Uh, I think you have some errors there. Stuart Roosa was the command module pilot for Apollo-14 and so he would not have been operating the camera on the lunar surface. So either he’s relating a story of the other astronauts or something or it’s attributed to the wrong astronaut.

In any case, his death was not mysterious. He died at 61, which was a bit young, but it was due to pancreatitis. It’s unfortunate that he didn’t have longer life because of the condition, but not mysterious. Alan Sheperd lived to his 70’s and died of leukemia in the late 1990’s – again, not really mysterious. Edgar Mitchell is the other astronaut to land on the moon during Apollo-14 and still is very much alive.

He’s also gotten pretty nutty with his age. He never claimed Apollo-14 was a hoax, but he has been nutty about some other things, like an interest in “remote healing” and some statements about UFO’s.

In any case, the quote you posted, regardless of who may have said it, is very clearly a reference to the Apollo-12 camera incident and the fact that subsequently, the crew was careful because they didn’t want to make the same mistake. Chuck P beat me to it, but if you actually know the first thing about the Apollo program you’d see straight through that.

After Apollo-12, they made a few changes in the cameras. The same camera type was flown again, but they included a lens cap that could be easily placed on it if needed. Apollo 13 and 14 also carried the Westinghouse Lunar Camera, the same one used on Apollo-11. It was a backup and never used during the mission, but after Apollo-12, they didn’t want to take chances of having no video again.

        NotFooled said:

…”We had basically the same camera as 12 had used and we were very careful with it. Nobody wanted to inadvertently point it somewhere you didn’t want it pointed, which could even just be a reflection that you might not notice, so when we moved the camera, we were very aware of how we moved it, and when handling it, just tried to keep it pointed right at the ground to be safe.”

Does that seem suspicious? What is he afraid of?

The camera would give it all away if someone moved it wrong and it showed the lights or the backdrop, so they pointed it at the ground.

Apollo-14 seems the rosetta stone of the apollo trickery, because it is the only apollo project that both of three men who said they went to the moon are now dead.

There are clues that they were both having trouble keeping the seceret to themselves.

He’s talking about not pointing the camera at the sun you jackass. On Apollo 12, the video camera was acedently pointed at the sun and it ruined the camera only a few minutes into the first EVA. He doesn’t want the same thing to happen on the next landing. If you’re interested in actually learning something about it you can read the transcript:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12.html
This is really the best you comlud come up with? How much time did you waste finding this “rosetta stone?”

One person I know found that an astronaut slipped up and said some things he should not have in an interview. He found the words in a book in a library and here they are.

Stuart Roosa ws the name of an astronaut who died mysteriously when he was only 61 years old, which seems a bit suspicious because he also said some things that ended up being printed that he could not take back.

“We had basically the same camera as 12 had used and we were very careful with it. Nobody wanted to inadvertently point it somewhere you didn’t want it pointed, which could even just be a reflection that you might not notice, so when we moved the camera, we were very aware of how we moved it, and when handling it, just tried to keep it pointed right at the ground to be safe.”

Does that seem suspicious? What is he afraid of? The camera would give it all away if someone moved it wrong and it showed the lights or the backdrop, so they pointed it at the ground.

Apollo-14 seems the rosetta stone of the apollo trickery, because it is the only apollo project that both of three men who said they went to the moon are now dead. There are clues that they were both having trouble keeping the seceret to themselves.

        Finrod said:

So OBH, are satellites real, or are they fake?

Of course they are! And furthermore, every person who owns a satellite dish and set top TV box is either being paid off to lie and say that it does work at receiving tv from space or they might have a box that is full of video tape and simulates live television, somehow doing so for many years.

This is proof, the conspiracy is ENORMOUS!

How much is a sham is the big question. Once you find someone is cheating you then have to find out how much they are cheating and I don’t know yet. We need to keep digging. No man ever walked on the moon 100% sure. Did they really send robots to mars? Maybe maybe not. They’re special effects are probably better now.

Keep digging and keep demanding accountability. We peal the layers off the onion. You know what it will take though, is not just a few who ask the hard questions. We need to start getting everyone to see the light and demand the answers. What I want is them to come clean and admit it. Admit that they fooled us with the moon, but I want them to come totally clean. I want them to say where the studio was and how they did all the effects and whose decision it was to do it.

I bet there is a lot of dirty laundry. The best explanation why others didn’t call NASa is that they have their own dirty secrets and would get outed just as bad. Governments all lie. I bet you’d believe the Russians lied, right? Well, they probably did too. NASA is the biggest liar of all the the moon mission is the biggest lie, but there are other lies.

Don’t believe anything they say until the day they come clean about the whole thing and that will not happen until finally everyone waks up and demands it. I think they will some day, because the facts are too great for everyone to ignore forever. I bet they will wait much longer years though, because anyone who was involved could go to jail, so when the astronauts from it and the others involved in the tricks are all dead, then maybe the people working there might feel freedom to tell it like it is and maybe they’ll feel tired of living a lie that their previous people made for them.

        Oh Bloody Hell said:

I tried, but all the people here are just sheep bought into the government propaganda and will defend it no matter how much you try to make them see the very obvious truth and the evidence for it. It’s sad. You all are such apologists and so desperate to believe your government loves you and is nothing but good and honest. Every point you have some apologist kind of statement to respond to and you’re just so blind.

