Cosmic Conspiracies
    > Nasa And The Apollo Missions
        > For Cosmic Conspiracies
New Topic    Add Reply

<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>
Author
Comment
MID
Registered User
Posts: 20
(9/4/05 3:25 pm)
Reply

For Cosmic Conspiracies
In following your own suggestions, the answer to your September 4th 2005 02:26:23 question is posted here:


I am not a "pro NASA reader". I am not a pro anything reader. I do not believe we went to the Moon in 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972. I know we did. There is a decided difference between belief and knowledge. Thus, there is no "pro" or "con" position to be had. It simply happened.

Your question points to a decided feature of hoax proponents:

You all avoid discussion real issues. You ask the same tired questions, ignoring the facts presented to you. Where this mentality comes from I cannot fathom, but perhaps a psychological study of this syndrome would be in order.

As to your questions, if you bothered to read and understand what was said, the answers have all been laid out for you repeatedly. However, I will re-state them again for you.

The SHUTTLE has the ability to fly in rain and clouds. It simply doesn't. As a pilot, I can completely understand why.
The reason is that the shuttle is a GLIDER! Gliders, if you're unfamiliar with them, are flown dead stick...no power. There is no go-around capability, just a one shot landing attempt. Visual reference is something all glider pilots want and need. It adds a safety margin to the landing. Additionally, despite instrumentation which would allow a weather landing, the lack of power makes that sort of thing untenable, and just plain stupid. Clouds and rain imply the potential of turbulence, windshear, and the like. These things are not wanted in an unpowered landing attempt. I, for one, would never fly a glider in IMC, even if I had adequate instrumentation to allow an instrument approach.

That is just a stupid idea. Thus, the question is ridiculous.

The shuttle only flies in LEO because it is only designed to do that. Even if we had designed the fully re-usable shuttle that was originally planned, that vehicle would've flown in low orbit only.

I was never a fan of the compromise vehicle that we currently have today. Most troubling was the necessity to have thousands of heat resistant tiles glued to the under-belly of the vehicle. I still do not like that feature. Nor was I a fan of SRMs being used on manned space flights. I still am not, but that's another issue.

This has nothing to do with the technological capabilities of the American space program. It has to do with funding. We were forced to design a compromise vehicle. Nixon, and the conservative administrations and congrersses that followed him, cut funding, insisted that we do what we could with what they gave us. Nixon scrapped Apollo, and effectively killed all of the plans for space exploration that were on the books.

At the same time, a new attitude infected NASA, especially as pertains to upper management. These things resulted in what we saw in 1986 with Challenger, and again with the Columbia disaster.

The NASA of today has no relation to the NASA of the 1960s. They are two completely different animals. Hopefully, NASA will finally clean their act up and let their people do what they're supposed to be doing, with the equipment and funding necessary to do it.

The oddity is that the government has spent more on this compromise vehicle, given all the re-working, re-designing, building of a new shuttle, and the loss of two multi-billion dollar vehicles, than they would've spent if they had gone ahead and designed what they planned to design in the first place...and of course, 14 lives wouldn't have been lost.

That, in a nutshell is why we haven't gone back to the Moon since Apollo 17.

Your comment about the "glorified tin can" is plain stupidity. The Apollo CSM and LM were the most advanced vehicles of their time, designed specifically to do what they did so very well. They were, and still are, a triumph of American engineering, attention to detail, and desire. Glorified tin can indeed...

The International Space Station is not Russian. It is International, thus the name. It has Russian, U.S. and Canadian major components, as well as a bunch of stuff from other places. That it constantly stays in space is obvious, since it was designed to do that. The shuttle could constantly stay in space as well, for once we get there, staying is simply a matter of leaving things be. Of course, the shuttle would run out of power and consumables and everyone would die if we did such a thing, so that's pretty dumb.

NASA has kept plenty of craft permanently in space. But the shuttle is not designed for that.

No, it does not sound odd that the Russians never went to the moon, and yet maintain a presence in space aboard the ISS. There is no relation between the spectacular Russian failure to accomplish a moon landing mission and their presence in earth orbital space. Americans, Russians, and people from several other countries have been, and are continually in space anymore, which you would know if you took a brief look at the ISS mission reports.

Don't you have anything intelligent to say, are are you going to continually paint yourself dumb by making such idiotic comments?

Edited by: MID at: 9/4/05 3:26 pm
Cosmic Conspiracies
ezOP
Posts: 5
(9/5/05 2:26 pm)
Reply

For Cosmic Conspiracies
Thanks for asking these questions in the forum rather than in the guestbook. Sorry I haven’t replied before but I’ve been very busy of late.

To answer your questions.

First of all you don’t have to insult my intelligence just because you don’t agree with my views. I don’t have to be somehow lacking in brain cells to believe that man didn’t land on the Moon. I am quite capable of making up my own conclusions and don’t need anyone to try and persuade me otherwise.

I’d like to comment on your quote : ‘I do not believe we went to the Moon in 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972. I know we did. There is a decided difference between belief and knowledge.’

How do you know? Do you mean that you believe what NASA has fed you over the years? Consider this – no other body thus far other than NASA can verify that the US landed on the Moon in 1969. Granted, many people will say that they were tracked by radio signals etc, etc, but I personally know, having worked with radio hams and other forms of transceiver radios for the past 20 odd years that to pinpoint a signal so far out in Space without the use of triangulation is impossible. And to add to that argument, there is nothing to say that the signal was transmitted from a satellite in the vicinity anyway.

Another of your quotes: ‘There is no relation between the spectacular Russian failure to accomplish a moon landing mission and their presence in earth orbital space. Americans, Russians, and people from several other countries have been, and are continually in space anymore, which you would know if you took a brief look at the ISS mission reports.’

Could you tell me why Russia never even bothered to send any cosmonauts to the Moon even if they were beaten by America in the space race? Why did they stop? China are planning to do it in a few years so why not Russia? Russia was always way ahead of the US up until the alleged Moon landings so why stop after another country beat them to it? Do Russia not bother to train their athletes if they come 2nd place at the Olympics? I don’t think so? Your excuse for Russia to not continue the mission they set out to do is, like so many other Moon landing believers, ridiculous. Russia were beaten to the North Pole, Everest, etc, etc but it doesn’t stop their explorers still going there does it?


The Space Shuttle is ridiculous too - would any holiday makers board a plane if they werent sure if it could land at the other end because of rain or fog? How primitive is the technology that we are dealing with here?

If you dont agree with me then thats your choice, but perhaps before slagging people off such as myself, you could pop along to the 'Disclosure Project' website and read the testimonies from former NASA employees who were employed to airbrush out anomalies from the alleged Moon pictures.

How are you going to explain that one I wonder?

Dave@Cosmic Conspiracies

Edited by: Cosmic Conspiracies at: 9/5/05 2:35 pm
MID
Registered User
Posts: 22
(9/5/05 5:51 pm)
Reply

Re: For Cosmic Conspiracies
Look,

I have corresponded with many people who have had their doubts about Apollo, fed by sites like yours that are inaccurate, and composed of mis-interpretations, shallow reasoning, and utter falsifications in many places. I insult no one's intelligence if they have a legitimate doubts---young people removed by over a generation from the actual events, many of who have been fed by reading sites such as this one.
I see very little legitimate about your sensationalistic, unknowledgable claims.

Your repeated questioning, disregarding the answers I've provided, shows that there is a lack there. You do it again here, ignoring things I've already explained to you.

How do I know?
I know because I was there. I lived it. Geez, folks, how do I know that the moon is actually out there? I haven't been to it. It could be a projection by a huge alien device! How do I know that a hurricane hit New Orleans a week ago? I wans't there. All I see are pictures and films, all of which could've been faked? C'mon.

The Apollo missions were tracked by the reception of their COMM and telemetry signals via the MSFN, a similar method that's used to track every space mission that's been done to the planets ever since. This triangulation thing is a fantasy. We pinpoint signals much farther out in space than the moon's location routinely. Where you get this stuff is beyond me...sounds good though, which is what the rest of your site does...to the uninitiated.

The reason Russia never bothered to send a man to the moon has also been clearly explained before. THEY COULDN'T. They did not have the safety margin of the American vehicles, they had serious booster problems, and their capability to even test their lunar array in earth orbit was destroyed in July of 1969. They were beaten. That, plus they realized that they should re-focus their efforts on orbital flights, since they had a modicum of reliability and the boosters to do that.

Russia was not always way ahead of America in the space effort. This is an unknowledgeable assumption. They were indeed through the Mercury program. However, America made leaps ahead during the Gemini program of the 1960s, perfecting the various maneuvers and practices that would be essential to the successful Apollo Program. America was first in space long before the lunar landings took place. The Soviets put the first man into orbit. They even had the first EVA. However, America executed the first orbital plane changes, the first rendevous and docking, and perfected EVA to an extent that the Soviets had not. By 1968, the Soviets were hurriedly putting togteher a lunar landing vehicle, but they were no where close to the technological advancement of Apollo. We of course only knew this for certain as 1968-1969 rolled around.

The Soviets simply realized where they needed to focus their efforts. They had serious problems developing a booster to launch a vehicle to the moon, hadn't proved any landing system, had catastrophic failures and loss of life, and decided to focus their efforts where they knew they had a chance to achieve something. It's not ridiculous. It's fact.


