1. ## Re: Moon Hoax Controversy

Posted by sdv (here)
Vitalux, I am not disputing what you are saying about the lighting, but ...

The Moon is rather small, and atmospheric conditions are not the same as here on Earth, plus light would be reflected from our very own blue planet. So, I do not think we can assume that if you are taking a photograph on the Moon that natural light would only be from behind you.

You sound as if you have a lot more technical understanding than I have, so how could we replicate the actual conditions on the Moon here on Earth for that photography? I don't think your headlights example is an accurate replication. Can you come up with a theoretical replication? Imagine we are standing on the Moon and you are taking a photograph of me. What should that photograph show (depending on the position of the Sun and Earth)? I'm not challenging you. I am trying to understand and you seem to have the kind of technical thinking that could give me the explanation.
Here is a very simple way to explain the theory.

When we look at a New Moon, we are seeing the Moon standing in front of the Sun. Like an astronaut would be if he was standing in front of the sun.

Go out tonight and take a look at the moon when it is at it's new Moon stage.

This will give you an excellent way to view the interaction of light on an object in space.

If light were to react, the way NASA is proclaiming in their photographs, we would never view a New Moon. We would always be able to view the dark side of the moon.
Every time there was a solar eclipse of the sun, we would see the whole moon.

Study this diagram. You see the moon is always being hit with light from the sun. However, we view the phases because those are the areas in which the direct sunlight does not reach.

Same theory if an astronaut is standing on the moon. He will be dark on the side that is facing away from the Sun. Relative to seeing the light side, the opposite side will be very dark or black.

Therefore, if you want direct proof, just go look at the moon tonight as well as study for the next lunar month. Ask yourself, if the moon surface is allegedly so bright, than how come we have such a distinct zone between the light side and the dark side during its phases.

Can you relate how this image of the astronaut does not match the same science of how light operates in the vacuum of space etc?

This if this clown in the space suit was standing on the line between the light side of the moon and the dark side of the moon with his back to the Sun, would you see his face?

As for their being an atmosphere on the Moon surface.

In the beginning the People of the World were told by NASA that there was NO atmosphere on the moon. So at this conjunction I am using NASA's own science.

Could you provide me with your source that indicates that there is an atmosphere on the Earth's lunar Moon.

I actually consider that there is a partial atmosphere, however it is just a theory at this point and I have never found any way to substantiate this.

2. ## The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Vitalux For This Post:

DoubleHelix (29th April 2012), Mad Hatter (30th April 2012), sdv (30th April 2012)

3. ## Re: Moon Hoax Controversy

Hi:

I rarely post outside of my own threads, but I saw a link to this thread from my main thread. I spent a lot of time looking into the moon landings, and I never saw any convincing evidence that they were faked, and found positive evidence that they really happened:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#paydirt

But I was never quite able to get Brian O over the hump,

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/brianmem.htm#moon

and am still trying to get what ended up truly being his “final word” on the subject published someplace where the Wikipedia editors stop erasing it.

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/brianbio.htm#statement

The moon hoax issue is a red herring, IMO, which serves to distract the alternative crowd from the important issues.

Best,

4. ## The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Wade Frazier For This Post:

jimmer (30th April 2012), kemo (30th April 2012), Limor (6th May 2012), Mad Hatter (30th April 2012), RMorgan (4th May 2012), sandy (1st May 2012), sdv (30th April 2012), zebowho (1st May 2012)

5. ## Re: Moon Hoax Controversy

Hi:

The moon hoax issue is a red herring, IMO, which serves to distract the alternative crowd from the important issues.

Best,

My belief that, the Hoax of NASA landing a man on the MOON, is far from a red herring.
It tends to blow open a huge hole into the artificial reality that the current world lives under.

1. It tends to prove that no "Cold War" actually existed between "Russia (USSR), or China or any other major world power.
This is supported by the fact that those countries media and political leaders did not opening expose the obvious Hoax.

2. It tends to prove their is a huge degree of corruption in both the media as well as the scientific community.

3. It tends to prove that we the people of the world are not exposed to truth, but to lies by those that govern us.

4. It serves as the straw that breaks the camels back. In order to comprehend what is involved in pulling off a hoax, like NASA landing a man on the moon, just how incredibly deep and far the corruption exists.

