It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

page: 31
17
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2015 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

1 - wrong by your " metric " hundreds of other statesmen world wide should have been equally eligable to recieve this " secret gift " too

so again - why drees ????????????????????

2 makes no sense - why couldnt drees spot it as a fake ????????????????

also see three

3 - as you cite honesty and integrity as reasons to give drees a gift - the same traits come back to bite you when you alledgedly atempt to give him a fake in secret .

ps - you know whats easier - give him a sliver of real moon rock


4 - no you have not - you wave your hands furiously - but no corrolation
edit on 9-5-2015 by ignorant_ape because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 9 2015 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

No it doesn't it was given out on their world tour. If you want to do some research instead of guess it was called one giant leap. It involved visiting countries and they handed out the card and Plaques.


August 13 US celebration that followed the Apollo 11 crew’s quarantine grew to a 45-day "Giant Leap" tour that saw the astronauts and the accomplishment heralded across the globe.
The astronauts went to 25 foreign countries and visited with prominent leaders such as the United Kingdom’s Queen Elizabeth II. Many nations would honor the first manned moon landing by issuing Apollo 11 commemorative stamps or coins.
www.edn.com...

The Us went on the road handing out minted coins and plaques to dignataries along with numbered photos. Just a earch e bay for world tour stuff is usually dor sale.This is why hoaxers can't be taken seriously they do no research and say things like it must be talking about a rock. All kinds of gifts were exchanged from pictures to thank you cards With the astronauts signatures. Here is a woman that went on the tour interesting reading.

history.nasa.gov...
Replica of the plaque left on the Moon mounted on a walnut backing. A plaque was presented to the leading official at each city.
Replica of Goodwill Message disc left on the Moon, eight-power magnifying glass and framed photograph.
edit on 5/9/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/9/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

I think the 'ghosting' was intentional, as a 'special effect'.


Please tell us how this ghosting was done, who did it, where, when. Your opinion needs factual support.



The moon was a mysterious, spooky, alien world...not human.


Not that mysterious, certainly not spooky. Several unmanned probes had already landed and returned photographs, several more had orbited and sent back detailed images. These images were well documented and publicised.


Astronauts become these 'spectres', slowly 'floating' - very ghost-like - the 'effects on humans', within a very strange, alien, environment.


So we're returning to the standard "gee, it kinda looks funny..." argument...



So strange, that it worked to (near) perfection, as the world believed it was real. Most people still do believe it was real, even now.


It did work, several times, and all the evidence, from whichever angle you care to take it, supports that it worked. It even got better as time went on and they introduced live colour TV that showed surface details and time and date specific images of Earth from the lunar surface.

All you are doing here is just repeating the "gee, it kinda looks funny..." argument without adding anything to the discussion.


But they blew it, when they changed the speed, from 50%, to 66.66%, proving it is a hoax.


Again, you are simply repeating the "gee, it kinda looks funny..." argument, and it doesn't 'prove' anything.

There was no change in speed. The movement of astronauts is not in slow motion, neither has film been slowed down. Every attempt to try and 'prove' a slowing down of footage fails dismally because movements become exaggerated and it just looks wrong.

The behaviour of astronauts, the objects the interact with, and the the surface materials the disturb, is entirely consistent with a zero atmosphere low gravity environment. It would be impossible, and I do mean impossible, to slow down the footage for live TV with dialogue.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter


The primary work of the Apollo Reviewer is to ask questions about the Apollo narrative and to elicit answers from Apollo Defenders and Apollo Believers.


So now you are an "Apollo Reviewer?" Is this like the "Holocaust Reviewers" who ask questions about the "narrative" of the Holocaust? There are several problems with your assertion: first, you claim to be examining "the narrative." You do not define what this means. Usually, when an historian uses that expression it is because they are embarked on a revisionist program. They do not challenge the actual facts, as established by primary sources, physical evidence, and so forth. Rather, they challenge the motivations of the players. Here is a relevant example:

Even at nearly a century's distance, the fact of the Second World War is undeniable. Primary sources attest to a series of political crises in Europe and on the Pacific Rim. There are films of the world leaders meeting, even if we do not have exact transcripts of the meetings. We do know that they made particular policy decisions after these meetings. Numerous personal letters and memoirs describe the actual fighting; these writings confirm the documentation from official sources (battle plans, field communications, etc.) Films and audio records of these military actions survive, as do eye witnesses. Fortifications and armaments built for the conflict survive. The landscape of Europe bears the scars of combat. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the Second World War did not happen. It is a matter of historical fact.

