but again, it makes sense that there was a long NDA.

and it "makes sense" that Kubrik was murdered 3 days after this interview. 2015-12-13 12:49 GMT+02:00 Zenaan Harkness :

On 12/13/15, Александр wrote:

...

*Stanley Kubrick Confesses To Faking The Moon Landings*

A stunning new video has emerged 15 years after Stanley Kubrick’s death in which Kubrick allegedly admits that the NASA moon landings were faked.

Given that the Russians have in the last year or so announced they are now planning for a real, as in actual, moon landing around 2030,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3344818/Russia-conquer-moon-2... https://www.rt.com/news/157800-russia-moon-colonization-plan/

http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-announces-first-manned-mission-to-moon...

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/6769/20140511/russia-wants-to-set-up-moon-...

it is perhaps timely that Kubrick's interview was released earlier this year after the NDA expiry.

Thanks for posting that interview - really appreciated and I had not seen it before, but again, it makes sense that there was a long NDA.

Regards, Zenaan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/13/2015 11:53 AM, Veg wrote:

http://blackbag.gawker.com/did-stanley-kubrick-fake-this-video-of- stanley-kubrick-1747558774

OK

I'll bite. Just a couple of questions for starters: They call for speculation, but that seems to be OK in our present context since the position they challenge is itself based on speculation. How is it possible that the Soviet Union did not detect and expose the moon landing hoaxes (there were six successful Apollo missions to the Moon)? How is it possible that simulating the Apollo missions could be less expensive, or in any other way more desirable, than actually doing them? How is it possible that /no/ credible evidence that the Apollo program was a hoax has surfaced by now? All I have seen is speculation, elevated to "evidence" in the eyes of some beholders by confirmation bias. Example: No dust on the faceplate in a very famous photo of an astronaut on the moon. This widely distributed "proof" of a moon landing hoax falls flat when placed in its native context: The propaganda extravaganza around the Apollo program produced and published /lots/ of high quality graphics. Time Magazine used all the photos they really liked, without referencing which were taken in training environments vs. on the Moon OR hesitating to extensively retouch the "real" pictures for maximum artistic quality . :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWbd0VAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0LYO8P/149JrPiCQjb9Bnr6icPKBeG DNwAQcmXZggabtLn2H42Q2tWfyZBgZjexYIFXz24k4VUaGFFoZijF4zJ34Cv8Up/ S939sypS0y51jhTrB8n21IvsoedP7SAWoDTZOpTPAvfHMqfvp5tJDt94qswTtkp3 hhh/xamfDOQpnn0jf+23kjpe0GHtm6dv1aLcYG9zxh2m3+SPSDmNVtVrZTx737Ky pUKgEAA3rGlC/42+xN7rPE0SlTue9PS2dlNOve3xM4mkvx+8WzTL7EBToOSrn2ze pMNP/VdI+OQYxrKpiZUKvVytjoGCNpNrNRLsoLQGeDx17+51IBMqh+hUW3h0vSf1 kmdECgm39EhEyda0BB2Wep9/O7E9JjX6wTTHus1eKkdIuLDomDd5aNcWFm7tpfAi UCzBxBQS1izYG9rg8FBkA4lTFw4XCfwvg4XRbZ3J2lwoddEl2fcoTJQstFgXhqh0 uY9IbNXisrBDrrP+m5sDCOLR/iMfuruX0PuRGKECKfjJcQ9tvCfPOg94YCsDtHaG A9sLmOc7qmXYGw9/N1NBHE5UOHi+2qlHdC2kyMv8XcDkJPx9cQZSkmXm5dK3gGZs tyRGJ26laVQZuwKhxLPAzN+8eOQLjQnQzLos8GDR/vBc2a3tOYVFib6K2aXr6SF3 JfNqb2i49Izq4OFjKXBH =fkgY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Dnia niedziela, 13 grudnia 2015 16:03:20 Steve Kinney pisze:

How is it possible that the Soviet Union did not detect and expose the moon landing hoaxes (there were six successful Apollo missions to the Moon)?

