (never seriously joined by the Soviets) was won.

By the time Apollo 17, the final mission, was launched on December 7th, 1972, the importance of space as a battle-ground in the Cold War was fading. It was generally accepted that, whatever the relative capabilities of missiles with thermonuclear warheads, there was enough weaponry on both sides, East and West, to destroy the world several times over, regardless of who fired first. (The later "Star Wars" programme initiated by President Reagan in the 1980s was a much less spectacular, primarily technological effort, kept well under wraps by the United States in order to keep ahead in the arms race.) NASA budgets started shrinking; there was a new programme, the Space Shuttle, demanding resources, so Apollo 18, 19 and 20 were cancelled.

One of the Saturn 5 rockets was reused to launch the first ever space station, Skylab, with myriad scientific instruments on board and scientists among its crew. Its achievements were far from negligible but remain largely in the domain of science. One discovery, made by a solar telescope carried on Skylab, revealed that the ebbing and waning of the large dark areas of the Sun’s atmosphere, called coronal holes, affected climatic change on Earth.

While the Shuttle programme progressed more slowly and cost more than expected, there was a decline in space activity, with no manned programmes of any sort, let alone anything with the appeal of Apollo. Even the arrival of the Space Shuttle in the early 1980s lacked its excitement. The scientific achievements were more consistent and brought results to a larger number of scientists than Apollo had done, in most part thanks to the European Spacelab module which was carried into space on the Shuttle. Then, on January 28th, 1986 came the Challenger accident that made NASA reconsider its strategy and remove the Shuttle from one of its roles, that of launching satellites. The accident also brought to light the fact, obvious to some well before then, that the risks faced by the Space Shuttles were considerably higher than previously advertised to the public and the media and believed even by some of the managers in NASA, if not those with engineering or scientific backgrounds. (This point was tragically reinforced in February 2003 when the Space Shuttle Columbia broke up during re-entry into the atmosphere.)

What of recent and current manned space programmes? The long success and occasional drama of the Russian Mir space station over the 15 years of its lifetime, from the first launch in 1986 to the controlled re-entry into the atmosphere in 2001, provided valuable experience of long-duration space missions. The International Space Station (ISS), currently in orbit, is a superior version of the Mir space station, with large laboratories full of expensive equipment exploring the influence of gravity on a wide range of natural phenomena including its effect on blood flow, as well as attempts to grow protein crystals in space, which prompted major advances in our understanding of the structures of complex biomolecules.

But the ISS has taken considerably longer to develop than originally expected. It also suffered from operational restrictions when, after the Columbia accident, the Space Shuttle fleet was reduced in numbers and the launch frequency of the remaining three (Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavor) was also cut. Without the help, cooperation and capability of the Russian Soyuz launcher and vehicle it would not have been possible to maintain the ISS. Times have changed indeed since the days of the Cold War, the space race and Apollo.

The Shuttle fleet is due to be retired in 2010, leaving only the ISS, supplied with crew and goods by Soyuz and the newly developed unmanned European cargo ship, the Automated Transfer Vehicle. This restricts its use, in particular because of the restrictions in crew numbers. The maintenance costs of the ISS are very high and, as its usefulness seems to be questionable, this vast investment in space (commensurate with the cost of the Apollo programme) will no longer be exploited. So what comes next?

It seems that the Moon is again on the agenda. Long neglected in favour of the exploration of Mars, a return to the Moon now seems likely in the next decade or two. There are firm plans in the United States: the preliminaries of the programme for a new launcher and new crew vehicle are now financed at a level compatible with a realistic schedule. While both presidents Bush set an eventual goal of landing men on Mars, the more recent initiative envisages a first phase, the return of astronauts to the Moon and even a more-or-less permanently inhabited Moon base. Of course such ambitious plans, due to their length, are at the mercy of changing political priorities and personalities as well as changing global political and economic circumstances. However, it is probably right to be optimistic about a sustained, long-term effort to colonise the Moon in some sense, even if this is not very clear to even the most ardent advocates of manned spaceflight. There are other ambitious nations, naturally the Russians, who have both past experience and capabilities and potentially vast resources, but also the Chinese, the Japanese and the Indians, have all recently sent unmanned scientific spacecraft to the Moon. Possibly the next realistic step will be robotic landers to carry out experiments locally and then to return a larger variety of samples than was available from the Apollo missions.

