Website Statistics

Comments Posted By STMan

Displaying 1 To 30 Of 41 Comments

Did man really walk on the Moon ???

The best resolution of the satellites used by google earth is about .5m (1.6ft.) which have an orbital altitude of about 200 miles, not 22,000. Satellites at that height (geosynchronous orbit) are used for wide angle images of the earth, such as for weather. Any satellites that get close up high resolution images of the earth’s surface such as spy satellites or land sat, are in low earth orbit, not geosynchronous. Therefore we must compare the distance of 200 miles for images of earth’s surface with the 240,000 mile distance from hubble to the moon, which would make it 1200 times as far. At that distance hubble’s resolution as well as any gound based telescope cannot resolve the LM on the moon.

As far as why NASA doesn’t NASA send a rover to the moon. Why send an unmanned rover to the moon if they already had 12 men who walked on the moon and returned samples. Yes they could do it, but would that be a useful way to spend part of NASA’s buget?

» Posted By STMan On February 5, 2010 @ 3:38 pm

Correction: Cost is about 79 million not 700. So it is about the same as the Indian moon mission.

» Posted By STMan On August 19, 2009 @ 5:46 am

I hadn’t heard about that either, but it does seem possible.

NASA’s most recent lunar probe cost about 700 million. It is projected to impact the lunar south pole on October 9th, in order to test if there is water there.

Here’s a quote from their site: The debris plumes are expected to be visible from Earth- and space-based telescopes 10-to-12 inches and larger.

So you may be able to verify this unmanned mission if you have a 10inch or larger telescope.

One other comment is that a manned mission always costs a lot more since you need a larger rocket to lift the extra payload, and you need a return vehicle, along with consumables such as fuel, food, water and oxygen.

» Posted By STMan On August 19, 2009 @ 5:24 am

I just want you to have a look at this site regarding the claim of an 8 foot hole in the pentagon.

There’s also many sites that show the debris from the plane near the crash site. Here’s one.

One other point is that the explostion seen by the security camera, is consistent with a fuel explosion, just like the videos showing the crashes at the world trade center.

Many people saw the plane parts that day, and took photos. Just hope you will have a look.

» Posted By STMan On July 25, 2009 @ 3:13 am

Hey, everyone makes a mistake every now and then. I did realize my mistake, fairly quickly, but my correction didn’t make the post that day. If I make a mistake, I can admit it.

» Posted By STMan On July 24, 2009 @ 2:00 pm

Correction: I don’t know what I was thinking. The square root of one is of course one. It is one third that gives .3333 with an infinite number of 3’s. Sorry for the error.

» Posted By STMan On July 22, 2009 @ 3:18 pm

I am only commenting on this one because, you used me as an example in this quote:

“For example “StMan” who claims to be a fanatic (religion without philosophy) of science, based his entire belief in the formula “1 square seg.” Indeed it is irrational; because we know that the square time doesn’t exist in this dimension. So as there is not “1 at square” in math because 1×1=1. In conclusion, 1 sec. squared = 1 sec. That is a nonsense, which does not mean anything. In mathematics there is no square root either because 0.33 x 0.33 = 0.99 is not one. So the fundamental math’s unit is imperfect, making mathematics useless as a tool to know the truth.”

I have never claimed to ba a fanatic of science (as you say). However, I do use it along with mathematics when necessary, to answer scientific questions, on this site relating to the moon landings. I believe the formula that you were quoting is the one relating to acceleration due to gravity. Yes, after 1 sec., you square 1, and get one. Meaning an object after one second of free fall on earth (in a vacuum) would be moving 9.8 metres per second. Hardly nonsense as you say. Also the square root of 1 is not .33, it is actually .3333 with an infinite number of 3’s. Believe it or not if we square that number it does in deed come out to one. If we can’t comprehend infinity, then I guess, it wouldn’t make any sense (therefore nonsens).

So without getting too deep into your religious debate, I don’t see why any person who is religious, has to distance themselves from any truth, even if it comes from science. After all the computer that you are using, only came to being because of math and science, and the people who made the necessary discoveries, relating to those.

