BOOM!

Unlike the magic man in the sky, he appears!

Yeah, I'm frothing and dripping sweat and bile in an incredible rage! Pffft...



You just can't resist letting your little fingers tap out fantasies.

[url=http://m.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2016/01/perspective_view_in_noctis_labyrinthus/15780251-1-eng-GB/Perspective_view_in_Noctis_Labyrinthus_article_mob.jpgNASA's LATEST MARS IMAGE.[/url The bets are on. Which Deserted area of Earth was it taken. Soon to be revealed.

Almost?

Good grief. This place really has gone to the dogs, hasn't it?

One or two people posting on here appear to need professional help.

Even in a minority of one the truth is still the truth...

To the Schizophrenic who believes he's the messiah, his truth is the only truth. Doesn't make it true though.

Slander becomes the tool of the loser. I forgive and feel sorry for you. The angst you portray must get you down. I'll pray for you. Oh And Jesus is The Messiah i'm just lucky to Trust his words.

It was an analogy you uneducated fool, and slander is when someone damages your reputation. The only one doing that is yourself.

More ad hominem I Still pity you too. All that angst. You need the Holy Spirit in your life. Repent and Call out. That horrible angst doesn't do you any good. Thats Atheism for you

The Holy Spirit? The one that raped a married virgin, apparently? Why would anyone want anything to do with such a knob, even if he did exist?

To be fair I've kind of concatenated the experimental and operational phases. The story of this propulsion system stretches way back to the Nazi "Glocke" (Bell) Project. According to those who have dug deep into its history the scientists who participated managed to get very close. Unfortunately (or fortunately - depending on which side of the fence you are on) they lacked a sufficiently compact power source which meant it could only operate within the laboratory tied to an external feed.

At the end of WWII it seems the whole operation was shipped lock, stock and barrel to Peron's Argentina where they made some kind of a breakthrough.

There is at least some evidence which suggests it was this device and not a crashed alien UFO which resulted in the whole Roswell cover story. The official report makes no mention of extra-terrestrials but the interesting thing is that immediately after whatever took place the Americans suddenly kickstarted a worldwide manhunt for all those who had worked on the project in Germany during the war.

Whatever solutions the Germans had come up with I'm sure the Americans with their expertise in developing powerful, compact and efficient nuclear generators would have gone one step further.

I don't see any issue with such a device loitering over farmers' fields. A by-product of a supercharged rotating plasma would be tremendous electrical potentials which would doubtlessly need to be discharged to earth before returning to base. Given that US military bases contain enough ordnance to blast a county off the map I very much doubt the base commander would take kindly to such a craft returning home with a few million volts in tow.

On the topic of the moon landings I've defended the official story for over forty years. Apollo played a huge part in defining many of the interests I've retained throughout my life. Consequently I've always been willing to cut the program more slack than it deserved given that NASA was always an appendage of the DoD.

From the beginning I knew there were some very serious problems with the official story (such as the deadly bands of radiation which shield the earth from solar wind) and I found myself constructing elaborate get-out-of-jail passes for each and every one of them.

But what I hadn't done was look into the mountain of evidence which had been uncovered since I first began to hear about these concerns way back in the early nineties. When I did the whole Apollo story just collapsed.

I realise that like me people have a lot invested in this project but they really do need to abandon the sinking ship before it takes them down too. Any scientist who supports the official story no longer deserves to be labelled such IMO.

I mean, I'm fairly certain all of the astronauts went into earth orbit. But no further.

For those who might be on the fence I encourage you to take a look at some of the first press conferences given by the Apollo XI astronauts immediately after they returned to earth. I'd never seen any of these broadcasts until recently and it didn't take long before I could guess at WHY they are rarely shown.

I don't claim to be some kind of an expert on body language - but even so I know enough about human behavior to spot three people exhibiting all the classic signs of extreme discomfort, embarrassment and anger. Indeed, I genuinely felt sorry for them.

It's interesting to note than when confronted by some problematic fact the most passionate defenders of the Moon landing story invariably resort to statements such as, "You conspiracy theorists are forever coming up with new ways of attacking the Apollo missions" - without ever stopping to THINK about the significance of what they are saying.

In most walks of life the more evidence you have AGAINST something the less certain we can be of it. Yet whenever we talk about the moon landing the more contradictory evidence we accumulate the GREATER people's faith becomes.

I agree 100%. They NASA have been raping the American public with regards to money and truth in their existence. I also agree these NASA employee's have zero credibility especially their So Called Scientists and Scientists who back up the obvious claptrap.[/i

[iThis was proven on that fantastic secret documentary A funny thing happened on the way to the moon. Low orbit was their location when they were caught red handed and filmed faking the Earths curvature through the window. Awesome viewing.[/i

[iYeah i've also watched this interview, where they mentioned or failed to mention the Star constellations. They were obviously Rabbits caught in the headlights with their body language and demeanour. So that's why NASA's credibility is Nil. But the question must be raised Why did they fake it. Forget the Cold War nonsense because Russia, Canada, China, Japan and Europe all new this was hoaxed, they're all faking their own programmes.IMHO[/i

I should have added that there's a ton of evidence that Kubrick indeed worked on the faking of the moon landings. The documentary [url=https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjFmNS7wdHKAhVBoRQKHbPyAg4QFgggMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.room237movie.com%2F&usg=AFQjCNHbQteD8MEaEMh6jf-Qp8CyrLtx1w&sig2=xk8LfQ-EDtcWn4kzn5ysEgRoom 237[/url made a pretty good case but it didn't go far enough for me to buy it completely.

