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: 46
17
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   

a reply to: onebigmonkey
You have no proof whatsoever ...


there is a general overwhelming consensus that individual participants in NASA and their associates, such as Middendorf & Drees, have colluded in various nefarious deceptive schemes upon which inevitable reverberations have accumulated towards frequentative unavoidable consequences which has produced the propagandists process phenomenon to descend into an imminent period of crisis...




posted on May, 16 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

That is an utterly ludicrous, nonsensical and totally incorrect interpretation of events.

Post your evidence or stop posting this gibberish.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Television on Apollo 11 was a last minute decision according to Stan Lebar,


"Probably one of the most amazing meetings on this subject occurred at NASA's Manned Spacecraft Centre, Houston, some time in the early part of 1969. The meeting was convened to determine if the television camera should be taken to the moon on the Apollo 11 mission, which was only a few months away. "



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

What part of "early in 1969" equates to "last minute" in your universe?

That quote also relates specifically to lunar surface TV, not TV as a whole.

Here's a source for your quote, seeing as you forgot to provide one:

www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
We are constantly reminded by NASA and Apollo Defenders that "oh, including television on Apollo was a last minute decision."


No, that is not true. You are not constantly reminded and it was not a last minute decision. What is true is that some people (including astronauts) felt it was an unnecessary distraction, and that it was not necessarily something that should be publicly available as a live media show managed to coincide with network schedules. TV was a tool, not a publicity medium. When they got the pictures back they realised that actually the publicity value was priceless. So what?



However, Richard Nafzger admitted in his oral history that preparations were being made months in advance of Apollo 8 even though the decision hadn't been made yet with regard to the question of using tv cameras on Apollo missions.


Nice use of the loaded term 'admitted'. He 'admits' nothing. He describes a series of events. Show me where he says the decision hadn't been made, given that he discusses TV from Apollo 7. This document, which you have been given before, describes how the planning for TV started almost as soon as planning for Apollo:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Apollo 8 images showing the Earth from space appeared in the newspapers the day after transmission. Bam - there goes the hoax argument.



Some of you who have been reading this thread page by page might like to refer back to my earlier comments regarding the SSTV equipment sabotage in Sydney Australia. That story of the explosion of the SSTV equipment really needs to be looked at in closer detail. Nafzger's history is telling.


Some of you who have been reading this thread will remember how SJ made great play out of insisting that the incident occurred 3 weeks before Apollo 11, when it was in fact it was three months. SJ never responded to my correction. SJ also continues to use the word 'explosion', when Nafzger doesn't. SJ is making a mountain out of molehill.


I know this is a long quote but I wanted to make it clear to the other posters that your information is wrong, you are being corrected and your wrongness ought to be noted by other Apollo Reviewers.

There was an explosion. At OTC Paddington, Sydney. Of SSTV equipment. WEEKS, not months, before Apollo 11. This is the same facility that Richard Nafzger says he was locked out of for an entire weekend.


"An Explosion in the Scan-converter:

A few weeks before the launch of Apollo 11, the scan-converter at OTC Paddington exploded when it was switched on by Richard Holl following a test.." Source www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au...


Please note that this is the actual Parkes history site which uses the word "explosion" and sets the "explosion" as "a few weeks before".

I am so happy to offer you a correction to your distorted Apollo narratives.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Another strange fire incident of transmitter equipment... also in located in Australia, this time during the Apollo 11 mission. Now we are talking about two different incidents, Sydney (weeks before) and Tidbinbilla (during).


"A fire leads to a change of plan:

The personnel at Tidbinbilla, under the directorship of Don Grey, were looking forward to receiving the historic television of the EVA. Unfortunately for Tidbinbilla, a fire in the transmitter just one day into the mission on 18 July altered the plan drastically." Source www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au...



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

And your original quote wasn't from there now was it, it was from the oral history by Nafzger.

www.jsc.nasa.gov...

quote:

"We’re three months before launch and we’re trying to figure out what happened."

3 months is about 12-13 weeks. Weeks as in 'more than one week'. Nowhere in your quote from the other document does it specify how many weeks.

Nowhere.

3 months is not immediately before the mission.

You might also want to ask where the dish was pointing when it received those TV signals, and how long it was pointing that way for. You can get hold of people from the Honeysuckle Creek website very easily. They do, however, have a low opinion of historical revisionists determined to turn truth into lies.

Here's what Apollo 11 was pointing at - you can see who was receiving the TV signal.




edit on 16-5-2015 by onebigmonkey because: link



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
And just to remind people what SJ actually said:


originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

Wrong. The SSTV equipment was sabotaged by a workman who decided to change the black and red leads on the SSTV power convertor. This was 3 weeks prior to the Apollo 11 launch. That makes you wrong on two counts.


Show me anything in any document you have read that says 3 weeks, and provide some proof that it was deliberately sabotaged.

You were wrong SJ, get over it.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

And your original quote wasn't from there now was it, it was from the oral history by Nafzger.

www.jsc.nasa.gov...