» Posted By STMan On July 22, 2009 @ 7:10 am

There was two men on the moon, each of the six times that they went.

» Posted By STMan On July 22, 2009 @ 6:32 am

Only the ascent stage lifted off from the moon, so it was even lighter (in 1/6 gravity).

Because they had done the calculations, they new exactly when to lift off from the surface in order to rendezvous with the command module that was in orbit around the moon. NASA also gave them the correct time to fire the command module’s engine in order to escape the moons gravity and head back to earth. NASA tracked them on the way and gave them the necessary info to do minor course corrections in order to hit the atmosphere at the correct angle for a proper re-entry.

A few years earlier two Gemini space capsule’s were launched at different times, and met up in low earth orbit, in order to prove that it could be done, for the later moon missions.

Look how complex the space shuttle is, and it first flew in 1981, only 9 years after the last moon landing.

» Posted By STMan On July 22, 2009 @ 6:04 am

No need for personal attacks. If you disagree that’s fine, but you should specify what you disagree with.

If you had read all of my comments, you would know that they aren’t my government, since I am in a different country, so there is no need for me to blindly trust them.

» Posted By STMan On July 22, 2009 @ 5:27 am

I believe you are quoting the lunar module’s weight when fully loaded with fuel. Since most of the fuel was consumed before touchdown, the LM weight would be much less, (maybe close to half) and so would be the thrust necessary for the final seconds of decent. One other point, is that since they are in a vacuum, the exhaust from the engine spreads out more. Finally the engine bell on the descent stage has a diameter of 5 feet, meaning the thrust is spread over aproximately 2800 square inches. Which will end up being around one pound per square inch of thrust on the surface. So just how big a crater do you want?

» Posted By STMan On July 20, 2009 @ 7:49 am

There was nine flights to the moon, six landed. Twelve men walked on the moon. You may have just seen the black & white video from apollo 11, but there is much better color video from some of the later flights.

» Posted By STMan On July 20, 2009 @ 7:07 am

Name one piece of convincing evidence against the landings. Everyone who understands the physics of rockets, low gravity and a vacuum, will all agree, that there is dust, just watch the films of the landings, they are conclusive. Not everyone who believes in the moon landings can give a physics lesson, so those contradictions are irrelevant.

» Posted By STMan On July 20, 2009 @ 6:57 am

There was a black and white video camera in the instrument bay, which deployed when he pulled on a D-ring. It only showed his upper body. There was also a color 16mm film camera which was aimed out the window looking down on him. Before Aldrin came out he set the 16mm film camera to shoot a only one frame per second to make it last longer. Armstrong later moved the b&W video camera to a tripod, so that people back on earth could watch the E.V.A..

As for the liftoff, there was a color video camere on the lunar rover, which transmitted back to earth. On apollo 15 the camera didn’t move, so we only see the ascent stage until it moves out of the picture. On apollo 16 they remotely tracked it, but lost it quickly. The best liftoff video, is from apollo 17. I just saw an interview in a documentary, with Ed Fendell, the man who remotely controlled the camera, and he said that they had calculated when to move the camera ahead of time. So rather than watching the delayed video from the moon, he was looking at a piece of paper with the tracking info on it, which told him when and how fast to pan the camera upwards.

» Posted By STMan On July 19, 2009 @ 1:54 pm

This an example from a hoax web site (by David Percy & Jack White).

The 1st picture reads “Something is out of scale here!”.
The insert at the left shows Aldrin standing near the flag, ths smaller insert in the middle shows him standing near the solar wind experiment, and implies that they are miniatures, because they are not the same size. If the solar wind experiment is further away when the shot was taken and therefore so was “Buzz Aldrin”, it is obvious to me (and probably most people) that he should appear smaller on that photo.

