Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

Sleepy House

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Sleepy House last won the day on September 21 2018

Sleepy House had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

58 Excellent

About Sleepy House

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
  • How old are you?
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
  • What is your Worldview?
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    United States

Recent Profile Visitors

146 profile views
  1. Sleepy House

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    I believe appeal to to authority in this case is valid. By all accounts, LHO wasn't the best marksman, and supposedly managed to make this shot with a surplus rifle and a defective scope despite the fact that no professional experts are capable of this even today day. That in itself isn't proof of conspiracy, it's just a fact. There's also many other things to consider, including code operators in secret American military installations getting chatter about the JFK assasination before it happened. (declassified). Also that LHO defected to Russia during the cold war, but instead of being blacklisted had no problems getting back to the U.S. His ticket was over 1,000 in a $200 bank account. The state department paid for it. Several witnesses, including several police officers, heard a shot from the grassy knoll. Yes, Mike, they come to these conclusions and then all of a sudden find them faulty. However it remains on the USHSCA wiki: The Committee further concluded that it was probable that: four shots were fired the fourth shot came from a second assassin located on the grassy knoll, but missed. The HSCA concluded the existence and location of this alleged fourth shot based on the later discredited Dallas Police Department Dictabelt recording analysis. So this recording analysis gives them the existence and location of a fourth shooter....but then this recording is discredited...it makes no sense. In any case I'd like to apologize to you for being so sarcastic in my previous posts, I know it must have come off as unpleasant and snippety, and I'll try to be more civil. I recommend watching the movie JFK. Even if nothing at all arouses your suspicions, it is a very good movie for anyone. It even prompted the JFK Act, which meant that all assassination related files would be released by 2017, although the last batch got pushed forward for further redaction. That isn't what I'm saying. I was bringing up conspiracy theories that turned out to be true in the end. When they become declassified, as some do, there's always a group of people waiting to say, "told ya so." I'm not saying that just because some conspiracy theories turned out to be true, others that aren't proven must be.
  2. Sleepy House

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    Here ya go, buddy. From Wikipedia: In contrast to the conclusions of the Warren Commission, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded in 1979 that Kennedy was "probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy".[4] The HSCA agreed with the Warren Commission that the injuries that Kennedy and Connally sustained were caused by Oswald's three rifle shots, but they also determined the existence of an additional gunshot based on the analysis of a dictabelt audio recording and therefore "... a high probability that two gunmen fired at [the] President."[5][6] The Committee was not able to identify any individuals or groups involved with the possible conspiracy. In addition, the HSCA found that the original federal investigations were "seriously flawed" with respect to information-sharing and the possibility of conspiracy. The Committee further concluded that it was probable that: four shots were fired the fourth shot came from a second assassin located on the grassy knoll, but missed. I'm not going to babysit anyone through the JFK assassination. There's mountains of evidence for anyone that wants to look. If someone doubts multiple gunmen and believe in the magic bullet theory, by all means. I will list a few facts, though. Jesse Ventura, former gov of MN and qualified expert in the Navy Seals, concluded that it was an impossible shot. One of the best snipers in the world, with many confirmed kills, concluded that the shot was impossible. https://oswald-not-guilty.blogspot.com/2009/10/oswald-not-guilty-famed-sniper-says.html “Let me tell you what we did at Quantico,” Hathcock recalls. “We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don’t know how many times we tried it, but we couldn’t duplicate what the Warren Commission said Oswald did. Now if I can’t do it, how in the world could a guy who was a non-qual on the rifle range and later only qualified 'marksman' do it?” Of course, sergeant Carlos Hathcock was only the most famous American military sniper in history, credited with a confirmed 93 kills. But apologists for a lone assassin, who continue to enjoy mainstream media sponsorship 40 years later, continue to argue that an average shooter like Oswald, using a decrepit, war surplus weapon, could have killed Kennedy. Case closed." And let's please remember who else failed to have expert marksman make that shot: The Warren Commission. The people who insist that....he made the shots.
  3. Sleepy House