Earlier in a post someone said, that they believe NASA went to the moon because with over 400 000 people working on the Apollo Moon Missions, surely someone would have snitched or known.

This is easy to answer. The whole project was very compartmentalized. Very few people had much knowledge as to what others were doing.
For example, if I take a photo of an elephant and divide it into 400 000 pieces, it would be very difficult for anyone to know what the image was of.

As for those that knew at the time of the hoax. It is very easy to have someone keep a secrete in this world when you are the government. You control the media and you control it all.
Plus, all you would have to do is tell the person knowing the secrete that if they ever told anyone, the government would kill not just them, but their wife, their children, their mothers, etc.

Therefore, turning ones attention to the MOON Hoax, and fully understanding the scope of the criminal deception of public trust and money; goes a long way in ringing the alarm bells to let the public know the FOX HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN THE HEN HOUSE.

7. ## Re: Moon Hoax Controversy

Hi Vitalux:

Nice theory, but I deal in evidence, not conjecture. The arguments that you are making are very old and are on the order of empty theory, from what I have seen. I looked pretty deeply at the evidence, at least as much as an outsider amateur could. If you have any convincing evidence of hoaxed moon landings, now is your chance. Please don’t serve up the same tired “evidence” that has been in circulation ever since Kaysing’s pamphlet:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#kaysing

from the 1970s, and other “evidence” produced by Rene, Collier, Percy, and the rest of that crew. Kubrick did not do it. I have never seen even one piece of evidence for faked moon landings that withstood rigorous scrutiny. Almost all of it quickly fell apart upon the most cursory inspection. It is a cousin to all of that “proof” that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. The fringes are filled with that kind of conspiratorial disinformation, which easily leads seekers astray, and faked moon landings is one of those areas.

Even though I satisfied myself of the reality of the moon landings in 2001, it has amazed me how long this controversy has stayed alive, generally by recycling disinformation, misrepresenting Brian’s stance on the issue, and so on. I used to get contacted regularly, and I usually sent them Jay’s way. He knows his stuff and will deal dispassionately with the evidence, and if you have anything that you think is any good, other than theory with no supporting evidence, Jay and I will be happy to see it.

Thanks,

8. ## The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Wade Frazier For This Post:

jimmer (30th April 2012), kemo (30th April 2012), Lefty Dave (30th April 2012), Limor (6th May 2012), Mad Hatter (30th April 2012), Operator (30th April 2012), sandy (1st May 2012), sdv (30th April 2012), zebowho (1st May 2012)

9. ## Re: Moon Hoax Controversy

Hmm... IIRC one plausible explanation for Kubricks legitimate involvment went along the lines of him doing his bit simply as a backup in case technical diificulties prevented the transmission of that very important speech on the day "Thats one small step.." yada yada.

Sort of beggs the question do you really think that they would do all that and spend all that and not have a plan B just in case. Might it be evidence of the unused plan B that has led to all the ruckus in the interim...?

10. ## Re: Moon Hoax Controversy

for some proof of fake footage re-watch the mythbusters moon hoax episode. they show the experiment of the hammer and feather falling at the same rate in a vacuum...... now whilst they show the video they put next to it their own version conducted on earth in a huge vacuum chamber..... however in the video from the moon landing and the video from myhbusters all objects fell at the same speed, the objects on the moon should have fallen at an acceleration of 16.7% that of earth.... a fact they over looked

12. ## Re: Moon Hoax Controversy

Hi Vitalux:

Nice theory, but I deal in evidence, not conjecture. The arguments that you are making are very old and are on the order of empty theory, from what I have seen. I looked pretty deeply at the evidence, at least as much as an outsider amateur could. If you have any convincing evidence of hoaxed moon landings, now is your chance. Please don’t serve up the same tired “evidence” that has been in circulation ever since Kaysing’s pamphlet:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#kaysing

from the 1970s, and other “evidence” produced by Rene, Collier, Percy, and the rest of that crew. Kubrick did not do it. I have never seen even one piece of evidence for faked moon landings that withstood rigorous scrutiny. Almost all of it quickly fell apart upon the most cursory inspection. It is a cousin to all of that “proof” that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery. The fringes are filled with that kind of conspiratorial disinformation, which easily leads seekers astray, and faked moon landings is one of those areas.