The Next photo says “Light from all sides”. The blue arrows are where he believes that the light from the source is coming from. This would only be true if the sun was right on the horizon (at sun set or sun rise). The light is actually coming from a much higher angle. The long narrow shadow to the right of the astronauts shadow, is from an object out of the picture. If you stand between the two rails on a rail road track (which are of course parallel) and take a photo looking straight ahead, the rails will not look parallel on the photo, this is the same effect here. The rails would only look parallel if you were above them looking straight down. Also a shadow of an object such as a flag pole, will cast a shadow at a different angle if it is leaning to the left or right, vs, if it is perfectly vertical. The purple arrow point to center of the photo, and implies that the shadow should be there. This would only be true if the sun was straight behind the astronaut in order to cast the shadow to that point on the surface. If the astronaut would have aimed the camera, far enough to the left this would have happened.

The next set of pictures says “Two different views” The picture of AS11-37-5458, is being displayed backwards (like a mirror image) in order to make it look like the thruster is the same one as in the other photo. Is this an honest mistake, or an intentional act by the web site to deceive people into believing their theory? If they discover this error (and they are honest) they should delete it, but what if it’s in their video or book? What then? This proves that more research should be done before on their part before making these claims. Would you not agree?

Their web site is filled with many more photos, and their so called “analysis”, most of which it seems, shows their lack of understanding of perspective and lighting in photography. Shouldn’t we ask for more than this if we are going to overturn history, and say that no one has ever gone to the moon.

» Posted By STMan On July 19, 2009 @ 1:02 pm

You are right the link doesn’t work for me either, it just is a link to this same page.

» Posted By STMan On July 19, 2009 @ 11:51 am

Not knowing one of his conspircy or hoax theories, hardly shows my poor fund of knowledge. My knowledge is base on years of practical experience with science, photography, computers, etc..

Since you mentioned him, I had a long look at Percy’s web site, and I have seen most if not all of his arguements before. Most are easily answerable, and many involve the usual missunderstandings of how shadows are not parallel. A few pages of his site deal with astronauts who appear different sizes on different photos, even though it is clear that they are smaller when further from the camera. Other one’s would require a fairly complex answer. I would probably need my own web site with pictures in order to answer them properly, but if you have a specific one you want answered, I could probably do that.

It if fairly easy to take some photos after sunrise or before sunset, when the shadows are long and compare how the shadows on the apollo photos are similar to those you can take yourself. I have done this, and the shadows follow the same principles whether on earth or on the moon.

The lighting conditions are more difficult to simulate on earth since we can never have a bright sun with a black sky, but it is fairly easy to understand what would happen under those circumstances, if we know how light is reflected.

» Posted By STMan On July 18, 2009 @ 7:03 am

Many Christians, do not believe in swearing on the bible. This comes from Matthew 5:34 – 5:37. Which basically says not to swear by anything, but to always tell the truth.

» Posted By STMan On July 17, 2009 @ 6:14 am

Many photographers, simply don’t understand how the differences in lighting conditions on the moon, affect the photos. They have never taken a photo in bright sunlight with a black sky. Many of the errors deal with believing that the astronauts (in white space suits) should be dark. This has been disproven like all of the other errors, over and over again. Many errors have to do with their belief that shadows should all be parallel. That too I can disprove.

Read all of the points near the top under “Space oddities”. Those can all be answered, most have been already. If you deleted one everytime it was answered, would there be any left? If so which ones, I can answer any of them for you.

The more people that you bring into the hoax conspiracy, the less credible your arguments get. Now the Russians are part of the Hoax? That’s a new one that I have never heard. If they faked the first man in space, then I ask you this: Who was the first man in space, wouldn’t it then be an American such as Allan Shephard or John Glen. The Americans should be informed of this great news. Or do you now believe that no one has ever been in space? Please do answer this.

I really did want to stick to the facts and answering real questions. Debating whether or not people are lying or part of the hoax is going no where. You make a lot of point with no data to back them up. The magnesium flare would prove nothing to those who believe in the hoax theory, since they could say that the flares were put there by an unmanned probe, and set off remotely at the correct time. The photos are by far, better evidence.

If you want me to analyse a specific apollo photo (or more, I can do that), or other scientific question about the moon landings, I can do that too, rather than debating whether or not more people are part of the hoax. I have nothing to gain by defending NASA if they are lying. If the facts were against them, the apollo story would crumble like a house of cards, and I would help knock it over. But yet it stands.