And then to Mars? This is highly unlikely. Even though no less a figure than Neil Armstrong has been quoted recently as saying that the challenges to land on Mars are not as difficult as the Apollo pioneers faced, a manned mission to Mars seems beyond the reach of affordable technology and political will (not least because of the financial resources that would be required). What was possible in the 1960s to a technically less advanced generation may be out of reach to this and future generations, simply because of the change in attitudes and priorities and the vast increase in the thresholds of risk that are now seen as acceptable. This is one overhead that the Apollo programme did not have to face. Apollo could not be reproduced in the early 21st century, simply because the world we live in is so utterly different from that of only 40 or 50 years ago; sights have lowered as fears have increased. But the Apollo programme happened, men really walked on the Moon and drove their buggies over the lunar landscape and 40 years on we have to recognise the achievement that crowned an undertaking made to that very different world. It remains an inspiration.

André Balogh is Emeritus Professor of Space Physics at Imperial College London and Director of the International Space Science Institute in Bern, Switzerland.

[Wise Guy]

Originally Posted by scrimmage

...It seems that the Moon is again on the agenda. Long neglected in favour of the exploration of Mars, a return to the Moon now seems likely in the next decade or two....

That is indeed great news. This means that we can keep this useless thread active until the year 2019 and beyond.

[ronangel]

Well then who stole the wheels?

[InsideJob]

thats funny ron but the question is where are the tracks...

man, scrimmage, you are either just plain stupid or disinfo ... try YTing jarrah whites vast collection and clue in ....

dyk that Yuri G was bumped up over 30 spots to be first man in pace less than a month b4 getting launched ... then he exited his craft in a parachute suit???

[InsideJob]

scrimmage, heres how friggin dumb you are,
using your own evidence ...


who took this photo?

answer that and get back to me



or who took this one???

[ronangel]

Originally Posted by InsideJob

thats funny ron but the question is where are the tracks...

photoshopped out by the same aliens that photoshopped out the wheels

[scrimmage]

If you're in the 6% of Americans who believe the moon landings were faked,the links below will lead you to 2 sites[mentioned in the NY Times article below],which provide convincing arguements for why the Apollo missions were real:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

http://www.clavius.org/

Vocal Minority Insists It Was
All Smoke and Mirrors
By John Schwartz July 13,2009
Excerpt/photo from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/sc...hoax.html?_r=3

Forty years after men first touched the lifeless dirt of the Moon — and they did. Really. Honest. — polling consistently suggests that some 6 percent of Americans believe the landings were faked and could not have happened. The series of landings, one of the greatest gambles of the human race, was an elaborate hoax developed to raise national pride, many among them insist.

They examine photos from the missions for signs of studio fakery, and claim to be able to tell that the American flag was waving in what was supposed to be the vacuum of space. They overstate the health risks of traveling through the radiation belts that girdle our planet; they understate the technological prowess of the American space program; and they cry murder behind every death in the program, linking them to an overall conspiracy.

And while there is no credible evidence to support such views, and the sheer unlikelihood of being able to pull off such an immense plot and keep it secret for four decades staggers the imagination, the deniers continue to amass accusations to this day. They are bolstered by films like a documentary shown on Fox television in 2001 and “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon” by Bart Sibrel, a filmmaker in Nashville.

“There are smart, normal people who buy into these conspiracy theories,” said Philip Plait, an astronomer and author who counters the conspiracy theorists point by point and at excruciating length at his “Bad Astronomy” Web site. He is one of many people who have joined the fight to affirm that It Happened. A group effort, at www.clavius.org, debunks with gusto; its main author, Jay Windley, named the site for the Moon base in Arthur C. Clarke’s classic science fiction novel, “2001: A Space Odyssey.”

Even though the so-called evidence from the conspiracists can clearly be proved wrong, Mr. Plait said, understanding the proof can require a working knowledge of history and photography and of science and its methodology. “You’ve got to do the work; you’ve got to put the elbow grease to it,” he said, “and most people don’t do the work. So these things get traction.”

MythBusters-Moon Hoax

Adam Savage, the co-star of the television show “MythBusters,” spent an episode last year taking apart Moon hoax theories bit by bit, entertainingly and convincingly. The theorists, he noted, never give up. “They’ll say you have to keep an open mind,” he said, “but they reject every single piece of evidence that doesn’t adhere to their thesis.”

