Who Parked The Moon?

[82_28]

Thanks Sr. Rocket. But by the by I just got done watching this. Yes it is about Jupiter for this episode but it "explains" quite a bit of where planetary science is these days and the formations of all the worlds seemingly around us. I suspect this will only be viewable in the US. But I don't know. Good 53 or so minutes of your watching time.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/the ... s-jupiter/

[identity]

More evidence, passive laser reflectors left at Apollo 11, 14, and 15 landing sites. East to refute if they are do not exist, just point a laser to the relevant stated locations and see if there is a reflected signal received. Oh wait, France, Italy and Germany have already successfully done that.

From Gerhard Wisnewski's wonderful One Small Step:

A photon named NASA

Beside the objects and materials supposedly
brought back from the moon there are others
which are claimed to have been left behind there,
for example laser reflectors, or what NASA calls
laser ranging retro-reflectors. The crews of Apollo
11, 14 and 15 are supposed to have set these up
to facilitate more accurate measurement of the
distance between earth and moon. They measured
46 x 46 cm (Apollo 11 and 14) and 104 x 61 cm
(Apollo 15). In principle they consist of numerous
‘cat eyes’ and so reflect a beam of light back in
the direction from which it has come. A beam of
light from earth hits the reflector and is reflected
back. The exact distance between earth and moon
is then determined by measuring the time it takes
for the laser beam to cover the distance. Or that
is the theory. But does this really make sense? By
the time a laser beam reaches the moon it has a
diameter of 7 km. And, depending on the method,
when it returns to earth it then has a diameter of
up to 20 km. This means that the total beam
is reflected, most of it by the moon’s surface. And
one can of course just as well measure the time
taken by this kind of beam so long as it is visibly
reflected back to the earth – whether one uses a
laser reflector or not. Admittedly the scientists
would prefer something a little more exact. With a
beam measuring 20 km in diameter you don’t
know which part of the moon’s surface it’s coming
from – a mountain or a low-lying plane.

And if it were possible to take accurate aim at
those reflectors, would this prove that manned
Apollo spacecraft had landed on the moon? Not
really, since setting up a reflector does not require
a manned landing. Any unmanned lunar module
could to the job just as well. Moreover, one would
have to ascertain whether the Americans were the
only ones who had set up reflectors on the moon.
But they were not. The Soviets also claim to have
installed laser reflectors there, with Luna 17
(launch 10 November 1970) and Luna 21 (launch
8 January 1973).

Anyway, why would the Soviets want to put a
laser reflector on the moon’s surface in November
1970 when the Apollo 11 crew had already done
so? A passive instrument like that, which basically
functions just like a mirror, can be used by
anyone. The reflector couldn’t care less whether it
finds itself reflecting an American or a Soviet laser
beam. So the Soviets might as well have saved on
payload weight. But no, even after the Americans
claimed that Apollo 14 and 15 had left two more
laser reflectors, the Soviets, not to be outdone,
sent yet another one to the moon with Luna 21.
But of course there is no law against paving the
whole of the moon’s surface with laser reflectors.

Let us begin by asking whether and how it is
possible to take proper bearings on such
appliances. According to a paper from the Munich
Technical University this is not at all simple. First
of all you need high transmission energy ‘because
owing to the unavoidable spread of the beam’ the
photons are distributed over approximately 20
square kilometres of the moon’s surface. And this
lit area is faced with the ‘small reflector area’ of
about 1 square metre. All in all, this appears
to be more difficult than finding the proverbial
needle in a haystack. But there is more: ‘After the
signal has traversed the distance of, on average,
384,400 kilometres, only a small part of it will
strike the reflector and set out on the return
journey. Once again only a small part will strike
the telescope where it then reaches the detector
via the necessary mirror.’ And: ‘Except for the
Apollo 15 reflector in the region of the Hadley
Massif, one cannot orientate on the moon’s
surface with the help of structures (craters,
mountains) close by. And even in the case of the
Apollo 15 reflector there is frequently no optical
support for finding a bearing since the landing site
is only illumined by the sun for half of each
lunation.’ This sounds as though the astronomers
were having to orientate by landmarks in their
search for that tiny object measuring only one
square metre. In addition to these difficulties the
whole enterprise also depends on the earth’s
weather and – because of the extraneous light –
on the phases of the moon. Even if the weather
is perfect one cannot be sure of having found the
reflector since one cannot see it: ‘The reflectors
are so small that they cannot be seen by
telescope.’ So we have to ask how it is possible to
find and identify an object on the surface of the
moon if one cannot see it. There is no other way
of finding the reflectors except by visual perception.
They do not transmit signals, and there is as yet
no global positioning system on the moon.