» Posted By STMan On July 13, 2009 @ 6:40 am

My answer is simply consistent with scientific fact, it would be true even if they didn’t go to the moon before, but went in the future. The dust would fall back to the surface then, even if it wasn’t NASA who went there in the future. To confirm my answer you can look at this web site and read this quote, when asked “How Fast Do Things Fall?”

9.81 meters per second squared
When objects fall on Earth, they accelerate at 9.8 meters per second per second — or 9.81 meters per second squared (m/s2 or ms-2) — which is known as the acceleration due to gravity. The mass (or weight) of the object does not affect the rate of acceleration; all objects accelerate downward at the same rate. exept for certain objects that have a higher air resistance and lower mass E.g. polystyrene and feathers (unless it is in a vacuum- look below)

The above is true for objects falling in a vacuum, which is rarely the case on Earth, where air resistance works against the object and prevents it from picking up more speed. On the moon, which has no atmosphere and is a virtual vacuum, objects accelerate much more slowly than on Earth — only 1.6 m/s2 — but achieve much greater velocities in free-fall because there is no air resistance.

End of quote from this web site.

» Posted By STMan On July 13, 2009 @ 5:02 am

This question is repeated below, and answered there.

» Posted By STMan On July 12, 2009 @ 6:22 am

True, the moon only has about 1/6th the gravity of earth (1/6th g). When things fall on earth (at 1g) they will accelerate at a much higher rate, but the air resistance will limit the speed. Due to the density of the air, small dust particles can stay suspended for long periods of time.

On the moon, even though the gravity is much lower, there is no atmosphere for even the smallest dust particles to stay susspended, and so they therefore, fall back to the surface fairly quickly (accelerating at 1/6th g). After the LM engine is turned off, the dust that was forced high above the surface, will only take a few seconds to fall back in the near vacuum. Therefore no long lasting dust cloud.

» Posted By STMan On July 12, 2009 @ 6:17 am

Open a second brouser (or tab) on your computer and go to This will allow you to search for and view the listed photos and also to read my comments.

AS12-46-6781 In this photo the LM had travelled right to left before landing. You can see a path that looks wind blown, that was caused by the retro rocket. If you look at the previous 2 pictures in order you can follow the path which leads to the LM’s engine. AS12-46-6780 & AS12-46-6779.

AS14-66-9261 Shows a depression made by the engine before it was turned off. Since the LM was still in motion to the right, and dropped the last small distance to the surface the depression caused by the engine is to the left (look just below the silver object). The whole area shows the effects of the thrust blowing dust outwards from the depression. The previous picture AS14-66-9260 confirms the direction of travel, which is opposite to the direction that the probes are pointing. The probes which are attached to the foot pads, are there to tell the astronauts when they are near the surface, by setting off a “contact light”. Once this happens they turn the engine off, and drop the rest of the way (in 1/6th gravity).

» Posted By STMan On July 11, 2009 @ 9:11 am

Hi: You make some interesting comments about 911. Maybe you should consider having a different site where that discussion could take place. I could then answer those questions there. The thing I will say about that, is that there is evidence from outside the govermnent. Such as the airline is missing that plane, the people on board are missing, including a very famous “Barbara Olson”, who made a cell phone call to her husband while the plane was being hijacked. Also there is the video that I saw that day of crash of plane parts strewn all over the area in front of the pentagon. The wings which were filled with fuel were sheared off and the explosion did mostly vapourize them. The pentagon is a very sturdy structure, and was made to withstand an attack. The plane was actually a Boeing 757 not a 747. The 757 is smaller and only has 2 engines rather than the 4 that a 747 has. But that’s certainly getting off topic of the moon landings.

One other point is about the U.S. government. I think that you are assuming that I am an American, and therefore believe everything that they say. Well, I’m not, I live in Canada, which neighbors the U.S., but has i’t own government, not subject to the U.S.. Take the war in Iraq for example, the Canadian government disagreed, and did not take part in that war, but in Afghanistan, they did. So do I believe everything that the U.S. government (or even my own) says, of course not. Neither do most people. When governments lie to the people in truly democratic countries they are usually defeated in the next election. The whole point of my comments has been that I look at the evidence, and not just believe what any government or NASA says.

