MoonFaker: Spacewalks, Golf Games & Denials

[moonhoaxlunatic1]

5:15 ...cont...

Why would there be a piece of balsa wood taped to the CSM window for just one shot? What possible purpose would that serve in the context of a moon hoax conspiracy? I know you are not exactly known for your painstaking research, but don't you know from from the format of the picture number (if nothing else), that these pictures weren't taken manually by the astronauts using Hasselblads looking through the windows of the CSM but by a camera in the SIM bay?

[moonhoaxlunatic1]

5:15 (picture AS15-M-0113); Never used adhesive tape to anchor the end of a 35mm film roll to the cassette spool? Or the leading edge of '120' type film to its paper backing?

You are probably much too young to have any personal experience with film. And given your conspiratorial mindset and rich imagination, it's clear to see how you might think it was a piece of 'balsa wood'. But like the vast majority of the supposed hoaxer-discovered 'anomalies' it still makes no rational sense... cont...

[pt1gard]

2:00 and watch for 30 seconds, nasa busted as usual

[Tweekerhead]

At 2:29 that's a video still...not a photograph.....Hahaha

These are great, really entertaining.

[tony47194]

why do you people argue so? all of you should ask questions concerning yuor lives. ask nasa why they don't have any photos, or reel footage of the stars as they travel from earth to the moon. we know that you can see the stars from within space. shuttle missions,and telescopes have shown this. you are gettinig closer to the truth by asking questions. open your minds to multiples, don't just think in single mindedness. thinking this way shows you were taught by someone, not useing your own mind

[TheJomogogo]

@tony47194

Dummy, none of the orbital shots from earlier space missions show stars either, why do you lunartics make up silly shit like that? And Apollo 16 DID take special camera shots of stars.

So please STFU

[sukiari]

I submit that the "balsa wood" was simply a gap between two rolls of film, joined with tape. They may have joined several lengths of film, perhaps in an effort to increase the available film length in the canister. The film may have been periodically snipped and tested, so as to allow verification of its properties.

I still don't think we went to the moon, but there is a perfectly logical explanation for this image, whether it was taken in space or a studio.

[AntisolarPoint]

This guy is absolutely class. Everyone knows the publishers of Collins' book, and the publishers of the book purporting to show the golf shot, took liberties with the images. Very unfortunate, they probably never thought that people like this Aussie twerp would extrapolate that to evidence that the entire project was faked.

[stalkervision]

Love that shot of the duct taped piece of wood on a sheet of glass where there shouldn't be one. People wake up and smell the Folgers. Apollo was a cold war/war time hoax to beat the Russian's.

[moonhoaxlunatic1]

@stalkervision

This 'anomaly' is quite easily explained:

w w w . imdb . com/title/tt0446557/board/nest­/133905495?d=133946862#1339468­62

It just requires a little investigation and rational thinking... something that Bart Sibrel and Jarrah White have consistently proven themselves to be lacking in.

[BestTits]

bloody ell

[LordofKings135]

The flag never changes in position. It's just that the angles of the two photos is different.

[BetterNot10]

Aaaar, whinging Aussies on the moon. Aaaar.

[Drifterzz89]

take a good look at 1:40-1:42 look carfully (flag+shadows their is a line tht cutts off the shadow of tht guy+no stars ) ;p fuckin fake

[LordofKings135]

The reason that there are never any stars in photos on the moon is because of all the light pollution that the moon reflects into space from the sun.  It's just like standing in the middle of a big city at night.

[Drifterzz89]

Maybe ur right but its still fake is it?

[LordofKings135]

I don't think so

[Simboiss]

That's not quite the reason, and not quite the point either. The main argument is that exposition on the cameras was too low to catch any light from the stars. Yet, the point is usually about how the astronauts don't almost never describe the sky full of stars...

[TheJomogogo]

That line is the flagpole idiot, and the lack of stars has been explained so many times for so many years that only a sack of retarded assfuck would bring it up again.

[mikatile]

Needless abuse is a measure of how brainless you are is your sister also your mother?

[TheJomogogo]

It's not needless, moon hoax advocates truly need the abuse. They deserve it for being so willfully stupid.

[shanehoustein]

I would hate to be you. Spending so much time abusing people is surely starting to take it's toll on you.

[davewatcher]

That intro is so like James Bond. Especially the hair adjstment.

[alanthedrum]

The moon landings were primarily a demonstration to the Russians. Make no mistake the Russians would have exposed fakery.

[jpsmart59]

Freaking NASA so fake! Hoaxing moon landings!

Modern man is gullible and believe what the government agency like NASA can cook up to take him in. What's next? Fake Mars landings?

[radagem]

We land in the moon and we built a fake one for training. :P

[triangleround]

Sibrel is a piece of shit

[countesscristo]

Nasa-Illuminati through and through. I couldn't trust them to tell me the date in a calendar factory!

