Moon Landings Faked? (and all other space mission fakery)

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Re: On the moon..

Somehow, I doubt that trying to look at stars was a priority for the astronauts who only spent a couple of hours on the moon :roll:

 

[Quantum11]

Re: On the moon..

Right, because the best way to sell a hoax, is to claim things people would find wrong, or counter intuitive :? If they were faking it, they'd have said they could see stars, cause that's what everyone thinks you should be able to do.

Wow, you possess a dizzying intellect sir. I mean that most sincerely.

Everyone thinks you should be able to see stars, because they can see them. They know what they look like outside of the light pollution when they make their little trips to the countryside. And if you are armed with knowledge about the added diffusion caused by our atmosphere, then it's downright insulting for anyone claiming to have been on the surface of the moon, denying being able to see any!!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es-HEsI6N0I[/youtube]

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Rocks aren't proof of anything. There are too many plausible explanations that would explain them. Some of them might actually have been collected by unmanned craft.
http://s125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/ ... lector.flv

What is that even supposed to be a video of? NASA using an unmanned probe to collect moon rocks? That craft wasn't adapted for the Saturn V in the first place, there's no way that they launched that instead of Apollo. The apollo crew returned with moon rocks that was unloaded off their ship. The LEM did not have a mechanism for collecting moon rocks (well I suppose there could of been a "secret" moon rock collecting device, but there's no evidence for this. it'd be the same as saying that they also had attached a laser gun for shooting flying saucers)

At around the 30 minute time mark in this video a scientist talks about having been harassed and her career having been ruined for having blown the whistle.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 248030643#

That's because legitimate scientific journals aren't going to publish nonsense that relies on a few points of data rather than the accepted explanation which has plenty of evidence.

All we have is documents that tell us that the rocks are real. Seeing that we are lied to about so many things, we can't take that as conclusive proof of anything as it might be another lie.

What you're saying here is that you won't believe it unless you were working at mission control and oversaw all of the landings. This is irrational.

Somebody please address the issue of Collins' jacket corner.

In zero gravity, things aren't pre-determined to point in any particular direction. Now, I'm assuming that you think NASA "faked" the LEO part because his jacket corner decided to point towards the Earth. This would require them to use wires and harnesses, and apply these to every single object to give the appearance of weightlessness. It would be far easier for them just to have used a vomit comet.

When someone says the Moon Landings or 9-11 or whatever was faked I check myself and realize that though they may be ignorant and mis-informed they are NOT looney. Their question is sincere--but they probably aren't going to be persuaded by a lot of technical stuff they don't understand and will likely dismiss all such as the Secret Powers That Control Everything making up a lot of garbage trying to confuse them. So I try to appeal to what they should reasonably know and ask them how it could have been pulled off.

Other countries were watching the Apollo Moon Shot and many of them would have greatly enjoyed watching America fall flat on its face in a spectacular way. The Europeans have always thought we were just a little too big for our britches and needed to have our egos deflated. The Russians and Chinese were competing with us in a serious ideological struggle to control the world. The Japanese had lost a lot of face when they lost World War II and they would have been a little less humiliated had our Moon Landings been exposed as a fraud.

Each of these had the technical means to monitor our Moon shots. They could not only follow it with telescopes, but they could monitor the radio traffic and would have immeadiately detected if a signal came from Nevada rather than from the Moon. The news reporter who exposed fraud in the Government or the Military would have made a fortune from the story, been nominated for numerous awards and would have made thousands of dollars on every speaking engagement--and he would have been booked solid with three speaking engagements a day for the next three years while his book would have made millions of dollars.

A lot of people and a lot of countries had a lot to gain by showing that the Moon Landings were a hoax--and they had the technical means at their disposal to monitor the communications and determine where they were coming from. So if it was fake, why didn't they expose it back then? Everybody was watching and they were all ready to pounce.

Really, I think, this is all that needs to be said. The moon hoaxers always claim NASA wanted to fake a moon landing so we could get ahead of the Russians. If that were really true, wouldn't all the other countries heavily monitoring and cooperating with us in the moon landings have exposed what we did? What about the hundreds of thousands of people who worked on the project? Wouldn't it be difficult to keep all of them quiet for all this time?