Holiday makers board a POWERED AIRCRAFT, and have a fairly clear idea that they will arrive at their destination safely. This is because there is the safety margin of having multiple jet engines. This is an obvious case of you not reading, or preferring not to acknowledge the facts I've stated. The shuttle is a GLIDER. No glider lands in weather, for reasons I've already pointed out. The shuttle is not a powered plane with the capability of going around if it doesn't have runway in sight by the approaches desicion height...a mandatory procedure in an airplane under power. Gliders are not allowed to do instrument approaches in weather. The shuttle is a glider. Are you a pilot? Do you have any idea what I'm talking about? Did you not read what I said? It's really very simple.

I am not ridiculous. You are.

The NASA "employees"...meaning that woman who witnessed all that stuff about a beating and people blocking out artifact on pictures...has been discredited a hundredfold. That too has already been discussed ad-nauseam in other places.

It is a non-issue as pertains to the lunar hoax. There is nothing on your site that supports a faked Apollo program. There is, however, a whole lot that represents fakery in and of itself. To wit, those fabricated, piecemeal conversations craftily put together to make the unweary think that the astronauts were speaking of alien artifacts and all that crap. This is complete falsification of the voice transcripts.

Please, read what's been written before any more redundancies are placed here.

Cosmic Conspiracies
ezOP
Posts: 7
(9/6/05 12:16 pm)
Reply

Re: For Cosmic Conspiracies
Quote:
How do I know?
I know because I was there. I lived it.


You see, that is a lie for starters - you werent there at all - you watched it on TV like millions of others. I could say the same about 'Lord of the Rings'. I was there I lived it... What you mean is you sat in your armchair watching the pictures that NASA fed to your TV screen - you have no proof that those pictures were legitimate.

Your argument that you could easily say that the events in New Orleans could be faked fall down at the first hurdle. You could travel to New Orleans right now and check it out couldn't you? Thousands of people are living there right now and experiencing what is happening - 12 people going to the moon being filmed by a single organisation is very different. You chose a bad example to put across your argument.

You reckon that the Apollo missions were tracked by other companies other than NASA? OK lets look at the latest space news for comparison of how NASA and other space organisations think they know about tracking. Lets look at the latest planets discovered - in areas that such space organisations would swear blind could not exist only a few years ago. You see, science is only as good as what it thinks it knows. Scientists are constantly changing their stance to accomodate the latest discovery and any scientist who wants to put forward a new and controversial theory is told to shut up and has his funding pulled from under his feet.

When are you going to wake up and work out that what you know is what they want you to know? If you have a different viewpoint (like myself and colleagues here on this site) then you must be a loony or your completely wrong according to mainstream science. Did you know that there has been a cure for cancer since the 1960s? Why dont our World Governments want fossil free fuels in our motors? Because they want to gain as much money by tax on fuel. Why dont they ban cigarettes which cause cancer and other related illnesses that kill thousands of people each year? Because they can tax that too.

We dont hold the same views but surely you dont believe everything that the Government feeds you?

Perhaps its time you watched a few Michael Moore films and woke up?

Quote:
It is a non-issue as pertains to the lunar hoax. There is nothing on your site that supports a faked Apollo program.


What about the blue sky that can be seen out of the window of the Apollo 13 module when it was 200,000 miles from Earth? www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/A13.gif Explain that one.

How could Astronaut Fred Haise state the crew aboard Apollo 13 could see Fra Mauro? At the time of the accident, Fra Mauro, which was to be the original landing site of the Apollo 13, was in darkness and would remain so for the entire time that the Apollo 13 was near the Moon. In fact it did not reappear until 88 hours after the Apollo 13 had left. By this time the Apollo would have been 19,000 miles away on its way back to Earth, making it impossible for any of the crew to see Fra Mauro during the mission.

Your claiming that Im dodging questions - well what about your reply about the flag moving in the wind? I dont exactly see you falling over yourself to provide an answer?

Edited by: Cosmic Conspiracies at: 9/6/05 12:26 pm
MID
Registered User
Posts: 23
(9/7/05 12:03 am)
Reply

Re: For Cosmic Conspiracies
Hmmm..

I expected as much.

You know it is a lie that I was there. Well, of course, you don't know any such thing. Everyone, including those of us who were involved, watched it on "TV", and on screens showing scads of data regarding spacecraft systems, consumables data, electrical power, orbital parameters, and other such trivia (which was all, of course, FAKED). None of these folks has any PROOF that this data and these pictures were real. (We didn't need any). Everyone in that MOCR in Houston has no more evidence that we actually did this thing than anyone who sat on their chairs at home and watched it on TV sets. Your arguement is childish, as well as ludicrous.

And no, I couldn't travel to new Orleans right now and check it out. And...no one HAS TO. It happened. Just like WW 2 did, or the San Francisco Earthquake, or 9-11. No one had to be there. Many of course, couldn't be there. Yet, only wackos believe they didn't happen. Your arguement is rubbish.

You go off on tangents that include actual intelligent comments with actual rubbish. I do not "reckon" that other companies tracked Apollo missions. No one else had to. NASA took care of that, with a worldwide network. Because you don't understand doesn't mean you're right about these things.

Oh, and yes, there has been a cure for cancer for a lot longer than since the 1960s. I am also aware of the suppression of off-the wall ideas by mainstream science. I am also aware that business is at the heart of much of what's wrong with our world. I have no illusions about these things, but this has nothing to do with Apollo, which is substantiated by years of investigation and engineering, and documented more than you know...obviously. Get back to the point. I have no desire to discuss mainstream modern medicine.

At the same time, Micheal Moore films tell nothing...like Bart Sibrel's crap. You need to get real, and get back to something having to do with Apollo.

AH...you did!

How tired can you get with this blue sky in the Apollo CM windows bit. Explain that one? It's been done a thousand times. You ignore it.

Refraction through multi-paned windows produces many colors, especially to the camera. This is typical light behavior when it's passing at various angles through a multi-paned window. C'mon. Something more substantial than that has to be here?

This Fred Haise question couldn't be more stupid. It's also been answered before. I can't even believe you publish this kind of crap and expect people to take it seriously.

OF COURSE HE COULD SEE FRA MAURO . It was their landing site! He saw it when they passed around the moon and headed out again for Earth. Why wouldn't he be able to see it???

Where did this silly notion that Fra Mauro would be in the dark for anohter 88 hours come from? Why would they have planned a landing at Fra Mauro before the dun rose there? It's mission planning 101.

This is about as ludicrous and false a staement as I've heard.
ALL LANDINGS WERE PLANNED DURING LUNAR DAYLIGHT...duh?

The sun rose at Fra Mauro at aboutroughly noon ET on April 14, 1970. Landing was planned for the next day...in the daylight. Of course the crew could've seen the landing site. And, they all did! Passing around the moon, even if ity was in shadow, if their windows were in the right orientation, they could've picked it out....and on the way home, obviously they would've been able to see the area, since it was lit!

We didn't plan Apollo missions so that the landing sites would be in the dark when we attempted to land. Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

No one dodged anything. I answered your question about the flag moving specifically. I told you the flag is not, and cannot be moving in the wind. It is clearly moving only because the astronaut is manipulating its flagpole...nothing more. And there is nothing that you can provide to show otherwise. This is stupid.

You avoid the issues, and prefer to interject all these simplistic opinions...and all this crap about governments and cancer cures and Micheal Moore(?). You don't acknowledge the facts I've presented. Like the bit I repeated twice about the shuttle being a glider and no one in their right mind flies a glider (a multi-billion dollar glider, mind you) in instrument conditions to a dead-stick landing...you don't say, "Oh, yea, of course I get it," because you prefer to ignore the obvious
and direct things to my lack of answering a question when I did, quite succinctly. Or perhaps, you just don't get it?

What in the name of God is your agenda anyway? You don't listen to facts, you make ridiculous accusations, as if you know where I was on July 20, 1969, or something.

The facts point only to the reality of Apollo. Your "evidence" is flimsy, and as I said, often fabricated...as in the carefully constructed "conversations" you put there between astronauts and the ground which never happened. You don't address that. Why? Because, you can't. They're falsified, and you know it. Just like Bill Kaysing knows full well that his rantings are a crock, and just like Bart Sibrel knows that he's a tabloid journalist who's made a bundle on his idiocy and harassment.

They don't care, they've made their money on the ignorance of a generation. You say you're not out to make a buck. Fine. What is your point in ignoring the facts?


MID
Registered User
Posts: 24
(9/7/05 12:52 am)
Reply

Re: For Dave @ Cosmic Conspiracies
I don't know who "Martin" is, but I have been right here on the forum. I'm the one who suggested you people come here!


First of all, you seem to ignore the obvious regarding your Apollo 16 footage, supposedly showing two different locations, with the claim that the videos were taken on differtent days at two different places.


THEY WERE TAKEN ON THE SAME DAY AT THE SAME PLACE.

The fact is, and it's well publicized, that the original producers of the film which said that these two pieces of footage were shot on different days were mistaken, and the mistake was brought to everyone's attention shortly after these films were released. A long time ago.

Woops....I guess that's a definite sign that there's a conspiracy going on, eh?

And those two films you speak about...two completely different films...edited carefully. What are they supposed to show?

The first one is obvious. One is a video of the LM taken from a little distance away, and the other is taken from quite a distance away, same line of site. You're seeing a foreground of rocks that is well behind the LM. You've cropped the picture and superimposed one on the other to try and illustrate that there's a fake background, but it's really rather obvious what you're doing here. You can back off hundreds of yards, and take another picture, crop the horizon to make it look the same scale as the closer picture (which is obvious) and say there's something fishy about it, when there's nothing fishy at all.