[stalkervision]

well that piece or wood with ducttape was obviously there to hold the command modual togather!

[stalkervision]

Thank Jarrah, excellent work!

[gen57b]

Hey Jarrah- just who's grandson are you?

Do you do any experiments to prove anything or just video captures of text and photos?

[executivesteps]

Frankly the moment I first saw the composite golf shot image, it was obvious that it was just a whimsical view of the total scene and not an archival photo. Whether it was characterized as 'real' or not hardly matters. It looks more like a bad Soviet era photo trick than anything else. It's unlikely it was created to deceive anyone.

And the tape and balsa wood are certainly vestiges of the darkroom set up used to copy these prints.

This is all a bunch of blovating hot air about nothing.

[malmstring]

While I understand that there have been A LOT of backstabbing going on between either side of the research other errors you find seem to be coincidental in nature and do not point towards people conspiring. Still I believe there to be a conspiracy (regarding a lot of the Apollo 11 material). I'm a little bit wary of your set mindset at such a young age though. May be hard to conduct your research in a objective fashion. I will continue to look at your material however.

[grayhog86]

Oh my GOSH, this is SO lame!

So a book publisher uses a composite and therefore the moon landing didn't happen.

Bad logic. Shame on you!

[WhiteJarrah]

"So a book publisher uses a composite and therefore the moon landing didn't happen."

Why was it captioned as an official photo?

[grayhog86]

Who cares? A book publisher is not the government for cryin' out loud!

Not all mistakes are driven by evil schemes, most errors are simply that, human errors.

Most of these astronauts were West Pointers and Anapolis grads - and as a West Pointer I'll tell you, that whole Duty, Honor, Country thing goes WAY DEEP and to assume these good men are lying to us - for 40 years - is just baseless. None of the theories account for the human moral aspect of propogating such lies.

[EGMAG]

WhiteJarrah (<<

Stay cool Jarrah, for the things you know are right!

It's the truth that the truth makes them so uptight.

Stay cool Jarrah, they "know" what your saying makes sense and all, and their moon giant phantom's about to fall!

[EGMAG]

grayhog86 therefore the moon landing didn't happen.<<

Grayhog; Imagine a scale! On one side is place a few light feathers. On the other side is placed a 100 pound lead weight. The leaded side goes crashing through the floor. While the feathers fly up in the air. The lead side represents the amount of evidence showing the moonwalks to be fake! It really is that obvious!

[grayhog86]

You'll note the post to which you replied is 4 months old. I grew tired of the complete lack of reasonable intelligence and logic from CTs and found better use for my time.

Consider something, though. You claim the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a hoax.

(cont'd)...

[grayhog86]

(cont)

No one. No one...has ever been able to share with me one dyed-in-the-wool, no-shit, leader in the field, Nobel Prize nominated scientist - from ANY field or country - who even doubts Apollo. The most curious and edcuacted of our race have had 40 years - and not one doubts it. But you, after watching YouTube videos and thinking you understand the science involved, do.

I'll take the world's scientists over you yutzes any day of the week!

[EGMAG]

grayhog86 << Although it is rather boreing and tiresome to put up with idiots like you people who do not even give any creedence to all the evidence on and off the internet that proves fakery. Hey--why are "700" boxes of film data and moonwalk tapes been missing since 1983; because computers today will slice through the fake bullshit.

[grayhog86]

So (going back to my last post which you ignored) you DON'T have any dyed-in-the-wool, no-shit, leader in the field, Nobel Prize nominated scientist -from ANY field or coutry - who even doubts Apollo?

I thought as much.

[EGMAG]

grayhog86 nominated scientist <<

It is like Pasteur with germs, Van Loewhenhouk with animicles, Lister with listerine, Dr. Zola's magic bullet. Yes many scientists stay hidden to escape being ridiculed and laughed at. Now with the onset of finer sophistication of computers it is impossible not to be skeptical of the ridiculous claims of conquering th moon 40 years past. Unless; Are you Amish?

[grayhog86]

So, no REAL experts to testify, then.

No death-bed confessions.  No block-buster book/movie deals to expose the fraud.

No letters addressed to the Washington Post or Scientific American found in now-deceased NASA employees safe-deposit boxes.

Not 1 single genius scientist - the most curious of our species - has EVER come out even DOUBTING Apollo.

Although the tabacco and energy industry has had whistle blowers - somehow, by some miracle, the "greatest cover-up" hasn't.

Not one.

[EGMAG]

grayhog86 <<

Your just plain crazy! Just look at what you ignore. I mean damn; your just plain crazy!

[grayhog86]

Not ONE no-shit, world reknown, genius scientist on your side....which means ALL no-shit, world reknown, genius scientists are on OUR side.