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    Then why do they want an investigation? It's more telling that they want one knowing what they say you know, than if they wanted one out of ignorance. I've heard nothing of any university or institution receiving footage or transmissions. They would remain if that had been the case. Destroying or losing evidence is the first thing people do when they don't want something to be studied or found out about. There are a good deal of people that would readily accept the landing on the moon if a single, clear image were shown of the equipment. Too bad it's impossible to provide. Significant cost was never an issue before. Nobody has made any manned missions because it's too dangerous and "we lost the technology to go there." It wasn't really that dangerous before, though... Nice deflection, but you don't have to believe the government anymore about the lone killer, because the government admitted it was a conspiracy, and that there was a shooter on the grassy knoll. It's okay, Mike. You don't have to believe in the magic bullet theory anymore. And you don't have to believe the government anymore about James Earl Ray, either. During the second civil suit, the jury came to the decision that (taken from Wikipedia so you believe it) "Loyd Jowers as well as others, including governmental agencies had been part of a conspiracy." This news in regards to someone so important that we have a holiday in his name and name several streets after was overshadowed by everyone's interest in the murder case involving an American Football star. (you are a Brit so I know that's a double don't-care for ya) And speaking of Roswell, the CIA just declassified thousands of files about UFOs from the 1940s to the 1990s. Seems they've been studying them for 50 years. What a bunch of nut cases. I haven't read them (yawn) but I'm sure they are sort of interesting. And speaking of Hitler...there were recently some declassified documents that were released quietly. For all you make fun, the FBI was extremely interested in his whereabouts (I guess they didn't swallow the media story, either. What a bunch of gullible fools!!!) https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/470586/Are-these-classified-FBI-files-proof-ADOLF-HITLER-escaped-by-SUBMARINE-to-Argentina Anyway, you're right. This is really just going in circles. I'm an indian in a village full of chiefs here. I think the huge problems the website had for so long may have discouraged some people, not sure. Seems we've lost a lot of regulars.
  4. Sleepy House

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    Sure, Mike. Like all those crazy conspiracy theorist nuts that just wouldn't accept the "lone nut" JFK assassination story because they "weren't interested in the truth." Until, that is, it finally got some press (thanks, Oliver Stone) and re-investigated, to which the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations quietly and with no media admitted that LHO didn't act alone and that there was a shooter on the Grassy Knoll. Donald Trump is waiting another 3 years to release the rest of the JFK files because CIA and FBI need to make further redactions. All those nuts that wouldn't let go of the Gulf of Tonkin as a false flag to justify a war in 'Nam...until Secretary of Defense McNamara admitted that nothing happened, and LBJ knew all along. And all those crazy c-theorist nuts who thought the CIA was running drugs into the country...until it was proved by Gary Webb. Turns out they had been selling cocaine in LA for over a decade to fund Contras in Nicaragua. Very high up people were involved, but only Oliver North got a slap on the wrist. Gary Webb was found dead in his apartment, with two gunshot wounds to the head. It was ruled a suicide. The list goes on. C-theorists are interested in connecting facts, not media blackouts and debunker armies.
  5. Sleepy House