Even though I satisfied myself of the reality of the moon landings in 2001, it has amazed me how long this controversy has stayed alive, generally by recycling disinformation, misrepresenting Brian’s stance on the issue, and so on. I used to get contacted regularly, and I usually sent them Jay’s way. He knows his stuff and will deal dispassionately with the evidence, and if you have anything that you think is any good, other than theory with no supporting evidence, Jay and I will be happy to see it.

Thanks,

your research and educated conclusions are thoroughly compelling and add evidential facts to
the theoretic bluster we've been bombarded with over the years.
I'm with you. there far more suspect and important issues to focus on.
as to this moon hoax subject -- we did and we're are proud.

now, the next obvious question is why didn't we return to the moon?
for me, that's the real conundrum.
lack of will, too dangerous, budgets, alien menace -- why?

13. ## The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to jimmer For This Post:

Limor (6th May 2012), Mad Hatter (30th April 2012), RMorgan (4th May 2012), sandy (1st May 2012)

14. ## Re: Moon Hoax Controversy

Nice theory, but I deal in evidence, not conjecture.
That is of course a very good and wise approach.
My point however is what evidence do we have that the official storyline really happened as they say ?

I think in general things hardly ever happened as is officially sold to the general public.
So just because they told us ... is not evidence for me either.

I agree with you b.t.w. that fighting over this is a distraction of the real issues ... I mentioned this in a earlier post.

15. ## The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Operator For This Post:

Lefty Dave (30th April 2012), Limor (6th May 2012), Mad Hatter (1st May 2012)

16. ## Re: Moon Hoax Controversy

now, the next obvious question is why didn't we return to the moon?
for me, that's the real conundrum.
lack of will, too dangerous, budgets, alien menace -- why?
To me the question has always been 'Why did we go back so many times, and to the same side?'. Surely it only takes one trip to collect some samples, do some tests, plant the flag, take some photos? Two trips, because if we really want to understand the Moon we need to visit both sides. (I'm particularly interested in Mars and, irrationaly, think that if we had not spent all that money landing on the Moon over and over again we could have landed on Mars by now!)

I think there were 7 'landing' missions to the Moon (counting Apollo 13), and there was no convincing reason why we should keep going back to do the same thing. Also, by then the idea of a space station in space rather than a station on the Moon was the winning idea. In a way we have been back, but not with 'manned' missions.

17. ## The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to sdv For This Post:

jimmer (30th April 2012), Limor (6th May 2012), Mad Hatter (1st May 2012)

18. ## Re: Moon Hoax Controversy

Could you provide me with your source that indicates that there is an atmosphere on the Earth's lunar Moon.

I actually consider that there is a partial atmosphere, however it is just a theory at this point and I have never found any way to substantiate this.
My reference books are at home (and are more up-to-date than 2009), but for now I found this 2009 article about the Moon's atmosphere: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...9/23oct_ladee/

19. ## The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sdv For This Post:

jimmer (30th April 2012), Mad Hatter (1st May 2012)

20. ## Re: Moon Hoax Controversy

By the way, I found the following paragraph in the article rather strange ... (I thought that by 2009 there was no reason to go back to the Moon. But maybe the options have always been open. And 'living and working on the Moon' is technically correct as astronauts slept and ate and worked while on the Moon, but still sounds strange!)

"It's important that we understand it in its pristine state before there's much perturbation," says Anthony Colaprete of NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California. "It's such a fragile system. It's possible that it will be hard to study once humans are once more living and working on the Moon."

21. ## The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sdv For This Post:

jimmer (30th April 2012), Mad Hatter (1st May 2012)

22. ## Re: Moon Hoax Controversy

Hi:

Setras, if you want to make a convincing case that the world has been seeing faked footage of that feather-and-hammer experiment for more than forty years, you can easily time the fall on the footage (they clearly fall far slower than they would on Earth), the distance, and how fast they should fall in lunar gravity, and produce your compelling argument. Many claims have been made for greater-than-one-sixth gravity on the moon (or that we are seeing Earth gravity because the footage is faked), but nothing has ever held up. When you come up with some convincing analysis, I will send it along to the people who love to analyze such evidence. They don’t suffer fools for long, so it needs to be a rigorous analysis, not, “I saw something on TV that looked fake.”

