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:
--

Good point. A lot of arguments simply lead the mentally challenged down
the path to the "Nazi Death Camp Thinking." Which, very simplistically
is, "If they don't think like me, if they don't act like me, if their
skin is a different color than mine, if their religion is a different
one than mine, if they have wealth I can steal, etc., etc. -- KILL THEM
SUCKERS!"

This will always be the solution of criminals, sociopaths, misfits,
royalty, those thinking themselves special, etc. ...

Nazi Germany is just waiting to happen again, all over ... it is only
creator endowed rights, freedoms, privileges, all men being created
equal, etc. which deny that/those evil(s) and hold it/them out the door ...

Actually the Americans shipped a few Nazis to Argentina and to their own
country. ('paperclip').

But beware, since now YOU have them.

I'm really a little bit frightened, if I read about the situation in the
states.

For example: Wernher von Braun was a famous Nazi. (Another famous one
developed the Saturn V engines.)

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

TH

On Oct 13, 11:48*am, Thomas Heger 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:

--

Good point. A lot of arguments simply lead the mentally challenged down
the path to the "Nazi Death Camp Thinking." Which, very simplistically
is, "If they don't think like me, if they don't act like me, if their
skin is a different color than mine, if their religion is a different
one than mine, if they have wealth I can steal, etc., etc. -- KILL THEM
SUCKERS!"

This will always be the solution of criminals, sociopaths, misfits,
royalty, those thinking themselves special, etc. ...

Nazi Germany is just waiting to happen again, all over ... it is only
creator endowed rights, freedoms, privileges, all men being created
equal, etc. which deny that/those evil(s) and hold it/them out the door ...

Actually the Americans shipped a few Nazis to Argentina and to their own
country. ('paperclip').

But beware, since now YOU have them.

I'm really a little bit frightened, if I read about the situation in the
states.

For example: Wernher von Braun was a famous Nazi. (Another famous one
developed the Saturn V engines.)

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

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
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:
--

Good point. A lot of arguments simply lead the mentally challenged down
the path to the "Nazi Death Camp Thinking." Which, very simplistically
is, "If they don't think like me, if they don't act like me, if their
skin is a different color than mine, if their religion is a different
one than mine, if they have wealth I can steal, etc., etc. -- KILL THEM
SUCKERS!"

This will always be the solution of criminals, sociopaths, misfits,
royalty, those thinking themselves special, etc. ...

Nazi Germany is just waiting to happen again, all over ... it is only
creator endowed rights, freedoms, privileges, all men being created
equal, etc. which deny that/those evil(s) and hold it/them out the door
...

Actually the Americans shipped a few Nazis to Argentina and to their own
country. ('paperclip').

But beware, since now YOU have them.

I'm really a little bit frightened, if I read about the situation in the
states.

For example: Wernher von Braun was a famous Nazi. (Another famous one
developed the Saturn V engines.)

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


I know they were German
I have no knowledge of them being Nazis as well
Why don't you support your claim with some evidence.

Germany likes to bragg about the quality of German Ore/steel.But, the
highest quality of Iron Ore was from the French Briery (spelling?) Iron
Ore in France.World War Two era.

When I was in boot camp at Fort Gordon,Georgia in 1962, there was a guy
whos last name was Spangler.He was always bragging about German steel.
Fort Bragg is Bragging every day.
cuhulin

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.

So: if the moon landing was faked, where then did the money go?

TH

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.

TH

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

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

The conic tip would reflect only the surface and possibly the lander.
But we see something different, because there seem to be something
reflected, where darkness should be.

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).

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

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


Greetings

TH

(Actually I regard it as kind of sport, to find 'easter-eggs', what are
such anomalies.)

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
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.

Certainly it can. Depending on the orbits used, the lander can easily
"descend" upon the orbiter. Indeed it is typical after undocking to go to a
slightly higher orbit to allow the orbiting craft/station to pass under you
(lower orbit being faster) until it clears the area, and then when you come
up on the point to begin your de-orbit burn the area is clear, as no matter
what you do at that point the other craft is only going to move further away
from you. If you tried to go a lower orbit move ahead of the orbiting craft
and then try to de-orbit the orbiting craft would be catching up to you as
you slowed and if you accidently "ballooned up" a bit because your angle was
slightly off....you could possibly even run into each other. Not a good
thing. Nor do you want to wait forever for the gap to open up enough as your
time in space is strictly limited. Safer to simply move a bit higher, let it
pass under you and then there is no possibility of that occurring. And gee,
while you're sitting there you snap a picture out the window and *poof* the
planet/moon is in the background. SOB.

So if this is your BEST evidence, then this is really going to blow your
socks off.

"The International Space Station photographed following separation from the
Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2001."

http://news.medinfo.ufl.edu/articles...ation-sensors/

Damn, is that the EARTH in the background?

"Last August, the Space Shuttle Endeavour crew captured this shot of the
International Space Station (ISS) against the backdrop of Planet Earth. "

http://www.astronomy-pictures.net/na..._pictures.html

Damn, there it is again.

"International Space Station (ISS), March 2011, taken from the Space Shuttle
Discovery after undocking at the end of its mission to the ISS"

http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/395325/enlarge

And again. Damn, one might even see this as a theme.

"The international space station, shown here in a photo taken from the
shuttle Discovery in June"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26441443/

So tell me does this mean the International Space Station is a fraud, or
shall we simply consider the possibility that what you see as photographic
flaws are really just a symptom of your ignorance of the mechanics of space
flight?

"Scout" wrote in
:



"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
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.

Certainly it can. Depending on the orbits used, the lander can easily
"descend" upon the orbiter. Indeed it is typical after undocking to go
to a slightly higher orbit to allow the orbiting craft/station to pass
under you (lower orbit being faster) until it clears the area, and
then when you come up on the point to begin your de-orbit burn the
area is clear, as no matter what you do at that point the other craft
is only going to move further away from you. If you tried to go a
lower orbit move ahead of the orbiting craft and then try to de-orbit
the orbiting craft would be catching up to you as you slowed and if
you accidently "ballooned up" a bit because your angle was slightly
off....you could possibly even run into each other. Not a good thing.
Nor do you want to wait forever for the gap to open up enough as your
time in space is strictly limited. Safer to simply move a bit higher,
let it pass under you and then there is no possibility of that
occurring. And gee, while you're sitting there you snap a picture out
the window and *poof* the planet/moon is in the background. SOB.

So if this is your BEST evidence, then this is really going to blow
your socks off.

"The International Space Station photographed following separation
from the Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2001."

http://news.medinfo.ufl.edu/articles...scovery-prompt
s-development-of-space-radiation-sensors/

Damn, is that the EARTH in the background?

"Last August, the Space Shuttle Endeavour crew captured this shot of
the International Space Station (ISS) against the backdrop of Planet
Earth. "

http://www.astronomy-pictures.net/na..._pictures.html

Damn, there it is again.

"International Space Station (ISS), March 2011, taken from the Space
Shuttle Discovery after undocking at the end of its mission to the
ISS"

http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/395325/enlarge

And again. Damn, one might even see this as a theme.

"The international space station, shown here in a photo taken from the
shuttle Discovery in June"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26441443/

So tell me does this mean the International Space Station is a fraud,
or shall we simply consider the possibility that what you see as
photographic flaws are really just a symptom of your ignorance of the
mechanics of space flight?



Scout....if he lived in the US he would be a 911 truther. He is purely
looking for some conspiracy to believe in.

--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)

Witnessing Republicans and Democrats bickering over
the National Debt is like watching two drunks argue
over a bar bill on the Titanic.....

"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.