Not only that, for all the work the moon hoaxers say NASA did to fake it, they could just as easily have landed on the moon. It wasn't technologically or physiologically impossible at the time. The moon hoax theory hasn't a leg to stand on, both data-wise and logic-wise.

 

[Quantum11]

Re: On the moon..

Somehow, I doubt that trying to look at stars was a priority for the astronauts who only spent a couple of hours on the moon :roll:

A second dizzying intellect in one thread...

Okay Yuri...Then please do tell me, when they spent all that time between getting to, and returning from the moon...No mention. And the fact they would LIE about not being able to see stars....That itself is telling. Even Phil Plait, moondog bad astronomer, admitted that seeing stars even on the daylit side of the moon would be possible by eye alone. So, are Armstrong and Collins lying, or is Phil Plait, NASA's own APOLLO HOAX WATCHDOG.

 

[kg]

Re: On the moon..

Note that the astronaut interviewed in the vidio says she likes to sit by the window "JUST AFTER SUNSET" and watch the stars!

I think a much more interesting question might be: If you are standing on the far side of the moon at night (no sun or earth in the sky) how many stars per minute would dissapear at one horizon and how many would appear at the opposite as the moon slowly turned?

 

[Quantum11]

Re: On the moon..

Note that the astronaut interviewed in the vidio says she likes to sit by the window "JUST AFTER SUNSET" and watch the stars!

Note the quote from another person qualified to remark on the sight of stars beyond Earth's gravity shackles...

"Seeing the bright blue sky turning pitch-black and seeing stars appear while it is daytime, is absolutely mind-blowing."

Michael Melville, SpaceShipOne pilot

So much for trying to say that stars aren't visible until after sunset.

I think a much more interesting question might be: If you are standing on the far side of the moon at night (no sun or earth in the sky) how many stars per minute would dissapear at one horizon and how many would appear at the opposite as the moon slowly turned?

No, I think that a much more interesting question is how a guy who claimed to orbit the moon, and a guy who claimed to walk on the moon, refuse to admit the ability to see stars! Yes, that is a much more interesting question!

 

[SpeedFreek]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

They must have pumped all the air out of the studio for this one, too!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lq8J6LeUuOE[/youtube]

 

[kg]

Re: On the moon..

....Note the quote from another person qualified to remark on the sight of stars beyond Earth's gravity shackles...
"Seeing the bright blue sky turning pitch-black and seeing stars appear while it is daytime, is absolutely mind-blowing."
Michael Melville, SpaceShipOne pilot
So much for trying to say that stars aren't visible until after sunset.

Maybe Michael Melville was lying about seeing stars to make the SpaceShipOne sound like it was more like an actual space ship! After all it only reached an altitude of about 62 miles, not even close to near earth orbit.

If the lunar astronauts were lying about being on the moon in the first place why didn't they lie about seeing stars? "Sure, we saw all kinds of stars. They didn't show up in the photos because we had crappy film or something but we saw tons of them" All it would have taken.

 

[Quantum11]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

When someone says the Moon Landings or 9-11 or whatever was faked I check myself and realize that though they may be ignorant and mis-informed they are NOT looney. Their question is sincere--but they probably aren't going to be persuaded by a lot of technical stuff they don't understand and will likely dismiss all such as the Secret Powers That Control Everything making up a lot of garbage trying to confuse them. So I try to appeal to what they should reasonably know and ask them how it could have been pulled off.

Other countries were watching the Apollo Moon Shot and many of them would have greatly enjoyed watching America fall flat on its face in a spectacular way. The Europeans have always thought we were just a little too big for our britches and needed to have our egos deflated. The Russians and Chinese were competing with us in a serious ideological struggle to control the world. The Japanese had lost a lot of face when they lost World War II and they would have been a little less humiliated had our Moon Landings been exposed as a fraud.

Each of these had the technical means to monitor our Moon shots. They could not only follow it with telescopes, but they could monitor the radio traffic and would have immeadiately detected if a signal came from Nevada rather than from the Moon. The news reporter who exposed fraud in the Government or the Military would have made a fortune from the story, been nominated for numerous awards and would have made thousands of dollars on every speaking engagement--and he would have been booked solid with three speaking engagements a day for the next three years while his book would have made millions of dollars.