The second "Apollo 17 video", I believe, is similar. You're intitially looking at a mountain in the distance, followed by a closer in shot of the same mountain, with the crew bounding about...are you trying to say that these are two different places? Well, if so, they are that exactly, with the same background. It's rather obvious to the inititated what you're doing here, and just like much of the carefully edited video you present (which includes still you don't identify, and claim it's video).

There is no black and white video of Apollo 17, so your first sequence is obviously a cropped version of a black and white photo (of which they took hundreds of on the surface on AS-17). This is baloney, and doesn't prove anything at all...of course.

Most certainly there could be the same background in many Apollo photos...even those taken some distance apart at the same angle relative to the background. Different fields of view, etc., can make the background look similarly close from shot to shot...especially if you crop the pictures and explode them!

C'mon...this is shallow and silly stuff. Isn't there something more substantial you can offer?
Cosmic Conspiracies
ezOP
Posts: 8
(9/7/05 2:10 pm)
Reply

Re: For Dave @ Cosmic Conspiracies
Quote:
Refraction through multi-paned windows produces many colors, especially to the camera. This is typical light behavior when it's passing at various angles through a multi-paned window. C'mon. Something more substantial than that has to be here?


Sorry but I dont buy your answer. If the blue through the window could be easily answered as the placement of the camera to the window and its many layers, why do many different camera angles show the same thing at this time on the Apollo 13 mission. And if this type of thing is fairly common then surely you'll have no trouble in posting up more pictures of spacecraft in deep space with blue out of the window?

Quote:
OF COURSE HE COULD SEE FRA MAURO . It was their landing site! He saw it when they passed around the moon and headed out again for Earth. Why wouldn't he be able to see it???


Quote:
Where did this silly notion that Fra Mauro would be in the dark for anohter 88 hours come from? Why would they have planned a landing at Fra Mauro before the dun rose there? It's mission planning 101.


Have you taken into consideration that the Apollo 13 didnt pass the Moon at the original time expected due to the explosion? NASA's planned landing went out of the window when the Apollo 13 lost its power and they had to sling-shot from around the darkside of the Moon. Perhaps you forgot?

Quote:
No one dodged anything. I answered your question about the flag moving specifically. I told you the flag is not, and cannot be moving in the wind. It is clearly moving only because the astronaut is manipulating its flagpole...nothing more. And there is nothing that you can provide to show otherwise. This is stupid.


I HAVE provided you with footage that shows that the flag hardly moves when its held horizontally over an astronauts shoulder, and you believe that although it doesnt bend when being slung over a shoulder, it can quite easily start moving around and flapping just because an astronaut is touching the pole that is holding the flag? This must be some amazing type of material if it can be held out flat and doesnt flop or bend and yet when its in its usual position its flapping all over the place.

I acknowledge that the Shuttle is a glider and it only leads me to believe what a daft organisation that NASA is for trying to use a craft in space that doesnt even have its own propulsion system.

Quote:
The fact is, and it's well publicized, that the original producers of the film which said that these two pieces of footage were shot on different days were mistaken, and the mistake was brought to everyone's attention shortly after these films were released. A long time ago.


Your right, NASA released a film which mistakenly told the viewer that the two films were of two different locations on different days, when in fact they are of the same area. Once again I have brought this footage up to show how stupid NASA are and cant even get their facts right for thier own publicity.


Quote:
Most certainly there could be the same background in many Apollo photos...even those taken some distance apart at the same angle relative to the background. Different fields of view, etc., can make the background look similarly close from shot to shot...especially if you crop the pictures and explode them!


The pictures are just a few examples of different locations with the same background - please dont start accusing me of cropping pictures to make them look the same because your wrong - these pictures are all available from NASA -as is - if you care to look.

MID
Registered User
Posts: 25
(9/8/05 2:22 am)
Reply

Re: For Dave @ Cosmic Conspiracies
Of course you don't buy the answer.
However, it is the answer. Blue, and other colors, were typically seen refracted through the CM and LM windows. This is visible in many films. You even show some on your website from Apollo 11...and make the untenable statement that the blue is a transparency of the earth taped to the window (!?).

Many stills show this blue, and orange-yellow, and reddish hues as well. Any time the sun hit the window at an agle, and/or reflected off of the shiny spacecraft surface (like the LM, for instance) and into those windows, various colors, blue being predominant, made themselves visible.

Try the following photos:

AS10-34-5082/5083, AS10-35-5211, 5255-5232, AS11-36-5398, AS11-40-5863, AS12-46-6725...just to name a very few of the many showing these phenomena. Blue even appeared when looking into the LM windows from the lunar surface! There's no trouble finding many examples. You'll have to look among the 25,000+ photographs taken on the Apollo missions, however. They're all available, even on line nowadays.

Have I ever considered that Apollo 13 didn't pass behind the moon at the original time expected due to the explosion?
..perhaps I forgot?

Smart ass, the explosion had absolutely nothing to do with celestial mechanics (save that it was causing a problem in maintaining spacecraft attitude). Apollo 13 passed behind the moon just when it was supposed to, explosion or no explosion. Just around lunar sunrise at the landing site. Nothing weas different, save the fact that a maneuver was planned to accellerate their landing on earth, saving the precious little consumables they had and moving the landing point from where it would've been in a free-return trajectory to a more favorable location.


They were going to arrive at the moon just when they did, explosion or not...and oddly enough, they did just that. Where do you come up with these wild ideas?

Oh God, this flag business is growing tired. You simply cannot admit that you don't know what your talking about. A flag hanging over the shoulder of a guy who's not doing anything to manipulate it isn't going to move in a vacuum. He puts it in the ground, and twists it around and of course it moves. It's flapping all over the place because it's BEING MOVED! The astronaut's twisting the pole...not merely touching it. It has, unbelievably, nothing to do with amazing material. It has to do with the elementary basics of movement as a result of applied impulse. Physics was certainly not your strong suit was it?

This is classic:

You ask twice, for some reason, why the shuttle can't land in weather...as if that has something to do with Apollo. I tell you twice. You now understand, and instead of just admitting you know nothing, you re-direct by making some idiodic comment regarding NASA "trying" to use a craft in space that doesn't have it's own power, and being stupid because of it...

You are twisted. Do you have any idea that the original shuttle design had it's own power for atmospheric flight? Did you not read where I told you why we didn't have the money to build the original shuttle? Christ...

I also catch you in a stupidity, and again you re-direct instead of admitting you're wrong.
The Apollo 16 footage...the mistake I told you about, was placed on your site to impune NASA and make it look like they were faking the whole thing. Your motives had nothing to do with pointing out how stupid they are because of a simple mistake. You blew it. Admit it.


There are many pictures with the same backgrounds taken in Apollo missions. I don't need to look at all the picturtes. I have them all, and have for decades! You need to look at the pictures. ( Oh, and by the way...why isn't it identified? I've pointed out that you people never seem to identify the photos your posting....why is that?)

The picture I mentioned is part of an Apollo panorama...a blown up and cropped segement of a much larger photo. It is compared to another unrerlated shot with the same backround taken a couple kilometers closer to the mountain in the distance. Many real photos show similar backgrounds with very different foregrounds. This is nothing unusual, especially oin the moon, where you can travel 2-300 yards and photograph a very different landscape. The horizon, which is about 4 miles distant (dispite the fact that even in photos, it looks much closer...it's a lack of atmosphere effect), changes hardly at all.

You didn't have to crop this picture. It IS CROPPED. You might havce gotten it that way, or perhaps, you did it yourself. Given some of the other falsification (which you avoid admitting) present on your site, It's not a stretch to assume that you might have cropped it yourself.


Your point in these photos is illogical, and it makes no sense. The Apollo photos are all natural. You just have no idea what your talking about. Many of the effects seen on Apollo photos are easily reproducible on earth...like all that idiodic talk about different shadow directions, etc...

You're finished. You have no arguement. You can redirect until the cows come home, avoid the issues and talk about but you simply cannot prove anything you state.

Cosmic Conspiracies
ezOP
Posts: 11
(9/8/05 11:10 am)
Reply

Re: For Dave @ Cosmic Conspiracies
I deleted your one post because it looked that you were so excited that you hit the post button twice...

Thanks for posting the pictures - heres my view of them.

AS10-34-5082/5083 = reflections on the window are from objects within the craft.
AS10-35-5211 = thats not blue sky its the grey surface of the Moon.
AS11-36-5398 = obviously in low Earth orbit
AS11-40-5863 = ? what am I looking for here? The sky is black?
AS12-46-6725 = ? Same as above

Quote:
You ask twice, for some reason, why the shuttle can't land in weather...as if that has something to do with Apollo. I tell you twice. You now understand, and instead of just admitting you know nothing, you re-direct by making some idiodic comment regarding NASA "trying" to use a craft in space that doesn't have it's own power, and being stupid because of it...


My point was that after the 'so-called' success of Apollo, they completely change their technology in favour of a non powered glider that cannot work in rain or fog. In fact from where Im standing, if Apollo was a success it seems like they took a step backwards - why didnt they continue to use powered craft?

Quote:
I also catch you in a stupidity, and again you re-direct instead of admitting you're wrong.
The Apollo 16 footage...the mistake I told you about, was placed on your site to impune NASA and make it look like they were faking the whole thing. Your motives had nothing to do with pointing out how stupid they are because of a simple mistake. You blew it. Admit it.