[ronangel]

[quote=scrimmage;2253709]

If you're in the 6% of Americans who believe the moon landings were faked,the links below will lead you to 2 sites[mentioned in the NY Times article below],which provide convincing arguements for why the Apollo missions were real:

I am in the uk so not one on the 6% of Americans
I do not believe or disbelieve about the landings as a whole but there are a couple of points which may have been brought up before on here but I would not know as I have not read it all.
In the sixty's when I was at school I had a mentor who was an engineer. He was very interested in the space program and bought a Harmaland (not sure of spelling) communications receiver from the USA. This was the most sophisticated and expensive receiver in the world at the time, used by governments and embassy's. I remember the tubes & crystal oscillator had to be switched on for a few hours to be completely stable and were never switched off.With this radio & an antenna of about 40-50ft on the roof connected to a large reel to reel tape recorder he was able to listen DIRECTLY to the Apollo missions no mean feat at that time!
I heard hours of recordings which could be played back over & over again in case anything was missed.
I a few years later had the chance to try the simulator of the moon lander controls with some sort of a computer the size of a washing machine powering it. I had no idea how it worked although I was studying for a sound engineering degree.
I managed to crash it 6 times into the moon surface & time number 7 came in too slow that I would not have had enough fuel to take off. They then pulled the plug on me.
This may give me some sort of slight background in this sort of thing. The second & most important point is the van Allen belts
where a person may have been able to survive the radiation
& having been connected with civil defence bomb shelters & the like with a high knowledge of the effects & dosage of radiation and the like I personally think no, but do not have all the exact facts & therefore offer no option that can be proven.
The effects of radiation on photographic film is something I do know about & have recently experimented with a digital camera to see radium compound glow fro its own light source which appears not to be possible to see with a digital sensor.
after seeing extensive footage & stills of the Chernobyl reactor meltdown in the soviet union the levels of radiation being a lot less than those of the van Allen belts (but for a longer time) even a small amount of high energy gamma radiation causes any film that is not shielded by lead of a considerable thickness to have many black spots shown on any prints where each particle of radiation has grossly over exposed the negative.
It would have been impossible to have the amount of lead shielding on the cameras & film cases due to the careful weight limitations, tin foil unless it was two FEET thick would not have been enough.
I personally am of the opinion that the PHOTOGRAPHS were not, or many of them taken on the moon. solely on the factual technical points expressed not for any conspiracy reasons. Probably in a studio film set so as not to disappoint the public.

[scrimmage]

The first images from NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera[LROC],have just been released,including 5 of the 6 Apollo landing sites.Check out the official LROC website for more info at:
http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/

NASA orbiter returns first shots
of Apollo moon sites

Bigger, better pics to come
By Austin Modine
Posted in Space, 17th July 2009
From:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07...landing_sites/

NASA's lunar orbiter has returned its first pictures of the Apollo moon landing sites. The images — showing the missions' lunar module descent stages accented by their shadows from a low sun angle — may at least prove to die-hard conspiracy theorists that NASA went to considerable lengths to relocate its secret movie studio in the Nevada desert.

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) was able take pictures of five of the six Apollo sites between July 11 and 15. The yet un-depicted Apollo 12 site is expected to be photographed in coming weeks.
The initial pictures are somewhat lacking in detail because they were taken before the spacecraft reached its final mapping orbit. NASA says future images of the Apollo sites will have two to three times greater resolution.


Apollo 11 landing site, courtesy NASA/Arizona State University "The LROC team anxiously awaited each image," said LROC chief investigator Mark Robinson of Arizona State University. "We were very interested in getting our first peek at the lunar module descent stages just for the thrill — and to see how well the cameras had come into focus. Indeed, the images are fantastic and so is the focus."
NASA explains that LRO's elliptical orbit made the image resolution for each site slightly different but were all around four feet per pixel. With the deck of the Apollo decent stage at about 12 feet in diameter, they fill a total of about nine pixels. But because the sun was low to the horizon at the time, small variations to the Moon's topography create long shadows, allowing the relics to better stand out.
The Apollo 14 landing site had particularly advantageous lighting conditions at the time, allowing details such as the astronaut footpath between the module and instrument package to be visible.


Apollo 14 landing site, courtesy NASA/Arizona State University

[scrimmage]

The Apollo 13 command module and crew are retrieved after what proved to be the only unsuccessful lunar landing mission.

The comment below addresses,the issue of the Apollo crews exposure to radiation,and points out how 33 of the 36 astronauts aboard the 9 Apollo missions which left Earth orbit have developed cataracts.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._cataracts.htm
At least 39 former astronauts have suffered some form of cataracts after flying in space, according to a 2001 study by Francis Cucinotta of NASA's Johnson Space Center (see journal references below). Of those 39 astronauts, 36 had flown on high-radiation missions such as the Apollo Moon landings. Some cataracts appeared as soon as 4 or 5 years after the mission, but others took 10 or more years to manifest.

Comment from:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/6-remain...were-fake.html

History Lesson, Pt. 2 Reply:
July 17th, 2009 at 12:14 pm

Again:
The Moon is ten times higher than the Van Allen radiation belts. The spacecraft moved through the belts in just 30 minutes, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions.

Dosimeters carried by the crews showed they received about the same cumulative dosage as a chest X-ray or about 1 milligray. Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years. The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt in a matter of minutes and the low-energy outer belt in about an hour and half. The astronauts were mostly shielded from the radiation by the spacecraft. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.