A lot of people and a lot of countries had a lot to gain by showing that the Moon Landings were a hoax--and they had the technical means at their disposal to monitor the communications and determine where they were coming from. So if it was fake, why didn't they expose it back then? Everybody was watching and they were all ready to pounce.

This is what countries get when they attack the United States...Even if certain individuals in our government/military knew the attacks were imminent.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsTRxXvQY0s[/youtube]

Now please tell me exactly what it is these countries are going to gain by outing the US government and space program? How about financial, or even critical assistance during times of natural or man-made disasters? How about food? How about assistance getting their own satellites into space? I don't think they would be able to get much help from good ole uncle sam if they went around blabbing about his taxpayer frauds now would they?

I think the question you should be asking is whether or not the US government and agencies it finances have ever given us reason to believe they would lie to us? Or any other instance where our leaders have given us due cause to doubt their intentions towards us.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIr0_Mt6AXg[/youtube]

 

[Quantum11]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

If you would care to discuss what materials in the Apollo suits protected from micrometeorites. And then perhaps you can further that by describing what radiation protection the suits offered as well?

Sure.

As an additional offering to further explain the considerations surrounding radiation and high velocity particles ("cosmic rays", etc..)

RADIATION PROTECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION (Includes Van Allen Belt data)
THE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF HZE GALACTIC COSMIC RADIATION (Includes data on assessments regarding high velocity particles and biological risks from actual studies conducted on Apollo missions)
MICROBIAL RESPONSE TO SPACE ENVIRONMENT EXPERIMENT (Experiments and their conclusions concerning further considerations regarding radiation on biology.)
APOLLO 17 POCKET MOUSE EXPERIMENT (Mice, bravely sacrificing themselves so we can go to the Moon.)

Read the conclusions.

If you'd like to learn how the suits worked, here's the manual - Apollo Operations Handbook Extravehicular Mobility Unit

Detailed report on the development of the Apollo EMU. AER-Development...EMU.pdf

Average radiation doses received for flight crews of all Apollo flights - Solar energetic phenomena and radiation hazards to biological systems

Now that you're intimately familiar with the effects of spaceborn radiation on biological systesm, both the expected (due to experimental evidence) and actual radiation doses received by Apollo flight crews and the variety of components within the Lunar EMUs, we come to:

Apollo Experience Report - Protection Against Radiation

So, in short, what protection did they have? As far as the EMU goes, the materials of construction would protect them against low energy particles and radiation. Neutrons generated from secondary radiation (particles impacting the lunar surface) were also mitigated, somewhat, by the materials of construction including neutron-resonant foils. However, Radiation was never a significant problem with any of the Apollo missions and it was not thought to be one unless a solar flare occurred. In that case, it was hoped the astronauts would make it back to the LEM before significant damage by high v cosmic radiation could take place. Though, at the time, little was known concerning cosmic rays. Later, it was determined that inside the flight capsule, crews could survive radiation from a solar flare. However, secondary radiation might be a problem and further effort for protection was made. Cosmic rays, as it turns out, generally need repeated strikes to do significant damage to the most concerning organ - the brain. Incidental damage from occassional strikes was not thought to be of significance. (Remember the "Eye Flashes?" The summary from those incidents is also included in the links above.)

As it stands, Apollo flight crews did not return home with any dosages higher than what were already recommended as yearly limits set by the USAEC. (Atomic Energy Commission -The authority at that time.)

The only specifically constructed anti-radiation (aside from heavy thermal insulation, materials of general constuction/dual purpose and some neutron protection) component on the Apollo EMU that I know of was the gold visor used to protect against UV and infra-red radiation. Oh, and all EMUs came with a handy dosimeter, in an external pocket...

That should answer your question.

No ALP...the question was why did NASA lie about no major solar particle events, when a quick trip to the NGDC provides all the information required to see that MAJOR SOLAR FLARES occured at least thirty times during Apollo missions. Alongside hundreds of other solar flares. And yet we find NASA and the defenders like Windley and Plait denying events proven by NOAA themselves. And astrophysicists the world over have claimed that major solar flares would have killed the astronauts. So, the time has come for NASA and it's mouthpieces to explain how Apollo astronauts survived major solar flare eruptions, along with the radiation in the VABs, as well as the secondary neutron radiation from the surface of the moon, along with the constant background GCR's, constant solar wind, emtting varies intensities of solar particles, as well as the occasional increases in gamma radiation from gamma ray bursts...Oh, and maybe we could have an explanationi on how great aluminum works as a shield for all that radiation out there?

