Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Why do you act like you know the intentions of another country and what they'd do with a devastating secret? If they did know the moon landing is a hoax, the dumbest thing would be to blab it out right away. Blackmail or using it as leverage for deals would seem to be the smartest thing to do. Especially if you had photo evidence.

Oh well, just wait a few years. I am thinking that Apollo will cease to be mentioned in anything academic and just become forgotten. Heck, it's already starting. Listening to NASA talk about anything with manned deep space travel and it's not even mentioned. Could you imagine if the anniversary of Apollo turned 70 with no repeat mission from any country? The tech of the late 60s will be like the steam engine by then.

We want a moon trip! Fake or not!

ATTENTION.

Please keep to the topic of the thread.

Discuss the topic.

Do not discuss each other.

Do not tell others what they can or can not post (no "gate keeping" is allowed).

Remember you are responsible for your posts.

Keep on topic.

Do not reply to this post.

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
a reply to: onebigmonkey

They can't have landed, that's my point here.

-MM

I know you're saying that, but you haven't provided any support for your argument that they would instantly be wiped out by a static discharge. What levels of static electricity are we talking here? Give us some numbers to go on. Why wouldn't disturbance by the craft's engines dissipate any charge? Did you read the links I supplied?

How do you explain the proven existence not just of Apollo but of numerous Soviet and Chinese unmanned probes as well as the various unmanned US ones?

Did none of these happen?

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Why do you act like you know the intentions of another country and what they'd do with a devastating secret? If they did know the moon landing is a hoax, the dumbest thing would be to blab it out right away. Blackmail or using it as leverage for deals would seem to be the smartest thing to do. Especially if you had photo evidence.

erm...that would be you deciding what the intentions of another country would be...

Oh well, just wait a few years. I am thinking that Apollo will cease to be mentioned in anything academic and just become forgotten. Heck, it's already starting. Listening to NASA talk about anything with manned deep space travel and it's not even mentioned. Could you imagine if the anniversary of Apollo turned 70 with no repeat mission from any country? The tech of the late 60s will be like the steam engine by then.

If you followed space news you'd know that there have been a lot of events commemorating the 45th anniversary of Apollo 13. Last year we had similar events for Apollo 11's 45th. NASA would soon be criticised if all it did was talk about its past achievements and never mentioned its future plans.

We want a moon trip! Fake or not!

Who doesn't. China will be next.

What you are doing here is creating a scenario of how you think someone or something ought to behave in a given set of circumstances and then being critical for not doing what you think should be done, and then drawing some more conclusions from that that don't have any logical basis, just a supposition on your part based on your personal prejudices.

You can'd make sound conclusions on this, because it's fundamentally based on a lack of evidence, and specifically a lack of evidence that only matches arbitrary and subjective criteria decided in advance by you.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Why do you act like you know the intentions of another country and what they'd do with a devastating secret? If they did know the moon landing is a hoax, the dumbest thing would be to blab it out right away. Blackmail or using it as leverage for deals would seem to be the smartest thing to do. Especially if you had photo evidence.

blackmailing and using it as leverage sure helped keep those sanctions off russia over the crimea incident..

Oh well, just wait a few years. I am thinking that Apollo will cease to be mentioned in anything academic and just become forgotten. Heck, it's already starting.

they also dont talk about the wright brothers "aircraft" when doing research on the next gen fighter aircrafts also.. doesnt prove that the wright brothers "aircraft" never happened..

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Why do you act like you know the intentions of another country and what they'd do with a devastating secret? If they did know the moon landing is a hoax, the dumbest thing would be to blab it out right away. Blackmail or using it as leverage for deals would seem to be the smartest thing to do. Especially if you had photo evidence.

blackmailing and using it as leverage sure helped keep those sanctions off russia over the crimea incident..

Oh well, just wait a few years. I am thinking that Apollo will cease to be mentioned in anything academic and just become forgotten. Heck, it's already starting.

they also dont talk about the wright brothers "aircraft" when doing research on the next gen fighter aircrafts also.. doesnt prove that the wright brothers "aircraft" never happened..