The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip. At least thirty-nine former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions.

[ronangel]

Originally Posted by scrimmage

Again:
The Moon is ten times higher than the Van Allen radiation belts. The spacecraft moved through the belts in just 30 minutes, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions.

Dosimeters carried by the crews showed they received about the same cumulative dosage as a chest X-ray or about 1 milligray. Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years. The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt in a matter of minutes and the low-energy outer belt in about an hour and half. The astronauts were mostly shielded from the radiation by the spacecraft. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.

The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip. At least thirty-nine former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions.

Re: Van Allen radiation belts it is not the amount of radiation that would do the damage especially to film stock but its intensity (Kev). It is the difference between an atom bomb & a neutron bomb, an atom bomb destroys with intense heat and long term radiation (simplified)
A neutron bomb has the effect of the former but also the neutron particles being of very high intensity damage living cells by disintegrating them like a shotgun firing microscopic lead balls which pass through the body at high speed doing a lot of damage, leaving building & other none living tissue Intact. the effect on film unless very heavily shielded with lead would cause either total over exposure or more lightly as everybody would be dead at those levels, when printed would show lots of black spots or some at least on each picture. This was very evident on film stock used in the Chernobyl area close to the reactor. which would have had a lower (Kev) that that from the Van Allen radiation belts.

[scrimmage]

Recommended reading on the topic of how the Apollo missions actually occured,these accounts will convince the doubters.

JULY 17, 2009
Five Best
Harrison H. Schmitt selects stellar insider accounts
of the Apollo moon landings
From:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...109530012.html

1. Deke!
By Donald K. Slayton
Forge/St. Martin’s, 1994
Neil Armstrong became the first man to step on the moon 40 years ago because Donald “Deke” Slayton—a former Mercury ­astronaut and NASA’s director of flight-crew operations—assigned him to command Apollo 11. In the Apollo project’s evolving effort to put men on the lunar surface, Apollo 11 was the fifth test flight and the first to carry a ­Lunar Module capable of an actual moon landing. Up to the moment of touchdown, though, a landing ­remained far from certain. “Deke!,” written with Michael Cassutt, gives Slayton’s personal narrative of ­decisions that determined who would fly in space, who would not, and how they would be trained for history’s greatest adventure. Slayton also ­relates how a farm boy from Leon, Wis., evolved into a no-nonsense ­manager of the complex interactions between the technical demands of the space program, the astronauts’ ­necessary type-A personalities, and their personal screw-ups as aggressive ­pilots and generally self-centered ­human beings.

2. Failure Is Not an Option
By Gene Kranz
Simon & Schuster, 2000
Apollo astronauts rode to the moon on the tip of a spear held by thousands of engineers, mostly men in their 20s, who would make up one of history’s most disciplined operational teams. In “Failure Is Not an Option,” Gene Kranz describes his path from flying a F-86 fighter to creating and leading NASA’s flight controllers. Kranz provided the catalyst so that their ­motivation, imagination, competence and courage could be applied to the immense challenge of landing men on the moon and bringing them safely back to Earth. He also prepared these newly graduated engineers to deal with the inevitable emergencies of space flight. Kranz led Mission Control as it guided the crew of Apollo 11 to the lunar surface and nine months later returned a stricken Apollo 13 mission from the brink of disaster to a remarkable triumph of American spirit and ingenuity.

3. Rocket Boys
By Homer Hickam Jr.
Delacorte, 1998
The motivation of many of the young men who ­became miracle workers for Apollo ­began with the launch of Sputnik I in October 1957 by the Soviet Union. I know that my interest in space began at that point. So did Homer Hickam’s. His “Rocket Boys” (later released as “October Sky,” after the title of a 1999 movie based on the book) vividly describes his roots in West Virginia coal-mining country and his post-Sputnik attempts during high school to build and launch small rockets. Hickam went on to become an engineer and was part of the Saturn V rocket team that launched 27 astronauts to the moon. His story was typical of Apollo ­veterans across the country.

4. Apollo Expeditions to the Moon
Edited by Edgar M. Cortright
NASA, 1975
Believe it or not, James Webb, Robert Seamans, Samuel Phillips, George Low, Christopher Craft and other NASA managers were practically household names 40 years ago. They were the core of the effort to meet President John F. Kennedy’s May 1961 directive to land a man on the moon before the end of the decade. These men rapidly put together the engineering team and supporting infrastructure leading to Americans walking on the moon on July 20, 1969, and to five additional missions of lunar exploration, ending with my own, Apollo 17, in December 1972. Soon after succeeding in this goal, project managers joined several Apollo astronauts in writing chapters for Edgar M. Cortright’s “Apollo ­Expeditions to the Moon,” explaining “how it was done.” Each chapter ­provides insights fresh from those who did it, ranging from high policy to the human experience of being there.