 

[Quantum11]

Re: On the moon..

....Note the quote from another person qualified to remark on the sight of stars beyond Earth's gravity shackles...
"Seeing the bright blue sky turning pitch-black and seeing stars appear while it is daytime, is absolutely mind-blowing."
Michael Melville, SpaceShipOne pilot
So much for trying to say that stars aren't visible until after sunset.

Maybe Michael Melville was lying about seeing stars to make the SpaceShipOne sound like it was more like an actual space ship! After all it only reached an altitude of about 62 miles, not even close to near earth orbit.

If the lunar astronauts were lying about being on the moon in the first place why didn't they lie about seeing stars? "Sure, we saw all kinds of stars. They didn't show up in the photos because we had crappy film or something but we saw tons of them" All it would have taken.

I see you are an individual that prefers conjecture, to actual evidence...or even testimony. Both of which I have provided to state my case.

Would you please provide something besides conjecture. Until then, I'll accept the testimony of someone who has been 62 miles above the Earth over yourself. Unless of course you have been further than 62 miles above the Earth? Have you?

BTW, do you think this represents a believable image of the sun, from the surface of the moon, and if so, why?

 

[kk434]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

There are huge vacuum chambers for testing satelites, I dont think that you can see the difference between a clip filmed on the moon and in a vacuum chamber. Playing a clip in slow motion looks like it's in reduced gravity.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Quantum11

I have always wanted to ask one of the “Moon landings were fake” guys exactly what are you trying to achieve from that argument?

I mean let’s say you prove NASA and everybody else wrong. Now what? What changes? I mean it’s not the first time that the government has lied, and it most certainly won’t be the last time. Will we (the American people) get our moon landing money back? No. Will we gain anything from this epiphany? No.

So what gives? Why is it so critical that we prove the Moon landings were a hoax and never happened? Ultimately the real or faked landings accomplished their true objectives which were beating the USSR at a publicity stunt. The goal was accomplished whether NASA went to the Moon or not.

Now it makes not a rats tail of a difference if they actually landed there or not.

My personal feelings are that actually landing on the Moon is fairly easy. My point has always been what we do when we land on the Moon (or in your case if we land on the Moon).

 

[SpeedFreek]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

There are huge vacuum chambers for testing satelites, I dont think that you can see the difference between a clip filmed on the moon and in a vacuum chamber. Playing a clip in slow motion looks like it's in reduced gravity.

So that precludes the air-conditioning, or some other movement of air, from causing the flag to move before the astronaut reaches it, then.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

For the one who was arguing that the astronauts just stayed in LEO, there is no way this can be true. If they had stayed in LEO people around the world would've been able to spot them in the sky, not to mention independent people and Russia were tracking the apollo craft all the way to the moon.

In regards to radiation and the Van allen belts, the astronauts took the safest path through these and were only exposed to the worst part for about an hour. They receieved about one rem of radiation, about the same for a nuclear plant worker over one year. For comparison you die at 300 rems.

As for solar flares, while they are common, there were no large solar flares during the trip to the moon. Yes there were solar flares, and yes they did effect the astronauts' health somewhat, but no they were not powerful enough to kill them and destroy the Apollo craft.

And Quantum, you have to remember that the USSR and the US were equals in the eyes of the international community. If the USSR had compiled "overwhelming" evidence (as the moon hoaxers like to say) then they would've jumped at the chance to prove America had lied and make us seem corrupt. They heavily monitored the moon missions, yet they congratulated us on our accomplishment.

So if you still believe the theory, you have to believe that this was a worldwide conspiracy to fake America's landing on the moon. With each post this gets more irrational, and the moon hoaxers are now grasping at straws.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Re: On the moon..

Ugh, not this ugly conspiracy theory again.

Here I thought you were asking a legitimate question, but instead you used it to add to your ridiculous moon hoax theory. We already have a thread for that nonsense: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=18614

I don't want to play moderator, but I think it's pretty obvious that you were just trying to bait us into another debate. So I will humor you before someone locks this thread.

