[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Israel/Zionism See other Israel/Zionism Articles Title: WINTERWATCH: Lunar Lunacy: Disappearing Moon Rocks, Contradictory Mineral Data, Missing Apollo Film and Destroyed Mission Technology ‘No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar.’ –– Abraham Lincoln In 2013, China set an unmanned rover on the moon. It was equipped with an alpha-particle X-ray spectrometer that was used to analyze moon rocks and soil, and the data was transmitted back to Earth. The rover operated for three months and explored an area of about 3 square kilometers, or a maximum range of six miles from the landing site. The data was comprised of chemical composition analysis of rock material elements. Most curiously, this data differed dramatically from the samples collected during the Apollo missions. The location on the moon of the Apollo landings are shown as numbers in the photo below, and Chinese rover’s site is marked with an arrow. Although Apollo sites span a wide area of the Moon, the alleged chemical results were relatively similar. However, the Chinese samples are VASTLY different- Correlated compositional and mineralogical investigations at the Chang′e-3 landing site. The report states,”These compositional features suggest that the CE-3 soils differ significantly from other known lunar basaltic materials.” Jarrah White calculates these elements as described in the video below starting at 21:36. Are we even talking about the same Moon? [graphs] Are such extreme outlier results likely to be found on the Moon? The Department of Planetary and Earth Sciences at Washington University, St. Louis, says no: [text graphic and video] The late Dave McGowan added some pertinent color on the topic of the moon rocks gathered during the Apollo missions. For starters, the transmission data NASA used to base its reports is “missing.” As Reuters reported (per McGowan) on Aug. 15, 2006: The U.S. government has misplaced the original recording of the first moon landing, including astronaut Neil Armstrong’s famous “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” … Armstrong’s famous moonwalk, seen by millions of viewers on July 20, 1969, is among transmissions that NASA has failed to turn up in a year of searching, spokesman Grey Hautaluoma said. “We haven’t seen them for quite a while. We’ve been looking for over a year, and they haven’t turned up,” Hautaluoma said … In all, some 700 boxes of transmissions from the Apollo lunar missions are missing. The fact that the tapes are missing (and according to NASA, now have been for over four decades), amazingly enough, was not even the most compelling information that the Reuters article provided. There was also an explanation of how the alleged Moonwalk tapes that we all know and love were created:..... www.winterwatch.net/2019/...lunacy-disappearing-moon- rocks-contradictory-data-missing-apollo-film-reels-and-destroyed-mission- technology/">Click for Full Text! Poster Comment: This is a rich rich RICH treatment of the subject. it got a lot of comments, showing lotta people found it of interest. One from 'horsegirl': Can’t resist posting McGowan’s blitz of the lunar module: http://memoryholeblog.org/2015/05/26/dave-mcgowan-battling-aggressive- cancer/ “There was much about the Apollo flights that was truly miraculous, but arguably the greatest technological achievement was the design of the lunar modules. Has anyone, by the way, ever really taken a good look at one of those contraptions? I mean a detailed, up-close look? I’m guessing that the vast majority of people have not, but luckily we can quickly remedy that situation because I happen to have some really good, high-resolution images that come directly from the good people at NASA. While what is depicted in the images may initially appear, to the untrained eye, to be some kind of mock-up that someone cobbled together in their backyard to make fun of NASA, I can assure you that it is actually an extremely high-tech manned spacecraft capable of landing on the surface of the Moon. And incredibly enough, it was also capable of blasting off from the Moon and flying 69 miles back up into lunar orbit! Though not immediately apparent, it is actually a two-stage craft, the lower half (the part that looks like a tubular aluminum framework covered with Mylar and old Christmas wrapping paper) being the descent stage, and the upper half (the part that looks as though it was cobbled together from old air conditioning ductwork and is primarily held together, as can be seen in the close-up, with zippers and gold tape) being the ascent stage. The upper half, of course, is the more sophisticated portion, being capable of lifting off and flying with enough power to break free of the Moon’s gravity and reach lunar orbit. It also, of course, possessed sophisticated enough navigational capabilities for it to locate, literally out in the middle of fucking nowhere, the command module that it had to dock with in order to get the astronauts safely back to Earth. It also had to catch that command module, which was orbiting the Moon at a leisurely 4,000 miles per hour. But we’ll get to all that a little later. I think we can all agree for now that such a sleek, stylish, well-designed craft would have no problem flying with that kind of power, precision and stability.” Doesn't mention the cardboard the upper portion is clearly made of. He's right about the gold-colored Christmas wrapping, tho -- you know it's old because it's so crumpled. Above all, the idea NASA would or could lose all that documentation on humyinity's supposed greatest achievement is too ludicrous for words! And the living astronaut who says they DESTROYED it? Where fakery leaves off, crime picks up. It's either fraud or wanton destruction of property. Keenly interesting that the Dutch called ameriKa's bluff at the time of the moon walks, no? Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
#1. To: NeoconsNailed (#0)
I've considered a number of arguments that the landings were faked, but have not found any to be compelling. But if they were faked, it will be discovered in due time as modern efforts by multiple nations to go to the moon are made and the landing sites are found to be empty. Unfortunately, even the Hubble telescope, though strong enough to see galaxies billions of light years distant, is not strong enough to view the moon landing sites. They are simply too small, even for the relatively short distance to the moon, for the Hubble to make out. Lunar orbiting craft have photoed the sites but as they are all NASA craft, the photos obviously can't be considered impartially sourced.
We've been here before, Ping -- it's an article of religion to you that they actually did it :-3
No, I assure you it is not. The arguments about stars missing, exhaust craters missing, the van allen belt and so on are all addressed, at least to my satisfaction. I'm not married to the idea that we really went. I just see no credible challenge to the idea that we did. At least not yet.
#4. To: Pinguinite (#3)
I got the distinct impression you were, and would be seriously downcast if it was ever proved otherwise to you.... How much of a chance have you given these exposés? There are hours of professional documentary demonstrating the impossibility. Why are astronots talking about going to the moon as if Apollo never happened? (Which it didn't.) NASA ADMITS WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON www.youtube.com/watch? time_continue=518&v=DpPMoIv1lxI&feature=emb_title I guess I'll get more shunning from this, because -- I can only speculate -- driving a point home "too hard" is considered impolite.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||