Thank you for your message. It's sad to have lost that poecious coin.
I have some mylar foil, which went to the Moon with Apollo 14 and was brought back by Edgar Mitchell who gave it to NASA Science Officer, Sc.O. Clark McClelland, who gaved it to me as a gift, along with an aoriginal Apollo 11 patch, which Clark had helped design.
Interesting Robert if we can be sure of the photo verification? Whatever it is, there are definitely hard edged metal looking objects there. Certainly not naturally occurring shapes.
We have found the original and 4 others of the area in the Apollo Mission Archives.
It was taken by Neil Armstrong (not Buzz Aldrin) and I've been told by a scientist with NASA that Armstrong "broke the rules" going beyond the allowed perimeter to go to gaze at the pile and that he took 5 photos, panning from left to right.
The other view clearly shows a white 5-pointed star on top the pile of debris.
Niemand hat "bewiesen", dass Apollo 11-12-14-15-16 & 17 nicht auf dem Mond gelandet ist.
Ich denke, dass Ihr Wissen über das Apollo-Programm begrenzt ist, sehr oberflächlich, und Sie sind ignorant gegenüber den wirklichen Fakten und den Daten.
Außerdem haben Sie zu viele "saure Trauben" von dem Betrüger Bart Sabrel gegessen. der nur Unsinn von sich gibt. Du isst dein eigenes "cah cah". Wie alt sind Sie?
:)
"Rupert Mogenstern"
People believe what they want to believe.
So be it with you.
No ONE has"proven" that Apollo 11-12-14-15-16 &17 did not land on the Moon.
I think that your knowledge of the pollo progfram is limited, very superficial, and you are ignorant of real facts and the data.
Moreover, you've been eating too many "sour grapes" from the fraudster, Bart Sabrel. who just spouts nonsense. You eat your oown "cah cah."
Well, people falling for nonsense about the moon landing being a hoax must be at least a bit dense, if you think "as if there's any wind on the moon" without any thought or investigation into the matter as if it's more likely Kubrick faked it. You fall for the dead moon dictum and conspiracy without investigation into the facts and data. Do you really think it is a dead, dry, desolate, airless satellite with nothing but rock and dust? Or that wind is peculiar to our Earth, and does not exist on other bodies?
There is water on the moon, first announced in 1998; where there is water, an atmosphere and sufficient gravity to hold it down can't be far behind. The wind seen blowing the flag placed by the Apollo 11 mission on the moon should therefore be no surprise, and is itself proof of atmosphere because one is required for it to blow this or that way. The 1998 announcement was merely a tardy announcement of what had been obvious to many and known by official insiders for many decades.
There is other evidence of atmosphere, for instance that stars do not instanenously occlude behind the moon when it moves in front of them, and meteors become incandescent as they get closer to the surface. There has even been some acknowledgement of a "weak" atmosphere, starting in 1997, from slow scientists and academics who were unable to notice what was clear decades before and aren't good enough to do any of the real science or research that is kept secret from the public by the Plato-like minions in government.
Beyond that, there is "transient lunar phenomena:" Many craters are known for profusions of lights, such as Plato, Aristarchus, and Timocharis. Plato is sixty miles across with a floor that changes colour and high walls sometimes obscured by mists and fog. From Plato and Aristarchus, lights can frequently be seen to emerge before moving consistently to other craters and disappearing again; often, beams and long rays of light can also be seen.
NASA documented TLP and did a poor job examining it, until the US government abandoned its lunar plans, after of course landing nowhere near the most anomalous areas of the moon of greatest scientific interest, and after which most documentation and investigation has stopped completely not only from the slow scientists of NASA.
Evidence supporting habitability of the moon has really been obvious since the mid-early 20th century, in some aspects for even longer: water, atmosphere, mists, fog, clouds, and voluminous caves or lava tubes. It is suggestive of lunar weather even if it does not resemble Earth weather, and not to mention those convenient areas under the surface in which one could build a lunar base shielded from the dangers of space, or the vast lunar mineral resources.