It does indeed appear to be ‘rather difficult to
pinpoint a hit’, says the paper from the Technical
University. We need have no difficulty in believing
this. In fact the paper even tells us that it can
take quite a while for anything at all to come back
from the moon that could be interpreted as
having been reflected by a laser reflector. So what
is reflected? Well:

Of the 10 to the 19 photons transmitted, on average not
a single one will return to the receiver. Thus not
every measuring session can count on a positive
result. Only once in several tries can a photon be
identified that stems from the laser pulse
transmitted to the moon and reflected back.

This is indeed breathtaking! Of 10 to the 19 photons
transmitted a single one returns! If at all! Just one
out of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000! This looks to
me like 10 trillions! It cannot be expressed in
percentage terms. One out of 10 trillion photons
equals zero. Nought point nothing.

This left me with two questions which I
addressed to Dr Dieter Egger of the Technical
University’s Institute for Astronomical and Physical
Geodesy, one of the paper’s authors: ‘How can
you exclude the possibility of these being “stray
photons” or arbitrary reflections?’ Answer: ‘The
possibility cannot be excluded that the photon
comes from elsewhere. But the probability can be
narrowed down a good deal by means of filters
(spectrally, temporally, spatially).’ And: ‘How can
one be absolutely certain that the laser signal
received comes from the reflector and not from
the lunar surface? Can one make this distinction
with one hundred per cent certainty?’ Answer:
‘There is no absolute certainty. It’s all a matter of
probability and statistics.’

What this means in reality is: the scientists
bombard the moon with laser beams until it finally
spits out one photon with which they are satisfied.
But since they are unable to see what they are
aiming at, this photon could be anything at all –
an interference, a crackle, a whim of nature, a
bright bit of rock. No one can know whether it
comes from the laser reflector or not. After all, it
doesn’t have NASA’s name on it.

[identity]

Sorry, can't resist pasting the entertaining continuation of the above as well!

Has anyone got a lunar module to spare?

As I was still bothered about the matter of the
laser reflector I continued with my enquiries. Since
the Technical University’s paper had mentioned
using landmarks in searching for the reflectors, I
also wrote to Tom Murphy, Assistant Professor for
Physics at the University of California in San
Diego. He, too, maintained that they send ‘very
narrow’ laser beams to the moon to ‘pinpoint an
individual reflector’. My next question was: ‘How
do you do this?’ He replied: ‘We simply point our
telescope at the coordinates of the lunar landing
sites.’

So it’s that simple! Of course the coordinates
must have been very meticulously recorded. Or at
least this is what Michael Stennecken thought. He
is a founder member and now president of the
Deutsche Raumfahrtgesellschaft (German Space
Travel Society) and also an enthusiastic space
travel historian. In the mid-1990s he heard from
somebody called Dennis Hope who was selling
plots on the moon. Stennecken thought, more by
way of a joke than anything else, that if he
acquired a plot he would like it to be one of
which photographs existed, in other words near
one of the Apollo landing sites. (The following
quotations are in Stennecken’s original English.
Trs.)
Allegedly even U.S. Presidents like Carter and
Reagan ‘have’ such properties on the Moon. As I
myself cannot get up there to select a ‘good’ site,
I decided to ‘order’ a nice piece of Moon on a
site where other men already took a lot of photos.
So my search for the six Apollo landing sites
began with maximal accuracy.