5. Carrying the Fire
By Michael Collins
Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1974
“I have been places and done things you simply would not believe,” writes Apollo 11 astronaut Mike Collins near the end of “Carrying the Fire.” That observation reflects my own memories of exploring the moon’s Valley of Taurus-Littrow. Forty years ago, ­Collins spent the day alone in lunar ­orbit as the command-module pilot while Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin explored the moon’s surface. Collins ultimately gave us arguably the best personal story by an astronaut, capturing all the hard work, family interactions and excitement of being in the group of men who would be the public face of Apollo. They and all with whom they worked believed, correctly, that this was the most important contribution they could make with their lives.

—Mr. Schmitt, a former U.S. senator for New Mexico and, as Apollo 17’s geologist and lunar-module pilot, the last man to step on the moon, is the author of “Return to the Moon: Exploration, Enterprise and Energy and the Human Settlement of Space” (Copernicus/Praxis, 2006).

[scrimmage]

The Fox Network in February 2001,broadcast a special called "Conspiracy Theory Did We Ever Land on the Moon?"
Was this by design in order to put out disinformation in advance of the 9/11 attacks which were undoubtably a government instigated conspiracy,and connect nonsense with legitimate questions about the 1 day event of 9/11 later on,to discredit those who would question the official 9/11 myth as conspiracy theorists?
The Apollo program being legitimate doesn't mean the 9/11 Commission fostered story is.

A Brief History of the Apollo Hoax
Despite reams of evidence to the contrary, many still insist those footprints below are a myth
By Jason Daley
9/30/2008
From:
http://www.popsci.com/military-aviat...ry-apollo-hoax

Buzz Aldrin on the Moon: Or is it just a set? NASA

When Neil Armstrong pressed the first bootprint into the Sea of Tranquility, most of humanity watched the televised low-res blob and felt pride welling up in their chests. But a few watchers felt something entirely different—an unconfirmed, squinty-eyed skepticism that something about the whole deal smelled fishy. How could the United States, which could barely put a chimp into space in 1961, get two full-grown men on the surface of the moon eight years later? How could anyone confirm that men actually made it to the moon? And, how, exactly, had that $25 billion Apollo budget been spent?

Five years, and five lunar landings later, the nebulous idea that the government faked the whole moon shot on a soundstage somewhere in the Southwest finally coalesced when, in 1974, Bill Kaysing, a former technical writer for Rocketdyne, a company that worked on the Atlas V launch vehicle, self published a book We Never Went to the Moon: America’s $30 Billon Swindle. Kaysing claimed that the Apollo program was faked to allow the U.S. to secretly militarize space, and that the astronauts, who were put through sessions of “guilt therapy” to help deal with the deception, were actually at a strip club in Nevada the night of the moon landing.

Far from being the work of an exhaustive investigative journalist, its notable lack of evidence, sources, and logical reasoning kept the tome from hitting the bestseller list (or any list). But mistrust of the government—1974 was the height of frustration with Vietnam and the Watergate scandal—gave Kaysing’s semi-formed ideas enough to nudge the Apollo Hoax out of the ether and into the near fringe of pseudo-science. The seed was slow to germinate, but Capricorn 1—a popular 1978 film starring OJ Simpson (who later theorists have implicated in the Apollo coverup) in which the government fakes a manned Mars landing—kept Kaysing’s ideas alive and helped spawn a cottage industry of Moon hoaxers who gathered and presented evidence to one another throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

Despite this, the Apollo Hoax remained fringe, and was on the verge of likely evaporation when the nexus of the Internet and a February 2001 special on the Fox network called Conspiracy Theory: Did We Ever Land on the Moon? put the theory on the public display for the first time. In Fox’s shockumentary era (see When Animals Attack and Temptation Idol), the Moon Hoax documentary and a replay a month later were ratings successes, and became water cooler fodder across the country with people asking “why weren’t there stars in the photos?" And “How could the astronauts have survived the radiation of the Van Allen Belts?” Aided with a blossoming of Internet conspiracy sites, the Apollo Hoax made its first true toehold in the mainstream press.

Footprint on the Moon: Moondust? Or just plaster? NASA


At the same time Fox was giving credence to Kaysing’s ideas, astronomer Phil Plait was preparing the defense. On his Web site Bad Astronomy and in a later book of the same name, the professional astronomer refuted the claims of the Fox show and Kaysing (who passed away in 2005) point by point. Plait’s refutations spawned dozens of other debunking sites, setting off a veritable Internet war between hoax believers and their critics.

