"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?