No, its just an example of how NASA gets things wrong and you seem to be the type of person who takes everything that NASA release as Gospel. Im just trying to demonstrate that NASA has released incorrect data in their own literature in the past, meaning that they are not always a reliable source for information. The same could be said for the Surveyor III footage taken from 'CONQUEST' which was said to contain 'official NASA footage' and said to come from only NASA. However a sequence in the film shows the Apollo 12 landing near the Surveyor III - what is odd is that the camera pans around the SIII as if it were taken from the door of a helicopter circling it? NASA deny all knowledge of it being their footage. Thats fine, but they wont even say where the footage originated from. www.ufos-aliens.pwp.bluey...veyor3.htm

Quote:
I've pointed out that you people never seem to identify the photos your posting....why is that?


Because some of them come from 'What Happened on the Moon' which does not have references at the end of the video.

Quote:
Many real photos show similar backgrounds with very different foregrounds. This is nothing unusual, especially oin the moon, where you can travel 2-300 yards and photograph a very different landscape. The horizon, which is about 4 miles distant (dispite the fact that even in photos, it looks much closer...it's a lack of atmosphere effect), changes hardly at all.


What did you mean when you said 'real photos'? I seem to remember seeing some photos taken where the rover is in shot in front of one of these mountain backgrounds but in another shot taken a little further away and on the same EVA the rover has disappeared? Ill see if I can dig it up for your interest.
MID
Registered User
Posts: 29
(9/9/05 1:16 am)
Reply

Re: For Dave @ Cosmic Conspiracies
Of course your "view" of these pictures will not reflect the obviousness of what I have presented.

Your "obvious" conclusion about AS11-36-5398 is ridiculous. The photo was taken on July 18, 1969, when the spacecraft was already two days outbound from earth orbit...the LM had not been entered before that day. You're simply looking at sunlight reflecting off spacecraft surfaces though a multi-paned window. Of course I've explained that basic fact to you before, and I've presented the effect in just a few of the many photos it appears on, and you say something like , "obviously in low earth orbit", as if you know something.

You do not. and you've made that rather clear to any of the very few who actually visit your forum.
____________________________________________________

You obviously didn't hear my point:

The shuttle can "work" in rain or fog. We simply don't allow it to for obvious reasons. The reason we have a glider instead of a power-assisted vehicle has already been explained to you. However, your well-illustrated intellectual laziness refuses to acknowledge what you've been told.
____________________________________________________

Everyone gets something wrong. Is NASA, or was NASA infallible? Nope. Only the Pope is "infallible". NASA can, and likely did release incorrect data at some time in some form. Happens all the time. But this film thing was caught, and corrected, a hall mark of NASA back in the day. It was a very minor thing at best anyway.

As to that bogus Surveyor III footage supposedly shot from the LM of Apollo 12 on their landing approach...my God. You actually buy that! Especially since the actual 16mm DAC film has been available to look at for years. No image of SIII was captured by that camera.

The DAC was positioned above the right window of the LM. The LM was north of the SIII when they passed by the rim of the Surveyor crater, and they were also yawed right (an attitude which they landed in relative to ground track). The camera was pointing essentially in the opposite direction of the Surveyor, and no one in the LM saw the thing sitting there. They didn't see it until they left the LM and walked back to look into the crater during their EVA. This is obvious to anyone who's seen this bogus film and knows what happened that day in November 1969. The film you mention is a bogus fabrication...a well known fact. That you even mention it is very telling.

NASA doesn't care where this imbecillic footage came from. Why would they bother to check into it?

None of this comment you made does anything but defend your untenable position by redirecting the issue. I caught you. You put forth patently false information as evidence. Just like you published a photo "of Neil Armnstrong, taken by Buzz Aldrin" on your site that never existed, and another "by Neil Armstrong" that never existed (mountainous terrain...which was no where near Apollo 11's landing site). Add to that the fabricated conversations, which you seem to ignore, and you make yourself look like what you claim to be....as I told your partner...a UFOLOGIST...a pseudo scientist who knows nothing about science nor anything about making a reasonable conclusion or hypothesis based upon the scientific method.

____________________________________________________

Of course "What Happened on the Moon" has no references! If you didn't have a profound tendency toward intellectual laziness, you would've researched all that crap and found that it was either bogus fabrication, or you'd have been able to identify the photos and films used, since all of it is no available on line or in DVD media somewhere nowadays. You make my point...again.
____________________________________________________

Don't bother digging up photos for me. I have all of them...
Your questions belie your lack of knowledge. Some photos showing a rover against a mountain, and then, another photo taken a little distance away which magically shows no rover in the photo...but the same mountain...on the same EVA. Hmmm...

Think about it for a minute. OK, that's enough. How about this idea.

The rover moved. Kind of like it did during all the EVAs. We took one picture at one station. Moved downrange a bit to another station, took another picture of the same horizon from a half kilometer away or so. But, we moved the rover....we were sitting in it this time! Duh. Tough one, I know. Your ability to make rational conclusions amazes me.

____________________________________________________

It's a shame more people don't read this forum. They'd all see the shallowness in your arguments. They'd all see the lack of intellectual fortitude you exhibit...not just in your Apollo Hoax page, but in your lack of presenting anything intelligent on the forum, and your decided tendency to evade the issues.

I came here to see what kind of people actually perpetrate this crap on the minds of the un-informed. I found out...in graphic fashion. It's somewhat comical, but at the same time somewhat sad.

As I said elsewhere, I've had many a fine discussion with people who have doubts about this. It's understandable really that a generation has such doubts, especially given the amount of mis-information and fabrication put forth on the Internet. I just wanted to address the people who actually put forth the bilge that feeds this doubt in the ignorant.

What I've found is sick...a bunch of pseudo-scientists who have no knowledge whatsoever, and who refuse to engage in discussion, but continually re-direct the conversation into un-associated issues to mask the fact that they've been had.

It's been interesting, yet somewhat troubling, to find such intellectual laziness and lack of any real drive to understand in people.

Yet I have found just that.
But what could I expect from people who call themselves Ufologists, and seem to consider themselves as members of the scientific community?
____________________________________________________

There's more evidence of the Apollo program than there is of the Holocaust...or any other human experience! Yet, if you go up to someone who was a victim of the Holocaust, and make accusations that it was a hoax...well...maybe they'd show you their tatoo. Of course, you'd say "That could've been put on anywhere," and you'd likely wind up on the ground looking up, with several teeth missing.

Which is rightfully where you'd belong. But you'd have a better chance at proving WW2 was a hoax than you do proving Apollo was faked. That is obvious to any rational being with a modicum of scientific knowledge.

Sure, have your opinions. It doesn't really hurt anyone. It has however, provided some humor...

And please, have the last word on me. It'll make for some laughs for the readers.
Cosmic Conspiracies
ezOP
Posts: 12
(9/9/05 12:04 pm)
Reply

Re: For Dave @ Cosmic Conspiracies
Quote:
Of course your "view" of these pictures will not reflect the obviousness of what I have presented.


So you only reply about one of the photos? What about the others that Ive explained away? Havent you got a reply to those?

Quote:
NASA doesn't care where this imbecillic footage came from. Why would they bother to check into it?


Maybe because it appeared in an 'official' NASA documentary? who knows? What do you mean by bogus fabrication? I see it as a simulated version of how the surveyor would have looked 'if' filmed from the apollo 12 with no visual constrictions . Whats bogus about that?

Quote:
as I told your partner...a UFOLOGIST...a pseudo scientist who knows nothing about science nor anything about making a reasonable conclusion or hypothesis based upon the scientific method.


Thats because science cannot explain the phenomenon of UFOs. Just because science doesnt have an answer does not mean it doesnt exist and considering that only yesterday you were asking 'who's Martin', I cannot fathom why all of a sudden you have so much intimate knowledge to claim what he does or doesnt know? You cant see the wind either but we all know its there.

Quote:
Just like you published a photo "of Neil Armnstrong, taken by Buzz Aldrin" on your site that never existed, and another "by Neil Armstrong" that never existed


Hang on a minute, I'm just picking myself off the floor because Im laughing so much at your ignorance. Armstrong was photographed at the Modular Equipment Stowage Assembly (MESA) on the lunar module, packing the bulk rock and soil sample he had collected. Aldrin took this picture as part of a series of panoramas of the area around the Tranquility Base landing site. Armstrong is in the shadow of the lunar module, details can only be seen with processing, making the sunlit surface directly behind the LM appear very bright. (NASA photo ID AS11-40-5886)

Perhaps you'd also like to check out www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pa....5886.html and then make a full apology for suggesting that I was wrong? Your making yourself look a right prat by making such statements and then your trying to convince readers here that your such an authority on the subject. Your meant to own all of the Apollo photos so may I suggest that you actually get them out once in a while and see whats on them? But of course, the first landing on the Moon was so important that only 1 picture exists of the first man walking on the Moon - how odd?

Quote:
It's a shame more people don't read this forum. They'd all see the shallowness in your arguments. They'd all see the lack of intellectual fortitude you exhibit...not just in your Apollo Hoax page, but in your lack of presenting anything intelligent on the forum, and your decided tendency to evade the issues.


So what about the link I've just posted to prove you wrong? Isnt it funny that when somebody is losing an argument that they have to stoop to make personal comments about a persons intelligence because thats the only way they know how to try and get a reaction? And the amount of posts on a forum does not necessarily reflect how many visitors read the posts. This site gets 50,000 hits per month and around 200 emails a day, so your estimation that nobody visits here once again shows how wide of the mark you are. Numbers mean nothing anyway, if one person comes to this site and learns something about the subject then I'm happy. Its not all about making money as you would have everyone believe.