Come on a bicycle with wings that thing never flown. Most lawn mowers have a stronger engine you dont see them taking off. I know they took pictures and even made a film but you know could have photo shopped it.

a reply to: bobbypurify
Oh come on really? In some fantasy world Russia will say oh no American flag here, no parts of the lander. Those Americans faked the whole thing. But hey I'll keep their secret. Why? Because they put on such a good show.
Blackmail? You watch too much tv.
We went to the moon. Russia and China can confirm that.
We sent an exploration ship out of our solar system. We sent exploration vehicles to mars.
I'm done with this useless argument. Go try and convince a fellow tenth grader.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: AutumnWitch657

Why do you act like you know the intentions of another country and what they'd do with a devastating secret? If they did know the moon landing is a hoax, the dumbest thing would be to blab it out right away. Blackmail or using it as leverage for deals would seem to be the smartest thing to do. Especially if you had photo evidence.

erm...that would be you deciding what the intentions of another country would be...

Oh well, just wait a few years. I am thinking that Apollo will cease to be mentioned in anything academic and just become forgotten. Heck, it's already starting. Listening to NASA talk about anything with manned deep space travel and it's not even mentioned. Could you imagine if the anniversary of Apollo turned 70 with no repeat mission from any country? The tech of the late 60s will be like the steam engine by then.

If you followed space news you'd know that there have been a lot of events commemorating the 45th anniversary of Apollo 13. Last year we had similar events for Apollo 11's 45th. NASA would soon be criticised if all it did was talk about its past achievements and never mentioned its future plans.

We want a moon trip! Fake or not!

Who doesn't. China will be next.

What you are doing here is creating a scenario of how you think someone or something ought to behave in a given set of circumstances and then being critical for not doing what you think should be done, and then drawing some more conclusions from that that don't have any logical basis, just a supposition on your part based on your personal prejudices.

You can'd make sound conclusions on this, because it's fundamentally based on a lack of evidence, and specifically a lack of evidence that only matches arbitrary and subjective criteria decided in advance by you.

Actually, I'm not deciding their intentions but offering what would be the more intelligible thing to do. Trying to ram a claim that we didn't go to the moon, through our media's walls, would end badly for those that make the claim IMO.

a reply to: choos

Mr. Choos, if Putin had the smoking gun and proved Apollo was a hoax, I'd bet dollars to donuts you'd be here shaming him and adamently fighting his proofs. What's wrong is that Apollo is so patriotically ingrained in our heritage that questioning it will often lead to negative results. That's why I've come to the conclusion that Apollo is a sacred cow. And that's why now, IMO, after 40 years of educational indoctrination that most just accept that it happened without study, hence, why it's not in text books or glorified all over the place - THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO STUDY IT! When people do, without bias, they also may question it!

What, in your opinion, would have been the ramifications to the American confidence IF Apollo 11 resulted in the astronauts deaths on live television? This was certainly a possibility, correct? What would all of the built up pride have suffered? Once you can assess that, you can see why the possibilty of a moon fabrication exists in logical thought.

a reply to: bobbypurify

Of course, I mean, it's not like a big TV company like FOX ever made a documentary on it or anything is it?

I entirely agree that trying to force a claim through the media that we didn't go would end badly, because there is absolutely no evidence that we did not land on the moon.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

The Fox show was a hit piece towards conspiracy culture. Bring forth claims, offer only one side of an explanation after straw-manning the other. Typical garbage in my opinion. And, brings forth the question of agenda behind why they would display such one-sidedness.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: choos

Mr. Choos, if Putin had the smoking gun and proved Apollo was a hoax, I'd bet dollars to donuts you'd be here shaming him and adamently fighting his proofs. What's wrong is that Apollo is so patriotically ingrained in our heritage that questioning it will often lead to negative results. That's why I've come to the conclusion that Apollo is a sacred cow. And that's why now, IMO, after 40 years of educational indoctrination that most just accept that it happened without study, hence, why it's not in text books or glorified all over the place - THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO STUDY IT! When people do, without bias, they also may question it!