You also comment: you also believe that a lunar lander can land on the moon firing it retro-rockets and land on the lunar surface without making even the slightest impression in the dust on the lunar surface, while we see the astronauts walking around kicking up the dust and making big footprints in the surface.

There actually is photographic evidence of the retro rockets as it moved across the surface, and an impression where it landed. I will have to go through the photographic archive, then I will give you a list of photos that show this.

» Posted By STMan On July 10, 2009 @ 6:01 pm

Hi: I just read your last comments, so I don’t expect you to post this reply. That’s okay with me, after all this is your site. I do however want to thank you for posting the one’s that you did, and I think for the most part that I did get my points across. However I’m not sure that it will improve your site to only have one point of view (the one that you agree with) or others that leave false information. Some of the one’s who believe in the landings, were doing this, and even resorting to calling others names (which I never did). I certainly was not attempting to change your mind, since it is clear what your belief is, but rather, to respond to the points that you were making, and to give answers to those who asked questions. As you can see for yourself, a lot of the people were starting to direct their questions at me, because they could see that I was giving logical answers, and wasn’t just relying on NASA, and what they say. You may still get questions directed at me. Are you going to post those questions or not? If you want I won’t make anymore comments unless someone specifically asks me a question. It’s up to you. If you do have a question yourself, I would be willing to answer that too. Finally, I just wanted to say that I enjoyed reading the other comments on your site, and also responding to them. Thanks.

» Posted By STMan On July 10, 2009 @ 8:46 am

Firt I wanted to say that I appreciate Karl’s comments, also that I did comment on ths shuttle disasters in one of my last comments.

Madhudvisa dasa: I am doing my best to point out that there is proof outside of NASA. If the photos, video, film, rocks, and dust were only examined by NASA and verified by them, they you could say that we are relying on NASA. These things can be verified, (as they have been), by others around the world. Aside from that, does it not count as evidence that the Soviet Union who was their enemy at the time, tracked and verified and reported that the moon landings did occur? If there was no manned vehicle heading to the moon at the time, there would have been no communications for them to pick up when they (and other countries outside of the U.S.) tracked the spacecraft. That is real proof, by sources outside of NASA. Would you have had to have done it yourself for you to believe it?

The GPS satellites were launced by Delta rockets, and not the shuttle. The idea of the people not believing that the shuttle launches were real sounds rediculous now, just as thinking that the moon landings were fake in the years that they were happening.

Also NASA’s goal for the next moon landing is around the year 2020, not is 30 or 40 years as you say. So why is it taking longer this time you might ask? This time, there is no space race to be there first, plus, there is no unlimited budget. If China, for example gets there before NASA, they still will only be the second country to do it, not the first. Also NASA, isn’t rebuilding the same vehicles that got them there during apollo. This time they will use two types of rockets: One unmanned heavy lifting rocket, and one smaller manned rocket. Only after the heavy lifting rocket safely gets it’s payload into low earth orbit will the second rocket with the Orion capsule, and it’s crew, be launced. So it will be a totally different system.

As for your comment about the moon being a reflector and a parabolic crater reflection back a laser. Even if you make a parabolic reflector and put it on the moon, it would not reflect back light to the source from any angle, which is what a retro reflector does by design.

About your comment: STMan can also consider that really there is not conclusive proof and perhaps he can keep an open mind on this issue.

My response is this: By coming to this site, (and other like it) I am reading different peoples opinions, have heard most if not all of the evidence and the questions that people have. All of the evidence that I have seen points only to one conclusion, that is why I have no doubts. It isn’t like you think “faith or a belief” any more than, acknowledging that people did climb Mount Everest. I haven’t been there either, but have seen interviews, video etc., which are enough to prove the fact, just as with the moon landings.