Unfortunately Stennecken, a computer scientist at
the University of Münster, had the surprise of his
life when he embarked on his search. No one
was able to tell him where exactly the Apollo
modules had landed. Feeling rather shocked, he
founded the initiative Coordination of Lunar
Landing Coordinates (CLLC). It does seem rather
unfortunate that it is necessary to ‘coordinate’ the
landing coordinates of the Apollo modules and,
what is more, after the event. We had all surely
assumed until now that it would have sufficed to
have just one pair of coordinates per lunar
landing mission. However, on 30 April 1998
Stennecken wrote to a group known as ‘Back to
the Moon’ and told them about what he had
experienced in his search for the coordinates of
the Apollo landing sites. The group’s aim was to
work towards a manned return to the moon.
‘Dear Sirs,’ wrote Stennecken:
I want to propose my initiative called ‘CLLC, which
stands for ‘Coordination of Lunar Landing
Coordinates’. Maybe you are able to support my
effort and suggest it to those who are responsible
today for the heritage of the great ‘first exploration
of the moon’, the Apollo program of 1969-1972. I
believe that this achievement of mankind to leave
the Earth and set foot upon the Moon is not
complete as long as one important point has not
been finished. Namely that it is officially
documented where exactly the landing points of
the six Apollo-LMs are located. It turns out that
there exist many inconsistencies in the data of
lunar landing site.

But things get worse: ‘NASA also lacks an “official”
version.’ This must mean that even the space
agency didn’t know exactly where their lunar
modules got to. Stennecken says of himself that as
a private space travel historian he appears to be
the first to document the inaccuracies in the data
of the lunar landing sites. He is probably right, for
I, too, have met with hardly any discussion about
the discrepancies. And those I have found all refer
back to Stennecken. So his work amounts to
something of a historical achievement. He says that
of course he never really intended to purchase a
piece of the moon, but his search for a specific
piece of its surface had certainly led him to make
a discovery:
To get the exact and congruent data of lunar
landing coordinates was impossible! To me this
was a total surprise and everyone I told couldn’t
believe it. Everybody was convicted that facts like
this were established data that could be found in
history books for 30 years already!

Being not only a space travel historian but also
something of a fan – who has in his possession a
small collection of space memorabilia including an
oxygen hose from Apollo 12, guaranteed to have
travelled round the moon 45 times! – Stennecken
felt challenged.

He continues: ‘Within nearly 2 years of searching
the “lost lunar landing sites” I could not get a
satisfactory answer from any NASA site.’ And:
When asked they didn’t understand my ‘problem’
saying: ‘It’s all described in this and that
web-page’ and so on. So I decided to collect all
available ‘official’ NASA versions of landing
coordinates and I found not less than 10 different
main versions, 8 of them in NASA sites.
Stennecken compiled a table showing all his
findings and sent it to various NASA authorities
under the provocative heading ‘Lost lunar landing
sites’ and asking for clarification. The result:
Some answers clearly said: ‘I do not know the
exact coordinates ...’, and: ‘I am unable to suggest
sites other than the ones that you mentioned.’
And another authority finally: ‘Other than that, we
have no further suggestions.’
Others again suggested Stennecken might try using
one set of coordinates or another. The impression
he gained was that basically people thought it’...
not so important...’ Perhaps that was the case, he
conceded, and he wasn’t pursuing this in order to
cause any embarrassment. But he still persisted.
His next step was to feed the data into a
computer, which revealed the largest divergence to
be considerable, namely, 20 km in the case of
Apollo 11. What also came out was that apart
from spelling errors and a confusion of the
decimal system with an arc measuring method
‘there must be a fundamental problem’
somewhere.

Stennecken assumes that the problem must lie in
the application of differing coordinate systems for
the moon – at least that is what was mentioned
in various suggestions. Dr Dave Williams of the
National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC)
wrote to say that he had the same problem as
Stennecken: that ‘there is no “official” list of Apollo
landing sites’ and that one of his priorities was to
go through all the data and ‘try to decide the best
locations’. So one was wrong to suppose that the
best locations for the Apollo missions had been
selected in advance. Only now were the ‘best’
locations being sought. Dr Williams pointed out
that over the past 30 years certain alterations had
been made in the cartographic grid, so that the
coordinates depended on which system was being
applied. But over and above this there appeared
to be also ‘a basic inconsistency between all the
values’. One could argue that this seems to be
rather a complicated reply to a simple question.