Well, because they were not hoaxes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs I really like this video. So much so that I do tend to take the bait when I have the chance to use it. :) -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147

On 12/14/15, jim bell wrote:

One ostensible 'disproof' of the moon landing was the claim that the video camera didn't show any stars in the moon's sky. However, the scenery seen in those shots (lunar soil; equipment; astronauts) was extremely bright, somewhat like a beach in full sunlight. The contrast ratios of (non-silicon) video pickup tubes in that era were not wide, meaning that any star in the sky (other than the sun) couldn't be visible AND show the backgrounds too.

Perhaps we can encourage the Russkies in their 2030 moon landing, to take up the same cameras that were (supposedly) used to take those shots, and re-take those shots. You know, to finally get an indisputable definitive answer, since a photo would, you know, provide that and all... :) Z

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:56:08 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Kinney To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 1:03 PM Subject: Re: The USA Fake Of The Moon Landings

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On 12/13/2015 11:53 AM, Veg wrote:

...

http://blackbag.gawker.com/did-stanley-kubrick-fake-this-video-of- stanley-kubrick-1747558774

...

Example: No dust on the faceplate in a very famous photo of an astronaut on the moon. This widely distributed "proof" of a moon landing hoax falls flat when placed in its native context: The propaganda extravaganza around the Apollo program produced and published /lots/ of high quality graphics. Time Magazine used all the photos they really liked, without referencing which were taken in training environments vs. on the Moon OR hesitating to extensively retouch the "real" pictures for maximum artistic quality

One ostensible 'disproof' of the moon landing was the claim that the video camera didn't show any stars in the moon's sky. However, the scenery seen in those shots (lunar soil; equipment; astronauts) was extremely bright, somewhat like a beach in full sunlight. The contrast ratios of (non-silicon) video pickup tubes

I think the objection is that the stars are missing on ordinary pictures shot using ordinary (super amazing military grade) film.

in that era were not wide, meaning that any star in the sky (other than the sun) couldn't be visible AND show the backgrounds too. Jim Bell

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:19:13 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

----- Original Message ----- From: juan To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org Cc: jim bell Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2015 11:14 PM Subject: Re: The USA Fake Of The Moon Landings

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 05:56:08 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote: [clipped]

...

One ostensible 'disproof' of the moon landing was the claim that the video camera didn't show any stars in the moon's sky. However, the scenery seen in those shots (lunar soil; equipment; astronauts) was extremely bright, somewhat like a beach in full sunlight. The contrast ratios of (non-silicon) video pickup tubes

...

I think the objection is that the stars are missing on ordinary pictures shot using ordinary (super amazing military grade) film.

Again, not surprising. Take a picture of a (non-sun) star, with a small-lens camera (under 50 inch objective) and that star should appear as a point source of light, if the camera is well-focussed. Even then, the amount of light hitting that analog "pixel" is probably vastly lower than a camera aiming at a nearby surface illuminated by earth's Sun, as would be seen on the Moon by an astronaut taking a picture.

Oh, ok. So in principle the stars were underexposed to the point of not showing up on film. On the other hand, if you point a camera at the sky, on the moon, during the lunar night, shouldn't you be able to get...something? What about radar resolution? Is it possible to track a 5 x 5 x 5 m object from a distance of 350,000 kilometers?

http://petapixel.com/2015/05/26/film-vs-digital-a-comparison-of-the-advantag... "A release by Kodak showcased that most film has around 13 stops of dynamic range." That's a factor of about 8000. Jim Bell

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 20:00:37 +0000 (UTC) jim bell wrote:

But if you open up the aperture (a variable-diameter shutter designed to allow more, or less, area for light to come in and expose the film), and perhaps if you increased the shutter-speed from, say, 1/1000 second to maybe 10 seconds (and putting the camera on a tripod to ensure it doesn't move), THEN you will be able to photograph stars.

Truth is I used to take pictures and print/develop them...a long time ago (I still have some b/w paper lying around). I partially overlooked the exposure time issue because I was assuming that the fact that the moon has no atmosphere somehow made a substantial difference. Anyway, the moon pictures that had people or landscapes in them can't show the stars, but it is still possible to take pictures of the stars from the moon, with a little care. Are there any such pictures from the 60s? (then again, pictures of a starry sky wouldn't prove that there were any people on the moon...)