Why do you think the US and Soviet Union suddenly abandoned their plans of colonising it and building a lunar base? Do you really think it's more likely that the spin doctors and propagandists faked the moon landing, that what we saw wasn't the moon because what we saw wasn't a dead rock without atmosphere?
Or might there be another reason that what we saw did not match our expectations, and a reason that our expectations and what we are taught—society's reality consensus and the information comfort zone of the public—do not match what we see and know, and what is public knowledge and well-documented about our satellite?
Thank youf ro the most intelligent and cogent comments on the Moon that I have yet received.
Your description of Lunar Weather, TLPs, and luminosities that move from crater to crater are brilliant and I plan to add your comments to this article as "The Best Reader's Comments of the Week."
Great, where's the original video so we can subject it to analysis using modern machine learning techniques? The design documents for the module and lander?
The biggest proof of fakery though, is Buzz's own statements, once to the assembled throng in the Oxford Union, in the UK.
All the brainwashed students were salivating over the Presence of the Great Man in their midst, and asked him what was the "greatest moment" etc etc - to which he replied, "We never went."
Kind of demolishes the whole thing.
Only a compete idiot would believe any of the nonsense.
Bart, of course, went way further than "hearsay" in his exposure of the fakery.
He showed the boys putting cardboard over the windows of the vehicle - whatever it was, ( I suspect a balloon plus suspended capsule ) so as to generate an impression of the terminator line on earth between day and night.
"A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" describes the whole thing.
This story is very interesting and important to me as Buzz Aldrin was a frequent visitor to the Dunes Hotel, in Las Vegas in the 1970s, after the Moon Landing. He gave me a specially minted “coin” that contained material that was on the moon. The coin was in my possession until my first wife and I divorced after a short marriage. Some of my cherished possessions “disappeared mysteriously” during this challenging time-line in my life.
We have found the original and 4 others of the area in the Apollo Mission Archives.
It was taken by Neil Armstrong (not Buzz Aldrin) and I've been told by a scientist with NASA that Armstrong "broke the rules" going beyond the allowed perimeter to go to gaze at the pile and that he took 5 photos, panning from left to right.
The other view clearly shows a white 5-pointed star on the pile of debris.
No american ever set foot on the moon. imo
Hi, Geno,
Thank you for your message. It's sad to have lost that poecious coin.
I have some mylar foil, which went to the Moon with Apollo 14 and was brought back by Edgar Mitchell who gave it to NASA Science Officer, Sc.O. Clark McClelland, who gaved it to me as a gift, along with an aoriginal Apollo 11 patch, which Clark had helped design.
Best regards,
Robert
Hello, DRA222,
Thank you for your comment.
I've proven the authenticity if the photo through the NASA Apollo 11 archives. Look up the catalog number NASA 69-HC-881 .
Last night I found anotther photo of the same scene taken from a different angle, which is even more revealing. I guess I'll have to write a Part 2,
Best regards,
Robert
A photo can be authentic, without it needing to be taken where it is claimed to have been taken.
What's the story on the "plethora of wreckage" Buzz?
Wow! Take that all you MOON LANDING WAS A HOAX reality deniers!
What? A picture of junk in the Arizona desert? Revealing is correct!
Yeah, this is just as ridiculous as the original story.
I think Grandpa needs his bi-focals.
M
I think that the desert heat has gotten to you.
:)
M
Interesting Robert if we can be sure of the photo verification? Whatever it is, there are definitely hard edged metal looking objects there. Certainly not naturally occurring shapes.
Thank you, DRA222 ...
We have found the original and 4 others of the area in the Apollo Mission Archives.
It was taken by Neil Armstrong (not Buzz Aldrin) and I've been told by a scientist with NASA that Armstrong "broke the rules" going beyond the allowed perimeter to go to gaze at the pile and that he took 5 photos, panning from left to right.
The other view clearly shows a white 5-pointed star on top the pile of debris.
I'm working on a follow-up article.