There have been a few notable events since then—in 2002, Bart Sibrel, who appeared in the Fox special, was punched in the face by astronaut Buzz Aldrin after poking Aldrin with a Bible, asking him to swear to the moon landings authenticity. More recently, Fear Factor host Joe Rogan has gone to bat for the Moon Hoax Theory, debating Plait on Penn Jillette’s radio show. But as for hard evidence? The stories haven’t changed much since 1974.

“In ten years I think this conspiracy theory will be gone,” says Plait, who points out that in 2009 NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will give us clear photos of the moon landing sites, and says the U.S. goal of returning to the moon by 2020 will refocus us on the triumph of the Apollo mission. “These guys are not professional journalists, they have no credentials, and their arguments are tissue thin. They have a track record of 100 percent errors.”

[scrimmage]

Forty years since the first Moon landing

20 July 2009

By Patrick Martin
Excerpt from:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/ju...pers-j20.shtml

Forty years ago today, on July 20, 1969, two American astronauts, Neil Armstrong and Edwin (Buzz) Aldrin, became the first human beings to land on the Moon. This historic scientific and technological feat is all the more remarkable because the period of manned exploration of Earth’s satellite inaugurated by Apollo 11 ended little more than three years later. All six Moon missions were completed during the first term of a single US president, Richard M. Nixon.

When Eugene Cernan, Ronald Evans and Harrison Schmitt returned to Earth in Apollo 17 on December 19, 1972, Nixon was in the White House, Leonid Brezhnev ruled in the Kremlin and Mao Tse-tung in China. The US military had just begun Operation Linebacker II, the so-called Christmas bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong, to pressure the North Vietnamese delegation at the Paris Peace Talks.

Forty years on, the Moon landing remains an unparalleled feat of engineering, organization and daring, using technology that was rudimentary by the standards of the 21st century. Closer to World War II than to our own day, the mid-1960s saw such innovations as the eight-track tape, the first primitive laser and the automobile airbag. The microchip was still in development. The complex calculations required for travel from the Earth to the Moon and back were performed by gargantuan computers built with vacuum tubes and transistors and using punch cards and paper tape.

The successful eight-year effort to put a man on the Moon was the product of specific social and political circumstances that made possible a massive mobilization of resources. When President John F. Kennedy declared the goal of placing a man on the Moon within a decade, American imperialism was at the height of its Cold War struggle against the Soviet Union, and was trailing in space, following the Soviet success in launching Sputnik and putting the first man in space, cosmonaut Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin.

Sputnik gave the initial impetus to what became known as the “space race,” but the vast resources of American capitalism, by far the world’s greatest economic power, made possible the ultimate success of the Apollo program. At its height, the program enlisted the technical and manufacturing prowess of 90,000 scientists and engineers and 420,000 workers altogether, and accounted for more than half of all research and development spending in the United States.

While Kennedy had given the initial green light, his motivation was primarily political—to dispel the worldwide prestige gained by the USSR. “I am not that interested in space,” he told James E. Webb, NASA’s administrator in late 1962. “I think it’s good. I think we ought to know about it. But we’re talking about fantastic expenditures.”
By the mid-1960s, NASA budgets began to come under pressure as a result of increased spending on the Vietnam War. By the time of the Moon landing, the NASA and its contractor workforce was being systematically cut back, the planning horizon was narrowed, and the space program was casting about for a new mission—a condition that continues to this day.

The 40-month period of the manned Moon landings, July 1969-December 1972, represents in many ways the critical turning point in the post-World War II history of American and world capitalism. War spending and a wages offensive by the American labor movement had produced increasing strains on the financial position of American capitalism, reflected in mounting balance of payments deficits.
On August 15, 1971, President Nixon went on national television to announce a radical shift in US economic policies, ending the international currency system established in 1944 at the Bretton Woods conference, which was anchored by the dollar’s convertibility into gold at $35 to the ounce. He also announced a 90-day wage freeze and a 10 percent tariff surcharge on imports.

These decisions had profound historical significance. American capitalism was no longer capable of playing the role of stabilizer of the world financial system. Faced with resurgent capitalist competitors in Europe and Asia, and a powerful labor movement at home, the US ruling class found it necessary to embark on a drastic change of course in both international and domestic policy.

[InsideJob]

scrimmage, give it a listen, in june, scroll to it ...

http://www.oraclebroadcasting.com/ar...ricanawakening

someday you will see this as a hoax and you will feel like idiot ... absoultely no way man can travel to moon ... why dont the propgandists come on radio and try to dispute it when i set up debates?