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    Russia isn't. Their officials want an investigation. And I've mentioned before...how could they have debunked it? They saw the same black and white 60s quality TV we did. NASA didn't make any copies, and taped over all the film and lost all the data. Nothing was sent anywhere for anybody to study or scrutinize anywhere. Why is there never going to be a photo that convinces me? How about something that is recognizable? The evidence you're showing is indistinguishable dots on the surface of the moon. Prove that they are there. Just saying we can ping a laser off it to calculate distance doesn't make it true; that can be done off the surface. It must not have been too expensive, since we literally did seven of them in a matter of a few years. And if it was only to prove that we could beat the Soviets, then why do it an additional 6 times? Did we have billions to spend to prove we could do it over and over? And what exactly did we learn about the moon in subsequent trips that we didn't learn the first time to justify the cost? That fold-up lunar rovers work just fine and you can hit golf balls really far? Not a whole lot of point? It opened up manned space travel beyond LEO. All those hugely successful missions with one slight mishap pretty much proved that it wasn't at all dangerous or expensive. The Soviets weren't anywhere close to broke. Yet in 50 years no human has ever even left LEO. Allegedly because it's too expensive and dangerous (it wasn't before). No one has done one because it turns out the astronauts in the Apollo Missions were immune to the dangers that would afflict astronauts now. The radiation would nuke all the systems. In case you haven't seen the video, the NASA spokesmen said "We lost the technology to go to the moon. We used to have it, but it's lost, and it takes a long time to build back up again." Which proves that the most powerful computers and 50 years of technology just can't compete with the slide-rule and good ol' American can-do spirit. So, instead of throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks, I'll concentrate on one thing for now. Does anyone care to elaborate on why the moon rock given to Holland by the astronauts themselves is a complete fake? It's a piece of petrified wood. Did some clever hoaxters do the 'ol switcheroo when the curators weren't looking? Did Aldrin carry around some petrified wood in his pocket for luck, but accidentally gave it to the former Dutch leader, Willem Drees? Inquiring minds want to know...
  6. Sleepy House

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    Nobody has ever repeated a manned mission despite 50 years of technological advancement, or even left LEO. Those photos show absolutely no detail of any of the equipment. I don't know why we need something to ping a laser off to calculate distance. The soviets were using the surface of the moon for that since the 1950s. All of a sudden it became too "expensive" and "dangerous" even though that was never the case for our six successful missions. Of course you are, and that's fine. Do you not realize that NASA has redone literally every photo and released and re-released them? The waters have been muddied. Again, all you need is some evidence from a telescope that provides something at least remotely recognizable. You fail to acknowledge that huge conspiracies involving thousands of people have been successfully carried out. As for photoshop, just google "moon landing photos" and search the images. It's obvious that some have an insane amount more detail and quality than others. If you wanna believe a photo was taken every 15 seconds by extremely busy astronauts in an environment that could kill them at any second performing extremely delicate tasks, go for it. It's going to be the year 2030, and nobody will have gone again while kid's wristwatches have more capability than all the computers of 1960s NASA. And you're going to watch them dance around like puppets and have fun in slow-motion and say....well we just can't go again. It's too expensive and we haven't solved the radiation problem yet Look at those brave chaps... You're taking the word "photoshop" and using it as a half-handed excuse to ignore everything else because you believe that NASA is so noble and pure as to never be involved in any deception. NASA satellites are used by the NSA who spy on literally everything they want to at any time, and they did so for years (wait for it) covertly, with nobody knowing. Or didn't you hear Snowden's whistle? Come back when you got something real...
  7. Sleepy House

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    Safe travels, friend.
  8. Sleepy House