...

What about radar resolution? Is it possible to track a 5 x 5 x 5 m object from a distance of 350,000 kilometers?

That should be easy. And it would be far easier if built onto that object are some microwave-sized "corner cubes reflectors" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector ,

Yes, interesting objects. I knew that cat's eyes have that property. So putting corner reflectors on an object makes it easier to track it, but it doesn't say anything about how easy it is in absolute terms? A search for "apollo corner reflectors radar" doesn't bring anything as far as I can see. Only references to optical reflectors on the moon.

which have the peculiar property of sending radar (or light, etc) directly back in the direction from which it came. Optical corner-cubes are easy to find: They are on the backs of cars, and are used as visual retroreflectors on roads. They are much better than Scotchlite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflective_sheeting , which is made from tiny glass spheres. Jim Bell

...

http://petapixel.com/2015/05/26/film-vs-digital-a-comparison-of-the-advantag... "A release by Kodak showcased that most film has around 13 stops of dynamic range." That's a factor of about 8000. Jim Bell

http://www.naic.edu/~pradar/2014HQ124/

On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:03:14 -0500 Steve Kinney wrote:

...

...

A couple of answers below, although I don't have a strong either for or against the fake hypothesis, oh sorry, 'nutcase' 'conspiracy' 'theory'.

It does approach that. One of the proofs offered by Beleivers is that it is impossible for human beings to pass through the Van Allen belts and live. Because they have been called "radiation" belts and as we all know, radiation is deadly.

Well, radiation certainly *can* be deadly. For instance, if you were to stand near an ordinary wood fire long enough you could easily get burns caused by *infrared radiation* that would kill you in, say, hours. Not a nice death either. Notice that the heat is being transferred by radiation, not direct contact/conduction. Regarding the moon trips, random 'mainstream' source : "There was no shortage of threats facing Apollo astronauts on missions to the Moon. Like radiation. Specifically, the dense radiation environment of the Van Allen belts. NASA...had studied the “Van Allen problem” as it were, knew the risks, and made the decision to go anyway. http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van... Seems to me that asking about radiation is rather sensible whereas dismissing people who ask as not-so-well-educated 'conspiracy theorists' isn't.

...

They call for speculation, but that seems to be OK in our present context since the position they challenge is itself based on speculation.

How is it possible that the Soviet Union did not detect

...

I don't know the technical details. Could radar track the the landing of a small object on the moon in 1960? Can it even do it now?

1969 and later, actually. :D

Oh, ok. I thoguht the first landing was a bit a earlier. Anyway, so far nobody has provided much detail about radar resolution. Yes, voice comms were allegedly followed, yes, you can bounce microwaves off the moon. I freely admit that my knowledge of em theory is lacking so I wouldn't mind more information to go from "bounce radio off the moon" (big object) to realtime tracking of a small object on the moon, and without any fancy 'dsp' microelectronics.

Not my field, but I do know that ham radio operators using /very/ directional high gain antennas followed the missions from Earth orbit to the surface of the Moon, listening to and recording voice and telemetry signals.

But that's not the same thing as getting an accurate position?

The cost of sending transmitters to the Moon, and maintaining a constant stream of 100% believable signals all the way there and back, would have been quite staggering. The odds of this unlikely mission failing would have approached 100% over the course of six missions.

Cheaper to build and launch a series of Saturn V launch vehicles with LEMs and command modules on top, than to just go ahead and send them all the way? At minimum it would cost the same as doing the program for real.

I never said nor suggested that everything was fake. Just as an hypothesis, the fake part may be the landings, or some of them. If the landings were technically impossible at that time, or at least the first one(s), then they had to be faked.

Also consider that part of the price of simulating an Apollo program would have been the cost of maintaining the illusion from beginning to end, under the watchful eyes of thousands of engineers who thoroughly understood the systems they were working on, documented everything they did in minute detail, and distributed that documentation to other equally well informed engineers working on related systems? It would have cost much more to fake the program than to actually do it.