Here is the standard American "narrative." It is the story Americans tell themselves to justify their nation's actions after the fact: Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were evil empires. They deliberately launched a war of aggression in an attempt to conquer the world. The United States only entered the war grudgingly, and only after Japan attacked it in an unprovoked sneak attack. The US was welcomed as liberators everywhere they went...

The above "narrative" is consistent with the facts, and tells a story which casts the United States in a good light. Here is a different narrative:

The United States and Britain wanted to maintain Anglo-American dominance of the world economy. Rising industrial powers like Germany and Japan found themselves blocked when they attempted to enter new markets, and were unable to acquire vitally needed resources by peaceful means. As the United States began to extend its territory and control into the Pacific, conflict between the US and Japan seemed inevitable. Since Japan was at an industrial and, hence, strategic and military disadvantage, the only course of action open to Japan was to neutralize America's advantage with a pre-emptive strike....

Note that this re-interpretation is also consistent with the historical facts; it merely views the decisions made from a different perspective. It does not attempt to deny the attack on Pearl Harbor, it simply justifies it. It is the "Japanese narrative," and has no need to dispute the actual facts.

Serious historians are constantly re-examining the Apollo "narrative." No-one buys the contemporary story that it was purely about the peaceful exploration of space and quest for scientific knowledge. Even at the time, people understood that it was a Cold War game of some sort, an attempt to demonstrate the superiority of one economic system over another. Historians will debate the importance of military planning, the role of Keynesian economics, LBJ's vision of a "Great Society," etc, etc. One recent book even places the space program in the context of the Civil Rights Movement!

The point is, what you do is not examining the narrative, it is attempting to deny the evidence of the historical record altogether!

Second, you make the process an entirely passive one. All you do is "ask questions." Why not seek answers? The space program was one of the most minutely documented series of events in human history; you should be able to establish the facts based on all that evidence without having to rely on the expertise of people you dismiss a priori as "Defenders and Believers." Where does this inquisitive attitude go when a charlatan like Jarrah White make claims that are not consistent with physical reality?


Yes, there are two different levels of Apollo Narrative Control... first you have the die-hard believers and secondly you have the die-hard defenders. Both of those groups are guilty of running defense for the other. It is called "brigading" where they all band together in a coordinated effort to minimize the damage caused when Reviewers review the Apollo narratives.


This is a paranoid delusion on your part, and therefore a legitimate "conspiracy theory." Who is behind this "Apollo Narrative Control?" How is it funded? What is its goal?


Apollo Reviewers are simply doing a duty to the historical Apollo narrative by suggesting weaknesses in that narrative and by investigating those weaknesses - then exploiting those weaknesses - in effect to undermine the official Apollo narrative, which these people are here to defend by all means necessary, that includes, ad hominem and bullying and brigading.


But as I have pointed out above, that is not what you are doing! You are not examining the "narrative," you are attempting to deny all the evidence that establishes the facts of the historical record! Incidentally, if you are really interested in the truth, why do you find it necessary to "exploit weaknesses?" Either something is supported by evidence or it is not. As for your own ad hominem attack: "these people are here to defend by all means necessary, that includes, ad hominem and bullying and brigading," is laughably ironic.




It would be nice if the Apollo Reviewers could have a thread to discuss the narratives without the constant bullying of Believers and Defenders. But this thread is pretty standard result of what happens in any Apollo thread that gets too close to the truth.


On the one hand, you say it's your duty to ask questions, yet now you want to ban the people who can provide the answers from participating! Please point out one thing on this thread that you think has so endangered the historical "narrative" that the only recourse has been to bullying? (Like you are attempting to do now!)

