October 19, 2015
Our friend OneBigMonkey has identified the area seen in Apollo 11 image AS11-37-5521. Now NASA has a mega problem as the photographic record is starting to fall apart. Image AS11-37-5521 has the following caption on the Lunar Planetary Institute (LPI) website.
We agree with OneBigMonkey and he did identify the correct area in AS11-39-5796. The mega problem OBM and AwE130 have discovered together needs an explanation from NASA. The strut could never ever throw a shadow on the moon at that location it is meters away from where the shadow should be. Below you see AS11-39-5796 and AS11-37-5521. To us it is clear that the ALSJ had already noticed this mega problem and in their caption of AS11-37-5521 they just ignore the strut shadow as mentioned at the LPI. When the ALSJ cannot explain inconsistencies they just ignore it in the hope that nobody will notice it. Sorry NASA we did notice it and we are looking forward to how you gone explain this to the world.
Below you see an Apollo 11 image of the strut shadow on the Lunar surface, clearly it is not the area truth seekers OneBigMonkey and AwE130 have identified. The identified area seen in AS11-37-5521 is not even present on the image that shows the strut shadow on the moon. Houston you have a problem it is called the Whisper. You are busted and this is just the beginning we have have found many more problems and in 2016 we will explain them to the world.
Credit to NASA for Apollo 11 images and landing gear drawing.
Source Article click here.
April 9, 2009
The concept of claiming the moon landing was fake, is based upon the assumption that you have the correct drawing to begin with. I can tell you working on the Space Shuttle, the number of blueprints involved in assemblies like this would involve at least hundreds of drawings, and the drawing provided would not be a working blueprint for any shop. The Apollo program,l and all the prints probably number in the hundreds of thousands. The given drawing is at best a concept general drawing and not a final or working drawing. It is not even a blueprint at all. Anyone that works on these kinds of parts knows what real working blueprints look like, and such an assembly would have countless prints for each and every component of this. This drawing has nothing of the kind, no subprints of each individual part, or that this is even an approved final design. It has no detailed information of dimensions, materials, weld symbols, or end connector details, just to name a few things real blueprints would have. It is a useless drawing to make any kind of claim about a shadow, you could not make this assembly with this drawing.
Care to discuss this one in any kind of reasonable conversation?
January 4, 2016
A friend pointed out this thread to me, so I thought I had better join and point out the inaccuracies your member is stating.
Firstly, he is acting as though I am some sort of friend and sympathiser with his delusional fantasies. I am not. I loathe everything he stands for. Whether you agree with me or not, I know the Apollo missions happened as described and have my own website that demonstrates it.
He posted a thread on infowars demanding to know why there were no footprints in an Apollo image, mistakenly assuming that the views he was looking at were the same. He can't tell the difference between the LM shadow and a piece of window frame.
Shortly after he got spanked at Infowars he deleted his accounted and his website and ran away.
He has continually misrepresented the views of people who disagree with him (pretty much everyone) and claims victories when there are none. He knows nothing about Apollo and his sole purpose is to inflate his own ego. Any criticism of him in posts on infowars gets deleted or edited to make it look as though he was right. he never has been. You will notice the thread he links to is a so called 'Safe Haven' mirror thread, which members there had to start creating because he edited out criticism.
He also has some sort of personal vendetta against the ALSJ because they didn't bow down and worship him.
Have nothing to do with him. He's an idiot.
April 9, 2009
Thank you onebigmonkey, I appreciate your coming forward to say these things. I have challenged awe130 on several occasions to debate the things he posts, and pretty much has evaded and ignored all of them.
I'm glad upi gave the input you just did, not only about this guy, but also your belief in the space programs. I also debated quite a bit a long time ago about the person Kasing, who thought Apollo was faked, and gave my input as someone who retired from Rocketdyne. The Mercury/Gemini?Apollo programs were all before my employment, but I work with countless people at the divisions that were in those programs. Nobody ever even herd of this person who worked there, plus his employment ended long before any apollo flights. I think his claim was there was no crater under the landing module, thinking the landing never happened because of that. As explained perfectly by Buzz Aldrin, the landing is a process of forward movement, and throttling down, as you pick the best visual spot, and upon touch down, the throttle is feathered say down, you still are moving a bit forward, so no crater would be expected. First, so that a direct downward decent might cause rocks/dirt up into and damaging the craft. Kasing theory went right out the window.
As with the claim about the shadows using that drawing, again, who knows without seeing actual final blueprints, what the final strut even looked like.
I can tell you one thing for sure, in those days 20,000 people worked at Rocketdyne alone building every engine required for Apollo, which I think involved 31 different engines, counting all the F1's, J2's, Landing module engines , all the rocket thrusters, and the escape tower rocket. They worked 24/7 around the clock, including holidays, Rocketdyne was buzzing with building, testing, assembly, and thats just the engines alone. Over 100,000 people were employed in all the other divisions and entities. Thats a lot of people just to fake it.
Last but not least, this ridiculeous idea we faked it in studios, they have reciently viewed the landing sites, seen the tracks on the ground, and things we left on the moon, spotted the crater made by the rockets boosters crashing 19 miles from one landing site. Not a single death bed confession, not a single soul has come forward to say "I was part of the faking of the moon landing". If it could have possibly been done would have been a feat of epic porportions, requiring countless people, sets, special effects, plus somehow fooled every super power watching us, and hundreds of people in mission control, monitoring bases around the globe.
Instead of shadows and stupid theories, lets hear a step by step, "how they done it" account by someone, just like we would like to hear the whopper about how the WTC could not fall.
Thanks for the good reply, a lot of actual Apollo workers are tired of the assinine ideas their work was all a lie.
I think you summed up awe130 perfectly--he is an idiot!
Most Users Ever Online: 288
Currently Online: Tina Robinson
Currently Browsing this Page:
Guest Posters: 2
Newest Members:Tina Robinson, ieltsscore, Starcluster Starman, Poul Helman, assignment writers, nianaguerrero, Alfred Dutton, Kieran, garylee, Capt Montauk
Administrators: John Greenewald: 525, blackvault: 1777