OFFICIAL NASA VIDEO ADMITS To NEVER SENDING PEOPLE TO THE MOON

You are certainly not a very good propagandist. You're babbling incoherently.You don't need night vision to see stars. Night vision allows a person to see low level ambient light, it does not effect how we see stars in any substantial way. Though stars have low magnitudes, that is they don't produce a tremendous amount of light,they are extremely bright, after all, they are STARS for christs sake.

Oh, and BTW, if there was an "experiment" to image the lunar sky in UV I must have missed it. everyone else did too.

Why did Pat Collins say when she was asked about a simulated docking being shown on TV on July 20th, 1969; "It's about as real as anything else about this whole thing is"?

If the all-knowing Incredible DimWit missed it (and everyone else, too) it can not be true.

Read and weep: [link to www.lpi.usra.edu]



.

Claims and evidence are two different things. I can't seem to find any of these ultraviolet images anywhere. Can you?

I suspect the reason for that is they do not exist, but I am sure NASA can fabricate some up for you.

Yes.



.

No, it means I had friends in for a meal and a drink or two, so had much more interesting things to do than deal with your drivel. Likewise, I've been out this evening, and find, yet again, a meaningless spew of verbiage which I hardly have time to read through, never mind reply to.

Do you think by posting so much you'll just win the argument by weight of words? Believe me, in this discussion quantity very definitely does not outweigh quality.


We're not discussing the Clavius site, we're discussing you're supposed analysis of the data. I stand by my words.


Well, that's something you've never been afraid to do on any forum. In fact, I've never seen someone so keen to launch into personal attacks rather than debate or discuss the actual issues. If your arguments and evidence were as strong as you claim, you'd be showing it at every opportunity. The obvious conclusion is that you can't actually back up your claims.

In fact, if you could back up your claims, you wouldn't be posting on a few low-traffic internet boards, you could take the information to almost any TV or cinema production company who'd be only to happy to help you expose "the fraud" of Apollo. With incontrovertible evidence you could make yourself rich and famous, not to mention honoured as the exposer of "the great lie".

Unfortunately, the fact becoming more and more obvious with every exchange, is that you actually have nothing except your belief, and that isn't enough to convince me or anyone else.


Except you have spectacularly failed to prove any of the data false!!

The existence of the radiation belts was known long before the Apollo missions, and their extent and the levels of radiation measured by both US and Soviet missions. Over the intervening years they've been probed extensively by numerous other countries who've launched all sorts of scientific and commercial satellites, many of which operate continuously inside these belts. Yet you claim you can easily "debunk the nonsense" of the published data about them.

There are people working every day on missions whose ability to operate relies on a detailed understanding of the nature of the radiation belts, but you can dismiss all of their data with a sweeping statement and, as usual, no actual numbers or analysis to back it up.


That wasn't the question I was asking, or the point I was making.

The point is, the spacecraft was observed to follow the planned trajectory, on an orbit with a high enough inclination to avoid the most intense radiation zones. As I mentioned above, everyone knew about the radiation belts, and NASA published their proposed flight path before launch showing how they would avoid these regions. After launch people watched the craft in orbit, and then followed it out to the moon, and many of them confirmed that it did indeed follow the planned trajectory.

It doesn't matter whether it was a manned mission or an unmanned one - the vehicle was observed to be on a 31 degree inclination orbit, and the trans-lunar phase was observed to pass clear of high radiation regions.

And yet :-


You keep making this claim, yet keep refusing to back it up.

Which "methodologies" did you use? Which data? And if you make a claim like that you need to show how you worked it out - i.e. show us your calculations! (Or are you going to use the "I don't do calculations" excuse about these calculations as well?)


Erm, you still haven't explained...

I haven't seen a single detail in multiple pages of posts (and believe me, I've looked) where you show why a 31 degree orbit isn't possible, or why it would make LOI more difficult. All you repeatedly say is you "believe" / "feel" / "think" this is the case. I'm sorry, but when other people produce calculations showing how this orbit is not only achievable, but also an optimum one for many reasons, then either you need to show us your analysis, or you need to point out the mistakes in theirs.

You consistently do neither.


Well, not that I've seen...

If you did, then please either repost here, or link to somewhere I can read them.


I'm not Jay, or in any way connected with him, so I suggest you go and challenge him on one of the boards he does hang out on. Oh, hang on - you already tried that a few times, and got your ass royally handed to you

I think in a way you're probably glad that nobody takes you up on these posturing "challenges". The maths and physics skills you've shown so far are lamentable, and wiping of floors would certainly ensue...