Well, that's where we certainly differ. You seem to be conveniently overlooking all the incentives all the state parasites and nationalists have to lie.

Not to mention the 100% risk of exposure, since /one/ error in the deception would have resulted in a chain reaction leaving the whole deception exposed to dozens, then hundreds, then thousands of very smart, very committed, very pissed off people. Even the Soviets could not have kept a lid on something like that.

I don't know. That sounds like unfounded 'anti cospiracy' 'theory' based on the dogma/irrational belief that secrets can't be kept.

:o)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJWcZlPAAoJEDZ0Gg87KR0Lz/0QAIoG2jup3LbCyojVaNcV3FkD yahR7QVe2qha9cqBzN3gYAZMOQKUzV7rTNnfG2wsJ5Sh8uggeW+2tgirJlvyzzbp ulBprjryA82oTql7ljPo9Ivx6qqh9ZlLhglpS0yG9lvQAWI/srpzv5sTw5c3ZAIS f90JekmZRJ5ySDKpPDDSkE3UFeYw/wPqCH3Ph9047D8yd9Ua4Rb3+6z16wX375Ma e53a1PmHghm9MuLHwAhqHGjzhX43/TsJcRNMvc8+ONJX6ZAoHhsKtKC+3bLYZqa1 uRbxoSc8AIh6NlK9zkzdUj6KA+hVUC10Y1xMxDNk76EjzZMnX0jA6/CTULpN7Ql2 eALFkOsARlmM/0JNBPggtv0MQA+Gb3D8f97UkZgbHKb27SxMJMKPjAMuLExBQzX7 Rl1gParXVZGL4eER840zg8a5fqV+nePoW+k7vhzcjzCNrqzsu/3yMOme/V7UhwoR wsrPWot5xFxIFqVrz+QZwyPonr6raFa3h+3SC/0DPKYObbgNovxs4tvfVYFce6b+ X/V7TuzO74HhyJe73qgJN4bY5cDEXvFYEjFIKEn+PV4WpEg91Xn2R2Z5/EaoZxdM UR5VSF5s/EQ1m4MlOvxZxzX/1xfL1KvZXtcNTwk8shoGsZ4m4I51x3zPfK/IWqDs 96+c5d+n6qH5xfzHKanF =J2Fn -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 12/18/15, David I. Emery wrote:

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 05:50:01PM -0300, juan wrote:

...

On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:03:14 -0500 Oh, ok. I thoguht the first landing was a bit a earlier. Anyway, so far nobody has provided much detail about radar resolution. Yes, voice comms were allegedly followed, yes, you can bounce microwaves off the moon. I freely admit that my knowledge of em theory is lacking so I wouldn't mind more information to go from "bounce radio off the moon" (big object) to realtime tracking of a small object on the moon, and without any fancy 'dsp' microelectronics.

It is insanity to reply to this, but then I am quite certifiably insane...

Observers saw and timed the osculation of the radio signals from the spacecraft in lunar orbit by the moon, saw correct Doppler for the geometry involved from THEIR site (and correct timing for osculation)... and saw the coherence of the signal consistent with a direct transmission and not scattering from the moons rough surface (which creates a considerable smearing of a wideband signal such as the Unified S band telemetry/voice signals (and especially the video) due to the path length (and thus delay) differences from all the random reflecting points.

And during the journey to the moon and back from the moon the angles (and Doppler) observed when the highly directional ground antennas were pointed for maximum signal corresponded to those predicted from the the path of the spacecraft and not the reflective moon - which eventually was not even close to being inside the beamwidth of the antennas used.

To simulate all of this realistically for tracking sites in multiple continents would have required actually sending dummy spacecraft to carry out the maneuvers and emit the "fake" signals.

And if it isn't obvious, not only did private hams follow radio signals from these missions, but so did various professional intelligence and radio (and optical) astronomy sites, some with substantial dish antennas and sophisticated gear. Many of these folks (some obviously not friendly to the USA) would have to have been very well fooled - or in on the game - not to have called our bluff.

