 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Rockets / January 2006ABUSE
The Moon landing never happened. It was a hoax and was motivated by religion. This was psychological and religious weapon of mass destruction against citizens. Officials and authorities especially in US and Europe continue to say to this day that it happened. Politicians and governments in US and Europe want to again have Moon Landing Hoax Religious. India & China want to have a Moon landing not knowing the original Hoax Religious. Officials/authorities in US/Europe want to control them with bogus instruments to fool them. Media has tended to support the Hoax. Join this Google group and read more: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/FOOLED > The Moon landing never happened. > It was a hoax and was motivated by religion. Ok, I almost never do this but there's not much on TV tonight........ PLEASE ! PLEASE ! PLEASE ! Explain how it was motivated by religion? THIS, I have to hear. Ok, I have my popcorn and drink now... let the entertainment begin!!! Oh, and thanks in advance! Randy > Ok, I almost never do this but there's not much on TV tonight........ Not much on? Sunday evening...."King of the Hill", "The Simpsons", "Arrested Development".... ...Man, are *you* hard to please! :o)  SignatureGreg Heilers Registered Linux user #328317 - SlackWare 10.1 (2.6.10) ..... Linux is like a wigwam - "No Gates, no Windows, Apache inside." >"King of the Hill", "The Simpsons", >"Arrested Development".... > >...Man, are *you* hard to please! -- > > Greg Heilers AND it obvious that YOU are EASILY pleased!!! >>"King of the Hill", "The Simpsons", >>"Arrested Development".... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > AND it obvious that YOU are EASILY pleased!!! Far from it.... "Seinfeld", "Friends"....lame.... "American Idol"....an embarassment...idolizing "entertainers"... "ER"...E-WHAT? "reality TV"....I prefer REAL "reality TV"...The History Channel...lol NBA? Sweaty, tatooed, earring-clad, Hip-Hop thugs... NFL? Sweaty guys wearing metallic Spandex (a little gay if you ask me...lol) Baseball...NOW we're talkin'! 140 years and still going...no clock, no cheerleaders, no lame pop-flavor-of-the-minute half-time show... and trees give their life to sustain the sport. :o) SignatureGreg Heilers Registered Linux user #328317 - SlackWare 10.1 (2.6.10) ..... "Democracy, is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty, is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." -- Benjamin Franklin > Baseball...NOW we're talkin'! 140 years and still going...no clock, > no cheerleaders, no lame pop-flavor-of-the-minute half-time show... > and trees give their life to sustain the sport. Good point. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>Baseball...NOW we're talkin'! 140 years and still going...no clock, >>no cheerleaders, no lame pop-flavor-of-the-minute half-time show... >>and trees give their life to sustain the sport. > > Good point. Ditto. I'd add NHL but.... Ted 'still pissed off' Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75 I have always been amazed at 22 guys average weight is say 250 lbs and armoured to boot, fighting over a piece of dead pig, and their are 5 guys in prison outfits average weight say 180 unarmoured telling the big armoured guys they can't. And the big guys listen to them? >>>"King of the Hill", "The Simpsons", >>>"Arrested Development".... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > :o) > I have always been amazed at 22 guys average weight is say 250 lbs and > armoured to boot, fighting over a piece of dead pig, and their are 5 guys in > prison outfits average weight say 180 unarmoured telling the big armoured > guys they can't. And the big guys listen to them? That's because the prison guys have whistles. And yellow flags, dear god protect us from the yellow flags. Christopher Brian Deem NAR 12308 TRA 2256 level II >> I have always been amazed at 22 guys average weight is say 250 lbs and >> armoured to boot, fighting over a piece of dead pig, and their are 5 >> guys in prison outfits average weight say 180 unarmoured telling the >> big armoured guys they can't. And the big guys listen to them? > > That's because the prison guys have whistles. > I have always been amazed at 22 guys average weight is say 250 lbs and > armoured to boot, fighting over a piece of dead pig, and their are 5 guys > in prison outfits average weight say 180 unarmoured telling the big > armoured > guys they can't. And the big guys listen to them? That's because, *they* have the whistle. :o) SignatureGreg Heilers Registered Linux User #328317 - SlackWare 10.1 (2.6.10) > > I have always been amazed at 22 guys average weight is say 250 lbs and > > armoured to boot, fighting over a piece of dead pig, and their are 5 guys [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That's because, *they* have the whistle. Point. That's how Tripoli got me. Twice. > :o) SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>>I have always been amazed at 22 guys average weight is say 250 lbs and >>>armoured to boot, fighting over a piece of dead pig, and their are 5 guys [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Point. That's how Tripoli got me. Twice. They blew a whistle at you? That must have been frightening. > >>>I have always been amazed at 22 guys average weight