"Gray Guest" wrote in message
4.100...
"Scout" wrote in
:



"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 14.10.2011 18:46, schrieb Thomas Heger:
Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger:
Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF:
On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM,
RHF wrote:
On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

--
..



Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans
got ripped off...

TH

TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned}
Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

one does wonder . . . ~ RHF

Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in
the Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that
subject. (Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet,
watching films on YouTube and so forth).

Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one.

About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within
the pictures taken.
My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even
particularly sophisticated.


Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only
one)

Look at this picture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg

It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon.
Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the
landing module 'Eagle'.

But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while
the lander lands.
Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take
photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back.



There are - of course - more anomalies within this single photo.

to name a few:
If the orbiter was such an elaborated piece of engineering and
certainly very expensive. Why does it look like a tin can,

Because it basically was a tin can. Weight is everything in space flight
(particularly back then) and so you kept everything at the minimum
possible weight. Thus the "tin can" appearance.


with something glued upon ? E.g. the lettering 'United States' misses
half of the 'A'.

Because it probably was. If you notice there are a row of little dimples
or bumps down the length of the module, and the decal is located over
this row of dimples/bumps.

If you look at the high res scan of it you can see this most clearly.

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-88-11963HR.jpg

Now, on launch the craft is subjected to rather significant air flow and
turbulence. It seems quite probable that when the air pressure during
launch pressed against the decal it stretched it into those
dimples/bumps and the lettering (which was probably printed on) either
flaked off, stretched out of shape or otherwise became lost/distorted.


There are crosses, that should be all of the same size, but are not.

They aren't the same size. The center and I believe the outer corners
were oversized. The high res and uncropped photo link above.

The conic tip would reflect only the surface and possibly the lander.

Yep, so?

But we see something different, because there seem to be something
reflected, where darkness should be.

You did note that the module is in a NOSE DOWN attitude?

That's going to impact what is being reflected.

The contrast of the orbiter seems much higher than on the surface, but
the difference in luminosity should be greater on the surface (the
surface should have higher contrast).

That would depend on a number of items. Film, shutter speed, aperture,
focal length, Heck it might even, gasp, be a different camera. I mean
you are aware that they used a different camera on the surface than they
did for the one they used for the in orbit shots?

Indeed, consider for a second your own thoughts. Now would you get
greater contrast with a moderately lit object against a brightly lit
background. Or in an environment in which everything is subject to high
illumination?

Keeping in mind you're going to have to change shutter speed and/or
aperture in order to keep from over exposing the film.


Some of the rivets look like painted. Anyhow, 'rivets' wouldn't be the
most durable joint.

Actually a riveted joint is quite durable. Look at all the bridges a
100+ years old that were riveted.

Further a rivet doesn't have the stress risers you find on a screw, and
it has a larger effective cross sectional area. That means more strength
in a lighter weight fastener. Remembering that every ounce matters.

This metal piece near the conic tip looks rusty (?).

If you mean the piece directly above the attitude jet. Yes, it does seem
discolored. Bet you would be discolored too if subjected to the high
temperature bursts of some rather nasty chemicals used in those
thrusters.

I will simply note you apparently haven't even bothered to do an
in-depth analysis of something you claim was faked. As such your
conclusions seem based on ignorance more than because anything is wrong
with the photos.



You know how Flying Fortresses look like what they are called when they
are
marching across the sky amid puffs of smoke?

I've been in one. On takeoff and in flight. Most aircraft are tin cans. It
was scary how loud the engines were through the tin aluminum fuselage. And
I got to ride up front for a bit. Unnerving sitting in the big plxy bubble
imagining FW flying in wing breast shooting at you at a closing rate of
north of 600+ MPH.

Very, very few airplanes were built, designed to be flying armored cars.

A Junkers purpose built trench strafer in the first WW.
The Sturmovik in WWII
And the modern day A-10.

Anything else that was bullet resistant it was an accident.

Most aircraft you can puncture with a Philips screwdriver.

Yep, on the apollo missions some metal used to contain the cabin pressure
was no thicker than aluminum foil. It was all they needed, and every ounce
was critical given how much fuel it took to get an ounce into orbit much
less to the moon and back.