[scrimmage]

Time Magazine has come out with what they label "conspiracy theories",and they lump 9/11 and JFK in with a lot of other nonsense,and in doing so trying to discredit those 2 by association.
This is a big reason to let the moon hoax business go,and keep the focus on 9/11[and JFK].

Below list from:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/pa...860876,00.html

On the 40th anniversary of the moon landing — or was it just a sinister hoax? — TIME looks back at 10 of the world's most enduring conspiracy theories

Time Magazine
Conspiracy Theories

Full List
Separating Fact from Fiction

1. The JFK Assassination
2. 9/11 Cover-Up
3. Area 51 and the Aliens
4. Paul Is Dead
5. Secret Societies Control the World
6. The Moon Landings Were Faked
7. Jesus and Mary Magdalene
8. Holocaust Revisionism
9. The CIA and AIDS
10. The Reptilian El

2 examples:
The Moon Landings Were Faked

NASA

It's now been nearly four decades since Neil Armstrong took his "giant leap for mankind" — if, that is, he ever set foot off this planet. Doubters say the U.S. government, desperate to beat the Russians in the space race, faked the lunar landings, with Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin acting out their mission on a secret film set, located (depending on the theory) either high in the Hollywood Hills or deep within Area 51. With the photos and videos of the Apollo missions only available through NASA, there's no independent verification that the lunar landings were anything but a hoax.

The smoking gun? Film of Aldrin planting a waving American flag on the moon, which critics say proves that he was not in space. The flag's movement, they say, clearly shows the presence of wind, which is impossible in a vacuum. NASA says Aldrin was twisting the flagpole to get the moon soil, which caused the flag to move. (And never mind that astronauts have brought back hundreds of independently verified moon rocks.) Theorists have even suggested that filmmaker Stanley Kubrick may have helped NASA fake the first lunar landing, given that his 1968 film 2001: A Space Odessey proves that the technology existed back then to artificially create a spacelike set. And as for Virgil I. Grissom, Edward H. White and Roger B. Chaffee — three astronauts who died in a fire while testing equipment for the first moon mission? They were executed by the U.S. government, which feared they were about to disclose the truth.

Far-fetched as the hoax theory may seem, a 1999 Gallup poll showed that it's comparatively durable: 6% of Americans said they thought the lunar landings were fake, and 5% said they were undecided.


9/11 Cover-Up

Robert Giroux / Getty

Not since the JFK assassination has there been a national tragedy so heavily imprinted in American minds — or that has given rise to quite as many alternative explanations. While videos and photographs of the two planes striking the World Trade Center towers are famous around the world, the sheer profusion of documentary evidence has only provided even more fodder for conspiracy theories.

A May 2006 Zogby poll found that 42% of Americans believed that the government and the 9/11 commission "concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks." Why had the military failed to intercept the hijacked planes? Had the government issued a "stand down" order, to minimize interference with a secret plan to destroy the buildings and blame it on Islamic terrorists? In 2005, Popular Mechanics published a massive investigation of similar claims and responses to them. The reporting team found that the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) did not have a history of having fighter jets prepped and ready to intercept aircraft that had gone off route. And while the team found no evidence that the government had planned the attacks, lack of proof has rarely stopped conspiracy theorists before.

[ronangel]

Originally Posted by ronangel

Re: Van Allen radiation belts it is not the amount of radiation that would do the damage especially to film stock but its intensity (Kev). It is the difference between an atom bomb & a neutron bomb, an atom bomb destroys with intense heat and long term radiation (simplified)
A neutron bomb has the effect of the former but also the neutron particles being of very high intensity damage living cells by disintegrating them like a shotgun firing microscopic lead balls which pass through the body at high speed doing a lot of damage, leaving building & other none living tissue Intact. the effect on film unless very heavily shielded with lead would cause either total over exposure or more lightly as everybody would be dead at those levels, when printed would show lots of black spots or some at least on each picture. This was very evident on film stock used in the Chernobyl area close to the reactor. which would have had a lower (Kev) that that from the Van Allen radiation belts.

Picture I have taken to try to demonstrate the above


The silver circle is about 2" across.It is a stone covered in aluminium foil to represent the lunar module on the moons surface.This was filmed in my back yard on 400asa 35 mm colour film from about 3ft in daylight.The ground is dry brown earth.
The film was exposed in its cassette to a small sealed radium gamma source (0.4 rad) used to test and calibrate Geiger counters & other laboratory equipment by placing it next to the cassette for 23 hours, with the cassette moved from vertical to horizontal & turned 180 degrees after 8 hours. Then developed as normal.This was to simulate roughly what would happen to unprotected film near the van Allen belts.The speckled light blue foggy areas are where the radiation like thousands of minute pin pricks penetrated the coiled up film. The foil covered rock represents lunar module in which the film would have been unprotected on the way back from the moon.So why are all the pictures taken by the astronauts so clear?...as although much father away the radiation would have been many thousands of times stronger. this experiment is not possible to perform with a digital camera as the sensor is not effected by radiation in the same way, so TV pictures would not have been affected.