You say you can calculate it all out to prove that it is real with the numbers? HA! That only proves it could have been done if they had the equipment to do it (DUH!) Which they SAY they did, but did they?

They still don’t have it now, so it seems they did not, huh? If you think you can prove it with math, then go ahead and do it and go prove it with math. Stop talking about proof and start showing it.

Oh, that’s right you can’t!

You’re such stupid sheep. Walk through life with eyes closed. Uncle Sam loves you and will always be good to you! Uncle Sam will not lie!

OBH, would you indulge us in outlining which parts of the various space programs of the world you consider to be valid, and which parts have been faked? Is it just the US which has faked major space programs, or have other nations done it as well? If other nations have also done this, which programs or missions have been faked? If it is only the US, is it only Apollo we need be suspicious of, or did the fraud extend to other programs/projects as well?

What are the limits of the grand conspiricy? Where does the border of reliable information lay? Are satellites real? What about Viking, Voyager, Cassini, Magellen? How trustworthy is the data from the Mars Exploration rovers? Where do you see the boundaries of the fraud delineated?

You say you can calculate it all out to prove that it is real with the numbers? HA! That only proves it could have been done if they had the equipment to do it (DUH!) Which they SAY they did, but did they? They still don’t have it now, so it seems they did not, huh? If you think you can prove it with math, then go ahead and do it and go prove it with math. Stop talking about proof and start showing it.

Oh, that’s right you can’t! You’re such stupid sheep. Walk through life with eyes closed. Uncle Sam loves you and will always be good to you! Uncle Sam will not lie!

        Oh Bloody Hell said:

It could clearly do it? How do you know this?
Sure, it could do it if you believe NASA’s numbers and everything else they say.
Do you actually know it could do what they said it could do?

No, you just assume it.

No, you don’t have to assume anything. You can do all the math yourself. Lets take the question of sending a spacecraft to the moon. You calculate the weight of the lander and command module and then you figure out a straight forward problem from a Newtonian perspective: what does it take to send these spacecraft into orbit of the moon? How much force, energy etc will be needed?

You can figure that out and then apply it to a rocket. You would need a multistage rocket, and you need to figure out how big, based on some constants. You know the mass of hydrogen and oxygen and kerosene, those were the fuels of the Saturn-V. You can look up the numbers for the energy content of those fuels and figure out the weight of a tank large enough to hold them and work it all out to determine roughly how large a rocket is required.

Guess what: The Saturn V turns out to be the right size to have enough fuel and enough power to do it. In fact, you’ll find it’s a little larger than the minimum needed, because they had to have some reserve in case they needed a course correction or even if one of the engines failed, they could continue the mission.

You can work the whole thing out. Actually, it would be a great problem to assign a college level physics class. If you refuse to take NASA’s word for anything, you can derive the whole goddamned thing out by using the geometry of the rocket and the weight of aluminum to figure how much it weighed. You can use the engine dimensions and fuel flow rate and combine that with the mass of hydrogen and get an approximation of the LSP.

All of it checks out.

Now you can turn around and do this for every part of the system. Like, for example, the lunar module. You can figure out how much energy and what kind of forcce application is needed to decelerate from lunar orbit to touch down on the moon. Did the descent stage have enough fuel and have enough power to do this? Yes, it did. How about the ascent stage? How much would it take to lunar orbit to meet the CSM? Yes, it would have had enough. Did the CSM have the necessary power to put it back into an earth return orbit? Yep.

You can do this for all parts of the system and determine if it is possible that a spacecraft of the dimensions and masses that NASA said could have done it. Guess what, it could have and it did!

Going to the moon is technically complex because of all the support and subsystems from communications to life support, but NOTHING IS TECHNICALLY UNDOABLE. Even with 1960’s technology. What you need is a really big rocket and a suitable space capsule and a suitable lander. You know what? Nasa had those, so why the hell not go to the moon???

Google the words “honeysuckle creek” The trackers on the missions were not just idiots who pushed a button, they were real top notch and the equipment was not as automated as you might think. They operated everything and much of it was done manually. There’s no way they could have been faked by a hidden video tape player or something like that.

Seriously, read the pages on honeysuckle creek. It is fascinating.

The big superpower in the world that the US was concerned about was the Soviet Union. One of the biggest concerns was that it would come to dominate Europe. The Soviets had puppet governments all the way to East the UK or even a just made a few small gains, that would be horrible. That would mean they would have gotten more power and come to dominate the world. The US would have been left almost standing alone against the Soviets. The big concern was “containment” meaning, keeping their influence from spreading.

The US had a problem: A big ocean is in the way of direct access to the area. The UK was CRITICAL. It was the most important ally of the US in the Cold War, the second most powerful single member of NATO, the most friendly and closely allied country in Europe. The UK was vital to air power, to signals intelligence, to diplomacy. If the US and the UK had become unfriendly, the concequences would have been a complete collapse of NATO. If NATO failed, that would shifted power completely to the Warsaw Pact.

There is NO WAY the US would have done something so foolish during the height of the Cold War. NO WAY!

Of course, there’s something here that just doesn’t make sense – if the conspiracy theorists claim that the video was pre-recorded and edited in a studio (and it certainly could not have been live if, as they claim, portions are slowed down), then why would such errors or misstatements be in the final cut? You don’t see actors mess up lines and fall out of character in movies. It’s not that they *don’t* do that from time to time, it’s that those takes are not used. And yet NASA allows this to be in their videos?