Nearly 1,000 lbs of moon rocks who's authenticity has NEVER been questioned by ANY geologist

Hundreds of thousands of NASA employees and not a single afidavit or death bed claim of a hoax.

No evidence of the alleged stage set in Texas/New Mexico/Arizona/California whatever.

Thousands upon thousands of hours of video and audio.

Landed 6 times!!

[EGMAG]

grayhog86 <<

Look, genius! The technology of today completely dwarfs that of the sixties; and it is impossible to get humans, dogs or cats to the moon and back safely, even in this day and age. So go back to school and stop playing the fool!

[grayhog86]

Impossible?

Oh don't tell me you're one of those that claim we didn't go to the moon since we've never been back?!?!

Oh, Lord. Are you going to also say that Lindbergh never soloed the Atlantic because no one attempts it today?

It is a matter of very well documented history that once Apollo 11 was accomplished Congress (taxpayers) wanted less spent on what was generally percieved as a race (vs exploration). The switch was made to fund Skylab and work began on the Shuttle design.

[gen57b]

EGMAG

'grayhog86 <<

Look, genius! The technology of today completely dwarfs that of the sixties; and it is impossible to get humans, dogs or cats to the moon and back safely, even in this day and age. So go back to school and stop playing the fool!'

You're a lazy boilerplate hoaxer! Go back to school my ass- you need to attend one one in the first place.

[grayhog86]

@gen57b Actually, I attended and graduated from what numerous surveys regularly regard as the toughest school in the country to get into and to graduate from - and with a degree in Aerospace Engineering. It is the same school Frank Borman, Buzz Aldrin, Mike Collins, Robert E. Lee, U.S. Grant, Stonewall Jackson, MacArthur, Patton, Bradley, Eisenhower, Schwartzkopf, Patreaus and a few others went to.

How 'bout you? What basis in engineering, science, honor and moral courage do you have?

[gen57b]

@grayhog86 The comment I left was for EGMAG.

I find it funny that EGMAG suggests that one should go on-line to find the truth regarding Apollo... the preponderance of evidence found clearly supports lunar landings. Hoaxers to date offer absolutely no evidence to support the claim of a hoax in the form of a detailed Hoaxer explanation of what did happen- where and when- let alone evidence to support a claim made by one idiot several decades ago.

[nycullaSUCKS]

@gen57b

That's because we don't need any more evidence than what we can see with our own eyes that it was all faked.

If YOU can show me ANY NASA photo or film of the "Moon landings" that actually shows stars, other planets, galaxies, nebulae, or ANY celestial body in the night sky whatsoever, then I will concede they went to the Moon. I will accept a photo or film showing ANY OTHER celestial body. Even an asteroid will do. ANYTHING!

Until then - SHUT THE FUCK UP!

.

[gen57b]

@nycullaSUCKS Exactly which nebula and galaxies can you see from the Earth's surface on a clear, dark night with your unaided eyes? Can you tell me which planets would have been in the lunar sky visible to Apollo astronauts from mission to mission?

Which is more likely:

1- NASA faked(no small feat in itself) landing men on the Moon but forgot to put fake stars in the artificial lunar sky.

2- You don't know what can be seen- and when- from the Earth's sky let alone the lunar sky?

#2

[nycullaSUCKS]

@gen57b

No, I cannot tell you WHICH planets would have been visible. Are you telling me NONE of them would EVER have been visible, during all those missions? Reflective surface glare accounts for a purely pitch black night sky in EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE, during YEARS of Moon missions?

[gen57b]

@nycullaSUCKS Venus and perhaps Jupiter may be visible if they were above the lunar horizon at the time astronauts were on the Moon, but remember that the amount of light incident to an astronauts eyes while on the lunar surface during Apollo missions was quite high becasue all missions took place in lunar daytime- it is difficult to find Venus in the daytime on Earth when it's above the horizon. But the Earth is visible in some shots taken form the lunar surface.

[gen57b]

@nycullaSUCKS There is one more thing that should be considered and that is that Apollo missions were not undertaken to take pictures of objects in the lunar sky- the sky from the Moon looks the same as our sky on Earth less our atmospher's affect on seeing(a negative). I would love to go to the Moon and image from the dark side of the terminator, but I would likely do what they did which was explore a new world. Not sure how much time I would spend looking up while on the Moon.

[gen57b]

@nycullaSUCKS And by the way google this:

AS17-134-20384

Your name is correct though- you suck. I do suggest that you learn a bit more before opening your uneducated trap.

[nycullaSUCKS]

@gen57b

And I suggest you eat shit.

[gen57b]

@nycullaSUCKS Probably not much room at the shit pile with you feeding your fat face 24 hours a day. I had a pretty good idea you have no idea of what you're talking about.