I dont think Ive evaded any of your questions to be honest. Anyone reading these forums would soon conclude that your a bitter man who has nothing better to do than just rant on and on - even if nobody is replying to your posts for several weeks you still have to continually post.

Quote:
I came here to see what kind of people actually perpetrate this crap on the minds of the un-informed. I found out...in graphic fashion. It's somewhat comical, but at the same time somewhat sad.


And your such an authority on the subject that you didnt even know a photo of Armstrong on the Moon existed - shame on you. I thought it was common knowledge -theyre even selling it on ebay for Christs sake as 'The only photo of Neil Armstrong on the Moon'. So before you start criticising people, perhaps you should look before you leap? And it seems that you frequent the site on a daily basis so it cant be that bad hmmm.

Quote:
What I've found is sick...a bunch of pseudo-scientists who have no knowledge whatsoever, and who refuse to engage in discussion, but continually re-direct the conversation into un-associated issues to mask the fact that they've been had.


Its funny that because I've dodged no questions and had a lengthy conversation with you in this forum. Just because you dont agree with my stand point does not mean that I havent answered your questions.

Anything real can be studied scientifically. Whether someone's favorite topic corresponds to anything real or not may be an open question, a question that may never be answered.

For a scientist to claim that a topic is no more than "unscientific nonsense," or "psuedo-science," writing off an entire area of interest, when neither they nor any other scientist has ever actually studied it scientifically, is an expression of arrogance.

Quote:
But what could I expect from people who call themselves Ufologists, and seem to consider themselves as members of the scientific community?


I'm sorry for you that you havent had the experience of seeing ufos but jealousy gets you knowhere. People from all walks of life have seen ufos, doctors, policemen, scientists, even presidents of your own Country.

But to put you straight, there are many scientists who have studied science and who are UFOlogists - Stanton Friedman is a good example who not only travels the World talking about UFOs, but also is a nuclear physicist. He probably has more knowledge stored in his little finger than you have in your whole body, so to constantly suggest that you have to be dumb to study ufology is a non starter. Nick Pope was the head of the Ministry of Defence's UFO Project from 1991 until 1994. He went on to write several sci-fi books and is a regular on the UFO convention circuit - lecturing all over the world about his time as the MoD's very own 'Fox Mulder'. So your belief that you have to be weird or strange to believe or see ufos is once again a very narrow minded suggestion.

Now, this brings me onto the question of exactly what do you do? Seems like you've really got your knickers in a twist about the whole subject. I think its time to put your money where your mouth is and tell everyone what you actually do - or are you just a professional moaner?

Quote:
There's more evidence of the Apollo program than there is of the Holocaust...or any other human experience! Yet, if you go up to someone who was a victim of the Holocaust, and make accusations that it was a hoax...well...maybe they'd show you their tatoo. Of course, you'd say "That could've been put on anywhere," and you'd likely wind up on the ground looking up, with several teeth missing.


You've just stooped to a new low in stupidity. 12 people 'allegedly' landed on the Moon - Thousands died during the holocaust which can be proven by the survivors and many army photographers who accompanied them - whats your logic?

If you dont have anything to say without constantly insulting me and the other people who contribute to this site then I wont bother replying to your stupid rants. Perhaps you should stop before you completely disappear down that big hole that is opening up beneath you after your Armstong on the Moon claim... :rollin

Edited by: Cosmic Conspiracies at: 9/9/05 1:59 pm
MID
Registered User
Posts: 34
(9/12/05 2:09 am)
Reply

Re: For Dave @ Cosmic Conspiracies
Only one?
Actually, all of the photos showed the various colors that were refracted through the windows of Apollo spacecraft. You didn't look close enough. besides, the point is rather moot. As I said, you can see effect this on video, and photos all over the place. It's been explained to death. It appears you will not be swayed.
____________________________________________________

If that's how you see that Surveyor film, that's good. Maybe it was an illuatration in a documentary. Indeed, that's all it could've been, really.
However, it's portrayed as being footage shot from Apollo 12 on landing approach, and shown with an eye toward proving some sort of Apollo coverup. That's the problem with it, and that is bogus.
____________________________________________________


No, science cannot explain UFOs as being evidence of alien spacecraft. That distinction must be made. I still don't know who Martin is and I don't care...the point here is this...to use your own illustration:

We cannot see air of course. Yet, we know it exists, because we can feel it, and we have shown scientifically that it is actually made of something. This knowledge is a couple thousand years old.
We cannot say that alien spacecraft do not exist, of course, but the fact is we have no evidence that they do, and that they've actually visited us.

We have evidence that air, the unseen, is something. We have no evidence that alien spacecraft exist. In all probability they do, but there's simply no evidence.

The problem here is that you are investigating with a bias. You are setting out to arrive at a specific conclusion, and that spills over to your Apollo page, where conclusions are made based on nothing at all...save your biased intention of proving a hoax.

Science that is not.
____________________________________________________

Don't laugh too hard about the Armstrong photo I mentioned. You expect perhaps that I'm unfamiliar with the one you're talking about...the only one that shows the whole of Neil Armstrong at the MESA? Really...

I mentioned your section on conversations which illustrate strange (and fabricated) conversations that has an Armstrong photo in it that doesn't exist, and another allegedly taken by Armstrong that couldn't have been, and of course wasn't.

Elsewhere on this forum, it was stated that these conversations and photos were taken from an "out of print book". Now that's research. These are the bogus photos I referred to. I am also aware of the pariculars of this photos origins.

(I am an authority on the subject (not all knowing guru of all things Apollo, mind you, but a mighty knowledgeable person, nonetheless), and I did know that this photo of Neil existed...that's the answer in short)

You were wrong not only to publish those bogus photos, but also to publish those bogus conversations. I am not about to apologize for pointing out your obvious error.

Indeed, again, you really contradict yourself by directing me to the ALSJ, perhaps one of the finest repositories of Apollo information available on the web to show me something I already know about---as if I haven't been there before?
Why would you direct me to a place that is filled with the hoax? This place is a repository of the Apollo lunar landing hoax, and you direct me there?

Indeed, your snide question about there being only one picture showing Neil Armstrong in total on the moon (there were several actually that had pieces of him in them) speaks volumes...

The reasons are right there in the ALJS! You obviously haven't researched that matter. There was only one camera on Apollo 11. Armstrong had it for all but apporoximately 20 minutes of the EVA, when Aldrin had a couple of pans to take. Aldrin didn't go seeking out Neil for a few tourist pictures because by that time they were a wee behind the timeline...etc., etc.
Quite frankly, I find it a bit strange too, and I wish Buzz would've bothered with a minute to take a couple pictures of Neil. However, THAT has nothing to do with an Apollo hoax, and there's no reason to bring that up.

The link you presented proved nothing...save that you didn't read all I said regarding the photos and the conversations...something I see you've neglected to address.
____________________________________________________
And, as I told you, it is also pointless to tell you what I do...since what I do now is unrelated to the space program, nor does it matter what I used to do.

I could tell you that I was an aerospace engineer involved in lunar module design, specifically concentrating on propulsion systems and attitude control. You wouldn't buy that anyway. I could tell you I was John Young, Commander of Apollo 16. That, too, wouldn't matter.

If Neil Armstrong came on this site (and no, he wouldn't), you'd call him a liar. So, what's it matter what I did?
____________________________________________________

As to dodging the issues...
I shall assume then that those aspects I answered for you that you didn't reply to, or argue, or answer, were successful in showing you the fallacy of your arguement, and that you chose to go in another direction as a diversion.
____________________________________________________

I don't know that I'm losing anything. It appears that I have a little support...maybe more than a little. The fact is not too many folks are on the forum. You have to prove an Apollo hoax...not me. So far, you haven't. And I am not at all bitter. It's rather fun to see just where you folks are coming from and where you get your ideas. It's also fun to see you dodge issues I point out to you...like your fabricated conversations, etc...
I answer your comments. I point out the fallacy of your arguements and you re-direct into other areas rather than admit you've been had.

____________________________________________________

By the way, I have seen a UFO. Several. Once, it was quite a sight. However, never have I seen anything conclusive to show me it was an alien spacecraft; just a UFO. I am hardly jealous of people who see them and come to a conclusion based upon nothing.

But again, you digress. UFOs and alien spacecraft are not the issues here.


It is your claim that there are film and photographic anomalies which will "CONVINCE MANY PEOPLE THAT THE WHOLE APOLLO PROJECT OF THE LATE 1960s AND EARLY 1970s WERE A COMPLETE HOAX". Which means, you "believe that as well".

You say things on your tabloid web page like

"The temperature during the Apollo missions were recorded between -180F in the shade and an incrdible +200F in full Sunshine."
...speaking about the film emulsion.

A completely false statement. No such temperatures were ever recorded on the moon's surface during an Apollo lunar stay.

"I think the picture below beautifully sums up the evidence of several light sources being used."
...speaking about the obvious artificial lighting.

Which is hilarious if you know anything about the "photo" you present, and realize that if the shadows WERE appearing parallel in this particular picture, something would be radically wrong with the universe.

"Why is there a lack of any engine sound on any of the films as the lunar lander is about to touch down on the lunar surface?"

A question that one would think the answer obvious...to someone of scientific bent who actually investigated the OBVIOUS reasons why...

...speaking of Gemini 10 and Mike Collins space walk...you say,

"When Collins finally acchieved the spacewalk, NASA relesed sevaral pictures of the event."

No, they did not. What you presented here was patently false information.