Your claim is that the astronauts lied about being able to see stars on the moon because they said that they couldn't... how exactly are they lying? You could see stars on the moon with proper preparation and protection, but they weren't really equipped for that. They would've had to focus pretty hard I think to be able to see any stars, and dont forget the visor they were wearing. It's really not that surprising they couldn't see any stars while they were casually walking around. It's not a yes or no question though, the answer is mostly no but if you were really focusing then you may have been able to see some.

This is just insulting. Show some respect for Americans who accomplished much more in their lives than you will by going out of your way trying to "disprove" their tremendous success.

 

[CAllenDoudna]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

Now please tell me exactly what it is these countries are going to gain by outing the US government and space program? How about financial, or even critical assistance during times of natural or man-made disasters? How about food? How about assistance getting their own satellites into space? I don't think they would be able to get much help from good ole uncle sam if they went around blabbing about his taxpayer frauds now would they?

What help did these countries need from us at that time, Quantum? These were not poor, Third World nations barely hanging on to existance by a thread. They were strong, thechnologically advanced nations with strong Economies of their own fully capable of going head-to-head with us on an equal footing. They were PROUD nations who resented this jeuvinile upstart telling them what to do. The Russians had their own Space Program and needed no help from us launching them, thank-you. As a matter of fact, THEY had beaten US to launching the first satellite and would stand to gain a lot of business launching the satellites of American allies. The world felt perfectly comfortable living without satellites at that time. After-all, the Space Age was only a little over a dozen years old and there was no great dependance on satellites yet. True, the Europeans, Russians, and Japanese bought a great deal of food from America--but Australia, Canada, and Argentina were also major food-producing countries. And where exactly were American farmers supposed to sell their products if not to Europe, Russia, and Japan? You have no idea what a mamoth blow that would have been to the U. S. Economy. The Grain Embargo Jimmy Carter put on Russia was probably the single biggest factor in sending the U. S. Economy down the toilet in the late 1970s and shifting the balance of power back to the Republicans.

What would these countries gain by America's humiliation? Satisfaction. These were proud empires with centuries of glory. Then along comes this upstart United States of America and happens to win World War II. Now all of a sudden America is the world's greatest authority on everything. They would have enjoyed seeing us stumble for a change.

Believe me, if we'd faked the Moon Landings there would have been no end to the amount of crowing other countries would have greeted that news with.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

What would these countries gain by America's humiliation? Satisfaction. These were proud empires with centuries of glory. Then along comes this upstart United States of America and happens to win World War II. Now all of a sudden America is the world's greatest authority on everything. They would have enjoyed seeing us stumble for a change.

Believe me, if we'd faked the Moon Landings there would have been no end to the amount of crowing other countries would have greeted that news with.

For this, and many other reasons, the moon hoaxers will never be taken seriously. The political logic doesn't make sense and neither does the physical logic. They also forgot one of the fundamentals of science, that is, to support the side with the most evidence. It is clear that we have more evidence that we landed on the moon rather than the contrary. Arguing that we didn't land is silly.

 

[3488]

Re: On the moon..

I have decided to lock this thread as it is trolling & serves no useful purpose.

Andrew Brown.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: On the moon..

So, do you all know more about the ability to see stars on the lunar surface, then say...A moonwalker himself?

When Armstrong, then Collins denied being able to see any stars, a host of intellectuals realized that either they were lying, or they had no idea what it was like to stand on the moon. Or, they were actually telling the truth. They were on a moon set, and thus couldn't see any stars.

That video was a load of ignorant, distorted, deliberatly misleading garbage.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: On the moon..

I have decided to lock this thread as it is trolling & serves no useful purpose.

Andrew Brown.

I merged it into the moon hoax thread in The Unexplained, which does serve it's own purpose.

