You are – like always – completely wrong. While USA has the ability to kill many civilians, the costly development of a B-2 enables it to end a war pretty fast. If (very big if) the opponent accepts its defeat and does not play the “humanitarian” card. Dead civilians are often instrumentalised to show the babarianism of the enemy.
Israel in my knowledge never bombed civilian targets on purpose in the wars of 1967 and 1973.

The easier way would be to use updated B-52s and carpet bomb Tehran. And when you think of great AD-system to defend against that: You will be surprised who inefficient Iranian SAMs would be against the current B-52H. If a very big-RWR bomber can intrude a “denied” airspace without suffering tremendous losses (=10%), then who they want to shoot down a B-2?

BTW: I’m neither American nor do I like Bush.

I have been meaning to respond to this absurd post for some times, but I guess it wasn’t a
priority for me.

You may claim not to like Bush, but you sure sound like you do. My guess is that you are one of
those “used to be” Iranians, who left the country and can’t go back. (You are probably thinking,
damn, how did he know) Therefore, you have become a “long distance” Iran-basher. Sort of like
those traitor, mostly tampon wearing, MEKs and their laughable leader Rajavi. I guess it was not
the best strategy to kill innocent Iranians for no reason whatsoever but to appease Saddam; And
to top it off, side with that Animal against Iran when he invaded. Some Iranians they are.

Keep reading the nonsense they blur out in their truly pathetic IranFocus garbage publication.

As for the B-2s, I guess it looks like we may yet see a few of them being shown on Iranian TV
burning on the ground, next to the F-22s and F-117s. Hell, if one of our informed Russian posters
can come up with a brilliant strategy, then I am pretty sure the Iranians have as well.

I keep coming across information, mostly from the high ranking Russian sources, that Iranian
got hold of about 250 warheads. And, THAT is why they are not taking crap from “God’s
Messenger” Bush. Well, actually, Cheney. We know who pulls the Dummy’s strings.

It’s not an assessment (whatever you may mean by that): it’s a suggested solution relating only to your specific question about the reflection from the LEM window that is based on actual observations of real events in the real world – unlike most conspiracy theories, I might add. The process is known as “deductive reasoning”.

I presume that you’re hinting about my mentioning polarised glass – it wasn’t around at the time, was it? But thick glass windows and optical coatings most certainly were.

Sunlight can be “split” into its component colours by a prism (ie – by passing through thick glass at an angle). Optical coatings will reflect some frequencies (ie, colours) of light while othes are absorbed – as can be readily demonstrated by observation of the objective lens on a telescope or binoculars or a camera lens

Perhaps you believe that this is not the case on the Moon? If so, I would be most intrigued to see a reference for that particular “fact”, too.

Happy Easter 🙂

I was scratching my head and wondering what everybody was talking about. Until I came across
Frank’s announcement that the post was deleted. Thank god. I am not sure what is worse, having
just about everybody against me, or having Him with me ^^__^^

I may have mentioned it before, but the best way to turn someone’s “possible” legitimate claim
about a “possible” conspiracy into sh**t, is to get someone on their side who thinks the earth is
flat and the clouds actually hide UFOs.

Yeah yeah I know, those 10 or so guys who committed suicide in California so their “spirit”
could meet up with the “Mother Ship,” hidden behind Hayley’s Comet, are laughing at me now ^_^

Now for Grey Area, Happy Easter too, and we will not get into the potential conspiracy theory of
the possibility of a Rabbit laying eggs ^^^___^^^

I used your quote, to highlight your confidence in your explanation. You tend to insist on the
glass reflecting only the blue light. Hence, the blue colour.

However, I thought the Blue colour was superimposed on the window to depict the horizon sky.
I will save the other obvious anomalies, as usual, with this pic, for later. For now, if what you
say is true, then how do you explain this photo ??

An optical coating on polarised glass, perhaps?

One often sees a similar effect on the cockpit windows of airliners and biz-jets.

Are you sure ?? You may want to revise that assessment !! Think about it .

Just a little question. Why is the reflection on the LM window blue ??

Alright, I just realised the gist of your argument, that if there were more than one light source
there would have been more than one shadow for each object. It makes sense, and I don’t
disagree.

However the fact is the shadows go in different directions, and unless there is a photography
fact, like using a continuous light source with a series of lights that extend in an arc across the
ceiling, or using reflectors or whatnot, I can only come up with a logical conclusion that one of
the shadows, or objects, were superimposed. That the pics are fake, as far as being taken on the
Moon, I am certain.

A logical interpretation, assuming that there has been superimposition, would be to consider the
fact that if all of the shadows go in one direction and one of the major ones the opposite, then
the one not conforming is superimposed. In this case the Astronaut shadow. Furthermore, it is
probable that the shadow, going in a different direction, is always the one that is not crisp on the
edges and instead, is kind of fuzzy around the corners.

Like I said, we are beating this thing to death, and fail to agree on anything. There are more
interesting anomalies to be discussed. Is it so darn difficult to agree to disagree, and move on to
the next point? Don’t remember anything from the college debating class?

As for the huge warehouse pic, it indicates that the facilities and equipment to create this hoax
were in place. All NASA had to do was to wait and see if they could in fact accomplish what
Kennedy so stupidly, as that idiot in fact was, toled the world America would accomplish. The
hasty speech was to stop further humiliation by losing the Space Race to the Soviets. When they
realised they could not (and still can’t) do what was so proudly boasted, they faked the whole
thing using the warehouse. There are hundreds of pics of that warehouse, and some of them
could pass for the surface of the Moon, if it were not for a few small things like an engineer’s
arm being in the pic.

Here is a couple of pics of the fuzzy shadow. We have seen this pic before, and I was proven
wrong about the rock shadow. Which in fact was the shadow of the Flag. However, notice how
everything else, including the flag shadow have crisp edges, but the LM’s is fuzzy. Also,
someone tell me how it is possible for the shadows of the flag and the LM be so long, but the
rock right above the LM shadow have no shadow at all ??

Actually, the picture can be divided to 3 regions. The bright region, as nothing at the left, the left
arrow, has any shadow. The darker region, where everything has a shadow. And, the top
region, the up arrow, where everything is unusually smooth (as if it is a poster on the wall).

That there seems to be more than one light source, because the shadows are going in different directions.

But, we have beat this pic to death, so it is time to move on to the next. Because, as I said,
there are not just a few anomalous photos, but hundreds.

As soon as I figure how to cut from a video clip. I’ll put something up that will be difficult to
disprove as being a fake.

For now, can somebody tell me what is wrong with this pic, huh ??