[nycullaSUCKS]

@gen57b

And how exactly would I get past your mother, since she eats all the shit she can get, and produces vermin like YOU out of her ass?

If you wanted a civilized discussion, you would have started with one.

[gen57b]

@nycullaSUCKS Alrighty then- let's forget at the outset that you told me to shut up- I asked you to name a few nebula and galaxies visible in the lunar sky with the sun high- or the planets and of all things asteroids that according to you would be visible to astronauats and captured in fractional second exposures taken from the lunar surface- no answer from you. You said show a photo taken by an astronaut from the lunar surface that shows a planet- what's in AS17-134-20384? The Earth is.

[nycullaSUCKS]

@gen57b

Okay - then it appears that I'm the one who owes YOU an apology. It was a month ago I posted that comment to you, and I'd forgotten all about it by now.

The suggestion is that (by virtue of overwhelming Sun glare), the shutter speed required to take the photos the astronauts were primarily concerned with capturing means that no stars, or other celestial bodies, could possibly be captured simulatneously in the photos - what, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL?

[gen57b]

@nycullaSUCKS Exposures required to capture starlight are fairly long- especially when relatively slow film is used. A digital camera can capture starlight with much shorter exposures but certainly not with sub-second exposures that would be required in daylight on the Moon. A flash was not used on the lunar surface. I am an astronomer and I'm imaging at my scope at the moment using a thermoelectrically cooled camera- I can capture starlight in a 1 second exposure, but it's dark.

[nycullaSUCKS]

@gen57b

Okay, I can perfectly accept the "shutter speed/aperture width" explanation in respect of feint "starlight" - but it also accounts for the lack of anything else ever seen in any of those photos?

You're an astronomer? Professional, or armchair? Just out of curiosity, what do you make of those vids people have been posting, using night-vision lenses on their telescopes and "capturing UFOs whizzing around in the upper atmosphere? Are they BS, or should I take them seriously?

[gen57b]

@nycullaSUCKS Travelling at 25,000 MPH no Apollo astronauts were not in the VA belts long enough for harmful amounts of radiation interact with them. I have been an amature astronomer for over 45 years- I own a telescope/astronomy equipment store as well. In all the time I have spent looking at the sky I have seen nothing I would consider alien intelligence piloting their craft in our skies. I have not seen the vids you mention but I do have night vision equipment- I'll try it on the night sky.

[nycullaSUCKS]

@gen57b

Okay - so the sheer speed they were travelling at was their main protection? Okay!

Now, what's your opinion of the Elenin/Nibiru "issue"? What's all the fuss about?

[gen57b]

@nycullaSUCKS The speed they travelled at was not their protection- it diminished the amount of time spent in the VA belt and that is why they we not adversly affected.

Elinin/Nibiru- comets I know- prophesy is a lucky guess if it comes true and just plain nonsense the rest of the time. Sleep soundly. Y2K had some folks twisted around pretty good- just more bullshit.

[gen57b]

@nycullaSUCKS The Earth is visible in several photos taken from the lunar surface by Apollo astronauts. The Earth is 4 times larger in diameter than the Moon- also the amount of light reflected by the Earth is much greater than by the Moon- the Earth would be larger in the lunar sky than the Moon is in Earth's sky. The amount of light present- directly from the sun and reflected by the Earth is enough to constrict an astronaut's pupils enough that faint starlight would not be visible.

[nycullaSUCKS]

@gen57b

I understand the scientific theory behind what you are saying. But from how many different angles were photos taken on the Moon? I simply cannot believe that ABSOLUTELYU NOTHING at all was captured on film besides the objects intended to be captured. The luminosity of celestial objects is as varied as the amount of objects out there.

And what's your theory as to how they passed through the Van Allen belt unharmed? It doesn't exist, right?

[gen57b]

@nycullaSUCKS Try it yourself- if you have a digital camera go outside when it is dark, set your camera to manual mode and start taking pictures of the sky- 1 second, 2 etc. You will find that it takes a fairly long exposure to have stars show up. In daylight exposures will be hundreds of times shorter to take a photo of a car for instance. I am imaging the Bubble nebula and exposures are 8 minutes using a 190mm telescope which collects far more light than a camera lens.

[loperspest]

The technology of today has little to do with going to the moon. It is like asking a company that once made refrigerators, to making air conditioners, to drop everything and start immediately making refrigerators.

We just don't have rockets to get there, and the tools and technology that was used the first time, just aren't used anymore.

Many solutions used will be the same, but because of the longer duration, many won't. You won't believe it anyway when they do go back.

See you in 10 years.

[EGMAG]

loperspest The technology of today has little to do with going to the moon<<

Now I KNOW your crazy!