Hi Mad Hatter, even Brian O speculated that they might have not been above faking it if they had to:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/brianbio.htm#statement

and it was not entirely idle speculation, given his experiences with the USA’s military over the UFO issue:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/brianmem.htm#attack

but it is speculation just the same. They can fake evidence like with the JFK hit:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#wean

but they are far better at just making evidence disappear.

Hi Jimmer:

On why we did not go back yet, or why we went more than once, there are obvious answers that are not too hard to understand, although plenty is being covered up by TPTB on these issues. Going was an awesomely expensive undertaking, and it was mainly about beating the Soviets to the moon, and once that stunt was completed, it sure did not merit the effort of a half million people, and the energy expenditure was mind-boggling. There are numbers out there on it, and it was incredibly energy-intensive. Going back to mine it is probably the big lure for “white science,” going after helium 3, but free energy and antigravity technology has been around longer than I have been alive, so the entire issue of chemical rocketry is pretty ridiculous in the big picture. IMO, free energy will come out before we colonize the moon, or we wipe ourselves out.

Hi Operator:

If you begin to go deep, the evidence is overwhelming that we went. The footage is just part of it. The Apollo missions took zillions of feet of footage of the moon as the command module orbited the moon. There are lots of heavily-studied moon rocks that have been subjected to sophisticated analysis (using tools that did not exist in their present state in 1969, and many new insights into how the moon formed came from analyzing the moon rocks, whose composition is very different than is found on Earth). There are many ground-based photos taken from observatories of the craft on the way to the moon, making regular dumps into space on the way (yeah, not a very clean way to do it ). There are many amateur image “analysts” who have alleged fake footage from the lunar surface from the missions, but none of it has ever held up. Look at the still footage taken by Apollo 11, for instance, and you will see pictures of the moon from the craft that are not possible from Earth, as they photograph parts of the “dark side.” I could go on, but the evidence is compellingly strong, when you begin to dig into it.

Hi sdv:

NASA picked the near side to land on so that they could communicate with Earth. They could not have done it with a far side mission, or it would not have been economical, with communication satellites put into orbit first, for relaying the signals (which would have been quite a feat back then). It would have been quite a logistical feat to do a mission on the far side, but what were they really going to find vastly different than this side (other than alien bases )?

Yes, the moon has a very thin atmosphere, which will get degraded, and quickly, if chemical rockets landed and took off with regularity.

In finishing, nobody has ever adduced compelling evidence of faked landings, and there is a mountain of evidence to consider. There is a lot of theorizing and conjecture, but I have never seen any of it amount to anything. Spending all that time looking into the evidence was educational for me, and it helped me in looking into other areas. But faked moon landings comprise a huge red herring that serves to distract and discredit fringe researchers. I would not say that the months that I spent looking into it were wasted, but there are way better things to do with our time.

Best,

23. ## The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Wade Frazier For This Post:

jimmer (1st May 2012), kemo (1st May 2012), KiwiElf (1st May 2012), Limor (6th May 2012), MacStar (3rd May 2012), Mad Hatter (1st May 2012), sandy (1st May 2012), sdv (1st May 2012), zebowho (3rd May 2012)

24. ## Re: Moon Hoax Controversy

for one, I thank you for the time you spent researching and putting the pieces together.
your contributions to this subject is why this forum continues to be a destination.
your research proves that, while it's easy to speculate and postulate, hard work, analysis and good detective work
gets to the truth and wins the argument.
considering that this subject has been kicked around for some long, quieting the chorus is quite a feat.
thanks again. I've bookmarked your website for future references and to use as a "friendly persuader"
if this moon hoax topic ever arises again.

25. ## The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to jimmer For This Post:

Limor (6th May 2012), Mad Hatter (5th May 2012), sandy (1st May 2012), sdv (1st May 2012), Wade Frazier (1st May 2012), zebowho (3rd May 2012)

26. ## Re: Moon Hoax Controversy

A bit off the original topic, but I was astonished to find out the extent to which NASA and other space agencies are still investigating Moon.