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    The only thing I am skeptical of is the manned mission. I have no reasons to suspect that the rest did not happen. That goes deep into Flat Earther territory, who believe no one has ever been to space at all. That's no man's land, and gets very weird very quickly. There are some interesting theories about the FES and why they exist, but I won't get into that. Light pollution is bad here. Clear skies are2 hours west. I'll be back where I want to be soon; this is temporary. Celestron binocs can only collect dust here. Until then, I will accept that the stars would have been faint or blurry, but I do not accept that they couldn't have gotten them at all. Yes, and so few remain that it's laughable. Holland's was a certified fake. The ones that remain are pretty much unstudied. And the only source of these isn't the moon. They are also found in Antarctica. Not similar, but the exact same. Interestingly, von Braun (former SS and NASA scientist) was in Antarctica in 1967. The soviets brought back 326 grams, we brought back over 300 kilos. I think we can agree that there was absolutely nothing very dangerous for the manned moon landings. Everything went smooth as silk including completely untested technology and the LM which, less than a year before launch, was riddled with hundreds of problems. They also landed it for the first time with an exceptionally heavy load that they could never have simulated on earth. Except for Apollo 13, which despite huge malfuctions in deep space including a tank exploding, made it home safe and sound. Just like in a movie. Oh wait...isn't there a movie? I'd love to see a major production of an Apollo 11 movie, for obvious reasons, but we know that will never happen. That's why I brought up Operation Ajax. It's the art of being covert. The left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. It's one example in a sea of examples of how people get away with the most colossal and nefarious projects without anyone ever finding out. If you're trying to tell me that secrets can't be kept for massive projects, I suggest you do a little (or a lot) of research. That picture Wibble showed was most likely photoshopped. And I'm not saying that as some paranoid defense mechanism. NASA has an entire staff of people who work round to clock to develop, enhance, or otherwise change photos. It is in itself a business of photos, or else how would the rest of us see what they're doing? This is what caused a great deal of people, both then and now, to question things. It looks like they're going in slow motion. In the video I posted early on in this thread, it literally looks like they are puppets on a string. There are several shadows that indicate different light sources. All of these have been "debunked" and generate an auto-response of brain activity in the believers that it has been debunked, and that anyone that questions it needs their head examined. There are more debunking sites than hoax sites. Anytime anyone posts a hoax video, there's the army of soldiers willing to do their best to discredit and humiliate the "tinfoil-hat" morons and I'm sure you've seen this on Creation Science videos on youtube, and the soldiers there are atheists promoting their scientific evolution agenda. Most people I know that are moon landing believers (which is nearly everyone I know) don't waste their time researching it. They don't care enough to. It doesn't bother them. They don't find hoax videos and become 10x more rude then they probably ever are in their personal lives. There is a very popular contention that Wikipedia had, but removed. There wasn't anything to debunk it. In the reflection of the helmet of one astronaut, there is a floating object that looks very similar to a stage light. One man calculated that it was perfectly positioned to be causing the glare right where it would have been if it was a light, and Wikipedia even had the degrees. It's gone now. Does this truly convince you? A few indistinguishable dots? What about something with some actual detail? We have telescopes with power beyond anything anyone ever dreamed of, and NASA keeps promising something other than what could easily be accomplished by a 12-year-old who did a weekend "Learn Photoshop" seminar. A photo in detail where the equipment is unmistakable is all it would take to convince me. You and the rest of the world, bud.
  9. Sleepy House

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    How exactly would they have called us out on it or debunked it? They saw what everyone else in the world saw—black and white bad quality 1960s television. There was no internet then, or even VHS, and even if there were, remember that NASA made zero copies. They ended up taping over or losing everything. The moon landing probably wasn't even broadcast in those countries. Footage wasn't distributed or available to be scrutinized, and was deliberately not sent to universities or anywhere else for scrutiny or study of any kind. A lot of Russians didn't and don't believe we landed on the moon, and ever since they found out about NASA losing every single thing about it, they want to investigate, which makes perfect sense. And covert ops aren't some huge open thing that everyone is knowingly involved in. Mike said hundreds of thousands were involved, which is probably what Wikipedia says so it looks impossible. It would be hundreds of thousands if literally everyone in the space program, their families, and associated companies were involved and knew it would be faked, including night janitors, secretaries, the people that hauled the freight, the daycare staff, and the troll figurines on people's desks. Even the human calculators and engineers who thought we were going to moon would not have known that everything that happened post-launch would be faked, if that was the case. Once that Saturn V left earth, there was no way for anyone, or any interested 3rd party to track progress. That's all on the tapes...which NASA lost. All the data of the entire trip, including transmissions, is lost. How many people actually saw the astronauts board the craft? How many were present? Covert ops, false flags, cover-ups, all that stuff has been mastered and honed to perfection by government agencies. How many of you have heard of OPERATION AJAX? It was where the U.S. and Britain teamed together to covertly overthrow the government of Iran in 1953 during peacetime, and it worked. And nobody knew about it until 2013, 60 years later and only because the government released it. A lot of it remains classified. How many people do you think it takes to stage a coup and utterly overthrow the government of a country as large as Iran? We're talking multiple agencies in two separate countries, plus plenty of people in the oil industry, and not one word was leaked or one whistle blown. Not just that, but British and American oil companies, after all the carnage and death, laughed all the way to the bank. If this were still a conspiracy theory, as it once was, Wikipedia would say the same thing—"The supposed operation would require the silence of thousands of employees across multiple agencies and companies. It is highly unlikely that so many people could keep a secret." Many of these NASA scientists, along with over 1,000 other Germans, many of them Nazis and Nazi leaders, were brought over in a covert operation (Operation Paperclip) just after WWII ended. This tells something of the lack of openness and honesty of these people. I guess they couldn't just say: "My fellow Americans, I know we've made the Nazis look very bad, and some of the things they've done were very bad. But, in order to beat the Soviets in the space race and advance our scientific community, I've decided to collect as many Nazi scientists as we can and give them gainful employment in the United States government. Don't worry, we'll still publicly show how much we care about Nazi justice in the Nuremberg Trials, but keep in mind this is for the good of America..."
  10. Sleepy House