Is it Ove's ghosts? That does not indicate that the narrative has a hole in it, it indicates that Ove does not understand how TV works!
edit on 9-5-2015 by DJW001 because: Edit to polish style.

edit on 9-5-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-5-2015 by DJW001 because: Edit to add additional material.

edit on 9-5-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-5-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)


kix

posted on May, 9 2015 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Why I think the USA went to the moon and its not a hoax? 2 reasons:

First they faked it 6 times and in the case of apollo 13 they almost lost the mission, why do it so many times . One or 2 missions would have been enough.

Second I went to Houston Space center in 71 as a young boy ( I was at Camp Manison) and David Scott Jr. was at my cabin, one day at our visit at Houston Space center, they allowed David jr. his mother and other 3 young friend of his witness the call for less than a minute from the moon from his dad (David Scott the astronaut). This was private. Why fake this? also with 3 unknown boys (such as me). Way too complicated and did not serve any purpose in the "hoax".



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: kix
Why I think the USA went to the moon and its not a hoax? 2 reasons:

First they faked it 6 times and in the case of apollo 13 they almost lost the mission, why do it so many times . One or 2 missions would have been enough.

Second I went to Houston Space center in 71 as a young boy ( I was at Camp Manison) and David Scott Jr. was at my cabin, one day at our visit at Houston Space center, they allowed David jr. his mother and other 3 young friend of his witness the call for less than a minute from the moon from his dad (David Scott the astronaut). This was private. Why fake this? also with 3 unknown boys (such as me). Way too complicated and did not serve any purpose in the "hoax".


Is this call from the "moon" mentioned anywhere ?

I don't know what they thought , but three flights to the moon in only six months, sounds less convincing to me.

Apollo 10 May 18, 1969
Apollo 11 July 16, 1969
Apollo 12 November 14, 1969

Maybe they at the time, thought a moon base was just around the corner, and no one would question the many flights ?
edit on 9-5-2015 by Ove38 because: text fix



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: kix
Why I think the USA went to the moon and its not a hoax? 2 reasons:

First they faked it 6 times and in the case of apollo 13 they almost lost the mission, why do it so many times . One or 2 missions would have been enough.

Second I went to Houston Space center in 71 as a young boy ( I was at Camp Manison) and David Scott Jr. was at my cabin, one day at our visit at Houston Space center, they allowed David jr. his mother and other 3 young friend of his witness the call for less than a minute from the moon from his dad (David Scott the astronaut). This was private. Why fake this? also with 3 unknown boys (such as me). Way too complicated and did not serve any purpose in the "hoax".


Is this call from the "moon" mentioned anywhere ?

I don't know what they thought , but three flights to the moon in only six months, sounds less convincing to me.

Apollo 10 May 18, 1969
Apollo 11 July 16, 1969
Apollo 12 November 14, 1969


So to you 6 months is to short. Well only 6 months appears to have been plenty of time. Well I guess if this is the reasoning you use to call something fake than no wonder your unable to fathom the Apollo missions.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ove38
Is this call from the "moon" mentioned anywhere ?

I don't know what they thought , but three flights to the moon in only six months, sounds less convincing to me.

Apollo 10 May 18, 1969
Apollo 11 July 16, 1969
Apollo 12 November 14, 1969


Is your opinion based on any kind of engineering expertise or experience in mission planning? Do you have any kind of proof or evidence that says they didn't happen? What makes your opinion valid in this matter, as there are lots or people with expertise, and who were involved in the missions, that disagree with your view on it considerably.

Those three launches were well publicised well documented events. each Saturn V, CSM and LM was prepared separately in readiness for their missions. The launches alone were attended by hundreds of thousands of spectators, and those were the really difficult bits.

Why not make it 4 lunar missions in 11 months, with 2 non-lunar ones inbetween? Does that make it sound any more impossible?



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Both of you understand, that the problem is, that this is unrepeatable to this very day ! No one is going to the moon ! Just go and we will believe you ! Show us the man on the moon, today !
edit on 9-5-2015 by Ove38 because: text fix



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ove38
Both of you understand, that the problem is, that this is unrepeatable to this very day ! No one is going to the moon ! Just go and we will believe you !


