To...................................ol! Soon.

I just love those 4 mile to swing on the spiral of our divinity.

To...................................ol! Soon.

Crisis? What Chrisis?

The Easter Egg Machine is working overtime. The pieces fit. Is there concenses?

After the moneymakers are having their vacation and
reading their yearly bible-piece, they are......weeping?
Because there are so many and many and many
beautiful people. Having drinks, having interesting talks, having peace and laughs and....s.

O no, my lovely grandchildren and...children... o no, they are just like them.....
and
and
oh, my God,
a dollar could choke my breath.

Or not.

Easter on earth somewhere in the future.
(There are some camels around.
Wouef, ... they smell.)




________________________________________
We will fight the machine, we will never surrender - QBit

Moon landing hoax or reality?

Area 51?


On all Apollo footage there should be cross hairs or reticules present on the film. These crosshairs were,
according to NASA, placed on the film to help calculate distances on the Moon. The crosshairs were actually built into the camera and therefore should be visible on every single picture taken by the astronauts on the surface of the Moon. Incidentally, Jan Lundberg has stated that the only way that you could calculate the distance in the shot using the crosshairs would be if you had two cameras set up to take a stereo picture!


Take a look at the pictures presented here and you will see that parts of the crosshairs have disappeared from the film. This is impossible unless the film has been tampered with. The crosshairs should be completely visible in all shots and not hidden behind objects in the pictures. The only solution must be that NASA has gone to the trouble of either airbrushing out certain objects in the film, or added them over the crosshairs!


Why does this rock have a letter 'C' on it? There is also a 'C' on the ground in front of the rock. The use of the letter C on film props is well known by the people in Hollywood and is used to show where the centre of the scene should be.
One sceptic on the Bad astronomy skeptics web group has even said it is a hair??? on both the rock and ground? Now who's trying to cover things up?



Some of the lighting on 'official NASA film' are very suspect. The NASA picture to the left should show the astronaut in complete shadow because the sun is behind him, and yet the whole of the astronaut is caught in bright light?


Shadows do not appear to be correct on several of the Moon shots. Take the picture to the left for example. The shadow on the LEM is due East and yet the shadows on the rocks in the foreground are South East?


Lets move onto the famous picture of Buzz Aldrin that shows the LEM, Neil Armstrong and landing site in the reflection of his visor. One of the strange things with this picture is that the reticule that is supposed to be in the middle of the picture actually shows up at the bottom of Aldrin's right leg? How can this be when the camera is attached to the cameraman's chest??? A fact that is easily verifiable by the reflection of the cameraman in the visor.



Many people have speculated that the pictures have been retouched to bring up the detail of the astronauts. But this cannot be applied to the Apollo 11 photographs because a duplicate copy of the original Armstrong film has been analyzed and shows that the pictures are all on one continuous roll of film that contains over 100 images. Even Jan Lundberg from Hasselblad, the makers of the camera, says that the pictures seem as though Armstrong is standing in a spotlight. The only way the reticule could appear in the bottom of the leg is if the picture had been copied and reframed!!!


The horizon is about 89 degrees from the true vertical. Dr Groves has worked out that after analysing the shadows cast by both the astronaut in the picture and the supposed cameraman in the visor, that Armstrong who is taking the picture is standing on ground that is a mere few inches higher than where Aldrin is stood, If this is the case, then it means that whoever took the shot was in fact at least 2 feet higher than Aldrin and therefore means that Armstrong, although visible with the camera in the visor, is not the actual person who took the shot.


We have to remember that the camera used didn't actually have any viewfinder, and the astronauts could not see the whole of the camera that was strapped to their chests due to the restrictions posed by their spacesuits. They had to use their body to point in the rough direction of their subject. The astronauts even had to change the lens whilst stood outside on the lunar surface, wearing their heavy gloves. A feat that is quite hard to believe considering the very awkward pressurized gauntlets that they were wearing. The precaution of changing the film inside the LEM was not adhered to and could have ended in disaster if the film had actually been dropped into the dust on the ground. And what about the exposure to the heat?
It would have been virtually impossible to change the film and adjust the lenses in such apparatus. However in certain films, they do seem to be wearing different gloves that do not seem to be pressurized?


How can we see so much detail on the gold portion of the Lunar Lander in this picture? As is evident by the shadow in front of the module, the Sun is in the background and the gold area should be covered with shadow, not Sunlight? And why does the 'Sun' have a halo around it if the Moon has no atmosphere?


It was a race to the moon between America and Russia.
The Americans won, but still, why didn't Russia ever send a man to the moon until today?

Radiation?