Missions to the Moon
Current and Past Missions
•GRAIL - NASA lunar orbiter mission (2011)
•Chang'e 2 - CNSA lunar orbiter mission (2010)
•Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter - NASA Lunar Orbiter Mission (2009)
•LCROSS - NASA Lunar Impactor Mission (2009)
•Chandrayaan-1 - ISRO (India) Lunar Orbiter Mission (2008)
•Chang'e 1 - CAST (China) Lunar Orbiter Mission
•Kaguya (SELENE) - JAXA Lunar Orbiter Mission
•SMART 1 - ESA Lunar Orbiter Mission
•Lunar Prospector - NASA Lunar Discovery Mission
•AsiaSat 3/HGS-1 - Commercial Telecommunications Satellite
•Clementine - DoD/NASA Lunar Mapping Mission
•Hiten - ISAS Lunar Flyby and Orbiter
•Galileo - NASA Mission to Jupiter - Lunar Flyby
•Apollo - NASA Lunar Manned Missions
•Lunar Orbiter - NASA Lunar Mapping Missions
•Surveyor - NASA Lunar Lander Missions
•Ranger - NASA Lunar Impact Missions
•Luna and Zond - Soviet Lunar Missions
•Lunar Timeline - Chronology of all Lunar Missions
Future Missions
•LADEE - NASA lunar orbiter dust environment mission (March 2013)
•Moonrise - NASA New Frontiers sample return mission (under study)
•Lunar-A - JAXA (Japan) Lunar Orbiter and Penetrator Mission (Cancelled)

28. ## Re: Moon Hoax Controversy

Hi:

Again, if anybody has robust evidence and analysis to produce, I’ll be waiting. There are people who have spent long years with the evidence, and are ready to entertain evidence of hoaxed moon landings. Nothing has ever passed muster yet.

Hi sdv:

Over the years, more evidence like this pops up.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR...ollosites.html

And with all those unmanned missions going to the moon, more will.

I won’t name names, but after I found Armstrong’s Leap:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#paydirt

one of the household names of anomalies in space, on Mars, etc., invited me to be an image analyzer on his team. I knew that I only knew enough about image analysis to be dangerous (it is a profession, not something that any amateur can pick up in a few weeks), and I let his recruiter know it. I was assured how easy image analysis was. Well, that was a big red flag to me about their operation, which has been confirmed to me many times since then. There is a ton of chaff out there.

Best,

29. ## The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Wade Frazier For This Post:

jimmer (4th May 2012), Limor (6th May 2012), Mad Hatter (5th May 2012), sdv (4th May 2012)

30. ## Re: Moon Hoax Controversy

Wade, what do you make of the many manipulated photos presented by NASA? There can be no doubt about their attempt at deception after scrutiny of these phony images. What is their motive for presenting the fake photos?

32. ## Re: Moon Hoax Controversy

Well, they either set up a fake moon on a studio to get pictures to sell and use as propaganda or they did not go. How did they get past the van allen belt without suffering from radiation? How come the lunar buggy was too big to fit into the compartment on the lunar lander? They did not have lots of lighting equipment so how did this happen?

This shot requires back lighting. They did not carry it on their mission. This is what happens when there is not extra equipment to put light on your subject when the sun is behind them:

33. ## Re: Moon Hoax Controversy

Posted by conk (here)
Wade, what do you make of the many manipulated photos presented by NASA? There can be no doubt about their attempt at deception after scrutiny of these phony images. What is their motive for presenting the fake photos?
and what about the 'smudged' moon structure photos?

35. ## Re: Moon Hoax Controversy

Posted by jimmer (here)
Posted by conk (here)
Wade, what do you make of the many manipulated photos presented by NASA? There can be no doubt about their attempt at deception after scrutiny of these phony images. What is their motive for presenting the fake photos?
and what about the 'smudged' moon structure photos?
Perhaps you could expand on this and enlighten us with why NASA had to air brush "smudge" the moon photos?

Plus, if you are convinced NASA sent a Man to the Moon in 1969, why do you think they chose to fake all the videos and photos here on Earth? Would it not have been much easier for NASA to just go to the Moon to fake the photos, and videos from there?

Plus explain this if you can jimmer?

THE COSMIC DUST ON THE MOON PROBLEM

All objects in outer space collect (gain) matter over time.

Our Earth collects dust that falls from outer space. This is known as cosmic dust.

Assuming that cosmic dust must also fall on the moon than we can estimate how much dust should have accumulated on the moon over a given time period.
Lets assume the moon was created around the same time as our Earth, 4 Billion years.

http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mer...osmicdust.html
Assuming the Moons gravity is one sixth of Earth ( 1/6) therefore 1/6 x 40 000 tons = 6666.66667 tons a year.