Paul Spudis of the Johnson Space Center wrote
that there were two reasons for the
inconsistencies. In the first place no very accurate
cartographic grid of the moon had existed until
quite recently. Although it was known that the
landing site of Apollo 11 was exactly 301 km
distant from that of Apollo 16’s lunar module, it
was not at all clear where these two sites were
located in relation to the lunar landscape. And
furthermore, the control centre at Houston and
the cartographers of the moon had used different
coordinate systems which, in addition, kept on
being modified. That was why so many different
locations had found their way into the literature.
This is all very confusing! One last question is: In
view of such perplexity, how were the astronauts
able to reach the moon at all with any certainty?
Pure faith, it appears, was sometimes all that could
still help in the search for the exact coordinates of
the landings: ‘I happen to believe,’ wrote Michael
Stennecken, ‘that the most accurate (and
believable) numbers were published in 1987 in a
paper in The Journal of Geophysical Research,
vol. 92, number B13, pages 14177 to 14184. The
authors are Merton Davies et al. This paper will
give you the Apollo site coordinates to five decimal
places!’ Stennecken then immediately sent this
insight to Paul Williams of the NSSDC who wrote
back gratefully by return: ‘Thank you for passing
that on ... Merton Davies is a very reliable source,
so I’m glad to have that reference. I’ll check those
numbers against ours and make the necessary
corrections.’

Hurrah, thought Stennecken. ‘Now I know the
places where the jet engine of descent stages of
Apollo LM’s exactly point to with an accuracy of
nearly 30 cm, that’s less than the diameter of the
jet engine itself!’ (see data tabulated Table:
Where did you say Apollo landed?).

However, Stennecken had unfortunately rejoiced
prematurely, for the NSSDC then launched a new
website with new coordinates for the moon
landings which were ‘different from every version I
collected’. But the author did not want to insist
that these were now the definitive, official landing
sites. This is really strange. Here you have some
landing coordinates from a reliable source, yet they
are not to be taken as the ‘official NASA-version.
There apparently is none even after nearly 30
years after the first moon landing!’ concluded
Michael Stennecken. Even the most accurate data
are useless if they refer to a coordinate system
that is not current. ‘The “first exploration of the
Moon” from 1969 till 1972 will not be really
completed until there exists a complete authorized
documentation of the lunar landing coordinates,’ he
thinks.

So Stennecken’s search for the Apollo landing
sites had finally led him to Merton Davies, already
mentioned. It appears that this was the very best
source of information since Davies was one of the
masterminds of the Corona programme mentioned
earlier – that swindle about a civilian research
satellite called Discoverer that was in reality a spy
satellite. We should not forget Davies as one of
those who was involved from the outset when the
military set off into space, says the book The
Corona Project: America’s First Spy Satellites.
Davies, it turned out, also did not know the real
coordinates of the Apollo landing sites: ‘I have not
measured the lander locations directly,’ he wrote to
Stennecken, ‘only craters nearby’.

Well, to find coordinates for a few craters located
near the lunar modules should not be all that
difficult. But Stennecken proved to be quite, you
might say, ‘hard assed’. The chap from Münster
in Germany didn’t let the thing go, so little by
little the ‘family of space travel’ adopted him. One
of the high points was a photo of him with old
Buzz Aldrin. But old Merton Davies, meanwhile,
had to do his homework and get hold of the
‘right’, the ‘official’ landing coordinates of the
Apollo missions or bust. He did it, in an article
entitled ‘Lunar coordinates in the regions of the
Apollo Landers’ in the Journal of Geophysical
Research of 25 August 2000. And this is where
we come full circle. For one of the aids to finding
these coordinates turned out to be those laser
reflectors for which, you’ve guessed it, coordinates
are needed.

So now we know what to think of astronomers
wanting to locate tiny laser reflectors on the moon
with the help of landing coordinates of the Apollo
missions. Another way might be to search for the
lunar modules or moon vehicles and set out from
there to find the laser reflectors. But unfortunately
this is not possible since none of these have been
sighted to date. So the end result thus far is a
complete non-starter.

[82_28]

They have been sighted and surveyed for over 45 years.

https://www.skyandtelescope.com/observi ... ing-sites/

I don't know how the fuck they do it but the locations are known.

Also, again, this thread was to ponder the question of why there is this behavior out of the Moon. But, this behavior also demonstrates why they can do it. We can only see one "face" of the Moon at all times. Nothing more and nothing less. Also light speed given the lasers must use it in order to get there. Light takes 1.3 seconds to reach the Moon and another 1.3 seconds back. It took me a million times longer to compose this shit for here and send it out so you could read it. Blink of an eye. Blink of an eye.

[Iamwhomiam]

Came across these a while ago:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syVP6zDZN7I


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9y_AVYMEUs

[Elvis]

Came across these a while ago:

Those process described in those videos nicely confirms what I've always argued about the skeptics' questioning of the lighting—that they are just not taking into account the highly reflective qualities of the lunar surface itself, and anything else that reflects the single-source sunlight. As made plain in the videos, Armstrong's spacesuit itself was obviously a big source of reflected light. In a former life, one of my specialities was lighting a scene with just one light source.