I do agree the comments (even mine) are getting repeditive. So I would ask that people read all of the comments, so that they don’t ask a question that already has been asked, and answered.

One last comment for people to consider. Watch the films shot of and from the lunar rover as it drives for long distances. The surface is brightly lit, and there is a black sky (just as in all of the photos, and live video). Not to mention, it is clear that they are driving in a lower gravity environment. Look how high the dust from the tires is thrown above the surface, and how it falls down without staying suspended in the air (because they are in a vacuum) without making a dust cloud. This was done almost 40 years ago using film cameras, no CGI (computer generated imagery) for special effects was possible at the time. So unless you can figure out how they simulated the bright lighting with a black sky, low gravity, and in a vacuum on earth, and find out where and the people who did it, I will remain convinced that there is only one answer, that being: It was all done on the moon as history tells us. Plus look at all of the film and video of the astronauts being weightless for extended periods of time, during the flights to and from the moon.

» Posted By STMan On July 8, 2009 @ 8:59 pm

When we look at the earth or the moon or any planet, we are seeing reflected light from the sun. The picture of the earth taken from the moon had to have been taken from at least that distance, since we can see the complete hemishere (half of the earth). When a picture is taken from near earth orbit (the height that the shuttle flies or the international space station), only part of the earth can be seen. If you are too close to any object you can not see (or photograph) the whole thing. You can do this experiment yourself: Using any camera try to take a picture of your house (or any buiding) from a foot or two (or .5 metres), you will find out that it isn’t possible. If you use a wide enough angle lens (called a fish eye lens) you may see a lot more of the building, but it will be distorted.

As far as your comments about NASA, true they did have a large budget in order to do the moon landings in such a short time, but the money was spent developing the rocket, the fuel, the lander, the rover, the spacesuits, and peoples salaries, who worked on the project. That money was all accounted for in the budget. Thousands of people worked on the different components. In order to secretly fake the landing, even more money would have been required than was spent. Where would that money have come from? Also no one has ever come forward with credibal evidence that they or anyone else worked on faking the landings. But it is easy to find people who actually did work on the apollo project.

» Posted By STMan On July 8, 2009 @ 6:08 pm

Religous follower of NASA? Not at all. That’s the first time that I’ve ever been accused of that and of working for NASA. Certainly they are by no means perfect. You need look no further than the two shuttle disasters, and apollo one, all of which could have been prevented. After the columbia disaster a few years ago, I was watching a NASA press conference where the NASA officials were denying that a piece of foam could have caused the disaster. Having seen the film of the foam striking the orbiter, I knew that they were jumping to a conclusion that was probably wrong (a later test proved this). However that’s a far cry from faking a mission or NINE, to the moon.

If you look at the history of NASA, yes there has been mistakes, but coverups? Actually the opposite is true. Take for example the apollo one disaster which killed 3 astronauts. If they wanted to cover it up, they could have claimed that they died in a helicopter crash (Saddam Hussein had that one perfected), or a car accident. Since the disaster set the apollo program back considerabley, but in the end lead to a safer vehicle, and no more ground tests using pure oxygen. Then there’s the challenger disaster which after an investigation to find the cause lead to no more cold day shuttle launches and an additional O-ring in the booster seals. Also look at the problems with several Mars missions, which ended in failure. The problems were found and corrected, with no signs of any coverups.

If there is a fake photo, on NASA’s apollo image gallery, where is it and what about it is fake? Let me know, and I will have a look at it. If the landings are fake then there should be enough bad photography and other evidence to convince even me. If you watch the apollo 11 video, it’s quite bad, but you can actually see when most ot the apollo 11 70mm photos are being shot (mostly be Neil Armstrong), which means there’s a video record of the photos being taken. This is also true for many of the photos taken on other mission, where video is being shot (often by a camera on a tripod or attached to the lunar rover) of one or both of the astronaut taking the 70mm photos. I haven’t seen any inconsistencies in the photo video or film record, other than a video which was misslabelled as being at a different location. Yes errors do happen.

If you read all of my comments, I never attack people or call them names, which is one thing that both sides of the issue do too much of.