Now lets see how much dust you would expect to encounter in about a Billion years of accumulating on the Moon.

1 000 000 000 x 6666.66667 = 6,666,666,700,000 tons of Dust on the Moon = 1 Billion Years, 6 Trillion 666 Billion Tons of cosmic Dust.

In 4 Billion Years

6 666 700 000 000 tons of Dust on the Moon x 4 (Billion Years) = 26,666,666,800,000 = 26 Trillion 666 Billion Tons of Cosmic Dust on the Moon.

Now lets look at how much space that dust occupies because NASA gives us the density of Cosmic Dust.

Most of the influx of extraterrestrial matter that falls onto the Earth is dominated by meteoroids with diameters in the range 50 to 500 micrometers, of average density 2.0 g/cm³ (with porosity about 40%). The densities of most IDPs captured in the Earth's stratosphere range between 1 and 3 g/cm³, with an average density at about 2.0 g/cm³.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_dust

2.0 g/ cm3

Lets covert that to the equivalent of how many feet thick across the Moon surface a Billion years of precipitation of Moon dust would do.

1 cubic foot = 28 316.8466 cubic centimeter
1 short ton = 907 184.74 grams

907,184.74g /2g = 453,592.37cm^3 (converting to One short ton per cm cubed)
1 short ton/16.01 feet^3 (converting cm cubed to feet cubed)

16.004 cubic feet/short ton
(rounded to three digets)

Therefore each Short Ton of Cosmic Dust will occupy 16 cubic feet of space on the moon surface.

Now lets look at the dust from just Billion year to determine the volume of dust on the Moon surface.

16 cubic feet/ ton x = 6 666 666 700 000 tons of Moon Dust = 106 666 667 000 000 cubic feet. (724.647765 Miles^3 )

The diameter of the Moon is about 2159 miles or (3478 kilometers).

Now we get to the exciting part:

How deep would that much dust from one billion years be on the Moon surface?
V1 = 13,644,068,600 miles^3 (Current Moon Volume)
V2 = 13,644,069,324 (+724. miles^3 Dust after 1 Billion Years)

V2=(4/3)(Pie)(R2^3)
Or
Root Cubed (V2/(4/3)/(Pie)) = R2
Root Cubed (13,644,069,324 /(4/3)/(3.14)) = R2
Root Cubed (18192092432/3.14) = R2
Root Cubed (5793660010) = R2
1796.0468811908(rounded at 10 digets) = R2

R1 = Root Cubed (V1/(4/3)/(Pie))
R1 = Root Cubed (13,644,068,600/(4/3)/(3.14))
R1 = Root Cubed (18192091500/3.14)
R1 = Root Cubed (5793659700)
1796.0468491573(rounded at 10 digets) = R1

Now to calculate how much deep the dust would be after 4 billion years
Depth of Dust = R2 - R1
D = 1796.0468605240 - 1796.0468491573
D = 0.000128134 Miles Deep (multiplied by 4 for 4 billion years)
OR
D = 0.67654752 Feet Deep ( multiplied by 4)
OR
D = 8.11857024 Inches Deep ( ect )

= 8.11857024 Inches

Perhaps you can explain jimmy why when the NASA astronauts went to the moon the Moon dust was about half an inch deep instead of about 8 inches deep?
( that is of course only figuring the dust for four Billion years

You see the links, you see my math

36. ## The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Vitalux For This Post:

KiwiElf (5th May 2012), Mad Hatter (5th May 2012)

37. ## Re: Moon Hoax Controversy

Hi:

I don’t expect to make many posts on this thread, unless people start raising their games. Recycled disinformation, shoot-from-the-hip analysis, cartoons, and name-calling is not going to cut it.

