---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 02:52:08 -0700
From: Raphael SF Zvetkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON LANDINGS
The idea that we went to the Moon - and that we were successful
in our Apollo endeavours - is so firmly embedded in the cultural
lives of most people on this planet, that to voice the opinion
that this might be untrue smacks of paranoia and to present
evidence for these doubts smacks of heresy. If this opinion is
correct, then the majority of us have been conned; that, we've
been taken for a ride that has lasted 27 years. A ride that's
been generating its own momentum and most of us are still on it!
Throughout aviation history and space exploration, the prime and
lasting record of our achievements has been preserved as
photographic images, movie film and in recent times, television
coverage. We are in no doubt that these records reflect the
actual events as they occurred, disasters and triumphs included.
Particularly in the exploration of space - and going to the Moon
is a perfect example in which there are no independent witnesses
to the actual events- we have the right to expect the record to
be genuine, honestly portrayed, and responsibly reported. In
actual fact, mankind has no proof at all that we ever set foot on
the Moon, other than the photographs that NASA has elected to
publish. In this article, David Percy, an award winning film and
TV producer, 'focuses' on some of these images, formulating the
kind of brief that might have been given to the first lunar
surface photographers to produce such questionable images. While
such matters as the alleged Moon rocks are important, if the
Apollo photos are faked, then they and everything else will find
its own place in this NASA jigsaw.
We are now waking up to the possibility that NASA's photographic
coverage of the landings on the Moon between 1969 and 1972 may
not be genuine - this includes both the film and the TV
broadcasts. Following detailed photographic analysis of NASA
images, I have gained compelling evidence that there was indeed a
falsification of the record and although NASA might seek to
justify its actions, there can be no acceptable defence for such
dishonesty. Those whom I call 'Whistle-Blowers' appear to have
encoded the information needed to discover this sad truth. Their
information is found in the photography, in the processing and in
the final compositing and retouching. I have organised my
discoveries under the headings of a series of photographic rules.
Photo rule No 1:
Light travels in straight, parallel lines at any given moment.
Shadow directions are constant because the light comes from the
sun over 90 million miles away.
Take a look at photo 1, typical tree shadows. Notice the virtual
parallel lines of shadow - and the shadow side of the trees is
dark. No detail. This is not surprising.
Now compare with the panoramic shot, photo 2, supposedly taken on
the Moon, you can work out where the sources of light are! ...
Not very far away! These shadows are not parallel.
In photo 3 they converge to a point on the alleged lunar surface.
This is an impossible situation in natural sunlight. Also notice
that the shadow side isn't dark and the shaded side of the gold
visor reflects a bright source of light. Very surprising! Daytime
on the lunar surface lasts for a period of 14 'Earth' days, but
in the NASA images, shadow lengths vary within the time frame (a
few hours or days) of the alleged mission. Shadow lengths are at
odds with the sun angles at the time of the supposed trip.
For example, during 'Apollo 11' the sun was at 10 degrees above
the horizon but the pictures depict 30 degrees or so! See photo
4. Is this a mistake, or a Whistle-Blower's clue? Varying shadow
lengths within any given picture or TV scene imply more than one
light source, sometimes positioned at different heights! Clearly,
if a picture is genuine, it's not possible to have variations in
shadow direction within any one picture.
The shadows in photo 5 are all over the place.
Again in photo 6, there are more shadow 'problems' with the
rocks. Long shadows, short shadows, grey shadows, dark shadows,
some filled-in, some not filled-in - real Whistle-Blowing!
The TV image, photo 7, is another example of differential shadow
lengths. Additionally, there is visual evidence of the use of a
large, very near, ARTIFICIAL source of light.
The TV image, photo 8, shows a reflection of a light source
occupying approximately 25% of the convex visor. This, in my
view, indicates the use of a super-light of an incredible size,
positioned extremely close to the action.
Photo rule No 2:
Light in a vacuum is high contrast - ie. very bright on the sun
side, very dark on the shadow side - and on the Moon there is no
atmosphere to help fill-in or soften/lighten the shadows.
Consider 'Apollo 16'.
In photo 9, you see the shadow area of an 'astronaut' filed-in,
indicating the deployment of reflectors (not seen in the TV
coverage) or other fill-in and/or secondary light sources. This
lighting had to be high on a rig. That is why it was impossible
for them to maintain the actual low (sun)light angles!
Calculations indicate that at the time of the alleged 'Apollo 17'
the sun angle was approximately 5 degrees but the sun angle in
the pictures is far greater (see photo 10). Note the filled-in
astronaut and in photo 11 the filled-in LM (Lunar Module). Some
very fed up Whistle-Blowers in action!
=================================================================
Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT
FROM THE DESK OF: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*Mike Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~~~~~~~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day.
=================================================================
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