[loperspest]

Let me rephrase that. Going to the moon requires very specific technologies. Some is already in use in present day spacecraft, like solar panels to recharge on board batteries and fuel cells in the Orion CSM. Others, like the lunar lander, haven't been done in manned spacecraft since Apollo. Much, like spacesuits that can withstand weeks of exposure to moon dust, hasn't been attempted at all, ever. This stuff can't just be pulled off the shelf of a local hardware store. It has to be developed.

[EGMAG]

loperspest (Going to the moon requires very specific technologies. <<

Yes that is right and it is the reason why the moonwalks were staged!

[loperspest]

Just how did you arrive that conclusion? Just getting into orbit requires very specific technology, does that every satellite was staged? By your own 'logic', that would be true. So the fact they had to develop new technologies to get to the moon means that we didn't? The airplane when invented required new powerful and light engines that didn't exist until invented. Are airplanes a hoax? Just applying your logic here.

[SerpoEban]

Thus staement makes no sence. What you are saying is that basiclly we have decreased in technical progress. So if these guys supposedly got there in tin foil, your saying with our rockets today we couldnt make it to the MOON!!!! Well if the radiation dosent kill you first. I mean I agree we didnt go there but to say humans are going backward in technology is crazy.

[loperspest]

Take a look at the Saturn V, compare it's payload to modern rockets.astronautix [.] com/lvs/saturnv [.] htm

Modern rockets don't even come close. But the Saturn V was retired, probably because it wasn't really useful except for getting people to the moon .

[grayhog86]

@EGMAG Share with me the name of one, just one, world-class scientist who is afriad to come forward with "the truth". You can't. You put these things out there and there's just no basis in it. The bottom line is no world-class, recognized, flippin' genius scientist or engineer has ever doubted Apollo. Fringe whackjobs self-educated in fysics and photo interpretation abound, but no real dyed-in-the-wool experts have.

[EGMAG]

@grayhog86 name of one, <<

I am old and tired of you and those like you who cannot fend for themselves & research the truth that really honest people have exhibited throughout the media for over 40 years. I know of many names and researchers and I am not even going to bother to reply to you; because you won't research on your own. You waste the time and energy of others and still you dig your heads deeply in the sand like ignorant morons. Please don't reply and make my millennium! Thank You!

[grayhog86]

@EGMAG Again...no answer whatsoever to the request for Nobel-laurette level scientists who question the Moon landings. But you claim "the media" has proven it - even though not a single major network or major paper in the U.S. has come out claiming the landings faked. Not one. Ever. These are the guys that took on the Nixon Whitehouse, Reagan and Contras, Pentagon Papers, etc but you claim they've "exhibited" it as a hoax at the same time you claim they hide for fear of reprisal. Which is it?

[EGMAG]

@grayhog86

Why don't you just go online and check everything out for yourself?

[EGMAG]

grayhog86 No one. No one...has ever been able to shar<<

No one. No one can ever open your eyes if you keep them sealed. Search around and find that even very noted Nasa scientists themselves have stated they could not do a moon walk; and most especially with the flimsy lander and junky looking stuff they claimed to get to the moon with. Don't ask me who; go find out for yourself!

[grayhog86]

Tell me this - when the LRO returns clear proof of Apollo landings, what will you say to this? Have you already figured out your answer or will you actually wait to study the evidence?

You've got your eyes wide shut. Not one single genius scientist doubts Apollo - but you, in your mother's basement eating cold pizza have it all figured out.

LMAO!

[grayhog86]

@EGMAG "junky looking"? Seriously? That's your reason? Your judging the engineering of the first craft designed to only fly in space - never terrestrial flight - because it doesn't meet your image of what your comic books and movies led you to believe what a moon lander should look like? .... 'cause it's "junky looking"? LOL!

[grayhog86]

@EGMAG Really quite the obvious if you look beyond YouTube for your sources. The most curious and often most egotistical of our species - our Nobel-Laurette level scientists - have NEVER...EVER...questioned the veracity of the moon landings, their quarry or their evidence. But you - after watching YT videos - do. Brilliant! If it were so one-sided you'd have real experts (published in real journals of science) ripping the program to shreds. Yet what they do is study the rocks brought back.

[yesiamawizardjonny]

@grayhog86 Uhh when astronauts share a composite photograph and caption it as an official mission photograph, that's a little suspicious.

[grayhog86]

@yesiamawizardjonny What makes a composite photograph automatically "unofficial" or incapable of being declared "official"?

[Pauschke]

Great - two astronauts in one picture on the moon... taken by a haselblad camera...unbelievable - Thx for this film! greets

[philomorphologian]

Mmm. As an object gets farther away from the viewer, it appears smaller to the viewer. The golfer can be seen swinging left-to-right and away from the lens. The golf ball should be tiny but, it's huge. Please explain.