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    So the difference is in the camera? I didn't jump to any conclusions, I asked after the huge size disparity. You might be right—it could be that the camera had a zoom function. I know that would be the only way for me to increase the size of the moon in a picture if I took one. Obviously standing there taking it with a bunch of different cameras wouldn't change the size to anything close to that degree. And it could also be because they were in orbit, and therefore closer to the earth. Well it's not difficult when you put it that way. Of course, every other shadow from every other object is in frame and just where it needs to be, but this exact angle in that moment of time just so happened to remove the shadow of the flag out of the frame. Either way explanation I hear most is that NASA, during all their touch up and re-touch ups of copies that are copies of original photos, must have accidentally removed the shadow. It is really too bad they taped over all the original footage of the most historic event of all time, and also lost all the data, and that they didn't make any copies. It would make this so much easier. Who said anything about a Hollywood studio? There's more than one picture of the rover with no tracks. In fact there are several, some with the lunar module not even in sight and the rover a good distance from the camera, so we know it wasn't unpacked at the location. Again, amazing engineering to fold up a rover into something the size of a large suitcase. Too bad that NASA technology wasn't ever duplicated. There's a lot of people that would love to have something like that. As for no tracks, ask NASA. They're silent on the issue, and rely on the scientific expertise of the people at metabunk and mythbusters. Didn't I already acknowledge that the settings they used for the surface wouldn't capture stars? I thought we came to the conclusion that they could have, but simply didn't want to. I hear the view of all that heavenly glory changed one of the astronaut's lives in a very meaningful way...but what the heck...they only had 6,000 (10,000?) available shots...why waste the effort.
  11. Sleepy House

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    I claimed, not falsely, that the lunar module had never landed on the moon, nor taken off from the surface of the moon prior to Apollo 11. Furthermore, that demonstration could not have used the ascent engines used on Apollo 11, or any subsequent missions. Any tests performed ruined the engines, and as Radcliffe said, they would only know if it worked once they were there. Kind of a big risk. If you say so. A member of the Apollo 13 mission said that they were very cold, and the sun shining through the window didn't help at all. Exposure to direct sunlight through a window for hours on end in a vacuum isn't the least bit dangerous without a space suit? Then please answer, what is all this talk of NASA having to solve the radiation problem to make travel beyond LEO safe? It's clearly safe even with 1960s technology. And how about galactic cosmic rays? From space.com ...research on the effects of space radiation focuses mostly on high-energy forms of light, such as X-rays and gamma-rays. But a major potential danger to astronauts that has not yet been studied in depth are galactic cosmic rays — massive, high-speed, electrically charged particles emerging from every direction in space. Galactic cosmic rays are caused mostly by exploding stars known as supernovas, and can easily penetrate spacecraft and human skulls. "I wasn't anticipating such extensive degradation [in response] to relatively small doses of charged particles," Limoli said. "The magnitude of the effect was surprising." (Testing on rodents) In the video you posted it said, "here is the vehicle operating under lunar conditions." What lunar conditions would those be? It looks like Earth to me. Now go ahead and put a 400lb lunar rover in there, more humans, an ascent engine on top, multiple space suits, gallons of water and tanks of oxygen, TV equipment, a sanitation system, a heat shield, a battery and battieries heavy enough to completely power everything for over a week, food, scientific equipment, spare tools, an equipment bay, a docking hatch, an oxygen delivery system, and about 30 other things, and you can see how easy it must have been for them to get it right each and every time. It's no wonder NASA scaled down the astronauts to miniature size in the museum display.
  12. Sleepy House

