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.)