Sounds very impressive science - is this documented somewhere, like some old magazine, so we can get someone to find a copy and scan it in for the world to see - something with empirical doppler calculations/ verifications for example? Zenaan

Dnia piątek, 18 grudnia 2015 00:45:15 David I. Emery pisze:

And if it isn't obvious, not only did private hams follow radio signals from these missions, but so did various professional intelligence and radio (and optical) astronomy sites, some with substantial dish antennas and sophisticated gear. Many of these folks (some obviously not friendly to the USA) would have to have been very well fooled - or in on the game - not to have called our bluff.

But don't you understand -- they're all REPTILIANS! Shape-shifting reptilians! They're in cahoots to kill and eat us, and steal our precious precious gold! That's why the governments cooperate even though it would seem they should not. That's why BitCoin happened -- it wasn't "Satoshi", it was R&D (Reptilianism and Discordia) labs of cooperating governments, creating a shiny gimmick to take over as value store from gold, so that they could steal it all! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!1! They are spraying us with chemtrails, they are stupifying us with adding fluorine to water, they are using mind control rays on us -- they call it "radio links", "WiFi" (WIreless FluorIde!), "bluetooth" (obvious link to fluoride and teeth, putting that poison in our children's mouths is not enough anymore), "streetlights"! Why is there push for the new, more complicated lightbulbs? MIND CONTROL, that's why. My wolfram filament works just fine, thak you very much! Go, look it up![1] The "global warming" stuff? All bollocks, a way to make us suffer, a way to keep us from building an intergalactic fleet that could defend us from MORE REPTILIANS! THANKS, PUTINBAMA! While we're taking about Obama (if that is his real name!), notice how they changed the name of where the military is housed? BARRACKS! That's a level of self-agrandeurising! FIRST STEP FOR DICTATORSHIP! Along with "Obamacare" (notice a naming pattern?), which is there to put even MORE fluride in everything! Want proof that Putin is in there by the way? Easy -- he was trying to be tough on "crime", and guess what happened aroud Sevastopol. ONLY A REPTILIAN WOULD MAKE SUCH A DUMB MISTAKE! Vladimir Reptilianovich! Y O U C A N ' T P R O V E I T ' S N O T S O ! ! ! And the only thing stopping them is Zenaan and Juan, and Александр! Oh, how lucky we are that the Three Musketeers of the Reptilian Revolution are all on this list! And they are TRYING to help you see the light! Why don't you see the light? Now we just need a D'Artagnan, and the POEPHECY[2] will COME TRUE about the four that bring balance back to the Internets. Cari, I am looking at you! We need a First Nations D'Artagnan, as judging by the names the Indian, Spanish, and Russian speaking parts of the world are covered by The Three. [1] http://ow.ly/W3Zrr [2] http://ow.ly/W3ZeJ /pasting shortened URLs so that ADMINS of this LIST won't CENSOR!!1!/ -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:02 AM, rysiek wrote:

Y O U C A N ' T P R O V E I T ' S N O T S O ! ! !

YOU CAN'T PROVE IT'S NOT NOT SO!!?! Now pass the spliff..

Jason McVetta wrote:

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 1:02 AM, rysiek mailto:rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:

Y O U C A N ' T P R O V E I T ' S N O T S O ! ! !

YOU CAN'T PROVE IT'S NOT NOT SO!!?!

Now pass the spliff..

No bogarting either... -- RR "You might want to ask an expert about that - I just fiddled around with mine until it worked..."

rysiek wrote:

But don't you understand -- they're all REPTILIANS! Shape-shifting reptilians! They're in cahoots to kill and eat us, and steal our precious precious gold!

My dad was working for NASA during the Apollo missions. Simply, anyone who doesn't think Armstong walked on the moon is a nutjob. One of the things my dad bequeathed me was an Omega "Moon Watch"... at least that's the way Omega advertised them. What was unique about the one I had vs the advertised store variety was the fact that it was an old fashioned wind-up, as opposed to the retail version, a self-winder. Why the difference? As my dad put it "We didn't know if a self-winder would work in zero-gravity", and they weren't willing to take the risk. If the moon landing was a hoax, it was such an intricate one it would have cost more to execute then actually landing someone on the moon. -- RR "You might want to ask an expert about that - I just fiddled around with mine until it worked..."