    Are People Becoming An Absurd Superficial Joke?

    There was a recent case of a parent from British Columbia who refused to have male or female identified on the birth certificate (government identification card) of their child. The child should "make that decision when the time comes." I believe they are considering or have already passed something that gives people this right in BC or Canada. It's completely absurd, since an infant is either male or female. All you have to do is look at the anatomy. I hear that in England, very young children are being taught in school that's it's okay and perfectly acceptable and normal to have two mommies or daddies. Let's mince words a little. "okay" and "perfectly acceptable" and "normal" are complete matters of opinion, and since this is the opinion of majority of the media and the government (who fund schools) they are basically telling children that what they think is okay, is okay. So what the government and media considers perfectly normal must be perfectly normal to everyone. That is dishonest and pushy. A more proper way to teach would be to tell the children, "Having two mommies or two daddies is perfectly recent and you'll find a lot of people that accept it." Saying it's normal is contradicting social behavior of humans and society since recorded history. People have always been g*y, and they always will be I guess, but I think anyone would be hard-pressed to find any culture where it was even remotely acceptable for two same s@x parents to raise a child. Or, for that matter, for any male or female to identify as something else, and then request special privileges because of it. It may not be so far off where Mikey Mischief's examples come true. "I'm was born a male, but I strongly identify as a potato." "Okay sir, I mean, ah..hmm..let's go ahead and get your records changed, okay?"
  13. Sleepy House

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    Here's one for starters. NASA released these 10,000 and the article is dated at 2018. If those 10,000 are all different, make that one picture every 7 or 8 seconds by the astronauts. https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/01/12/nasa-apollo-moon-mission/ There are also other sites easily found (and no, not conspiracy ones) where NASA releases new and old photos that have been re-touched, re-mastered, re-everything'd. Notice in the fourth photo down how significantly smaller and less detailed the earth is than the one you posted. Why the disparity in size? Also notice the sixth one down, where the shadow of the flag and flag pole are easily visible. On picture 11, no shadow at all that I can see. 5th picture down: titled "Driving on the moon." If they are driving on the moon, where in the dickens are the tracks? Isn't that moistureless soil supposed to hold imprints better than anything on earth? Edited out for aesthetics by NASA? These are all official photos as far as I know. "Successfully met" does not mean "tested." Pre-Apollo 11, the LM had never successfully landed on the moon, and had never ascended from the surface of the moon. The simulator was scrapped because it was too dangerous and riddled with problems. It was never even landed. Stoff, a talking-head said, "At some point in the program, [NASA] eventually stopped using it because it was just, it was a lot safer to land on the Moon than it was to fly this machine down in Texas.” Obviously. When it's way too dangerous to land on our home planet, the best thing to do is land it on a different celestial body. Obviously, it worked. The engines couldn't be tested, either. A concerned engineer of Grummans said that the propellants were so corrosive they ruined the engines every time, and besides that they were highly toxic. Shielding the astronauts from the heat was another huge issue. Lynn Radcliffe, overseer and manager of the White Sands facility that developed the engines said: "the first time these engines would ever have been fired, ever – no check-out at the factory – the first time would be when they were fired on their mission." And What If, you were right about the Americans being masters at the docking maneuver. Apollo 13 actually performed a successful docking in open space. This is after the oxygen tank blew up and messed up their whole trip (but in no way altered their course). They traveled about 200,000 miles protected from instant death by the equivalent of 2 sheets of aluminum foil. Again, radiation protection was at its finest in the 1960s and 70s. Did I mention they didn't have their suits on? Weight was also an issue. Seats were not allowed because they needed to save weight. With such a delicate craft and landings being so difficult to perform. This wasn't an issue later, though, when they brought a 400lb lunar rover with them. The ascent specs must have also been pretty lax, since on one trip they brought back nearly 300lbs of moon rocks. Again, not a problem at all. I'm sure the people back home accounted for each and every ounce, which everyone knows is critical to a successful launch. I might be wrong here, but wouldn't those rocks have been highly irradiated? They were sitting on the moon for thousands or millions of years depending on your worldview, absorbing rays directly from the sun.
  14. Sleepy House