I deal with the “light in the shadows” anomaly in my essay, here:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#illuminated

But I would like to discuss it a little further. I hike in the mountains a lot, and one of the joys of the higher elevations is the optical effects. It is brighter up high, and the sky looks different, and that is because there is less atmosphere to penetrate for the sun’s light. The atmosphere gets progressively denser as you get closer to the ground. Only 55% of the sun’s light that hits Earth’s atmosphere makes it to the ground. 45% is either reflected or absorbed by the atmosphere and clouds and never makes it to the ground. Since the moon has no effective atmosphere and no clouds, the sun is nearly twice as bright on the moon’s surface as it is seen from the ground on Earth. In that image you posted, Unified Serenity, look at the moon’s surface in the background. It almost looks like a snowfield. The moon’s surface is highly reflective, almost like a snowfield. So, the sun from the moon’s surface is almost twice as bright to start with, and it is reflecting off the surface like a snowfield. Anything that has a line of sight to the moon’s surface is going to be hit with reflected light from the surface; a lot of it, and the astronauts were always in the line of sight to the lit lunar surface, even more so while standing on a ladder. This “lit while standing in the shadows” canard should have gone away many years ago, but like Jason in the Halloween movies, it never seems to die.

The lunar buggy fit just fine (I clearly remember watching them remove the rover from the LM, live, way back when), and the Van Allen belt definitely presented a hazard, but because the astronauts were only in the belt for a short time as they passed through it, the dose was low, on the order of one rem:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#vanallen

You would not want to get a rem a day, but two per space mission from the Van Allen belt was a price they were willing to pay.

One of the things that becomes evident with the prominent moon hoax theorists is that they have no understanding of what they are looking at, and leap to ludicrous conclusions with their first gut reaction to “evidence” that quickly falls apart upon inspection.

James Collier did it, when he misidentified a rock holder as the lunar rover:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#collier

Bart Sibrel did it when he saw footage of shooting the Earth through the hatch window, and concluding that they were faking footage of Earth by creating a false limb. It did not take long for a thinking person to see the impossibility of that logic.

Vitalux, with that logic, the dust on Mars should be that thick too, but it isn’t. Or Mercury. If you want, I can submit your analysis to the people who look at it, and you can see what they say. It probably won’t be very supportive of your theory.

Again, people, those chasing after the moon hoax stuff are barking up the wrong tree. If you want to begin to understand what is happening with humans and space, the Disclosure Project is a good place to start. NASA was advised to hide evidence of ET life more than fifty years ago:

and I have no doubt that things have been covered up. It is far easier to cover things up than it is to fabricate evidence. Photos have been altered. One of the Disclosure witnesses from NASA testified to it, but it was to hide stuff, not fabricate stuff. A lot of what people fixate on are a lot more innocent than it seems, like the C-rock that René:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/cover-up.htm#reticle

made so much of. Or the reticles that the images bled over, especially in second-generation and later prints, and they usually bled over white, which is where you would expect it to bleed over. Most, if not all, of the so-called image analysis of the moon and Mars by the conspiracy crowd is invalid. My inside sources, and they are way better than what gets bandied about at Avalon, say that there are bases on Mars and the megalomaniacs that run the show want to terraform Mars if/when they wreck Earth, such are their grandiose delusions. But that does not mean that the amateur and even professional image analyzers are onto much with their analyses. A lot of it is shockingly bad.

Smudged photos can be reproduction errors, or it can be airbrushing out what they don’t want us to see. It happens. My father had a top-secret security clearance when he worked in the Mission Control Room:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/paths.htm#oleary

The Space Race was a Cold War, quasi-military effort. That is partly why Brian O did not mesh with NASA very well in his astronaut days. I could never get Brian over the hump on the moon landings, to my disappointment, but I respected his position and am currently trying to get his “final word” on the subject published where the moon hoax crowd can’t keep erasing it at Wikipedia:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/brianbio.htm#statement

That this moon hoax issue stays alive is a pretty damning indictment of the conspiracy crowd. Logic, evidence, facts – these seem lost on the moon hoax crowd. It is like those “analysts” who published all of that “evidence” that Obama’s birth certificate is forged. One prominent analyst published more than thirty lines of evidence, and not one of them survived scrutiny. That is not how you go about the business of proving skullduggery in high places.

One of the reasons why Brian O would not spend the time to get to the bottom of the moon landings was that he knew the end of his life was near, and he had far better things to do with his time. I understood.

Signing off for tonight.

Best,

38. ## The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Wade Frazier For This Post:

jimmer (5th May 2012), KiwiElf (5th May 2012), Limor (6th May 2012), Mad Hatter (5th May 2012), Ol' Roy (5th May 2012), sdv (5th May 2012)