What, in your opinion, would have been the ramifications to the American confidence IF Apollo 11 resulted in the astronauts deaths on live television? This was certainly a possibility, correct? What would all of the built up pride have suffered? Once you can assess that, you can see why the possibilty of a moon fabrication exists in logical thought.

ETA: What NASA wants you to do is watch the redone footage in their commemorative videos that have been proven to bastardize the narrative. Want to learn Apollo??? Here, watch this movie!

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: howmuch4another

Rob did expose him on that math. But, that doesn't discount everything he's done. The rest is just your opinion about him and I don't know if he's a liar. He seems to try really hard promoting his theories on Apollo, and barring this incident, he's usually pretty open about making mistakes.

His another videos contain LOTS of BS as well !

originally posted by: TheWhisper
a reply to: combatmaster
Read this and watch the video and see who is debunked?
www.aulis.com...
www.youtube.com...

Look at the 2 frames aulis link to for the so called stereoscopic examination for the power station example the camera is shifted 1.5 over between pictures!

That is NOT the case with the Apollo pictures

So to prove my point and to show that the so called expert aulis used has very poor skills & judgement I downloaded the images and stacked them first the power station images to show parallax.



As YOU can see only movement to the side BUT lets look at the 2 Apollo images used.



As you can see NOT just lateral movement which means the comparison is total BS!

35 years of taking and looking at images so I know what to look for and NOT blindly accept posts from web sites claiming to use so called experts!

a reply to: wmd_2008

I clicked on the Aulis link and there's plenty of other examples of lateral movement of the Apollo photos.

a reply to: bobbypurify

What, in your opinion, would have been the ramifications to the American confidence IF Apollo 11 resulted in the astronauts deaths on live television? This was certainly a possibility, correct? What would all of the built up pride have suffered? Once you can assess that, you can see why the possibilty of a moon fabrication exists in logical thought.

That's a very good question that should be applied to Apollo 8, 9 and 10 not just A11.

Nixon would never tolerate a live TV space disaster. Any sort of serious mishap (no-fatal) with A8, A9 or A10 would have jeopardized the timetable for A11 by months. A fatal mishap with any of those 3 missions would probably have resulted in a 12 month delay in the program... meaning that America would miss Kennedy's goal.

Nixon would never tolerate missing JFK's goal, either, because almost all the blow black would fall on his first term administration and NASA would have to delay further launches... the prestige of the US would be seriously wounded... adding to all other difficulties and making it impossible for Nixon to govern effectively... he might even have been so pissed off at NASA that he'd have to shut it down in completely in '69.

Nixon was very keen in using the success of Apollo to distract the public from the peak of the Viet Nam war which was cresting at about the '68-'69... a war which he intended to escalate and he did escalate in terms of tonnes of ordinance dropped on SE Asia. Although the number of American casualties was going down during Nixon's first term and Nixon can claim he was bringing home the troops - 20,000 Americans still lost their lives - the US population was pissed off and constantly threatening Nixon's ability to govern effectively.

The easiest way for Nixon to mitigate the possibility of a live TV mishap with Apollo was to manage Apollo in terms of a gigantic TV show special, similar to Elvis Presley's 1968 comeback special and repeated in 1972 with the Elvis Aloha Special. Nixon's appointment of Frank Shakespeare at the United State Information Agency was one of those presidential appointments that facilitated the "tv show" aspect of Apollo success - a tv show that could produce a major propaganda victory for Nixon.

After the successful tv show of Apollo 11 Nixon's VP Spiro Agnew was blabbing about moon bases and Mars trips however Nixon's reaction was to find any reason to shut down manned space flight outside low earth orbit. Cancelling Apollo missions is how Nixon reacted to all the chatter about moon bases, Mars trips. Nixon needed a new NASA administrator to agree with him which resulted in the appointment of James C. Fletcher. And then Fletcher "sold the idea" of the space shuttle to Nixon who approved it.

