Now, I've been digging through the archive and I've found some stuff. Yes, genuine, original, vintage crap.
This is what you used to find in the small adds in the back of the Sunday papers. It's what you find when you start to peel the layers of lies away from the official story. It is the just plain sick. Or, it could all just be crap. You decide!
This is what you used to find in the small adds in the back of the Sunday papers. It's what you find when you start to peel the layers of lies away from the official story. It is the just plain sick. Or, it could all just be crap. You decide!
Did Men Really Land On The Moon?
Oh, most certainly they did, but that really isn't the issue. I'll get back to that in a minute because it isn't something that NASA wants to talk about.
No, you see, what the pro-moon-landing lobby will do is obfuscate the true issue. They say things like:
Now, back to that "Did they go to the moon" bit. As I said before, oh for sure, NASA certainly attempted and maybe, even succeeded in sending men to the moon.
There are really two questions which you need to ask before you can even begin to start on that
Did the men we know as the ones who went to the moon and back, actually do that?
Is the accepted record of the moon landings (i.e. the one which NASA says is the record of the moon landings) actually a record of men on the moon?
If the answer to either of these questions isn't Yes! then there are some questions to be answered.
I shall put together more on this in due course, but think about it. Did NASA really achieve what they claim with the technology of the time? Consider what your car was like in July 1969, your washing machine, your TV. Did anyone really possess the technology to send three men to the moon and get them back safely?
But, I'm not going to baffle you with science.
No, you see, what the pro-moon-landing lobby will do is obfuscate the true issue. They say things like:
- you've all seen the photos, the film from the moon, the record is there for everyone to see: we're not going to lend these ridiculous claims any credence by even attempting to answer them;
- sending people to the moon is very complicated (then they give you a load of scientific double-talk that makes no sense to anyone);
- that is just ludicrous and doesn't even deserved an answer.
Now, back to that "Did they go to the moon" bit. As I said before, oh for sure, NASA certainly attempted and maybe, even succeeded in sending men to the moon.
There are really two questions which you need to ask before you can even begin to start on that
Did the men we know as the ones who went to the moon and back, actually do that?
Is the accepted record of the moon landings (i.e. the one which NASA says is the record of the moon landings) actually a record of men on the moon?
If the answer to either of these questions isn't Yes! then there are some questions to be answered.
I shall put together more on this in due course, but think about it. Did NASA really achieve what they claim with the technology of the time? Consider what your car was like in July 1969, your washing machine, your TV. Did anyone really possess the technology to send three men to the moon and get them back safely?
But, I'm not going to baffle you with science.
Did Men Really Land On The Moon? Let's look at the entire thing from a really simple viewpoint.
NASA has stated that the films they processed from the Apollo 11 mission are the actual ones, not copies and have not been altered in any way. They further state that all the shots are in the correct order, i.e. the order they were taken in. OK? NASA says that these are the genuine record of the Apollo 11 moon landing - no question about that.
So, chew on this one for starters...
Astronauts, using unmodified, manual focus cameras and standard film stock, unused to the equipment, wearing pressurised spacesuits with tinted visors, with fingertips the size of Gloucester, in zero gravity, where the temperature in the light is +200°C and in the shade is -200°C, with only one light source (the sun), managed to take every shot in perfect focus, perfectly framed and perfectly lit, when they couldn't actually see what they were taking through the viewfinder because the camera was fixed to a chest mounted bracket.
Not one shot did they waste. Not one blurred, out of focus, head-cut-off, forgot to take off the lens-cap, got my finger in the way, too dark, too light photograph out of all the images that came back.
So, chew on this one for starters...
Astronauts, using unmodified, manual focus cameras and standard film stock, unused to the equipment, wearing pressurised spacesuits with tinted visors, with fingertips the size of Gloucester, in zero gravity, where the temperature in the light is +200°C and in the shade is -200°C, with only one light source (the sun), managed to take every shot in perfect focus, perfectly framed and perfectly lit, when they couldn't actually see what they were taking through the viewfinder because the camera was fixed to a chest mounted bracket.
Not one shot did they waste. Not one blurred, out of focus, head-cut-off, forgot to take off the lens-cap, got my finger in the way, too dark, too light photograph out of all the images that came back.
Did Men Really Land On The Moon? Was Neil Armstrong that good a photographer?
NASA says so because they state that these are the actual pictures, in the order they were taken. They state that none have been omitted or shuffled round.
Do me a favour. Put a new film in your camera. Just twelve shots will be enough to prove the point. Now, drive to a piece of ground that you have never seen before, put on a pair of heavy gardening gloves, a crash helmet with tinted visor, put your camera round your neck and without looking through the viewfinder, take twelve, perfectly lit and framed pictures.
You will not do it. And neither did Armstrong or Aldrin, on the moon!
So, do you still think the record we have, is the true record of men landing on the moon?