Regards,
Robert
The whole point being, they MAY be not naturally-occurring shapes, but that doesn't mean they are on the moon.
LOL ...
:)
And just because your shoes are on the floor doesn't mean you're on the Earth.
M
Thats very true tim
Nothing Tim has written is true or logical.
it is a trite word salad.
M
Die Menschen glauben, was sie glauben wollen.
So sei es mit dir.
Niemand hat "bewiesen", dass Apollo 11-12-14-15-16 & 17 nicht auf dem Mond gelandet ist.
Ich denke, dass Ihr Wissen über das Apollo-Programm begrenzt ist, sehr oberflächlich, und Sie sind ignorant gegenüber den wirklichen Fakten und den Daten.
Außerdem haben Sie zu viele "saure Trauben" von dem Betrüger Bart Sabrel gegessen. der nur Unsinn von sich gibt. Du isst dein eigenes "cah cah". Wie alt sind Sie?
:)
"Rupert Mogenstern"
People believe what they want to believe.
So be it with you.
No ONE has"proven" that Apollo 11-12-14-15-16 &17 did not land on the Moon.
I think that your knowledge of the pollo progfram is limited, very superficial, and you are ignorant of real facts and the data.
Moreover, you've been eating too many "sour grapes" from the fraudster, Bart Sabrel. who just spouts nonsense. You eat your oown "cah cah."
How old are you?
Robert M*
Hllo, CG,
Thanks for your comment. We share that trait in common...
I too have always been a "MOON Man."
Robert M
No, James ...
NASA actually admitted to DESTROYING the original plans
And losing the tapes, but they were found about 5 years ago in an abandoned aCDonals burger joint in Australia.
I haen't heard any more details about them since then.
All of us would like to know why. but It wasn't that we didn''go...
It was to make sure we didn't GO BACK.
Warm regards,
Robert
Nobody sane would have got into a contraption like the LEM is shown to be on close-up.
The mockery is intense - and yet, people still line up to pretend any of it happened.
( Except in a film studio, of course. )
Well, people falling for nonsense about the moon landing being a hoax must be at least a bit dense, if you think "as if there's any wind on the moon" without any thought or investigation into the matter as if it's more likely Kubrick faked it. You fall for the dead moon dictum and conspiracy without investigation into the facts and data. Do you really think it is a dead, dry, desolate, airless satellite with nothing but rock and dust? Or that wind is peculiar to our Earth, and does not exist on other bodies?
There is water on the moon, first announced in 1998; where there is water, an atmosphere and sufficient gravity to hold it down can't be far behind. The wind seen blowing the flag placed by the Apollo 11 mission on the moon should therefore be no surprise, and is itself proof of atmosphere because one is required for it to blow this or that way. The 1998 announcement was merely a tardy announcement of what had been obvious to many and known by official insiders for many decades.
There is other evidence of atmosphere, for instance that stars do not instanenously occlude behind the moon when it moves in front of them, and meteors become incandescent as they get closer to the surface. There has even been some acknowledgement of a "weak" atmosphere, starting in 1997, from slow scientists and academics who were unable to notice what was clear decades before and aren't good enough to do any of the real science or research that is kept secret from the public by the Plato-like minions in government.
Beyond that, there is "transient lunar phenomena:" Many craters are known for profusions of lights, such as Plato, Aristarchus, and Timocharis. Plato is sixty miles across with a floor that changes colour and high walls sometimes obscured by mists and fog. From Plato and Aristarchus, lights can frequently be seen to emerge before moving consistently to other craters and disappearing again; often, beams and long rays of light can also be seen.
NASA documented TLP and did a poor job examining it, until the US government abandoned its lunar plans, after of course landing nowhere near the most anomalous areas of the moon of greatest scientific interest, and after which most documentation and investigation has stopped completely not only from the slow scientists of NASA.