[scrimmage]

Originally Posted by ronangel

Picture I have taken to try to demonstrate the above


The silver circle is about 2" across.It is a stone covered in aluminium foil to represent the lunar module on the moons surface.This was filmed in my back yard on 400asa 35 mm colour film from about 3ft in daylight.The ground is dry brown earth.

The film was exposed in its cassette to a small sealed radium gamma source (0.4 rad) used to test and calibrate Geiger counters & other laboratory equipment by placing it next to the cassette for 23 hours, with the cassette moved from vertical to horizontal & turned 180 degrees after 8 hours. Then developed as normal.This was to simulate roughly what would happen to unprotected film near the van Allen belts.

The speckled light blue foggy areas are where the radiation like thousands of minute pin pricks penetrated the coiled up film. The foil covered rock represents lunar module in which the film would have been unprotected on the way back from the moon.

So why are all the pictures taken by the astronauts so clear?...as although much father away the radiation would have been many thousands of times stronger. this experiment is not possible to perform with a digital camera as the sensor is not effected by radiation in the same way, so TV pictures would not have been affected.

ronangel;
You didn't personally take the picture,it's from:
http://www.ssrichardmontgomery.com

The text is just an exercise in reading comprehension,it was written to be confusing.

The aluminum covered 2 inch stone photgraphed on the ground wasn't exposed to radiation.
The film this scence was shot with was placed next to radium for 23 hours,and that in no way simulates the 30 minute time Apollo passed through the Van Allen Belt.
Whatever film was used on Apollo wouldn't have been directly exposed to radiation at such close range,and wouldn't have been "unprotected".
TV pictures that were not affected could've been enhanced later too.

[ronangel]

Originally Posted by scrimmage

ronangel;
You didn't personally take the picture,it's from:
http://www.ssrichardmontgomery.com

The text is just an exercise in reading comprehension,it was written to be confusing.

The aluminum covered 2 inch stone photgraphed on the ground wasn't exposed to radiation.
The film this scence was shot with was placed next to radium for 23 hours,and that in no way simulates the 30 minute time Apollo passed through the Van Allen Belt.
Whatever film was used on Apollo wouldn't have been directly exposed to radiation at such close range,and wouldn't have been "unprotected".
TV pictures that were not affected could've been enhanced later too.

Thanks for your grammatical & spelling corrections,which my spell check
did not....
I was trying to write a technical type of report for the average person
plus those who might have wanted more details,did not work...
The reason that the photograph THAT I TOOK is on www.ssrichardmontgomery.com server is that I own www.ssrichardmontgomery.com website! along with
.net .org .co.uk .co.nz & many other sites....
I host all the pictures that I put on this site on my server space it is linux
based so that normal people looking at the site are unable to see a picture unless they have the exact hot link address so they are unable to access
adult content accidentally.
have a look at some of my many adult posts under ron angel at
http://forums.eog.com/arts-and-entertainment/

probably more interesting than this moon conspiracy stuff for some people
regards
ron angel
(ps hope you like the stuff on my site)

[mr merlin]

You guys do realize that nobody reads those ridiculous pastes...don't you?

[ronangel]

Originally Posted by mr merlin

You guys do realize that nobody reads those ridiculous pastes...don't you?

You just did...

[mr merlin]

Originally Posted by ronangel

You just did...

No I didn't, I just page down to the bottom. If it said something good, fill me in.

[scrimmage]

Originally Posted by mr merlin

You guys do realize that nobody reads those ridiculous pastes...don't you?

What about the ones that aren't ridiculous?

[mr merlin]

Originally Posted by scrimmage

What about the ones that aren't ridiculous?

Quite honestly, since you now have a reputation as a nutcase(or fanatic), very few will ever take the time to actually read the crap you post.

[ronangel]

Originally Posted by mr merlin

Quite honestly, since you now have a reputation as a nutcase(or fanatic), very few will ever take the time to actually read the crap you post.

I just wondered are you calling him a nutcase (or fanatic) because you believe men went to the moon or because you don't believe men went to the moon?
would it not be better to say why & give good solid reasons to back it up.stating why that you know it is crap (which part depending if you are or are not a believer) which would not be possible as you have not read any of the stuff to be qualified to even suggest that what is being written is rubbish...

[mr merlin]

I think we really did go to the moon, ok?

And yea, a year or so ago I read a few of his "theorys"(he's a total conspiracy wacko). No need to continue though.