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    In all honesty, that is likely not the original photo. NASA has professionally touched up many photos, thousands in fact, and it's also true that most photos weren't part of the public domain for years after the landing. Looking through some photos I've noticed that the earth appears in various sizes, and in some it has a noticable tilt, even though the plane and horizon line are straight, like in the photo you posted. We know that light conditions on the moon are supposed to alter shadows. However there is one photo (possibly two) where the flag and flag pole casts no shadow at all. The way the apollogists explain that one away is that it's been touched up so many times by NASA that they accidentally deleted the shadow. As for the exposure, it could be accepted that it didn't capture the stars, however I've learned that they could have easily adjusted the exposure time to include stars if they wanted to. They obviously didn't. Surprising consider the sentiments of Edgar Mitchell, who loved the "heavenly view" and how magnificent the stars were, and that they appeared 10x brighter than on earth. From Aldrin, though: It was not an easy thing to do in a pressurised suit, inflated as stiff as a football, with a gold sun visor jutting out from my helmet. But I managed to direct my view homeward, and there in the black, starless sky I could see our planet, no bigger than my thumb. -Buzz Aldrin I'm pretty sure that when we see a full moon the light obscures the nearby stars, but it never makes it a "starless sky" so I doubt the earth would, either.
  15. Sleepy House

    Where Are We To Find The Truth?

    Excepting, of course, the entire apparatus that would get them from the moon and back into orbit, and the apparatus that soft-landed them on the moon. For something that looked like a mock-up put together with duct tape, old air conditioning equipment, Christmas wrapping paper and zippers, I guess it did the trick. Previous unsuccessful and successful soft landing equipment also had the benefit of not having any shifting weight whatsoever, which Armstrong said was life and death. It's absolutely nuts that they would even bring a 400lb lunar rover and land with it. Except having proven that radiation and half-a-million mile roundtrips including landing on a planetary body, ascending from it, and safe return were successful 6 times, that literally opens up space for safe manned travel. There's Mars, Europa. There's even the moon yet again, which may be used for more than collecting rocks and playing golf. For all of the moon dust's shadow-moving, moistureless footprint keeping, resistance to thrust-engine properties, as far as I know we didn't bring any back. And if it's so expensive then why on earth did we go so many times in the first place? Just to prove that we could? Did we use the money wisely by furthering scientific research on subsequent trips, or did we just collect a bunch more rocks (nearly all of them are now missing) and hop around? It obviously wasn't important enough for NASA to keep track of the record for the entire landing on the moon. Telemetry, transmissions, voice data, biomedical monitoring data, mechanical functioning...it's probably a good thing nobody is giving NASA the money for travel...they'd probably just lose it. Apollo 13 was successful in that everyone returned home alive. But the problem with that reasoning is it can't really be compared. The LM was untested for landing on the moon or ascending from it. He would have to have been, because based on previous missions, future missions and lack of anyone daring to send any living thing beyond LEO, their chances of survival for all six missions, imho, was practically zero.

Important Information

Our Terms