That's just a few of the nonsensical things you write on your webpage. That's what I am addressing...tabloid journalism at its finest. How do you explain these ridiculous, false comments and conclusions you reach there?

Perhaps I should just address them one by one...or how about your 32 questions (many of which aren't questions at all...)...perhaps I'll answer those for you.

Scientists, or people of scientific persuasion, do not put such things on a website and claim that they're "conclusive", or even that they're "evidence". They may well ask questions about them, which would certainly be legitimate, but not knowing anything about so many of the so-called pieces of "evidence" put forth means one of two things: either you're really dumb, or you've got an agenda and you're purposely putting out these things to sway the ignorant for reasons I cannot fathom.

Which is it...because none of what's on your Apollo page has anything to back it up.

This is not insulting your intelligence. It is challenging shoddy, un-professional work made to look "scientific".
Cosmic Conspiracies
ezOP
Posts: 20
(9/12/05 2:11 pm)
Reply

Re: For Dave @ Cosmic Conspiracies
Didnt take you long to break your promise did it?

Quote:
Actually, all of the photos showed the various colors that were refracted through the windows of Apollo spacecraft. You didn't look close enough. besides, the point is rather moot. As I said, you can see effect this on video, and photos all over the place. It's been explained to death. It appears you will not be swayed.


I would totally agree if you had posted pictures showing blue out of the window whilst in deep space, however your examples did nothing to sway my opinion. As I pointed out, one of the photos showed the reflection of objects inside the module on the window. Or did you think that those objects were actually outside the craft?

Now, contrary to you claiming that I 'always dodge the questions', you are doing the same - I provided a response to all the pictures you posted and you have just swept them aside without acknowledging what I said.

Quote:
However, it's portrayed as being footage shot from Apollo 12 on landing approach, and shown with an eye toward proving some sort of Apollo coverup. That's the problem with it, and that is bogus.


No it isn’t portrayed here as anything of the sort. In fact, if you checked out our page at www.ufos-aliens.pwp.bluey...veyor3.htm you would see that not only do we ask about the validity of the footage, but we also agree that it must not be original NASA film. I cannot see your argument where you claim that we are trying to portray the footage as being from Apollo 12 because we don’t?

Quote:
We cannot say that alien spacecraft do not exist, of course, but the fact is we have no evidence that they do, and that they've actually visited us
.

How much video and photographic evidence does science need to acknowledge a phenomenon? UFOs have been visiting this planet since the stone age, which obviously rules out a misidentification as aircraft. They are mentioned in the Bible and many qualified pilots have made written statements, as well as people from the Military, Police and Government. Whether scientists wish to acknowledge the existence of UFOs or ghosts doesn’t really matter – they exist and people see them!

Quote:
The problem here is that you are investigating with a bias. You are setting out to arrive at a specific conclusion, and that spills over to your Apollo page, where conclusions are made based on nothing at all...save your biased intention of proving a hoax.

Science that is not
.

But surely all scientific research is carried out to reach a specific conclusion? I am no more biased in my beliefs about the Apollo hoax than your are about trying to convince me that we actually went. People have a right to their own opinions – I hope at least you’ll grant me free speech as I have done for you in this forum?

My conclusions are based on experience with UFOs and the paranormal that I have experienced since the age of 6 and upwards. No critic or cynical remark that anyone can make can take those experiences or my belief away. My Apollo belief is based on research and talking to other persons in the field who come to a similar conclusion. Your conclusions come from following the pack and believing the great white elephant that is NASA.

Quote:
I mentioned your section on conversations which illustrate strange (and fabricated) conversations that has an Armstrong photo in it that doesn't exist, and another allegedly taken by Armstrong that couldn't have been, and of course wasn't.


Obviously the photo does exist otherwise you wouldn’t be looking at it? Where do you suggest these photos came from if not from NASA? And if this photo (which looks pretty convincing to me as being taken on the Moon) is a mock up, how come that Apollo believers claim that doing such a mock up would be almost impossible or too expensive to bother?

Quote:
I am an authority on the subject (not all knowing guru of all things Apollo, mind you, but a mighty knowledgeable person, nonetheless), and I did know that this photo of Neil existed...that's the answer in short


Good for you – clap, clap. Ill put a good word in for you at this years Oscars.

Quote:
You were wrong not only to publish those bogus photos, but also to publish those bogus conversations. I am not about to apologize for pointing out your obvious error.


How do you know they’re bogus? Just because NASA decide not to host them on they’re site does not mean that they are not genuine?

Quote:
Why would you direct me to a place that is filled with the hoax? This place is a repository of the Apollo lunar landing hoax, and you direct me there?


I think your starting to lose the plot here slightly? Because you have a belief that most of the photos on this site are not from NASA, I was just directing you to an official NASA site so that you couldn’t come back and claim that I never reference anything or could prove that it was a NASA photo. If you believe in NASA then what better place to send you to confirm that the photo was a genuine NASA picture?

Quote:
Indeed, your snide question about there being only one picture showing Neil Armstrong in total on the moon (there were several actually that had pieces of him in them) speaks volumes...


Oh yippee do – Let’s cut a cake in celebration. We'll according to the NASA websites there is only ONE picture that exists of Neil Armstrong, so are you now questioning their information?

Quote:
The reasons are right there in the ALJS! You obviously haven't researched that matter. There was only one camera on Apollo 11.


Do you mean on the Moons surface or the whole mission? There were three Hasselblad 500EL cameras actually taken aboard Apollo 11, one of which was modified and used on the Moons surface. Please be more specific with your posts and then perhaps I can understand exactly your point.

Quote:
Quite frankly, I find it a bit strange too, and I wish Buzz would've bothered with a minute to take a couple pictures of Neil. However, THAT has nothing to do with an Apollo hoax, and there's no reason to bring that up.


I disagree – it is a very important question that needs to be answered – you cannot simply brush it aside as being irrelevant. The first explorers to Everest took pictures of each other and I cannot fathom out why doing the same thing wasn't an important part of the Apollo 11 mission?

I have addressed your questions about the conversations – perhaps you didn’t read it? My response was that perhaps NASA do not release certain pieces of information and certainly not when it mentions UFOs etc.

Quote:
You have to prove an Apollo hoax...not me.


And I have – you don’t agree with it, but I have proven it all the same.

I’m glad you have seen a UFO – perhaps it was just a small light in the sky, which I agree could have been anything, however, when you see a very large craft, witnessed by 2 other adults that slowly and silently glides approximately 200 feet above your head and looks like it’s a mile wide in the sky, that is the time that you start asking questions and start believing that the technology that we have today could not put such a gigantic craft in the air which can travel at such a slow speed that you think would fall out of the sky.

Quote:
"The temperature during the Apollo missions were recorded between -180F in the shade and an incrdible +200F in full Sunshine."
...speaking about the film emulsion.

A completely false statement. No such temperatures were ever recorded on the moon's surface during an Apollo lunar stay.


Here is a link to a private company who is interested in Moon statistics. ‘The Artemis Project’ www.asi.org/adb/02/05/01/...ature.html quote these temperatures in Fahrenheit, Rankine, Centigrade, and Kelvin. (Rankine and Kelvin are absolute scales. At 0°R or 0°K, nothing moves.)

Mean Surface Temperature

F R C K
Earth 59 519 15 288
Moon -9 451 -23 250
Mars -76 384 -60 213

Minimum Surface Temperature

F R C K
Earth -128 332 -89 184
Moon -233 227 -147 126
Mars -170 290 -112 161

Maximum Surface Temperature

F R C K
Earth 136 596 58 331
Moon 212 672 100 373
Mars 17 477 -8 265

Perhaps you could provide a link to NASAs data regarding the temperatures during the Apollo 11 landing as I could not trace any on their sites.

Quote:
"I think the picture below beautifully sums up the evidence of several light sources being used."
...speaking about the obvious artificial lighting.

Which is hilarious if you know anything about the "photo" you present, and realize that if the shadows WERE appearing parallel in this particular picture, something would be radically wrong with the universe.


Thats a very vague response that could mean anything. Perhaps you could explain further?

Quote:
"Why is there a lack of any engine sound on any of the films as the lunar lander is about to touch down on the lunar surface?"

A question that one would think the answer obvious...to someone of scientific bent who actually investigated the OBVIOUS reasons why...


I know your answer will be because they were in a vacuum, but what about the oxygen filled Apollo lander? The microphones weren’t recording in a vacuum but in a capsule with a massive booster under it.

Quote:
...speaking of Gemini 10 and Mike Collins space walk...you say,

"When Collins finally acchieved the spacewalk, NASA relesed sevaral pictures of the event."

No, they did not. What you presented here was patently false information.


Now your just nit-picking. NASA did release the Collins picture with a space background and claimed that it was taken during the spacewalk.

Quote:
Scientists, or people of scientific persuasion, do not put such things on a website and claim that they're "conclusive"


I’ve never claimed to be a scientist – just a person with a brain who knows when something isn’t quite as it seems. Scientific qualifications does not guarantee that a person knows all about everything either.
MID
Registered User
Posts: 35
(9/13/05 12:51 am)
Reply

Re: For Dave @ Cosmic Conspiracies
The photos all illustrate various colored refractions that appeared through the tinted windows of the Apollo spacecraft at various lighting angles. I'm not going to go through all these photos and pull out all the blue ones. You don't buy it anyway. No point in talking ad nauseam about this common occurrance.

Well, I'll say I'm glad you don't portray that footage as Apollo 12 film. Others have many times. I'm afraid I assumed too much. You're right. However, let's not dwell on this admission, OK? It does nothing to change the content of your site in the overall, nor my opinions about it.