When you look at any historical event, it either happened or it didn’t. That’s the question posed by this site, and I try my best to answer the ones that I am able to. The reason I ‘know’, “not believe”, but “know” that the moon landings did happen, is because all of the evidence, even from outside of NASA, points to the same conclusion. Examples: I recently saw an interview of a british astronomer, who tracked the apollo 11 mission from Britain, with their large antenaes. The Soviet Union, who had nothing to gain, did the same and reported on the 1st landing in Pravda (the goverment controlled newspaper). The retro reflectors, do return enough photons to detect with large enough telescopes, but only if the laser is aimed near the correct landing sites where they were placed. A laser produces a specific frequency of light, so not any green light detected will do. Your comments imply that this too, is being faked as part of an ongoing conspiracy. True if that was the only evidence I would agree that it is weak.

One thing I do consider myself to be an expert on is photography, and I have looked at almost every apollo photo. Some of the most convincing are actually of the earth from a distance. It’s easy to get a photos of the moon with a telescope (at least the side facing Earth) but how do you photograph the Earth from the distance of the moon. Remember these are not originally digital photos but high resolution 70mm film shot with a hasselblad camera, meaning that the photos of the earth taken from a distance had to be returned to earth to be developed. So before you think that they too could be fake, think about this: Several are taken in sequence with the cloud patterns changing and the earth rotating. The first pictures of this type were from apollo 8 in 1968, when they flew around the moon without landing (AS8-14-2383 is one of them). You cannot photograph the whole earth from low earth orbit like on the shuttle, since you can only see the part of the earth that you are above. It’s a little like trying to see the your whole house with your eyes an inch away.

The surface pictures from the 6 landing, show no sign of fakery, but rather consistently show one light source (the sun) plus the reflected light from the surface.

Here’s a question which I have never heard a good answer to: Why would they have faked apollo 10. The purpose of apollo 10 was to test the lunar lander and command module in orbit around the moon. Imagine getting the go ahead for this: Well what we want to do now before we fake the moon landing is to launch a multimillion dollar Saturn V, so that we can fake doing a test (without landing on the moon) in lunar orbit. I guess the moon sets weren’t ready in time.

Remember the reason that there hasn’t been any more landings is because the Saturn V was replaced with the space shuttle, which too is about to be retired. Maybe in 30 or 40 years, people won’t believe the shuttle flights were real either. After all the only proof will be a bunch of old astronauts (who’s lives will be in danger if they admit it was fake) and some aging video. No dust or rocks to examine, so to some, there won’t be any evidence that the shuttles ever flew.

So, once again: There is proof: The astronauts, who’s stories have remained consistent for 40 years. The photos, video, movie film, the rocks, dust (tested by geologists around the world), and the people inside and outside of NASA who tracked the missions (including the Soviets). And yes, even to retro reflectors.

» Posted By STMan On July 7, 2009 @ 9:01 am

True the Russians (or Soviets at the time) were ahead with the first satellite, and the first man in orbit. The americans actually caught up very quicky each time, within months matching the feat. The Soviets however had trouble with their heavy lifting rocket, which was required for a moon landing, and scrapped the program once the Americans had landed on the moon. China is now only beginning to do low earth orbit flights, and are serveral years away from even attempting a moon orbital flight, much less a landing, but in time it may happen. Developing large rockets is very expensive and in fact dangerous. Most early rockets exploded on the launch pad or never reached orbit. It is a lot easier to copy technologies, such as cell phones, and flat panel TV’s than rockets, especially, since no other countries are allowed to examine U.S. rockest such as the Saturn V and the Shuttle, although the Soviets had a small version it was discontinued after a flight that landed in the ocean.

» Posted By STMan On July 7, 2009 @ 8:58 am

The only light source is the sun. However the surface of the moon reflects back a lot of light, which can illuminate objects that are not in direct sun light. All of the photos that I have seen only have one shadow for each object, such as for a flag or rock. Every apollo photo from NASA that has been released is on this site Please list which photos you think have dual shadows, so that I can have a look.