Ah, once again, the claim that anyone who disagrees with your perverse world-view must be in the pay of the all powerful NASA. It might have escaped your notice, but I'm not even American... I occasionally pop in to GLP to see what eejitry is going on, and even more occasionally I'll join a discussion to try to inject some rationality into it. I'll admit that's a hard job when dealing with your particular level of fuckwittery.

Actually, if NASA had faked the moon landings, they'd be more likely to be paying people like you to create such a fog of misinformation and confusion that nobody would ever tease the truth out of the chaos. How can anyone be sure about orbits, trajectories, radiation levels, temperatures, anything, when you produce so many conflicting "facts", misuse (or refuse to use) maths and muddy the waters by spouting ad-homs and innuendos faster than anyone can reply.

Hmmm, an interesing theory...

Jeez! You claim to be such an expert on Apollo that you can find every detail which shows it was faked, yet you haven't heard of or seen the results of the UV imaging experiments?

Well, the images and data are out there, but I'm not going to spoon-feed them to you. (That's one of your great MO's on other boards - make grand claims, then ask others to provide the data you need to back them up.)

It proves once again that you haven't done even a hundredth of the research into Apollo that you claim to.

Sure they are, sure they are

If you're too lazy to go and find them, then you have no rights to dispute their existence or veracity...

So google doesn't work for you? Nah, its just a conspiracy against you, right?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits, and
Are melted into air, into thin air;
And like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherits, shall dissolve;
And like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on
And our little life
Is rounded with a sleep

Come out from under the porch, big dog blow-hard. Fucking coward cretin fag.

You could always go back and answer. You have not been banned. Or is it that you are afraid.

Yep. Why can't you. Lack of google fu?
Nope, they have been aroung for nearly 60 years and on the intertubes for decades. Your incompetence is no excuse.

So why can you not find the publicly available UV images?

It's not like they are hard to find, after all. In fact, a retarded, six-fingered lumphead could find them without even raising a sweat, yet somehow such a task defeats you and you alone. Think about why that might be.

To be blunt, I am sure if NASA had already faked it, you'd be posting a link to it.



And why post through an Irish proxy, NASA-tard? Who do you think you're fooling?

I don't think it really matters, does it? If you post a link ,a dozen people will debunk it

Your claim was that they don't exist. Are you now admitting that the do, in fact, exist?

And why should I post a link when you could just google it. Are you unable to operate google?

Besides, it's much more fun to watch you squirm.

It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

No no no -- that's what happens in the rare instance when *you* post links. Like when you were trying to prove the "Mayan Empire" stretched into South America, and used tourist trap webpages to support your claim.

Go as far as you can see. When you get
there, you will be able to see further.

I am forced to ask: Is Bob B who you've accused me of being? Or am I a *different* Nazi?

From Shakespeare to Zig Ziglar?

Well, that follows the same trajectory as most IDWisms...

IDW has tended to be a bit Google challenged. Then again, Google is a "controlled site." Bing is okay, though.

I found some Apollo 16 UV images using google. All I had to do was make an effort. You know, do a search, follow some links, get some clues, search on clues, get UV images.

The images are there, IDW. If you are the genius you claim to be, you should be able to find them yourself, even if you think they are frauds.

Or will you just say you could find them, but it would be "intellectually dishonest"? Like solving that problem in Special Relativity was?

You *are* an old hand at this!

"special" relativity is just as much of a crock of shit as general relativity. The people who think they have these things all figured out don't make a damned bit of sense to each other or anyone else. Relativity is not hard to understand. It isn't Einsteins original idea, but he sure managed to make a total mockery of it.Retarded patent clerk makes good after his wife composes a book derived from stolen intellectual properties, and most of the scientific world worships this 'tard as a god of science, right up there with Newton and Copernicus




"Calculate the time dilation involved with two atomic clocks,clock "A" on the north pole; and clock "B" located on the equator. Quantify readings of both clocks after 1 year, starting with a reading of zero on both clocks"


As I pointed out before, the "geniuses" who understood the "concept" behind time dilation couldn't reason out with all of that amazing intellect that these two clocks are not moving in relation to each other. And it took one person actually capable of independent though to correct them.

Now I am correcting YOU

And herein lies the problem, Mr.Shit slinging jew