Side tracking you: As for Red Dwarf, well done! Red Dwarf can be used for entertainment (Space Core Directive:474374) "Moon dust shall not be used as snuff even on a cold day" sorry, wrong one, again.

[Spion1618]

Watch this video:

A footprint of a shoe on the Moon!

This is an evidence, that the moon landing was faked!!

[LegosPL0X]

I just saw it. Everyone, don't watch it, it's fake.

[suzylux]

do you ever worry for yr life? lol

nice video :)

[SirMildredPierce]

Did you do the search at google images yet? just type it in: alan shepard golf

[deep72]

You are such a good film maker! I truly like this movie too!! I want more:-) Now:-))

[goobergel]

Jerrah, I'm sorry...do you have a point here? I must say your intellectual capacity seems to be on par with Arnold Remmer. Shame you didn't get the part.

[SirMildredPierce]

As far as the email from Zoo? Who ever responded to the email, likely an editor who had nothing to do with the acquisition of the photo, nor the layout of the photo, or the production of the one line throw-away blurb, just assumed that it was a NASA photo, and responded thusly.

[SirMildredPierce]

see what comes up in the very first slot?

Even the same colouring and heavy saturation. Perhaps they got their hands on the original colour version of the photo that the book must have reprinted? Oh the mystery deepens.

[SirMildredPierce]

As a graphic artist who has laid out hundreds of editions of newspapers, about on the same level of Zoo, I can assure you the way a graphic artist would get a picture like that is NOT by going to nasa's website, they would go to google images and type in oh something like: alan shepard golf

[apollotls]

By the way Jarrah - are you serious?

Can't you tell a bit of sticky tape from a plank of wood?

[quaheedus]

NASA never passed anything off or ever tried to... this image is not in any Apollo image archive pages and never has been.

[DarkDrifterUK]

Ou tof all the places to find the photograph, it was in ZOO. XD

[b6gm6n]

Yes i believe he didn't stop at exposing the corrupt cult of Scientology... I knew I'd seen him before, Remember Scientology pundits use the horrors of the holocaust and the 'demons' of 'psychiatry' to dish up the dirt (so called) only to seduce their own...or newbies to Scientology, enslave the mind...fear tactics, anyways I'm sure Markus has moved on to better things.

[b6gm6n]

Ok JW, take this or leave this :) make of this what you will, i want you to watch this video but start from 21:55 (no need to watch the rest unless you want to) it's on youtube - watch?v=HTNntFUhrw0

[WhiteJarrah]

Seen it! Thanks for sharing.

[b6gm6n]

Well done JW... i liked this video, i'll post some information in a moment for you all to see, there was a small clip included in your video which i have some comment on, but i must check first... don't worry it's just some background information.

[b6gm6n]

haha... i haven't seen the video yet but just had to say the intro is so well liked here :) sad to still see so many people off the beaten path - Re: Moon Landings... But you and certain others are refreshingly wonderful to view... now I'm going to enjoy the video :)

[ChrissyoSpace]

"... the propagandists deny that it was ever purported to be the real thing..."

So? That's because it is true. You're yet to show where either of these photographs have "This is a genuine NASA photograph" explicitly written/captioned. Saying "But it was implied to be real" doesn't cut it. It still just looks like you're trying to make something out of nothing with these two photographs.

[straydog02]

Great job once again Jarrah !

nasa only claimed the A14 golf photo was faked after it was proven it was , is quite correct ... I know this because I debated this very photo awhile ago with a few Apollo apologists on Unexplained Mysteries and they actually defended the ridiculous looking thing .

[quaheedus]

not true at all... NASA has never had that photo in their archives becuase it never existed.That is just another thing you hoaxers made up.the image was made for the book MOON SHOT because the video images of the golf shot were not very good and they wanted a better image for the book.

[straydog02]

Then they should have annouced that it was a fake composit shot , instead of trying to pass it off as having been taken on the Moon .

"Hoaxers" don't make this crap up ... nasa does .

[quaheedus]

more lies! NASA never tried to pass anything off and neither did the authors of the book!The caption does not say what Jarah says at all.If you believe what Jarah is saying then your are just a fool.

[WhiteJarrah]

"The caption does not say what Jarah says at all."

You still deny the photo was claimed to be real, even after I've shown that caption in context?

[quaheedus]

your big proof is that the editor of the Zoo said "to the best of his knowledge it was a NASA picture"..so he really wasnt sure where it came from. More of your proof of some hoax is that the photo is not in the paperback editions of "moon shot" but you fail to mention that most books omit photos when printed in paperback..lol..so I guess it not being in the paperback copies gets rid of all the other copies on earth with the photo in them.