[82_28]

I can picture it now. The "theorists" are going to say the technology was so good back then that they simulated the landings but were keeping the technology from the rest of us. Like that one dude said, "can I prove it? No. But everything checks out through the simulation" I think in the second video. NVIDIA just plugged in the known physical values and out came what reality would attest. Also anybody who knows just a smidge of photography 101 already knew that you could never see any stars with the kind of quick exposure the camera needed to capture what it could.

[NeonLX]

I'm happy to see this thread has been "resurrected". It's one of my very favorites.

I wonder if the moon is flat just like the Earth?

[82_28]

I'm happy to see this thread has been "resurrected". It's one of my very favorites.

I wonder if the moon is flat just like the Earth?

It's not flat. But Jesus did say "Blessed are the Cheese Makers" so likely it is cheese while the Earth remains flat. Interesting universe we live in!

[NeonLX]

I'm happy to see this thread has been "resurrected". It's one of my very favorites.

I wonder if the moon is flat just like the Earth?

It's not flat. But Jesus did say "Blessed are the Cheese Makers" so likely it is cheese while the Earth remains flat. Interesting universe we live in!

Jesus must love Wisconsin then, ya hey!

[Belligerent Savant]

.



https://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1212126835732.html

https://news.developer.nvidia.com/accel ... ai-at-fdl/

Solving problems for space exploration “and all Humankind” is the mission of the Frontier Development Laboratory, established in 2015 by NASA, the SETI Institute, NVIDIA & Autodesk.

Sorry, folks -- I'll take the below assessment over the computer simulated narrative crafted by nvidia any day.
...particularly given nvidia's relatively cozy relationship with NASA.

Bonus note: anytime an entity/individual uses the term "conspiracy theory"/"conspiracy theorists" in the same manner employed by myriad establishment/intel-funded propaganda, such content should be immediately flagged as suspect. Needless to say.


https://www.aulis.com/scientific_analysis.htm

Excerpts/snippet:

Abstract


Since the mid-1970s there have been claims that elements of the Apollo program and its associated Moon landings were staged by NASA. A growing number of people maintain that the lunar landings were faked and that the Apollo astronauts did not actually walk on the Moon. In this paper we analyse some of the Apollo lunar surface images through computer software and basic scientific reasoning in order to prove or disprove whether the EVA photographs were staged. We examine some of the most outstanding cases through the use of Photoshop® and Google Earth (Moon) applications.

The resultant image analysis demonstrates that the Apollo photography was staged, manipulated and/or altered. Consequently, the Apollo lunar surface photographic record cannot be relied upon as evidence of humans walking on the Moon. Google Earth (Moon) simulations also indicate that in the case of Apollo 17, the mission was staged. The Apollo moonscapes used were inaccurate presentations of reality with incorrect elevations and serious lunar feature omissions. An Apollo 15 mission panorama as presented in Google Earth (Moon) leads to the same conclusion.

...


Figure 3. (a) Apollo 11 composition a11.1103147_mf, (b) a11.1103147_mf enhanced to show brush lines marked with A, (c) enhanced further to show different light intensities in the background, (d) various types of stage lighting.

When the image is corrected for gamma, the contrast enhanced and the colour saturated, the outcome is shown in figure 3(b). Immediately one observes that there are corrections in the composite in the form of thick lines that could be drawn with an analog to the eraser or brush tool of Adobe Photoshop®, or in a similar process (actual brushing on film).
This first group of artifacts is marked A on figure 3(b) and obviously the purpose was to erase unwanted details in what should be a totally black lunar ‘sky’ – for instance glare, or details that might draw unwanted attention. By further increasing the gamma correction and exposure (the amount of light per unit area, i.e. the image plane-luminance times the exposure-time reaching the photographic film) one observes various light densities in the black background of the image.

In the left-middle area there is a large dome shape (probably an intense light source), and located further to the right are a number of virtually identical radiating cones overlapping, indicating smaller light sources. Observe the similarity to stage lights in figure 3(d). This second group was on the original image before editing took place. As we cannot explain the second group of artifacts in any other way, it is highly likely that these images were staged.

...