MW

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

...No ALP...the question was why did NASA lie about no major solar particle events, when a quick trip to the NGDC provides all the information required to see that MAJOR SOLAR FLARES occured at least thirty times during Apollo missions. Alongside hundreds of other solar flares. And yet we find NASA and the defenders like Windley and Plait denying events proven by NOAA themselves. And astrophysicists the world over have claimed that major solar flares would have killed the astronauts. So, the time has come for NASA and it's mouthpieces to explain how Apollo astronauts survived major solar flare eruptions,

Which ones? Where they pointed at us? How major were they?

along with the radiation in the VABs,

Already explained above, ad nauseum.

as well as the secondary neutron radiation from the surface of the moon,

Already explained above, ad nauseum.

along with the constant background GCR's,

Apollo astronauts were not exposed long enough for it to be a problem. Health threat from cosmic rays

constant solar wind, emtting varies intensities of solar particles,

Already explained above, ad nauseum.

as well as the occasional increases in gamma radiation from gamma ray bursts...

GRBs!! ??? !! WHAT?

Oh, and maybe we could have an explanationi on how great aluminum works as a shield for all that radiation out there?

Sure, coming right up!

Sickening Solar Flare[/url]":2wzrrudj]

Below: One of the August 1972 solar flares. Click to view a 2-MB mpeg movie of the explosion, which solar physicists call "the seahorse flare." ...

...Surely, though, no astronaut is going to walk around on the Moon when there's a giant sunspot threatening to explode. "They're going to stay inside their spaceship (or habitat)," says Cucinotta. An Apollo command module with its aluminum hull would have attenuated the 1972 storm from 400 rem to less than 35 rem at the astronaut's blood-forming organs. That's the difference between needing a bone marrow transplant or just a headeache pill.

Modern spaceships are even safer. "We measure the shielding of our ships in units of areal density--or grams per centimeter-squared," says Cucinotta. Big numbers, which represent thick hulls, are better:

The hull of an Apollo command module rated 7 to 8 g/cm2.

I came across a really good answer posted here: What about the Solar Flares? - Read Clavius' Answer That's a good general answer.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Re: On the moon..

Somehow, I doubt that trying to look at stars was a priority for the astronauts who only spent a couple of hours on the moon :roll:

A second dizzying intellect in one thread...

Okay Yuri...Then please do tell me, when they spent all that time between getting to, and returning from the moon...No mention. And the fact they would LIE about not being able to see stars....That itself is telling. Even Phil Plait, moondog bad astronomer, admitted that seeing stars even on the daylit side of the moon would be possible by eye alone. So, are Armstrong and Collins lying, or is Phil Plait, NASA's own APOLLO HOAX WATCHDOG...

/sigh

The camera is not a human eye.

Don't you think that if they're going to spend bazillions of dollars faking a Moon landing and there should be stars visible on the set that someone would get some glue and glitter and make some? Good lord....

The camera is adjusted for taking pics with the high albedo background of the Moon. Similarly, the human eye has to adjust in order to see faint objects when a bright foreground is present. Go from inside your house to outside in a dark night and see hom many stars you see. Wait 10 minutes.. how many do you see now? If you can't resolve more stars after letting your eyes adjust, go to your ophthalmologist and have your eyes checked. I suppose if you let your eyes adjust and screened them from the surface glare, you'd see stars from the Moon's surface as well.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

Re: On the moon..

I see you are an individual that prefers conjecture, to actual evidence...or even testimony. Both of which I have provided to state my case.

BTW, do you think this represents a believable image of the sun, from the surface of the moon, and if so, why?

I don't recall ever seeing that picture, at least, not with the Sun so large and prominent. In fact, I hardly remember any of the Lunar pics with the actual Sun in view. (Maybe my memory is going. :? )

Photoshop Op, maybe?

At any rate, I'm not positive, but I think the reason you can't see any stars from the lit side of the Moon is the same reason you can't see the stars during the day on Earth. And the cameras couldn't image the stars either, due to the Sun's glare.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

Re: Moon Landings Faked?

...At around the 30 minute time mark in this video a scientist talks about having been harassed and her career having been ruined for having blown the whistle...

Blown the whistle about what? The effects of depleted uranium? That's not necessarily "news." From what I can see, she left LLNL on her own. Does she say different in the video? (I'm not going to wait for 30+mins of vid to load to search it.)

As far as "ruining her career" she's an activist. It's not surprising that someone might wonder about her motivations if she submitted a resume to a government lab. But, I don't know that has happened. She seems to be active enough as it is. Does she have time for lab work now?