Reply #51: "Logistics of a fake moon landing are actually far more complicated than a real one"--!!

[defendandprotect]

Where to start with that jumbled mess?
One thing at a time: Let's take the moon landings by itself. It doesn't matter if the whole government is staffed by genocidal Kennedy-assassinating, CIA-directed Nazis. Utterly immaterial. Even an entrenched pattern of deception and corruption doesn't prove a particular deception, nor does it grant one magical abilities to perform amazing conspiratorial feats. The logistics of a fake moon landing are actually far more complicated than a real one.

Conspiracies are based on fooling the public . . . are you saying our government has never
done that before?

Further, you've just argued against yourself here in suggesting that a fake "Moon Landing"
is more complicated than the real thing? Really . . . ??

The problem with the Moon Landing subject is it's probably even more extraordinary a suggestion
re conspiracy in some minds than even 9/11 would be in their minds. Am I right?

AND, it takes some understanding of the claims and counter-claims which I don't think many
here are familiar with. A little different from earthly conspiracies.

Do you really think that the astronauts are going to spill the beans now?

Do you really think the astronauts are they only ones who'd have to keep a big secret here?

Of course not, but evidently you asked about the astronauts?

And, again if you really want to discuss the Moon Landing there are some here who can provide
some enlightenment on the subject -- if I can get them to take the time -- and make it a separate
thread.

Meanwhile, it's been a long time since I looked at the issue ...

What about the imagined film crews and TV studio operators?
What about the world-wide network of people assigned to maintain radio contact with the astronauts during their flight who would be pointing their antennas in the wrong direction if the astronauts weren't really out there traveling exactly the right path for a real flight?
What about the world-wide network of radar installations tracking the flight?
What about the people who were supposed to board the astronauts into the Apollo rockets? Who would have to spirit them away to a studio, then after all the TV deception was done, get them into a real spacecraft so they'd fall from the sky in the expected return capsule?
What about all of the naval vessels and military crew assigned to picking up capsules that fell from the sky with astronauts in them?
What about all the geologists who would either have to be in on the deception, or successfully fooled by some kind of conspirator-created fake moon rocks? Those rocks are still being studied today, which is a lot of fooled geologists or a long ongoing string of conspirators.
What about all the engineers who looked at the designs for all of the equipment being built who didn't complain that the stuff being build couldn't possibly work in a real mission?
What about the reflectors left on the moon by the supposedly imaginary astronauts, still functional and observable today?

Not every member of the film crew and TV stuido operators -- or Walter Cronkite for that matter -
would have known the truth. Only those necesssary to pull it off.
Indeed, it seems that some of those involved in the project did manage to leave some clues as
to what was really going on.
No one says that a rocket wasn't launched. The question is was anyone in it?
There could have been other astronauts, substitutes we're unfamiliar with.
Presumably those who "loaded the astronauts" into the spaceship might not have known that they
were removed later.
As for the return capsule, it could have just as easily been dropped into the area from a helicopter.
And, of course, the naval vessels and military crews wouldn't necessarily know that.
Oops . . . not landing in this area - landing over there!
As for the "moon rocks" and "geologists" -- some say the rocks seem questionable -- as though they
were manufactured. Meanwhile, we could have sent a rocket up -- a rocket landed on the moon the
night before we supposedly launched or landed, in fact. At any rate, a separate mission could have
been the way to collect the rocks. Meanwhile, do you know any "geologists" who have examined the
moon rocks? And, what geologist would turn around and say . . . "you know, there seems to be
something wrong with these rocks?" Not likely!
And, re the materials/equipment -- remember that these were people making money from government
contracts -- if it wasn't going to do the job, they might have guessed why.
Much of the gear and the gear in use didn't really seem functional -- and the LEM's ability to
do what was claimed is also questioned.
As for the reflections -- I have an article somewhere on that - I'll look for it.

Again, I don't think we have any idea of the numbers, but control always comes from the top
and information is compartmentalized. Once something like this begins it would be very difficult
for one person to stand up against it.
However, on the question of the astronauts, you might take a look at Jim Marrs new book -
"Rise of the Fourth Reich" -- and in fact I think there is a program on Freemasonry which
indicates that many of them were Freemasons? Religion does funny things to people's heads.
And, again "thousands" is your guess, not mine.
What did the guys sitting at the computers know about what might be really going on?
As for the Van Allen radiation belt "problem" (emphasis mine):
As I recall it, in fact, they've only recently discovered that the Van Allen Belts are even
more extensive than they formerly thought! Quite more extensive!
If you're aware of any of the evidence from helmets where astronauts were exposed for short
periods of times, you understand that they felt the effects everywhere on their bodies/brains -
and that affect was VISIBLE on their helmets. And, now "aluminum" not only crashes thru steel
but "protects from the ionizing radiation"--! No. It would take steel - thick blocks/layers
of steel to protect the craft and astronauts -- and needless to say the film!
There is no safe pathway thru the Van Allen belts unless you have an astronaut who is willing
to risk his life - and evidently quite a number of Cosmonauts did just that.

Further, our government exploded atomic weapons in the upper atmosphere evidently trying to
knock out the Van Allen belts . . . sometime in the 1960's as I recall.

Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions.

Now . . . notice . . . it was a REBUTTAL of his prior claims.
After the US showed the world that they had done this, supposedly, what was Van Allen to say?

Think back to the CNN journalist outside the Pentagon with his film crew -- he tells you clearly
"NO PLANE" hit the Pentagon and emphasizes that over and again. Yet only a few short hours
later he is a broken man REBUTTING his prior statements. Obviously, they hire unreliable people
to cover these stories -- and then send them out on one of the biggest stories ever!

Dosimeters carried by the crews showed they received about the same cumulative dosage as a chest X-ray or about 1 milligray. Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years. The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt in a matter of minutes and the low-energy outer belt in about an hour and half. The astronauts were mostly shielded from the radiation by the spacecraft. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.

So the astronauts themselves measured this and told us -- while satellites came back scarred
and helmets were scarred from short trips! And let me remind you here of the soldiers forced to
remain close to our nuclear tests and what they were told about radiation levels.
And what were NYC residents told of biological tests in the NY City subways?
Do you recall the EPA LIED about the harmful environmental effects after 9/11 at Ground Zero
and surrounding areas?
I'm not suggesting that the astronauts were exposed and lied to, I'm saying it's likely they
didn't go.

The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip. However, only twenty-four astronauts left earth orbit. At least thirty-nine former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions

Keep in mind that astronauts on the space station which seems to be only in NEAR outer space
suffer extreme problems. Some can't walk on return and have to be transported in wheel chairs.
The female astronaut Shannon Lucid holds the record for time spent on the space station.
She walked off. Females endure time in space better than males do ... that's why we had no female astronauts!
Spending any time even in NEAR space can create problems such as cataracts.

Here's something a lot of Grand Conspiracy fans just don't get: EVEN IF you think you've found flaws or unanswered questions in the "official story" of an event, unless you have an alternate explanation with FEWER unanswered questions and puzzling problems to be solved, the "official story" remains superior to your alternate version.

Isn't that simply a repeat of ... "if there were no planes, then where did the passengers go?"
Come on . . . There is an alternate explanation -- and even Hollywood thought of it!

And I'll comment on this . .

"Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice." - Unknown

What was Gallileo's stupidity and how long did it take the RCC to admit he was right?