However, after immersing myself in the follow-up research to that documentary I had to admit that it was becoming harder and harder to deny what seemed like an obvious truth.

The clincher for me was reading Dave McGowan's book, [url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Weird-Scenes-Inside-Canyon-Laurel/dp/1909394122Weird Scenes Inside The Canyon[/url which revealed that all through the Apollo program the US military actually ran the most advanced and fully self-contained movie studio on the planet. This classified installation, labelled "Lookout Mountain Airforce Station" was based in California. We know that Kubrick was in California around this time and wrote extensively about his complete disenchantment with his "work".

I suspect that he was initially drafted into the project as a contingency measure. I think NASA genuinely wanted to put men on the moon but as their knowledge of the brutal conditions astronauts were going to face increased it soon became impossible to countenance a suicide mission. At that point the contingency plan was activated and Kubrick was summoned.

Gee whizz what a great example you set to future generations. Classy.

Two possibilities. Either as I said above - they couldn't deliver with the technology they had available at the time or they could (and had already done so) but prefer not to talk about it for reasons they won't share.

I've never really looked into the moon landing from a conspiracy aspect, mainly because I suppose I've always wanted it so much to be true. The act of turning a weapon of war (the rocket) into a wonderful act of discovery and exploration is something I was desperate to be true.
But both the press conference and the video of the astronauts faking the shots of earth are compelling.
Maybe there's some reason for them faking those shots (pretending the earth is further away than it is) but even then, if the dates ascribed to that video are true then they didnt have time to get from near earth to the moon to be walking on it on the day that it's told they did. The bit with someone saying "talk", again, maybe can be explained away but is still suspicious.

But the thing that really made me sit up was the press conference. You've just been to the Moon. The single greatest achievement in the history of mankind, possibly the single greatest achievement in the history of the universe. You'd be elated surely? Excited, relieved, possibly tried or drained and maybe nervous in front of tv cameras. But you wouldn't be withdrawn, sullen, objectionable or not forthcoming with answers to questions. You'd be wanting to tell everyone every little detail you saw and what it was like surely?

Look at the first photograph of the astronauts back on earth in the decontamination pod with Richard Nixon stood talking to them. They look like three guys who've just heard their wives have been cheating on them.

The interesting thing about McGowan's book is that it fills in a lot of the blanks which are present in Room 237.

The presence of Lookout Mountain is the most obvious point but what really fascinated me were the countless references Kubrick made in The Shining to the goings on in Laurel Canyon.

Chief among them would be none other than "The Overlook Hotel" which was used as part of the ultra-secret MKULTRA mind-control program. As anyone who has watched The Shining will know, the hotel that Jack Torrance (played by Jack Nicholson) occupies is also called "The Overlook Hotel". It's worth mentioning that soon after the end of the Apollo program the entire facility burned to the ground in mysterious circumstances. Try comparing the hotel from the movie with those pictures that exist of the Laurel Canyon facility.

I don't think it's an accident that very soon after Kubrick chose to make a film about mind control and he almost certainly drew from his experiences working out of Laurel Canyon.

For years the story was that the author of [iA Clockwork Orange[/i, Anthony Burgess, fell out with Kubrick over the director's changes to the screenplay. What I didn't know was that Burgess himself admitted that it was Kubrick who had given him the idea for the book as far back as 1965.

I think it's clear that Kubrick's experiences in California left a very deep impression on him. So much so that he packed up and left America for good.

The weird thing about the whole Kubrick angle is somebody is going to great lengths to try and create an entirely bogus Kubrick narrative.

One documentary - or perhaps mockumentary - in particular whose name escapes me is made up entirely of interviews of key people such as Henry Kissinger, Kubrick's wife, Donald Rumsfeld etc. etc. with their words taken completely out of context and then woven together creating what is on the surface a plausible explanation for Kubrick's involvement.

Now, I can see someone doing this kind of a thing as a prank. But the film is just that bit TOO PROFESSIONAL for me to believe it was created by a bunch of bored high-school students.

An old interview with [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9J9Bt6kjT0Bob Lazar[/url on the feasibility of the electro-gravitic drive. Whether you want to buy into the extra-terrestrial aspect is up to you but the technical information is pretty interesting.

It really is worth watching NASA's footage of the [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EliLP5uEYAUlunar rover[/url. Absolutely nothing you see in this video suggests that it is operating in one-sixth of a g.