No body built the Titanic again either that's hardly a valid point. Plenty if things in history only happened once but in your world view I guess it didn't happen.
edit on 5/9/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Ove38
Both of you understand, that the problem is, that this is unrepeatable to this very day ! No one is going to the moon ! Just go and we will believe you !


No body built the Titanic again either that's hardly a valid point.


What ? The Largest Cruise Ship in the World is Five Times the Size of Titanic

Show us man on the moon today ! and we will believe you ! it shouldn't be that hard ? just one man !
edit on 9-5-2015 by Ove38 because: text fix



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Ove38
Both of you understand, that the problem is, that this is unrepeatable to this very day ! No one is going to the moon ! Just go and we will believe you !


No body built the Titanic again either that's hardly a valid point.


What ? The Largest Cruise Ship in the World is Five Times the Size of Titanic

Show us man on the moon today ! and we will believe you !


I Don't Anyone Truly Cares If YOU Believe anything. Some people believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. Belief is nothing more than a lack of proof. Like your belief that we didn't go to the moon. See again lacking evidence. See how this works.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Ove38
Both of you understand, that the problem is, that this is unrepeatable to this very day ! No one is going to the moon ! Just go and we will believe you !


No body built the Titanic again either that's hardly a valid point.


What ? The Largest Cruise Ship in the World is Five Times the Size of Titanic

Show us man on the moon today ! and we will believe you !


I Don't Anyone Truly Cares If YOU Believe anything. Some people believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. Belief is nothing more than a lack of proof. Like your belief that we didn't go to the moon. See again lacking evidence. See how this works.


Is there any chance we will see a man on the moon before 16 july 2069 ? You just know, no one will believe you if this dosent happen.
edit on 9-5-2015 by Ove38 because: text fix



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

What, specifically, makes it unrepeatable?

There are people in orbit today using equipment developed from Apollo's that allows them to perform EVAs, and getting something to orbit, and to the surface, has been done by other countries apart from the US.

Tell us specifically which technique or piece of equipment has been proven not to work.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Yes, there are two different levels of Apollo Narrative Control... first you have the die-hard believers and secondly you have the die-hard defenders. Both of those groups are guilty of running defense for the other. It is called "brigading" where they all band together in a coordinated effort to minimize the damage caused when Reviewers review the Apollo narratives.


This is both insulting and discussing others which was specifically forbidden by a mod just a few posts earlier.

If you've got any evidence that anyone here is "banding together in a coordinated effort" by all means present it.

If not then apologize.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

What I wrote was a sort of meta-commentary on the Apollo debate. What YOU wrote is your own responsibility.


So now you are an "Apollo Reviewer?" Is this like the "Holocaust Reviewers" who ask questions about the "narrative" of the Holocaust?


Why are you whipping out the holocaust card? I see your retreat into the holocaust as a retreat from Defending Apollo.
I think it's rather silly that you would drop a holocaust card and try to bomb this thread into oblivion.

You didn't say if you have read John M. Logsdon's book yet. Well? He just rewrote the Apollo narrative with Richard Nixon as it's leading antagonist. How do you feel about that? I have been reviewing Nixon's place in the Apollo narrative for several years now. I think Logsdon's is a great book and you should read it.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Nothing to say about all the other points I raised? Oh well. What book are you talking about? If it's written by someone who knows the difference between history and pure imagination, I might just read it. Although the fact that Nixon did not really play any part in shaping the space program before 1969 does not leave me hopefull.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Have you actually read Logsdon's book? Here are some quotes from a précis:


Nixon is often blamed for the cancellation of the final two planned Apollo missions, but Logsdon emphasizes that NASA Administrator Tom Paine agreed to give up the Saturn V in order to free up resources in the budget for the shuttle and station programs. It was NASA that also chose to cancel the last two Apollo flights to channel resources to the space shuttle program.