[quaheedus]

I am dont deny anything other than what you say is not what the caption said..that is not denial it is fact.The caption decribes the MET cart, which they call the rickshaw...here is what the caption reads- (shown here between the two men)-no where does it say its an official NASA photo or give an image number.The fact is, its not at NASA'S archives and never has been and the editor of the ZOO is mistaken.

[WhiteJarrah]

"The caption decribes the MET cart, which they call the rickshaw..."

It also describes the golf game seen in the photograph.

"most books omit photos when printed in paperback"

Titles please.

[quaheedus]

are you looking at the Jarrah White moonfaker video? because I am and I guess I need to say it again.. the caption you hi-lite to imply the video was claimed to be a NASA image says (Shown here between the two men).The caption that you hi-lite does not describe the golf game... my previous comment should have said omit some photos in paperback.. there just simply isnt room to fit all the photos from some books into their paperback version.

[WhiteJarrah]

"The caption that you hi-lite does not describe the golf game"

I highlighted the portion of the caption that specifically refers to the photograph itself, the rest of the caption describes the golf game.

[greenmagoos]

quaheedus you heard anything from Brian O'Leary yet?

[goobergel]

So you have proven that nasa "doctored" some of the pictures they took on the moon?...nice work.

[straydog02]

The only liar here is you and the jerks at nasa ...Does Mary Bennett being "dead" ring any bells ?

Jarrah ... quaheedus is a nasa shill ... He sent me a bunch of disinformation to my PM box , lied about all of the conspiracy researchers and was so annoying that I was forced to block him.

You should do the same before he completely craps up your chanel with his assinine comments .

[quaheedus]

NASA never, ever claimed the Photo was real and it has never been in any Apollo archive of any kind.

[quaheedus]

You hoxers will never go after the contractors because you know they would sue the crap out of you! Rockwell,Bell, North American,Boeing the true criminals that defrauded the government and tax payers ..like I said if NASA were a private corporation they would sue and you would lose because you would need to prove the landings fake in a court of law..and you cant...your supposed evidence wouldnt stand a snowballs chance in hell.

[greenmagoos]

Can we sue whoever manipulated those images (including Buzz Aldrin in the spotlight fall off,that has been altered down the years) and then tried to get rid off them by leaving them off the re-prints?

The Apollo Simulation Project. Take a bow.

[quaheedus]

As far as I know he didnt leave them off the reprints.. they werent in the soft covers and just because the arent in the reprints(soft covers) doesnt make all the other copies of the book instantly vanish from the planet. and you can sue any one for just about anything in the U.S. doesnt mean you will win... just contact an attorney and tell him you want to sue Buzz Aldrin and tell him why...and see what they say...

[greenmagoos]

I never said anything about sueing Buzz Aldrin(he prefers street fighting anyay) I suggested sueing whoever manipulated those images in the first place.

[quaheedus]

ok,sorry, maybe I did not understand your post..its 6 am here and i have not been to bed. I need to hit the sack ..but I will email Oleary later on today..maybe he will respond maybe he wont..but most of these people do respond and not one yet agrees with the hoax.

[greenmagoos]

Whether or not O'Leary agrees with a hoax because he 'doesn't think his friends would lie to him' its indisputeable he thought something was amiss because of the strange answers moonwalkers were giving to questions.

Something that anybody with more than two brain cells and not a fervent moon landing believer would have also noticed with the antics on display during the Apollo 11 press conference.

[quaheedus]

I never saw any antics I saw a reporter confusing the question by asking about the solar corona(the outer atmosphere of the sun) and stars in the same question.If I remember right he asked if they saw stars when looking at the solor corona.Why would you see stars when looking at the sun unles you get technical and say the sun is a star...the astronauts did say they saw stars when looking through the scope.

[greenmagoos]

The only person who confused the question was Neil Armstrong as he nervously answered that he couldn't see stars from the lunar surface even though he hadn't actually been asked that specific question.

And it wasn't a reporter. It was the UK's most famous astronomer who is knowledgable enough to ask whether they should have seen stars while photographing the solar corona.

And there was 'antics' on display for the entire press conference not just that question!

[apollotls]

I would have said that Britain's most famous astronomer at that time was Sir Bernard Lovell, or Fred Hoyle. Patrick Moore was a broadcaster.

[greenmagoos]

Tough titty.

Sir Bernard Lovell didn't have his own tv programme.

Case Closed! I am correct!

[apollotls]

You were there?

[greenmagoos]

In the tv studio? No.

Patrick Moore has been broadcasting his Sky At Night programme for years.

Lying old tit still does. Although I do enjoy watching it if theres nothing else on.

[apollotls]

No, I meant there in 1969.

When Sir Bernard Lovell was Britain's most famous astronomer.

[greenmagoos]

Well he may have been then.