is say 250 lbs and > >>>armoured to boot, fighting over a piece of dead pig, and their are 5 guys [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That must have been frightening. Hmmm.... hook up a peroxide catpack to a steam whistle: that would be frighteningly loud (until the steel whistle got red-hot, began to oxidize, and disintegrated in a shower of sparks!) -dave w > I have always been amazed at 22 guys average weight is say 250 lbs and > armoured to boot, fighting over a piece of dead pig, and their are 5 guys in > prison outfits average weight say 180 unarmoured telling the big armoured > guys they can't. And the big guys listen to them? Ethics and truth matter no matter the messenger? Hello? SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>I have always been amazed at 22 guys average weight is say 250 lbs and >>armoured to boot, fighting over a piece of dead pig, and their are 5 guys in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Hello? It's Testors, right? you're whiffin' the Testors model glue. I just knew it. >>>I have always been amazed at 22 guys average weight is say 250 lbs and >>>armoured to boot, fighting over a piece of dead pig, and their are 5 guys in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >It's Testors, right? you're whiffin' the Testors model glue. >I just knew it. I hear he has a stash of 70's vintage Testors. ...at least Baseball is simple enough that even "journalists" can pretend to understand it. -Braz >I have always been amazed at 22 guys average weight is say 250 lbs and >armoured to boot, fighting over a piece of dead pig, and their are 5 guys [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> >> :o) > NFL? Sweaty guys wearing metallic Spandex (a little gay if you > ask me...lol) Try Aussie Rules - yeah, the players look a little strange, but the action on & off the ball's good. Even if they are limited as to how they can deal with the opposition these days. G. SignatureGraham J. Platt graham (a) bowhunter (d) demon (d) co (d) uk TRA #10112 L2 Rugby LEAGUE Mate!!! Rugby League...................... Don't worry about that girly Aussie Rules rubbish! >> NFL? Sweaty guys wearing metallic Spandex (a little gay if you ask >> me...lol) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > G. Let's see some documentation that proves this. This I gotta see. Please don't forget collaboration. >The Moon landing never happened. >It was a hoax and was motivated by religion. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Join this Google group and read more: >http://groups-beta.google.com/group/FOOLED > The Moon landing never happened. > It was a hoax and was motivated by religion. Religion? Oh...now I get it. I remember the first time I saw a Saturn V launch on T.V.: "Jesus! That's COOL!!" :o) > This was psychological and religious weapon of mass destruction against > citizens. This sounds like "Tonto".... > Officials and authorities especially in US and Europe continue to say > to this day that it happened. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > instruments to fool them. > Media has tended to support the Hoax. Support? Everything I have ever heard from the "hoax" point-of-view... has been presented by the very same "media"...lol > Join this Google group and read more: > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/FOOLED I guess you guys are concentrating on the "moon-landing hoax" now, huh? Does this mean that you have successfully won your "JFK was killed by the Government" crusade..... SignatureGreg Heilers Registered Linux user #328317 - Slackware 10.1 (2.6.10) ..... "My parents just returned from that planet where the inhabitants have no bilateral symmetry...... .....and all I got was this lousy 'F-Shirt'." moonlandinghoaxreligious@yahoo.com wrote: nothing of any interest to anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature. Missed the med cart, eh? Bill Sullivan "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." - Franklin The Apollo landing sites can be seen through a telescope. Sorry. The original message is an example of what it is titled. > The Moon landing never happened. > It was a hoax and was motivated by religion. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Join this Google group and read more: > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/FOOLED > The Apollo landing sites can be seen through a telescope. Sorry. While the landing sites are there, I don't believe they can be seen by any existing telescopes. Mario Perdue NAR #22012 Sr. L2 for email drop the planet http://roci.indyrockets.org "X-ray-Delta-One, this is Mission Control, two-one-five-six, transmission concluded." >> The Apollo landing sites can be seen through a telescope. Sorry. > > While the landing sites are there, I don't believe they can be seen > by any existing telescopes. Supposedly the shadows of the bottom half of the lunar lander can be seen if the sun is low in the lunar sky. Chris SignatureChris Eilbeck MARS Flight Crew http://www.mars.org.uk/ UKRA #1108 Level 2 UYB Tripoli UK Member #9527 LSMR There was an article in "Sky and Telescope" magazine a while back detailing the techniques used to see the Apollo 15 lander. They even had a photograph where the shape of the lander could clearly be seen. >>> The Apollo landing sites can be seen through a telescope. Sorry. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Chris > There was an article in "Sky and Telescope" magazine a while back > detailing the techniques used to see the Apollo 15 lander. They even > had a photograph where the shape of the lander could clearly be > seen. That's interesting. Thanks for the info. Chris SignatureChris Eilbeck MARS Flight Crew http://www.mars.org.uk/ UKRA #1108 Level 2 UYB Tripoli UK Member #9527 LSMR > There was an article in "Sky and Telescope" magazine a while back detailing > the techniques used to see the Apollo 15 lander. They even had a photograph > where the shape of the lander could clearly be seen. Really? I'll have to check that out. Mario Perdue NAR #22012 Sr. L2 for email drop the planet http://roci.indyrockets.org "X-ray-Delta-One, this is Mission Control, two-one-five-six, transmission concluded." > There was an article in "Sky and Telescope" magazine a while back detailing > the techniques used to see the Apollo 15 lander. They even had a photograph > where the shape of the lander could clearly be seen. Are you saying, they were saying, the landers could be seen with an amateur, backyard type scope and by direct observation? To resolve something the size of the lander base, (which is all that was left ) at 220,000 miles would be one heck of a scope, quite beyond the ability of any size Meade or Celestron I ever heard of. They don't advertise that capability and that would be one heck of a selling point. Any idea which observatory they might have been speaking of? I'd love to read the article. Randy http://vernarockets.com/ > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > The inference I'm making from this is that at very low sun angles, the LM base could cast a shadow many hundreds of meters long, and that is what was seen -- not the module itself. David Erbas-White P.S. If anyone has an issue reference, I subscribe to Sky and Telescope's online database, and would be glad to look for it (but would appreciate a starting point). > The inference I'm making from this is that at very low sun angles, the > LM base could cast a shadow many hundreds of meters long, and that is > what was seen -- not the module itself. Ok, that's much more likely ...but it would still need an observatory scope, OR a long exposure. Randy http://vernarockets.com/ I don't remember the issue, but it was definately between 2002 and now. It wasn't an amateur telescope, as I recall. I also remember that it was a very small dot in the photograph. Here is a space.com article about the photo: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html >> There was an article in "Sky and Telescope" magazine a while back > detailing [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Randy > http://vernarockets.com/ Looks like the photo was taken by a lunar-orbiting spacecraft and not an earth telescope. Still, the bullshit that people spew about how we never went to the moon is completely baseless. >I don't remember the issue, but it was definately between 2002 and now. It >wasn't an amateur telescope, as I recall. I also remember that it was a [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> Randy >> http://vernarockets.com/ > Looks like the photo was taken by a lunar-orbiting spacecraft and not an > earth telescope. Now that would not be a problem at all. > Still, the bullshit that people spew about how we never went to the moon is > completely baseless. Totally agree!!! Randy http://vernarockets.com/ > Looks like the photo was taken by a lunar-orbiting spacecraft and not an > earth telescope. I can believe that. Mario Perdue NAR #22012 Sr. L2 for email drop the planet http://roci.indyrockets.org "X-ray-Delta-One, this is Mission Control, two-one-five-six, transmission concluded." http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html Ok, I read the article and that IS really cool! And yep the photos were taken from lunar orbit and with a red filter. That all makes total sense and is a routine occurrence. I've read in Astronomy Magazine sometime in the last 12 months, that even Hubble couldn't resolve the landing sites from earth orbit, which definitely means there is not an earth bound scope, at least not at this time, that could resolve the lander for direct observation. That WOULD, be really neat if they ever pull it off. Probably need a refractor about a mile in diameter. ; ) Now that deal about it being made out of cheese, well that's all true! ; ) Thanks for the link! Randy http://vernarockets.com/ > http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Randy > http://vernarockets.com/ Hubble isn't all that powerful, really. Its advantage is its above the atmosphere, and can take exposures that last days. IIRC hubble would also be unable to track the lunar surface (gyros only go so fast), but I could be wrong about that. Anyway, even cameras in lunar orbit would have a difficult time. The LM is very small. I'd imagine the cameras in military spy sats could do it (or even the sats used for google maps), but nobody has sent one to the moon...not enough money to be made, I suppose. SMART-1 will be taking photos, but it can't resolve the LM from any reasonable altitude, and I don't think ESA is going to crash it just to get a picture. SignatureJohn Bowles NAR# 84674 Member Section #519 - Launch Crue > Now that deal about it being made out of cheese, well that's all true! ; ) Here's proof... http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020401.html Mario Perdue NAR #22012 Sr. L2 for email drop the planet http://roci.indyrockets.org "X-ray-Delta-One, this is Mission Control, two-one-five-six, transmission concluded." > I've read in Astronomy Magazine sometime in the last 12 months, that even > Hubble couldn't resolve the landing sites from earth orbit, which definitely The Hubble wasn't designed to be able to focus on anything nearly as close nor as bright as the moon. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org The problem with governments is that citizens need to keep them on a short leash; unfortunately the nature of the beast is such that governments can usually arrange it so that only they hold their own leash. > The Hubble wasn't designed to be able to focus on anything nearly as close > nor as bright as the moon. It wasn't designed for it but it has been done... http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/moon/hst_moon_9914a.jpg and http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/moon/hst_moon_9914b.jpg The problem is that the hubble has a resolution of .014 arc seconds. That means that on the moon it can resolve down to about 89 feet. The lunar lander descent stage, with legs extended, is only 31 feet in diameter so it is smaller than one pixel in an image. Even with a low angle of the sun the shadow cast would be too narrow to really register as anything. Mario Perdue NAR #22012 Sr. L2 for email drop the planet http://roci.indyrockets.org "X-ray-Delta-One, this is Mission Control, two-one-five-six, transmission concluded." > The problem is that the hubble has a resolution of .014 arc seconds. First point. > That means that on the moon it can resolve down to about 89 feet. Second point. The > lunar lander descent stage, with legs extended, is only 31 feet in > diameter so it is smaller than one pixel in an image. Third point. Even with a low > angle of the sun the shadow cast would be too narrow to really > register as anything. Correct conclusion. Nice Job of explaining the limitations of the optics involved Mario. Randy http://vernarockets.com/ > Nice Job of explaining the limitations of the optics involved Mario. Thank you. Mario Perdue NAR #22012 Sr. L2 for email drop the planet http://roci.indyrockets.org "X-ray-Delta-One, this is Mission Control, two-one-five-six, transmission concluded." In fact it's NOT because the HST is unable to focus on the moon, because it CAN, but it's due to the orbits they have AND to prove it could be done, about 5 years ago they had the hubble set up so that it's view would move across the moon during one section of it's orbit. They took photos of the pathway and they looked at the photos that crossed the Apollo 11 site and on that photo there was a single pixal that was dark and it was at the right spot for the lander base. Still could not make out it's shape, just a black spot. > The Hubble wasn't designed to be able to focus on anything nearly as close > nor as bright as the moon. > > Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >> The Apollo landing sites can be seen through a telescope. Sorry. > > While the landing sites are there, I don't believe they can be seen by > any existing telescopes. Well, lasers certainly can bounce beams off the corner cubes left behind at each landing site. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org The problem with governments is that citizens need to keep them on a short leash; unfortunately the nature of the beast is such that governments can usually arrange it so that only they hold their own leash. > Well, lasers certainly can bounce beams off the corner cubes left behind at > each landing site. That IS true, but it's not the same thing as direct observation with an earth based scope or even orbiting scope for that matter. Mario explained it well in simple terms. Randy http://vernarockets.com/ snip You meant to say you can't see them, right? Because there is no earth based telescope that can resolve the landers. Randy http://vernarockets.com/ > The Apollo landing sites can be seen through a telescope. That screws up the whole fake theory. Shut up! Take your meds. :) SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > The Moon landing never happened. > It was a hoax and was motivated by religion. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Join this Google group and read more: > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/FOOLED Maybe he also believes that smoke is what makes modern electronics work. Smoke is put into every electronic part. If you ever noticed, when the smoke escapes from a device, it stops working. In addition, does he think that the purple Teletubby is gay because of the triangle on his/her/its head? According to his way of thinking, the Earth and mankind were created by evil space aliens. I just think he is just frustrated because the evil space aliens never came to see him and use their evil anal probe. Tom the Canuck. > Maybe he also believes that smoke is what makes modern electronics work. > Smoke is put into every electronic part. If you ever noticed, when the smoke > escapes from a device, it stops working. Snip/edit Now that's funny. Just goes to show you, sometimes the truth hides in plain sight! LOL. HDS |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.