That's why I say look back at A8, A9 and A10 and consider any serious mishaps on those missions... it would mean that the Apollo 11 would have been delayed by months -probably beyond December '69- and Nixon would take a beating for missing JFK's goal.

In the annals of history, if there was a fatal mishap with A8, A9 or A10, Richard Nixon would be recorded as not able to get it up for JFK's goal. Nixon, completely obsessed with his historical legacy, would never allow a dead man to control his destiny like that... especially a Kennedy. Nixon would have mitigated his risk by authorizing a Plan-B "Apollo TV extravaganza" in which successful missions were pre-planned could only enhance American (and his own) prestige.

Apollo Reviewers should examine the narrative provided by Richard Nafzger who was in charge of the SSTV equipment installation in Australia just days and weeks before Apollo 11. Nafzger explained that the SSTV equipment was shipped to the location, set inside a building controlled by the Australian government, Nafzger was locked out of the building for the weekend, when he returned on Monday the SSTV equipment was switched on and it promptly burned up.

The blown up SSTV equipment had to be replaced and it was replaced almost immediately by the manufacturer.... because the Apollo 11 was a "Nixon TV Spectacular" and the show must go on! And Richard Nafzger even accepted an American TV award for it.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

What was Nixon's role, in your opinion, during the Gemini missions and before? You seem to imply he had his hand all over the Apollo hoax, so where was he in the previous missions? Thanks!

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: wmd_2008

I clicked on the Aulis link and there's plenty of other examples of lateral movement of the Apollo photos.

The images are from Panoramas so are rotational in MOTION NOT LATERAL so guess what even DISTANT objects appear to MOVE!!!!!!!

Quick example the hills you can see faintly on the horizon are at least 15 miles from my position look at the gif 2 frames from a panorama.



(Right click on gif select view image for a larger version.)

There is a small white rock in the foreground in both pictures so you can see how much I turn between the 2 frames.

LOOK how far they appear to move!!!!

Also from the aulis link

Dr Oleg Oleynik graduated from the Physics and Technology Department (Phystech) of the Kharkov State University. He obtained a Master’s degree in physics in physical metallurgy.

What the "F" does metallurgy have to do with photography and optics!

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: choos

Mr. Choos, if Putin had the smoking gun and proved Apollo was a hoax, I'd bet dollars to donuts you'd be here shaming him and adamently fighting his proofs. What's wrong is that Apollo is so patriotically ingrained in our heritage that questioning it will often lead to negative results. That's why I've come to the conclusion that Apollo is a sacred cow. And that's why now, IMO, after 40 years of educational indoctrination that most just accept that it happened without study, hence, why it's not in text books or glorified all over the place - THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO STUDY IT! When people do, without bias, they also may question it!

it would be a very credible source.. ofcourse we would examine their claims to see if its made up, but if they had real proof we wouldnt be able to prove it wrong now would we??

thing is, to date, not a single moon hoax theory is from a credible source, and not a single moon hoax theory has been able to stand up to regular enthusiasts let alone experts.. ie. not single moon hoax theory has been proven credible on this board and as far as i know, there are no experts involved in the discussions..

What, in your opinion, would have been the ramifications to the American confidence IF Apollo 11 resulted in the astronauts deaths on live television? This was certainly a possibility, correct? What would all of the built up pride have suffered? Once you can assess that, you can see why the possibilty of a moon fabrication exists in logical thought.

a huge morale drop, but they would have tried again, the mission would have been delayed to maybe 1970 sometime and they would have missed their "end of the decade" timeline but they would have tried again.. the Apollo 1 fire didnt cause the US gov to collapse did it??

they were all prepared for the failure of Apollo 11, they even had a speech made for it..

ETA: What NASA wants you to do is watch the redone footage in their commemorative videos that have been proven to bastardize the narrative. Want to learn Apollo??? Here, watch this movie!

and yet the Apollo footage replicates lunar environment on ALL objects so accurately.. ive already shown you what speeding up the footage 1.667x does to gravity here.. the correct time factor is ~2.45x