Figure 7. The sun in three colour panoramas from Apollo 12. The light seems to be spread very evenly, without any irregularities at its periphery. The caption below each figure indicates the mission elapsed time and the panorama name.



Figure 8. Apollo 12 AS12-46-6739 and AS12-46-6739-67662 (first row) compared with photos of the sun taken above the atmosphere (second row) and from the ground (third row) during a day of high humidity. All images processed with the Photoshop® gradient mapping tool.


We compare two individual Apollo 12 images AS12-46-6739 and AS12-46-6766 and images2 with photos of the sun taken above the Earth’s atmosphere, shown in the second row of figure 8. The first, S129-E-007592 (22 Nov. 2009), shows the sun and the International Space Station, photographed by one of the STS-129 crew members and downloaded from here. The image next to it is from the STS-77 shuttle mission in 1996, downloaded from here. Additionally, in the third row we present our own sun photographs taken at different hours of the day. All the images are processed in exactly the same way for easy comparison, in this case with the Photoshop® gradient mapping tool (which maps the colours of a gradient, defined by the user, to the luminance values of an image). Of particular note is the considerable difference in ‘roughness’ around the sun’s periphery.

However, in the Apollo 12 images (first row of figure eight) there is a bright centre (the lamp?), a ring that has lower luminance, a third ring (the reflector?), a very thin and dark ring (the casing of the lighting) and so forth. Not only the light source itself, but also the thickness of the rings do not correspond with the sun as seen from space (second row figure eight), nor with the sun photographed through the Earth’s atmosphere (third row figure eight), smoothing its irregularities. On an actual image of the sun the disc is so bright that no graduations of brightness can be distinguished on the film or recording medium. Also the disc is the brightest part and the brightness gradually diminishes outside the disc. No outer part of the disc is as bright as the centre. All totally different characteristics to the Apollo photos of the sun.
...



About the Authors

Pyrrhon Amathes PhD is a qualified engineer and artist, an ex academic and currently an independent scholar living in Ampelokipi, Athens, Greece.

Paul Christodoulides PhD is an applied mathematician and an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Engineering and Technology of the Cyprus University of Technology. He has over 100 refereed book, journal and conference publications.

Many more examples at link.

[Elvis]

For meaningful comparison, we have to know what lenses were used; I'm surprised they never considered that crucial factor:

[82_28]

Why did they even bother to take cameras to the moon? Why even launch the rockets to show off something fake? I get it. It was the "space race" and launching that shit would put Russia in it's missile place. Again, like that guy in that video, am I 100% certain? No. But all signs point to yes. And as Elvis says, what lenses were used? I doubt you could fiddle around with a camera with those thick gloves. But I don't know. Here is a comment that I just read from a few years ago pertaining to the equipment:

Back in the summer of 2008, I bought one of the last used/refurbished Hasselblad's from John Kovacs a.k.a "Hilton Command Expoures" before he retired and moved to Florida. John was a Hasselblad Master Technician, who also owns US Patent US 4232957 A; A multiple exposure control mechanism for Hasselblad film backs.

John was also one of the people that retrofitted the Hasselblads that went up with the Astronauts. When I bought my camera from him, I asked him about his involvement with those cameras and the space program, and, with his old cranky attitude said "Those damn astronauts, they couldn't operate the cameras because of their big, stupid space gloves, so I had to make a button that they could hit to take the picture".

John died at the start of 2013. He had a whole lifetime of stories that I wish I could have heard from him. He was a Hasselblad Wizard, if there ever was one.

Short story about the cameras used here.

https://petapixel.com/2014/07/29/a-deta ... n-landing/

[RocketMan]

I'm happy to see this thread has been "resurrected". It's one of my very favorites.

I wonder if the moon is flat just like the Earth?

Yeah it's fascinating.

And I LOVE LOVE LOVE that the tone is very light-hearted and kind, on all sides, despite fixed disagreements.

And the UR CONSPIRACY THEORY nature of the subject of discussion...

[Grizzly]

This has prolly been posted before, so apologises if so...
Dangerous asteroid just missed hitting Earth



"What city, what city"? Fucking psychopaths, her colleague, saved her by retorting, "Any City..." Interesting that this could be a ploy to get more money for NASA, and or to set up the so called, Alien Bogeyman, Who the fuck knows because our whole reality has become mailable... Just the way they want it. Or not.