The dust kicked up by the tyres is very fine and it should have flown many meters into the air. Instead it just drops straight back down to the surface as though they were shooting a sand buggy ploughing up the beach.

This was undoubtedly the most difficult activity for the filmmakers to shoot because it's impossible to fake low-gravity without using wires or CGI (which wasn't available at the time).

I mean, you only need to think about the operating temperatures the suits had to endure. +170C in direct sunlight and then straight down to -150C in the shade. What technology could have powered the refrigeration/heating system whilst the astronauts were strolling around the surface. It could only be battery powered - which is a problem in itself as batteries are notorious for their intolerance to fluctuating heat.

Anyone who has ever tried to use a torch in very cold weather knows that performance drops off a cliff in low temperatures.

And how could it have reacted so quickly without injuring the wearer?

Er, there IS no air. Kinda the point of being on the moon.

As the video is of course genuine, you can see what the regolith of the Moon actually does when a buggy drives over it, because it is on this film. There is no basis for your claim other than rank amateur half-baked claims of what the regolith "should have done". How do you possibly know what the rgolith on the moon "should have done"? You don't know what its mass or composition is, you don't know the strength of the forces were applied to it, and the vid is of nowhere near enough resolution or frame rate to be able to see particles, all you see is the shape of the plumes which it makes.


It was very easy to shoot. The difficult part was getting to and landing on the Moon. The shooting part is set up the camera, point and shoot.



I get a sense that you have already predetermined your own answer ("all fake"icon_wink.gif and so your question is rhetorical. But, physics works on the Moon same as anywhere else. There are only two ways heat can transfer on the Moon, (a) radiation and (b) conduction.

The radiation on the Moon is (i) directly from the Sun and (ii) from the Sun’s reflection off the ground. The trick with the spacesuits is that the design ensured that almost 90% of the Sun's heat radiation was reflected back by the suit, and so very little heat was transferred from outside in to the suit. The suit then was comprised of many layers, and these provided a very efficient insulating effect to damp the rate of transmission of heat either way. So on the astronaut's "cold" side, he would be emitting very little heat, on his "hot" side, he would be receiving very little heat, and the basics are as simple as that. A very reflective suit! Not rocket science, is it?

And of course the performance of such a suit in a vacuum was easy to experiment with and test until the design was right, in preparations for the missions.

The second way to transfer heat on the Moon is by conduction, i.e. boots on the ground. This wasn't an issue, first because the regolith doesn’t conduct heat well; secondly the astronauts’ boots were insulated, so very non-conductive.

Finally, extra-vehicular activities were typically planned to commence around lunar dawn, so that the regolith didn't get the chance to heat up to its max anyway.



As you now know, the interior of the spacesuit did not experience violent temperatures due to the above. The cooling system therefore had to do much less than the extreme gymnastics you seem to imagine. However, your point about batteriesin extreme cold is completely bogus. For a start, the battery was not "outside"in space, it was in the astronauts backpack so insulated from space. For another, you for some reason assume that the battery if it was exposed to space would somehow always be in the cold. Surely, unless the astronaut stayed perfectly still for hours (which would rather defeat the point of an EVA), such an external battery would be heated pretty much as much as it would lose heat as it varied from light to shade?



There's absolutely stacks of very detailed information about the suits, you can even go and see one for yourself, so i don't know why you would need to resort to such totally misinformed pseudo-science conclusions.

I KNOW enough about the effects of low or zero gravity to understand that moondust (regardless of its composition) should not be pulled toward the lunar surface as though it were experiencing earth gravity. Which is PRECISELY what we see in all of NASA's lunar rover films.

Next you'll be telling me the astronauts somehow managed to control their bouncing across the surface to such an extent that they never managed to bound higher than one might have expected to see on the earth. Or did they load themselves down with six-hundred pounds of lead before they popped the hatch?

As for the suits - you are deluding yourself. For a start whatever reflective properties they possessed would have been shot to hell as the thin electrostatically charged dust began to adhere to the material. In many photographs they are literally caked in the stuff up to the midriff. The temperature would have continued to rise from the first minute. And with the lack of any air currents there would have been nowhere for that heat to go.

It's an even tougher sell for the lunar lander. Whilst parts of the ship were coated in reflective mylar - many other regions were little more than bare metal. Even if they cranked the air-conditioning up to maximum they had no way of dumping nearly twice the heat of a boiling kettle bearing down of them every second of every minute of every hour in direct sunlight.

You are far too invested in this myth to remain objective. The truth is no amount of evidence will ever convince you that NASA is dishonest. Quite why you should be so willing to believe the statements of a military division set up by people who openly lied about their involvement in the cold-blooded slaughter of millions of innocents during WWII escapes me. This is the very same organisation which Gus Grissom's son openly accused of MURDER after his father complained that the entire Apollo program was a shambles and even went so far as to call a press conference to record his disgust.

I guess it just goes to prove the old adage - fooling people is easy. Convincing people they've been fooled is not.