Science does not deny the existence of UFOs. We're confusing terminology here. There's plenty of evidence of UFOs. Just none substantiating alien vessels. We need to get past the UFO business. It's not really relevant to this discussion.
I acknowledge your experience with UFOs since the age of 6. You are also entitled to believe what you wish, and study the phenomena to your heart's content. No one said you were wrong or stupid to do so.
I am speaking to your skewed conclusions and evidence regarding Apollo. My knowledge came from direct experience. Your knowledge does not. You present blantantly mis-understood and mis-interpreted things that you conclude are evidence.
I wish to deal with those things...snide comments aside.

Let's get one thing straight: UFOs are real. In fact, I'll tell you that I feel that alien beings have indeed been here on Earth. I will also say that people certainly have claimed to experience direct encounters with them in modern times. I can't say much about that. If they say so, OK. However, there is no scientific evidence of their existence...just statements by people. I would encourage a study, certainly.

However, when it comes to putting out information like you have regarding a hoaxed Apollo program, and the blantant ignorance of what you're seeing, and the bias that is definitely there, I have something to say. That's what I'm here for...not to discuss UFOs.

Yes...scientists to attempt to ascertain specific conclusions. However, they investigate objectively, and if they posess a long-held, endearing belief, and the evidence they find through their investigations does not support that belief, scientists courageously accept the facts and move on. This is different than looking at something, seeing a periphery, and making the sweeping conclusion that it is "evidence" that supports one's claim.
____________________________________________________

The photos I mentioned:

Of course they exist. They wouldn't be on the site if they didn't. I have pointed out that they're not Apollo 11 photos. That's all. Your questions involving where they came from are irrelevant. How would I know? Icould certainly search them out, but I'm not going to waste the time (there's about 6000 pictures to look through... :o

Creating such a photo would be easy...it's not a big deal. The hoax would've been far too expensive , difficult, and actually impossible...not a couple of photos.
They are bogus because they're not Apollo 11 photos. They are portrayed as such. That's bogus.
NASA didn't decide to host them on their site because they don't exist in the Apollo 11 photo library. For all I know, they could be crappy photos from another mission. I know you're thinking that they withheld these pictures from the public, but if that's the belief, there's nothing I can say about that.
____________________________________________________

I never said anything indicating that most of the photos from your site are not from NASA. I only addressed the two photos mentioned above as being bogus. You never referenced anything that could prove those two photos are NASA photos. The rest of them I recognize, of course.
The actual NASA photos and footage you present are unidentified, and mis-interpreted. That is what I am saying to you.
____________________________________________________

Question regarding the Apollo 11 camera...

There was only one surface Hasselblad on Apollo 11. You are correct, that is what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.
____________________________________________________

Well, if the question as to why Aldrin didn't take some tourist pictures of Neil Armstrong bothers you...I can't really address it beyond what I've already said. It doesn't mean that much to me, and I would think it means nothing to Neil Armstrong. Perhaps contacting Buzz Aldrin would be a path to follow (so long as you don't follow him around with a movie camera and ask him to swear on the Bible that he went to the moon...):D

...lets let Bart Sibrel be the only human being with that childish distinction to his credit, eh?

I think the ALSJ might even have something about that in there someplace. They talked to the astronauts about practically everything.

You would also certainly find some reference there to the several shots which show pieces of Neil Armstrong in them...part of the same series Aldrin took where he captured Neil in full at the MESA. These pictures show a leg or two...nothing major. I'm just pointing out they do exist.
____________________________________________________

Yes, I have seen a UFO. There are likely very few pilots who haven't, and some of them have been pretty wierd looking.
Geez, folks, just two days ago I saw one. Brightly glowing whitish object high in the sky. A "UFO" by any definition I know of. I had to put my binoculars on a tripod and go to 22 power to see two white globes, unmoving...appearing to be thousands of feet up. Perhaps they were balloons. I simply couldn't make them out beyond perfectly round white spheres. They could've been at 7000 feet or 70000 feet. Was quite strange. This is a UFO. Alien? Maybe. Balloons? Also maybe. UFO? Definitely.
As to craft that appeared to be a mile wide in the sky...did anyone take any pictures? This has been claimed alot, but there are no pictures of such apparitions (save in the movies). No radar reports of objects that should've filled the center screens and caused quite a ruckus (of course, they might have just hidden such data) as well as having been seen by thousands of people. That's all I'm saying. It doesn't discount your claims. It just means there's no proof. But again, we're digressing from the real issue here.
____________________________________________________

You haven't proven anything regarding the Apollo hoax. You merely speculate on it based upon mis-interpretations, and , as I said, a distinct desire to prove the hoax, rather than fully investigate what you're seeing.

____________________________________________________

Remember, you said surface temperatures were recorded during the Apollo missions between -180 and +250 degrees F.

They were not. If you'd like to explore the Apollo 11 mission report (it's a rather lengthy document of 326 pages), page 11-51, figure 11-25 shows a plot of lunar surface temperatures and PSE output signals for the mission. You can see from this chart that the surface temperature at the time of the Apollo EVA was no more than about 45-50 degrees F in the sun. Rather cool. The shadow temperature was recorded at about -80 maximum, as I recall (I know the heating temperature...I just remember the shade temperature as being told to me someplace). These temperatures were well within the limits of the suits, and well within the limits of the insulated camera mags. The mean temperatures you show, as well as mins and maxes are fine. However, Apollo missions were landed at relatively low sun angles, in lunar morning to minimize the heating that would be experienced, as well as to improve contrast and visibility. No Apollo mission experienced surface temperatures of much more than 125 degrees F to my knowledge (and again, I'm not going to sift through documents to find this...it's there).

It is a false statement to say that the temperatures you speak of were reported during Apollo missions. They were not. And, even if they were, the suits and insulation, as well as precautionary measures involving the cameras were sufficient to protect the astronauts and their gear from overheating. However, they got no where near maximum or minimum lunar temperatures.
____________________________________________________




Now, to the real issues...

Well, OK. You're right, my response about that Apollo 12 picture was vague.

I elaborate. You are, in this photo, quite simply looking at a panorama, an assemblage of several shots. In addition, you are looking at a digitally processed pan (looks like Skip Teagues work, which has been marvelous), where the seams are removed out of the pictures and the individual shots are blended together to give the impression of looking at a single wide angle shot.

It is not that at all. In fact, you're looking at several photographs, all taken by one person, standing in one place, and yawing the camera about to capture a view of the panorama.

Each shot has the camera lens at a different angle to the sun, thus, the two-dimensional representation, once it's all pieced together with common horizon points matched, had better show what appear to be different shadow angles relative to the viewer. It's because each shot has different sun angles relative to the camera lens.

It is identical to what the human eye sees when it looks around, panning the horizon. We just don't notice it. This is a perfectly natural picture (or, assemblage of pictures), which shows nothing out of the ordinary. As I said, if this picture actually showed what appeared to be parrallel shadows, something would be wrong with temporal reality as we know it.

Therefore, your conclusion and proof of multiple light sources is incorrect.____________________________________________________

I am not nit-picking regarding the Mike Collins "EVA" photo. There were none of Mike's EVA. John Young was in the Gemini X cabin, hatch closed, during Mike's EVA. NASA couldn't have released this training photo with a black background and claimed it was taken during Mike's EVA. Who was supposed to have taken it? The picture shows no umbilical, and is obviously a picture taken of Mike during zero-gee airplane training. The picture was blacked out for effect and was used in Mike's book, "Carrying the Fire" (1974) as the front endleaf. That's all this picture was...as you indicate. But it was not claimed to be anything else. It is a NASA photo, but it is not a Gemini 10 EVA photo.

Indeed, Mike's own pictures taken during his EVA were lost...when the camera he was using disappeared into an orbit of its own.

Your claim here is erroneous, and false.
____________________________________________________

You know my answer regarding the engine sound?

No, I don't think so.
Now, there was a small pressure in the LM cabin, and vibration and some sound were transmitted through that media. However, it was minimal, and could only be felt through the feet of the astronauts, and not heard, because they were sealed in "EMUs" as it were. Their microphones were designed to be triggered on voice command, and were incapable of picking up anything but the astronauts voice...they couldn't pick up the interior sounds of the cabin, or the low grade vibration of the descent engine. They were inside the helmets of the suits, isolated from any low grade external noise.

But that's not the real reason that the "landing films" don't have any sound of engine roaring "as the LM's about to touch down on the lunar surface...(despite the fact that no roaring was ever heard by the astronauts, and there was little engine sound to be heard).

The reason is that all Aollo landing film was shot by a 16 mm data aquisition camera mounted above the starboard window of the LM, pointing oput the window and along the line of flight.

The camera HAD NO SOUND RECORDING CAPABILITY...this fact is common knowledge.

Sorry folks, again, you've fallen short in your investigations.

You're right...there is no sound in a vacuum...but that's really not the answer, as you can see.
____________________________________________________


Somethings may not seem as they should to you, and indeed, that requires a brain to ascertain...but in reality, everything is just as it should be in these matters, and all the other Apollo "evidence of hoax" that you present.

Your also right in that scientific qualifications do not guarantee that a person knows about everything either. That is, I should think, commonly understood.

However, I know something about Apollo. You may make fun of that if you wish, but the fact remains, I am knowledgable about the program, what was done, and how it was done.