In 2006 NASA wanted to use the original tapes. There were copies on three places on our earth. They are missing untill this day. April 2009


link: http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

The moneymachine is not from Mars

i

Logon :Triple-A clearance :
Project One for all
-all for one ;
password: %j39vjei85kkr
subtitute one and zero
interface
budged from debit to credit:

Rare pink bottlenose dolphin surfaces in Louisiana lake

Albino dolphin first spotted last year in Lake Calcasieu, Louisiana

Pinky, the rare albino dolphin who has been spotted in the lake Calcasieu In Louisiana, USA. Photograph: Captain Erik Rue /Caters News Agency Ltd

A rare pink bottlenose dolphin has been spotted in a Louisiana lake. The albino dolphin has been making a splash with locals and visitors to the area since it was first spotted last year.

The animal has been photographed by local charter boat Captain Erik Rue, 42, who has been studying the dolphin since it first surfaced in Lake Calcasieu, an inland saltwater estuary, north of the Gulf of Mexico in south-west Louisiana. Rue originally saw the rare albino dolphin, which also has reddish eyes, swimming with a pod of four other dolphins.

"I just happened to see a little pod of dolphins, and I noticed one that was a little lighter ... I had never seen anything like it. It's the same colour throughout the whole body," said Rue.

"The dolphin appears to be healthy and normal other than its coloration, which is quite beautiful and stunningly pink," Rue said he had seen the dolphin 40 to 50 times.

"As time has passed the young mammal has grown and sometimes ventures away from its mother to feed and play but always remains in the vicinity of the pod," he said

Regina Asmutis-Silvia, a senior biologist with the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, said: "I have never seen a dolphin coloured in this way in all my career."

"It is a truly beautiful dolphin but people should be careful, as with any dolphins, to respect it - observe from a distance, limit their time watching, don't chase or harass it."

"While this animal looks pink, it is an albino which you can notice in the pink eyes. Albinism is a genetic trait and it unclear as to the type of albinism this animal inherited."

A different dolphin species, the endangered Amazon river boto (Inia geoffrensis), which lives in South America , is sometimes called the pink river dolphin because of its appearance.

• This article was amended on Wednesday 4 March 2009. We previously placed Louisiana in the south-west of the United States. This has been corrected.

The Milky Way Could have Billions of Earths

i
Written by Nicholos Wethington

With the upcoming launch in March of the Kepler mission to find extrasolar planets, there is quite a lot of buzz about the possibility of finding habitable planets outside of our Solar System. Kepler the most recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Chicago, Dr. Alan Boss is quoted by numerous media outlets as saying that there could be billions of Earth-like planets in the Milky Way alone, and that we may find an Earth-like planet orbiting a large proportion of the stars in the Universe.

"There are something like a few dozen solar-type stars within something like 30 light years of the sun, and I would think that a good number of those — perhaps half of them woulwill be the first satellite telescope with the capability to find Earth-size and smaller planets. At d have Earth-like planets. So, I think there's a very good chance that we'll find some Earth-like planets within 10, 20, or 30 light years of the Sun," Dr. Boss said in an AAAS podcast interview.

Dr. Boss is an astronomer at the Carnegie Institution of Washington Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, and is the author of The Crowded Universe, a book on the likelihood of finding life and habitable planets outside of our Solar System.

"Not only are they probably habitable but they probably are also going to be inhabited. But I think that most likely the nearby 'Earths' are going to be inhabited with things which are perhaps more common to what Earth was like three or four billion years ago," Dr. Boss told the BBC. In other words, it's more likely that bacteria-like lifeforms abound, rather than more advanced alien life.

This sort of postulation about the existence of extraterrestrial life (and intelligence) falls under the paradigm of the Drake Equation, named after the astronomer Frank Drake. The Drake Equation incorporates all of the variables one should take into account when trying to calculate the number of technologically advanced civilizations elsewhere in the Universe. Depending on what numbers you put into the equation, the answer ranges from zero to trillions. There is wide speculation about the existence of life elsewhere in the Universe.

To date, the closest thing to an Earth-sized planet discovered outside of our Solar System is CoRoT-Exo-7b, with a diameter of less than twice that of the Earth.

The speculation by Dr. Boss and others will be put to the test later this year when the Kepler satellite gets up and running. Set to launch on March 9th, 2009, the Kepler mission will utilize a 0.95 meter telescope to view one section of the sky containing over 100,000 stars for the entirety of the mission, which will last at least 3.5 years.

The prospect of life existing elsewhere is exciting, to be sure, and we'll be keeping you posted here on Universe Today when any of the potentially billions of Earth-like planets are discovered!

Source: BBC, EurekAlert

Filed under: Extrasolar Planets, SETI