On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:02:51 +0100 rysiek wrote:

But don't you understand -- they're all REPTILIANS! Shape-shifting reptilians! They're in cahoots to kill and eat us, and steal our precious precious gold!

Yeah. But at least they provide ample funding for 'non' government organizations pretending to 'fight' for 'privacy' eh.

That's why the governments cooperate even though it would seem they should not.

Why shouldn't governments cooperate? Wait rysiek, are you seriously mocking people who know that governments are criminal organizations that exist for the benefit of the criminal organization, not the subjects? And given the above fact, why shouldnt diferent nation states cooperate to better opress their subjects? Do you have any clue about the history of 'international' european monarchies? Ever looked at the history book? How bad was your brainwashing in your little public school? Ah no. Nation states don't cooperate and there isn't a single example of international bureaucracy out there. As to the rest of your stupid rant...well, you keep showing your true colors.

On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 00:45:15 -0500 "David I. Emery" wrote:

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 05:50:01PM -0300, juan wrote:

...

On Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:03:14 -0500 Oh, ok. I thoguht the first landing was a bit a earlier. Anyway, so far nobody has provided much detail about radar resolution. Yes, voice comms were allegedly followed, yes, you can bounce microwaves off the moon. I freely admit that my knowledge of em theory is lacking so I wouldn't mind more information to go from "bounce radio off the moon" (big object) to realtime tracking of a small object on the moon, and without any fancy 'dsp' microelectronics.

It is insanity to reply to this, but then I am quite certifiably insane...

So there's no reason to pay attention to what you say? =)

Observers saw and timed the osculation of the radio signals from the spacecraft in lunar orbit by the moon, saw correct Doppler for the geometry involved from THEIR site (and correct timing for osculation)... and saw the coherence of the signal consistent with a direct transmission and not scattering from the moons rough surface

I know my command of the english language is far from perfect, so maybe that's why you misunderstood what I said. I'm asking if the moon *landing* was tracked using radar 'illuminating' the target from the earth. I realize that signals *directly* transmitted by transmitters on an object can be used to track the object, but that isn't strictly speaking radar is it? I also can ask : when relying only on triangulation and doppler measurements, what kind of *resolution* do you get? How can you tell if the object actually landed on the moon?

(which creates a considerable smearing of a wideband signal such as the Unified S band telemetry/voice signals (and especially the video) due to the path length (and thus delay) differences from all the random reflecting points.

And during the journey to the moon and back from the moon the angles (and Doppler) observed when the highly directional ground antennas were pointed for maximum signal corresponded to those predicted from the the path of the spacecraft and not the reflective moon

Like I said, you misunderstood. I didn't mean that the signals received on earth were somehow all just reflections from the moon. That would be absurd.

- which eventually was not even close to being inside the beamwidth of the antennas used.

To simulate all of this realistically for tracking sites in multiple continents would have required actually sending dummy spacecraft to carry out the maneuvers and emit the "fake" signals.

Again, you don't seem to be following what I'm saying. I didn't mean that the whole thing was fake.

And if it isn't obvious, not only did private hams follow radio signals from these missions,

That's historical data. It isn't 'obvious' to me at all. Your hams may have had first hand access to the evidence bu the direct evidence isn't available today. At best there is some kind of record of it.

but so did various professional intelligence and radio (and optical) astronomy sites, some with substantial dish antennas and sophisticated gear. Many of these folks (some obviously not friendly to the USA) would have to have been very well fooled - or in on the game - not to have called our bluff.

On December 19, 2015 6:38:31 PM dan@geer.org wrote:

horseshit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

--dan

The sentiment and the subject of the link are the best responses I've seen to this nonsense. -S

On 12/20/15, dan@geer.org wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment --dan

Now -that's- compelling. Thanks heaps, Z