My contention here is to tell you that you've presented non-evidence and painted it as evidence. You have not researched this aspect fully whatsoever, and, like so many other lunar hoax theorists, you make conclusions and assumptions based upon things you don't know.

That being said, the information is available nowadays...in volumes and volumes for one to investigate...the sheer mass and detail of this information should be proof enough that Apollo wasn't faked. It's absolutely untenable that all this information, all this documentation, most STILL largely unknown to the general public (and...certainly boring, lengthy reads to anyone but the technically oriented reader...), would have ever been thought of by those planning a hoax...it's absolutely incredible.

Now...without getting back into UFOs or any inappllicable commentary...(please)....how about those 32 "questions"?

Regards...

Cosmic Conspiracies
ezOP
Posts: 22
(9/13/05 12:44 pm)
Reply

Answers
Surprisingly, I agree with a lot of what you just said and I’m sure that we can both be quite rational about his debate, even if we don’t share the same viewpoint.

Quote:
As to craft that appeared to be a mile wide in the sky...did anyone take any pictures? This has been claimed alot, but there are no pictures of such apparitions (save in the movies).


Unfortunately (which is almost always the case) nobody (to my knowledge) filmed the object. The problem you see is that the sighting was made at 6.30 am in the morning. I had just been woken up by my dog who wanted to go out (we had only had the dog a few weeks so we were still trying to get him into a routine). But, I did hear that several people had rang up the local radio station with reports and that the local newspaper had reports too (I couldn’t track any down however?). What’s interesting is that only this last Friday we got together with a few people on a ghost hunt and one of the people who I hadn’t met before suddenly started to talk about ufo’s. After I told him about the above encounter he said that both he and his dad had spotted the same thing over in the next town to us at around that time, which incidentally would have been the area that the craft was moving towards after we saw it.

Quote:
I elaborate. You are, in this photo, quite simply looking at a panorama, an assemblage of several shots. In addition, you are looking at a digitally processed pan (looks like Skip Teagues work, which has been marvelous), where the seams are removed out of the pictures and the individual shots are blended together to give the impression of looking at a single wide angle shot.

It is not that at all. In fact, you're looking at several photographs, all taken by one person, standing in one place, and yawing the camera about to capture a view of the panorama.


I fully appreciate your argument and have in fact been told this before. However, even if the photograph is made up of several pictures the shadow of the flag on the right would still be heading towards the NE as is the dish and the LEMs shadow, unless of course that part of the photo was taken a considerable time after the rest of the photos by which time the Sun would have moved and altered the trajectory of the flags shadow.

As I’ve said on the Apollo page, I fully understand that there are both light sources from the Sun and Earth shine (as explained by BA readers) but I do not understand their belief why that would make shadows shoot off in different directions? Whatever light sources hit the Moons surface, they combine to make all the shadows travel in the same direction. The only way that shadows could fall in such a way as we see in the photo that your illustrating would be if the light sources were very close to the object that is casting the shadow rather like a light in the corner of your room and another one on the ceiling. The further the light source is placed away from the object, the more likely that object shadows will fall in the same direction and considering that the Earth and Sun are both thousands of miles away, the two separate light sources would not have that great effect on the shadows of objects that only lie a few feet away from each other on the Moon.

Even if the light spot area on the right of the photo was in a dippy it would not drag the flags shadow into it as the light source (as proved by the other shadows in the picture) must be shining from the SW of where the cameraman is standing. By believing your example, the Sun would have had to move to the SE of the astronaut to cause the shadow made by the flag.

Quote:
The camera HAD NO SOUND RECORDING CAPABILITY...this fact is common knowledge.

Sorry folks, again, you've fallen short in your investigations.


Were talking about the lack of engine noise when the astronauts were making audio transmissions, not camera sound.

Quote:
Now...without getting back into UFOs or any inappllicable commentary...(please)....how about those 32 "questions"?


Over the weekend I rewrote some of the questions to clarify the questions. I also added the radiation data released recently by NASA.
MID
Registered User
Posts: 36
(9/14/05 1:21 am)
Reply

Re: Answers
Fair enough!

As to the UFO sighting you speak of, I'll make myself very clear:

I have absolutely no doubt as to the veracity of your claim. You saw it (as well as some others), I didn't, and I will not argue about one person, or a group of others said they saw. If it was an alien spacecraft, perhaps their technology would allow such a thing to slip in undetected by our radar. Despite the lack of scientific evidence, no one's claim can be denied, because there's also no scientific evidence to say they didn't see it!

____________________________________________________

Regarding that PAN:

Not so. These pictures were all taken in relatively rapid sequence, essentially at the same time. What I am trying to point out is that all of the pictures were taken by Pete there who's shadow is in the right part of the picture pointing zero-phase. The picture of the LM was taken when he was yawed, as we say, about 30 degrees to his left. The shadows relative to the camera in that shot were different than the shadows relative to the camera when he took the picture with his shadow in it. The photo of the LM, if separated from the rest, would look perfectly normal, with it's shadows pointing off to the right relative to the viewer.
With the sun at his back, the shadow should be directly away from the camera, as is seen, and then he yawed to his right to capture the flag in the next shot, and the shadow angles relative to the camera were almost 90 degrees away from the LM picture shadow angles, and the shadows in the 2 dimensional photo therefore move from right to left, rather than from left to right, as in the LM photo. If this was a 360 degree pan, you'd see shadows completely opposite each other in the same assemblage.

In the actual photo assembly, you can see the Resseau marks on the plate in the camera, which will show you where the center of each shot is...

You can prove this to yourself with a Polaroid. You go someplace in bright sun that's at a good angle to cast relatively long shadows, like an empty parkling lot or a field someplace, and you place a couple cones or some verticle object on the ground spaced apart an adequate distance.
Then, you step back and take a panorama of the area, moving a bit to your right or left each shot.
Then take all the photos and crop them so the common points in the horizon match. Create an assemblage showing the whole area.
What you'll see is precisely what you see in this Apollo 12 pan...shadows appearing to the eye of the viewer to be moving in different directions on the two-dimensional representation you've just put together, despite the fact that they're really not, and can't be going in different directions.
As I said, you own eye sees exactly the same thing.
Go outside and face in one direction and look at how a shadow of an object appears relative to your eye. What direction is it going relative to your eyes?
Then, turn 90 degrees to your right and look at another shadow. Note the difference relative to your eyes.
Same thing you're seeing here exactly.

I've got a secret to tell you about BA and this claim of earthlight being a second illumination source on the lunar surface.

They're dead wrong, and I had a hard time believing I was reading that from them.

The earth is an illumination source on the surface of the moon. However, it is no where near powerful enough of a source to cause a second shadow to occur in broad daylight (which was the condition on the moon during Apollo mission EVAs). You need equal light sources to do that (like the opposing lights on a lighted soccer field or something like that). Earthlight has no power in broad daylight on the moon. It only illuminates the surface during lunar night...like the moon does here on earth during the night (although a bit more). Their claim is therefore ridiculous.

The photo you're seeing is an assemblage of completely natural effects, which you can prove to yourself right here on earth.
____________________________________________________

OK, the lack of engine sound during audio transmissions is explained easily, in all phases of flight.

On the LM descent, or ascent, for that matter, the engine generated no sound save a low grade vibration inside the cabin's low pressure atmosphere. The microphones were sealed inside helmets, within a pressure suit with an equally low pressure. No sound got into the suits from engine noise. The microphones were small condensers designed to actuate upon voice input, and had no capability of picking up a low grade rumble that may have existed outside of the space suit in which the microphones were sealed, and the voice input of the astronaut himself was much louder than any extraneous sound outside his suit.

The same thing applies to launch as pertains to the microphones inside the pressure suits. There was certainly sound produced by the engines then, as there was atmosphere to transmit sound waves. However, they were well insulated from that frightening roar by about 6 million pounds of stuff in the 300+ feet between them and the engines...as well as their pressure suits. Crews didn't hear much at all. They felt a heck of alot, but they all described the experience as a rumble and vibration, not a roaring cacophony. Any engine sound also dissapated rather nicely after mach 1, about 35-40 seconds after launch as I recall.
____________________________________________________

Regards.

Cosmic Conspiracies
ezOP
Posts: 23
(9/14/05 2:17 pm)
Reply

Re: Answers
Well, after looking at several panoramic pictures it appears that you are right with this particular photo. Thanks for the advice - I will remove that picture from the article. However, I still have a problem with some of the other photos that are not panoramic which show shadows falling in different directions.

Having heard your explanation regarding the lack of sounds in the microphone is also quite valid and that will be removed from the article too.

Thanks for your thoughts!

Edited by: Cosmic Conspiracies at: 9/14/05 2:35 pm
MID
Registered User
Posts: 38
(9/15/05 1:33 am)
Reply

Re: Answers
You're most welcome, and thank you as well.

Perhaps I could address some of those 32 questions...a little at a time?

Regards.

Cosmic Conspiracies
ezOP
Posts: 24
(9/15/05 3:38 pm)
Reply

Re: Answers
sure

MID
Registered User
Posts: 39
(9/16/05 12:03 am)
Reply

Re: Answers
I think I'll start a new topic on those.
<< Prev Topic | Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Email This To a Friend Email This To a Friend
Topic Control Image Topic Commands
Click to receive email notification of replies Click to receive email notification of replies
Click to stop receiving email notification of replies Click to stop receiving email notification of replies
jump to:

- Cosmic Conspiracies - Nasa And The Apollo Missions - Cosmic Conspiracies -

Powered By ezboard® Ver. 7.32
Copyright ©1999-2007 ezboard, Inc.