I just read through an old book on the technology that had to be developed for Apollo. Not only was it more complex than this conspiracy theory fools people into believing, but it worked and works (e.g., the crawler, VAB, etc.).Too bad we can't look at ALL the blue-prints anymore...
That's the one thing that really bugs me. There was no reason to destroy the blueprints.Maybe what they found was so terrifying they wanted to make it impossible to go back...or at least very difficult.
Mike,I certainly respect your position on thisstuff. That said:I've been working on a design concept for an"ALICE Probe," i.e., an "Automated LunarInvestigation Craft / Electrogravitic" thatcould be flown by a computer user fromhere on Earth. And no rockets needed.It's a little "garage project" for some timein the future when I can afford it. (But not right now, unfortunately.)Wouldn't the "Powers That Be" have somedegree of concern about efforts like minecoming to fruition?I might find a backer tomorrow. Who knows?Then this thing would be flying in six monthsor less.Moreover, it isn't like this sort of thing isunique to lil' ol' me. Ha! Hardly.That being the case, *who cares* whetherNASA kept their antique drawings (other thanperhaps for their far more appropriate useas a museum exhibit---investigative value aside)?Not that I "don't care," but...This *is* decades later...and MUCH bettertechnology is available, as they doubtlessMUST have known it would be, AND spreadinginto the public consciousness at large, asin fact it is.The list of successful experimenters keepsgrowing....So...as to RETURNING to the Moon (ANDbearing in mind that you were refering to"1970's NASA" being afraid to go back)---So *now* they're suddenly not afraid to goback, but---I mean, what's with all this talk of "Apolloon Steroids?"I call it "Mercury on Steroids," more like."Well, let's see, the ol' horse an' buggygot us there before...so, let's use a biggerhorse and a sturdier buggy!"Huh?!?Why not take the Lexus?!?It's sitting right there in the driveway...!!!!(Area 51 for those who wonder.)All this for a basically "busted" charade?(I admit I "presume" here....)The tech is all over J.L. Naudin's websiteand everybody knows it.The Correas have given us the means foron-board power with their PAGD technology...And everybody knows THAT....So---What's wrong with THIS picture???:-OOf course, then again, *at the time*, andfrom *their* point of view...maybe you'reright....:-\"Destroying (some?) drawings" might haveseemed like the thing to do....:-\So---Is...Somebody Up There *hostile*?!:-OAnd NASA's going BACK there with LOW TECH???? (For which, presumably, they'regoing to "fill in" the "missing pieces" with"upgrades?" Like dropping a superstockceramic Wankel engine in a Tin Lizzie????):-OColor me TOTALLY confused....
Anyway---I vote "We really went to the Moon."Reason: personal preference.:-)P.S.: There *could have been* a studio witha duplicate Apollo setup, because, after all,there WAS an earthbound simulation that waspublicly known---and shown on TV---for theusual problem solving by JSC and other NASAteams as needed.Why? Perhaps if (a) they lost the video feed,or (b) if something was "visible" in the livefeed that they wanted to hide from the public.But I'm not suggesting that any of the "fake"video feeds were ever used. It would appearthat they weren't. (Mike, I find your evidencethat the M/L Hoax is a total "crock" quiteconvincing.)Even so, possibly there WAS a studio, etc.,as some have claimed, but just not for thepurpose of "faking the Moon landings."Maybe someone "knew about the studio"but didn't know its true purpose. IF it everexisted at all, it likely would have fallenunder the purview of black ops.Why does it have to be "one or the other?"And then, considering the possibility that*NASA itself* is behind the "Moon Hoax" theory....Sheesh....Welcome to the Blue Lodge!:-)
The 1969 press conference was psychotic After Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Buzz Aldrin returned from the moon in 1969, they held a press conference to tell the world about their incredible trip to the moon. These three men just accomplished the most incredible feat the human race has ever achieved. If you had been in their position, wouldn't you have been excited, proud of America, and happy to describe your trip to the moon? The facial and body expressions of the astronauts suggest that they are suffering from extreme emotional stress. Why would they appear to be so nervous and awkward? NASA wants us to believe that all of the astronauts are extremely introverted. But watch the first few minutes of their interview, and ask yourself, are they really introverted? Or are they suffering stress because they are lying about going to the moon?
No you idiot, they're nervous and uncomfortable because they are trying to hide what they saw and did on the Moon -- and the real reasons for going there.It's all in a book called "Dark Mission."
Hey Mike,Maybe I should put a "rumble seat module"in the ALICE probe and let Unit ride along.Whaddaya think?:-)
It wouldn't the first ship he's been jettisoned from. We booted him years ago...too bad he's found you all, but I guess you'll figure it out eventually.Back to the topic at hand....I think the relevant question is not so much "did we go to the moon?" but "how many times did we go to the moon?(that we never told anyone about)As to the freaked out look on the faces....well, lets see...you just came back from the bloody MOON. Uh, I'd be just a tad freaked out too regardless if I had seen dusty gray rocks or a whole flippin city.You don't need a PhD in rocket science to figure that out...psych 101 is sufficient to figure that out.The whole idea that we didn't go seems so quaint in light of oh, I don't know, the space shuttles,space stations, Mars orbiters/rovers, Galileo, Hubble...
Hi scarletm,I think the relevant question is not so much"did we go to the moon?" but "how many timesdid we go to the moon? (that we never toldanyone about)That's the $64 question, alright.We had:17 Apollo missions to the Moon1 Apollo-Soyuz mission3 Apollo standing displays(Huntsville, Houston, and one other)for 21 Apollo moon ships in all, which exactlymatches the original slate of Apollo Moonmissions from the outset of the program.However, I remember late-night news storiesabout "mystery" military launches during thattime that seemed to be using "Apollo class"boosters (as some reporters observed).Perhaps one of these "mystery" launches wasthe legendary "Apollo 20" mission? That somesay is only a hoax? Even as some say that thewhole Apollo program was a hoax? Or at leastthe Moon landings?In the absence of truly hard evidence (sincevideo such as that of "Apollo 20" is much tooeasy to fake these days), one can only wonderhow many times we really went to the Moon.Then again, if the "Apollo 20" videos are real,then---oh, man---we haven't seen the half ofit yet.Moreover, even though we yet may not beable to get our hands on such "hard evidence,"or drawings, or films/vids/photos/whatever,nevertheless we can follow the money.A recent news report stated that money putinto black projects has been running in thetrillions for many years now.These "black projects" are military projects.The DoD (provably) runs NASA.And NASA's budget is...what, again?:-)P.S.: Cute dog!
The question has been raised about Apollo photos that show shadowed sides of astronauts 'filled in' with light reflected from somewhere. I got the impression Mike argued that the reflected light was from lunar dome structure. Since the issue of the source of this illumination (and it is there) is also a main theme of the hoax-accusers, can we discuss it -- starting with Mike clarifying why he raised the question himself?Thanks!
Well, jimo!I see you're a Mohammed Ali fan!But even so, I don't think "Rope A Dope" isgonna work on Mike.:-)
I should have it back online in a few days.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.