» Posted By STMan On June 16, 2009 @ 6:31 pm

 Page 1 of 2  1  2  » 

«« Back To Stats Page


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


6 Responses to Website Statistics

  1. Govind says:

    Hare krishna Prabhuji.,Dandvat Pranaam
    May i know about the author of the book”Srila Prabhupada Lilamrita As It Is” named mukund das prabhu.Had he any personal association with Srila Prabhupada.

    • This book is a compilation of direct quotes from Srila Prabhupada speaking about his own life. The author is Srila Prabhuapda, all Mukunda did was compile the quotes and he did a good job of it. He wrote a bit of rubbish on the last 2 pages but apart from that he did not write a single word in the book. It is a collection of Prabhupada quotes and the author of this book is Srila Prabhuapda.

  2. Vamshi says:

    Prabhu Madhudvisa Dasa.Is Jagannath Krishna himself or is just an expansion of Krishna like Vishnu,Rama etc.In Iskcon lectures I heard that Jagannath is Krishna himself,they have proved this by saying a story from Skanda purana.Is this true or Iskcon lectures are just bogus?I found no video Prabhupad talking aboyt Lord Jagannath.Oh Prabhu kindly answer my doubts.Hare Krishna

    • Yes. Lord Jagannatah is Krishna Himself. It is Jagannatha [Krishna] Balarama and Krishna’s sister Subhadra.

      So Jagannatha is deity form of Krishna. He is representation of Krishna with His brother Balarama and sister Subhadra,

      It is deity manifestation of Krishna, Balarama and Lady Subhadra,

  3. tanu says:

    Jai Govind

    I request you clear my doubts.I understand the complexities of life processes,cellular mechanisms and other natural phenomenon cannot be explained solely by reasoning and scientific theories as somewhere or other our knowledge is limited.I am a science student nd nature lover.After reading the article posted by you regarding the concept of the origin of life,a question arisen in my mind that krishna is all powerful,then, why he designed this universe in this complicated way?,why life originated? why he made all that dna etc matter space?what is his true nature? why are we given these bodies these reasoning abilities?why krishna waited for billions of years and made us take birth here?why prakrati and purush got seperated? who were those dinosaurs etc for souls are eternal were those dinosaurs primitive and other organisms we only? are there any planet lest earth having life?why will happen atlast for we are ultimately destined to reach our eternal govind? why doesn’t he appears now and clear all these doubts for one thing is sure that if even he messages in some ways we will submit to him?why krishna is so naughty why has he made everything complicated?I know these are childlish questions but still worthy to be answered…..

    I am a krishana devotee.I feel as if there is pure love for him deep in my heart.But at the same time I do believe in science.Sometimes i find myself stuck in between science emotions belief and devotion.I want to understand my Govind,I want to understand myself.

    I request my friends to please give answer to these questions.I hope i will get atleast answers of a few questions as i found this site quite appealing.

    Radhe krishna

    • Hare Krishna Jai Govind

      To clear your doubts you have to become Krishna conscious. Because unless you become Krishna conscious you will not be able to understand what Krishna consciousness is and you will remain continually bewildered.

      All these questions are irrelevant. You seem to accept that Govinda exists, that He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Now you have to just surrender to the idea that you are His servant. And then you need to find out practically how you can engage in the service of Krishna. And to find out how to do this you need to read Srila Prabhupada’s books. And in the process of becoming Krishna conscious all your other questions will automatically be answered.

      The scientists can not understand anything. They only have very fragmental information about everything they study. The information we can gather through our material senses is very limited. There are so many things we can not perceive through our material senses. So they can not understand what they can not perceive.

      So instead of just speculating all these questions and being bewildered like this it is better to just admit that in our conditioned state with our very limited mind and our material senses we can not hope to understand Krishna or even this material world which is created ultimately by Krishna.

      The way to understand these things is to become Krishna conscious. We can not understand without becoming Krishna conscious.

      So you have to learn how to become Krishna conscious… That is the answer to all your questions. And Krishna consciousness is a science and that science is very elaborately presented in the books of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada.

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

Back to Top ↑