Evidence supporting habitability of the moon has really been obvious since the mid-early 20th century, in some aspects for even longer: water, atmosphere, mists, fog, clouds, and voluminous caves or lava tubes. It is suggestive of lunar weather even if it does not resemble Earth weather, and not to mention those convenient areas under the surface in which one could build a lunar base shielded from the dangers of space, or the vast lunar mineral resources.
Why do you think the US and Soviet Union suddenly abandoned their plans of colonising it and building a lunar base? Do you really think it's more likely that the spin doctors and propagandists faked the moon landing, that what we saw wasn't the moon because what we saw wasn't a dead rock without atmosphere?
Or might there be another reason that what we saw did not match our expectations, and a reason that our expectations and what we are taught—society's reality consensus and the information comfort zone of the public—do not match what we see and know, and what is public knowledge and well-documented about our satellite?
Dear Emma,
Thank youf ro the most intelligent and cogent comments on the Moon that I have yet received.
Your description of Lunar Weather, TLPs, and luminosities that move from crater to crater are brilliant and I plan to add your comments to this article as "The Best Reader's Comments of the Week."
Warm regards,
Robert M
Inclined to agree.
But I think it's too little, too late.
The truth is pretty widely accepted now.
Even the original actornauts are spilling the beans.
It's a lonely job being an Apollo apolo -gist.
If you know Geometry.
You area a blind man.
M
Hello, Dan,
There is a lot more proof rhat we did land on the Moon 6 times than any proof that we didn't:
For example, we have:
12 Eyewitnesses
Thousands of photos;
Miles of film and audio recordings;
Over 800 pounds of moon rocks and linar soil samples;
Telemetry, radio communications and long range observations of the Apollo lunar flights by astronomers around the world.
There really is NO Proof that we didn't land on the Moon, except Bart Serbel's hearsay and other misguided opinions.
Robert M
Great, where's the original video so we can subject it to analysis using modern machine learning techniques? The design documents for the module and lander?
Didn't NASA admit to losing those?
The biggest proof of fakery though, is Buzz's own statements, once to the assembled throng in the Oxford Union, in the UK.
All the brainwashed students were salivating over the Presence of the Great Man in their midst, and asked him what was the "greatest moment" etc etc - to which he replied, "We never went."
Kind of demolishes the whole thing.
Only a compete idiot would believe any of the nonsense.
Bart, of course, went way further than "hearsay" in his exposure of the fakery.
He showed the boys putting cardboard over the windows of the vehicle - whatever it was, ( I suspect a balloon plus suspended capsule ) so as to generate an impression of the terminator line on earth between day and night.
"A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" describes the whole thing.
Hello, Matt,
Thank you for your comment.... That is my question too.
I think that Buzz is subconciously trying to remember, which may be why he posted the photo
on his Twiter account.
It is my hope that my article and the enhanced images will jog his memory.
Best Regards,
Robert M
The author has a great imagination! All I see is rocks.
What was your mark in Geometry in High School?
M
Buzz of course has said 3 times, "We never went."
Still people believe the hokum, though.
Total nonsense. The photo look absolutely nothing like crash debris....
LOL ...
How many crashes have you been in?
Seriously, -> What was your mark in Geometry in high school?
M
This story is very interesting and important to me as Buzz Aldrin was a frequent visitor to the Dunes Hotel, in Las Vegas in the 1970s, after the Moon Landing. He gave me a specially minted “coin” that contained material that was on the moon. The coin was in my possession until my first wife and I divorced after a short marriage. Some of my cherished possessions “disappeared mysteriously” during this challenging time-line in my life.
sorry geno, marriages can produce a variety of strange portals
Hello, Geno,
Thank you for your comment.
We have found the original and 4 others of the area in the Apollo Mission Archives.
It was taken by Neil Armstrong (not Buzz Aldrin) and I've been told by a scientist with NASA that Armstrong "broke the rules" going beyond the allowed perimeter to go to gaze at the pile and that he took 5 photos, panning from left to right.
The other view clearly shows a white 5-pointed star on the pile of debris.
I'm working on a follow-up article.
Regards,
Robert