Nixon was apparently deeply affected by the near tragic events of Apollo 13, and felt very connected to the crew during their ordeal. As a result, Nixon proposed to cancel Apollo 16 and 17 ahead of the 1972 election, for fear that something could go wrong with one of the missions and impact his re-election bid.
In December 1972, as Apollo 17 was returning to Earth, Nixon

“One can argue that Nixon made a major policy mistake in mandating that the space program should be treated as just one of many domestic government programs competing for limited resources. Advocates for the last 40+ years have called for NASA budget increases and for treating the space program as ‘special.’ But it is also possible to argue that Nixon’s decision that U.S. space ambitions should be adjusted to the funds made available through the normal policy process was a valid reading of public preferences, and there were and still are no countervailing public policy reasons to reject those preferences. As his young assistant Tom Whitehead commented, ‘no compelling reason to push space was ever presented to the White House by NASA or anyone else.’ What has happened is the least desirable outcome - for more than 40 years there has been a mismatch between space ambitions and the resources provided to achieve them.”


www.planetary.org... [Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

Not only does this not sound like your Richard Nixon, the last paragraph explains, in no uncertain terms, why "no-one else has done it since!"
edit on 9-5-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


young assistant Tom Whitehead


That's funny you haven't read the book but quote mined Nixon's "young assistant Tom Whitehead" just to get the quote you wanted.

Tom Paine, George Low, Bill Anders, Spiro Agnew, Wernher von Braun and many others did offer compelling reasons to push space and they did, in fact, push space and presented it to the White House over and over again through various committee memos and personal meetings with the president. But the president's closest advisors were also intimately involved in "ratcheting down" the NASA budget and delaying the decisions.

You want to quote mine buddy? I've got the book right here let's start on page 45:


The senior member of Nixon's staff with direct oversight responsibility with respect to NASA was thus Assistant to the President Peter Flanagan. ... Flanigan was an investment banker and also a veteran of Nixon campaigns in 1960 and 1962. He had served the Nixon 1968 campaign as its link to the financial community."


Flanigan had oversight over NASA and doesn't know a god damned thing about space. Plus, was a long term Nixon loyalist, like Haldeman and Ehrlichman, which is a factor many Apollo Defenders never really considered.

Who works for Peter Flanigan? Clay Thomas "Tom" Whitehead, doctorate of management from MIT who also spent time at the Rand Corporation.

Quoting now from Logsdon "After Apollo?" p126:

Even in the aftermath of the triumph of the Apollo 11 lunar landing, the question of the content and pace of the post-Apollo space program had relatively low priority in the Nixon White House... This lack of top-level interest in the future of the space program allowed a junior member of the White House staff, Clay Thomas "Tom" Whitehead, to exercise substantial influence on how the president and his senior advisers responded to the STG report.

Although there was significant confusion and competition in roles between the White House policy staff, represented by Whitehead and his boss, Assistant to the President Peter Flanigan, and the Bureau of the Budget staff members dealing with space issues and their director, Robert Mayo, the two groups were united in their skepticism regarding the value of the kind of post-Apollo space program Paine was so insistently advocating.


Remember, these are all Nixon appointees, fighting against each other for budget dollars to develop space stations and lunar bases and trips to Mars. They are fighting because Nixon won't make a decision but Nixon's decision was really to cancel Apollo, cancel Mars, keep NASA in low earth orbit. Circling in orbit for 40+ years is not exploration.

Recall that Nixon didn't think about dollars or budgets when he spent $4 billion carpet bombing North Viet Nam during the Christmas bombings of Operation Linebacker II.

Paine was not alone. There were other space advocates. They all got shot down and Nixon ultimately got what he wanted. ... A muddled, confused, stripped down space agency with no ultimate destination other than low earth orbit.

It's funny that Whitehead would say "no compelling reason to push space was ever presented to the White House by NASA or anyone else." Logsdon's book shows that statement to be absurd. NASA was flowing with ideas and presentations but Nixon wanted to "ratchet down", starve the agency for funds immediately after Apollo 11.



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter




Logsdon's book shows that statement to be absurd. NASA was flowing with ideas and presentations but Nixon wanted to "ratchet down", starve the agency for funds immediately after Apollo 11.

Yup. He did.
He was a dick.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join