I guarantee you if you took a poll of a thousand people in the UK today, they would say Patrick Moore. Thats if they even know what an astronomer is of course.

[quaheedus]

You would be a moron to think that the image was real.... the golf ball is the size of a grape fruit in the pic..like I said it was made for the book from multiple images.

[greenmagoos]

And you would have to be a moron to think Apollo 14 had been to the Moon.

Tell me was it a federal offence for Brian O'Leary Phd NASA Astronaut to suspect something was fishy because of the answers Mitchell and Shepard were giving to questions about what they had got up to on the Moon?

[quaheedus]

Brian Oleary quotes-might be "remotely possible" that NASA would have used studio photography to fill in for film lost or damaged during a mission. But he does not believe this actually happened.- "Somehow I may have given the impression that Apollo may have been hoaxed,""It was real," he says "Apollo happened."

[quaheedus]

I am just saying if there were a conspiracy Grumman, Rockwell,Bell, North American,Boeing etc would have to be in on it and that would be a crime..so start posting videos going after the real criminals.. the contractors who took the money but did not deliver the machines to go to the moon...Arent they criminals?

[quaheedus]

O'leary has written a letter concerning what he said and has given permission for it to be used on clavius..but I suppose the hoaxers will say NASA probably gave him or his family death threats so he had to write the letter and publich it or let it be used.

[greenmagoos]

Brian O'Leary suspected and still did after 30 years something wasn't right!

because I didn't go, *so who am I to know for sure*, besides the official word and comments from my friends and colleagues who did go? Answers to my questions about activity on the lunar surface were answered *strangely* at times--hence *a bit of doubt*.

[quaheedus]

I am just telling you quotes from his letter he wrote in 2001-Quotations taken from a letter from Brian O'Leary, 29 August 2001, used with his permission why dont you just email O'leary on his site and ask him magoo..I have found almost everyone I email writes back and none agree with the hoax.

[greenmagoos]

Well that quote can be found on the internet if you search for it.

Also from 2001. If he still had doubts after 30 years I hardly think he'll have changed his mind much in the six years since.

[quaheedus]

Tell you what I will email him tomorrow and ask and if he responds I will send you every word that he says.

[greenmagoos]

You do that. And find out who and what were giving him doubts about the landings and lunar activities part of the mission.

Its just as well O'Leary doesn't have a U-T account like Phil Plait because I have no chance of getting barred for asking inconvenient questions.

[quaheedus]

If NASA were a private corp. you, Percy and Sibrel would be sued. Instead of calling NASA, conspirators, theives and criminals, target the actual people who were paid for Space Craft that didnt do as their contracts stated they would.Post videos and sell dvd's calling Grumman,Boeing who now owns most of the contracters,Bell etc a bunch of liars,crooks or conspirators of the hoax,after all conspiracy to defraud the government is a federal crime.

[straydog02]

"conspiracy to defraud the government is a federal crime."

And a conspiracy to defraud the American people who footed the bill for the scam of the century is the biggest crime of all .

You nasa shills all sound alike ... A pack of brainwashed fools .

[sowerby485]

Brilliant, Brilliant, Brilliant!!, You never fail to Impress do you ;) Great work once again Jarrah, Nice one!!

[michaelstmark]

Nice research again Jarrah. If we are to believe Windley/Svector's Clavius claim of "raw unedited" SCFs footage, he must therefore mean it's unedited footage from the edited therefore pre-recorded versions which comprised the "live" A11 transmissions.

Maybe Gray never edited any of it.

Maybe this was the actual NASA-edited footage the world mistook for "live" at the time.

The Utah clever clogs and his space harem know when to keep quiet, have you noticed?

[greenmagoos]

watch?v=QlfMsZwr8rc

For another conman like Jay Windley and Swector the deflector who make up ridiculous static electricity nonesense to excuse currents of air a la the Apollo 15 fluttering moonset flag.

[greenmagoos]

Miles and miles of bullshit from the Apollogist nutters.

Excellent again Jarrah.

[quaheedus]

The photo is a composite of photos put together it was never passed of as an official NASA or Apollo image, it can not be found at NASA'S site or any Apollo archive. was made for the book because the quality from the video images sucked..the LM pic is AS14-66-9276 reversed.The astronaut on the right is from AS14-66-9240 reversed.The astronaut on the right is from AS14-66-9241 reversed.The flag is AS14-66-9232 just check those images and you will see magoo

[WhiteJarrah]

"it was never passed of as an official NASA or Apollo image"

Then why was it captioned as one?

[greenmagoos]

...but have a small residual doubt about the landings themselves, because I didn't go, so who am I to know for sure, besides the official word and comments from my friends and colleagues who did go? Answers to my questions about activity on the lunar surface were answered strangely at times--hence a bit of doubt.

Brian O'Leary, Ph.D.