No I am not using Richard Nafzger's "NASA" oral history as my source. I am using Nafzger's oral history audio interview from here:
www.honeysucklecreek.net...


setting up in Australia, converters at Sydney and Honeysuckle, blowing up the Sydney scan converter. Figuring out what had happened. RCA sends help.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Richard Nafzger paraphrasing his supervisor when told of the SSTV equipment explosion:

We've got a launch coming in like three weeks!



Apollo Television Ground Support Engineer

Interviews recorded by Colin Mackellar, 26 March – 07 April 2010

Part 3 @ 7:00

"I can't remember the exact dates that all this occurred but I remember going to Australia and installing that..." - Nafzger

"This was of course downstream - closer and closer to Apollo 11." - Nafzger

The equipment explodes.

@ 11:00 "I called NASA that day. Got a hold of my supervisor and told him we'd had a massive failure of the converter." - Nafzger
@ 12:00 "Oh my gosh you're really not kidding! We've got a launch coming in like three weeks!" - Nafzger paraphrasing what his boss said.

There was a two week investigation into the cause of the explosion of the SSTV equipment at Sydney.

www.honeysucklecreek.net...


edit on 5/16/2015 by SayonaraJupiter because: Got you on this one



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

More of your infatuation with Nixon. You want to claim sstv was some new technology under development it was first used in vostok Amarican started using it in mercury 9. They had a TV camera surprise used before apollo 11. There was never any debate about if apollo would send video. The debate was should they attempt a live broadcast. The equipment to do a live conversion didn't exist. They had to change formats to broadcast TV and there was a debate on how succesful this would be. It worked obviously since they were able to do live broadcast.

You like to play games trying to link facts that have nothing to do with each other in a strange artempt to somehow link Nixon. Funniest part is you want to attribute a huge plot to a man that couldn't even break into an office without being caught. And worse kept audio recordings of everything he did. Hard to believe he would keep audio recordings of his criminal activities yet nothing on apollo hoax.

This is why your a sumptuous are so funny you know nothing of history.



posted on May, 16 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I don't see what any of this has to do with anything.

If you're going to accept Nafzger as a source then on what basis are you rejecting his account of repairing the system in time for the mission?

What would this have to do with the mission being faked?


originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
There was a two week investigation into the cause of the explosion of the SSTV equipment at Sydney.


And Nafzger says in that interview that it was because an Australian technician reversed some wires because the Australian system of distinguishing one wire from another was different.

Once again, so what? He says it was fixed in time.
edit on 16-5-2015 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 01:27 AM
link   
This picture was taken September 15, 1969 They sure look like they have never seen a lunar rock before.



The box looks similar to the one given by the astronauts to the Netherlands.

United States Ambassador John William Middendorf and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands

Shortly after taking office in 1969, President Richard Nixon appointed Middendorf as United States Ambassador to the Netherlands. Middendorf served in this position from July 1969 until June 1973.
edit on 17-5-2015 by Ove38 because: text fix



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ove38
This picture was taken September 15, 1969 They sure look like they have never seen a lunar rock before.




It's a press event for the presentation of an Apollo 11 rock to the Smithsonian. Do please tell us what someone looks like when they have seen a lunar rock before, in your vast experience of this.


The box looks similar to the one given by the astronauts to the Netherlands.

United States Ambassador John William Middendorf and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands


Looks like, but isn't. It's just the way the chose to show them. I posted this the other week. Your point?



Shortly after taking office in 1969, President Richard Nixon appointed Middendorf as United States Ambassador to the Netherlands. Middendorf served in this position from July 1969 until June 1973.


You really have sucked Google dry on this one. Any other factoids you think we're short of?

Going back to something you seem to have forgotten about, here's a little nugget for you from the Canberra TImes, March 12 1969:



(link is too long to post the original, search trove.nla.gov.au... if you're keen).

Precise timings as to when to see an Apollo craft with the naked eye in Earth orbit.

Still think they could hide one up there?
edit on 17-5-2015 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1


The issue is a fake moon rock was presented under the belief it was genuine.


Exactly wrong. The question is whether or not the piece of petrified wood was ever represented to be a Moon rock in the first place.


No, we've already answered that question - it WAS represented to be a moon rock in the first place.

The two people who were there - Drees and Middendorf - believed it was real.

Drees has to believe it was real, since his family donated it to the family under the belief it was real. They didn't see a chunk if wood in his house for almost 20 years and mistakenly think it was a real moon rock after he died. Drees had to have told his it was a real moon rock, as they wouldn't have come to that belief otherwise.

Middendorf certainly believed it was a real moon rock, too. He knew nothing of it "not being real".

Both parties were under the belief it was a real moon rock.

The issue at hand, as I told you, is that a fake moon rock was given under the belief it was real...



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, we've already answered that question - it WAS represented to be a moon rock in the first place.


You have no proof of this.



The two people who were there - Drees and Middendorf - believed it was real.


You have no proof of this.


Drees has to believe it was real,


You have no proof of this.


since his family donated it to the family under the belief it was real.


You have no proof of this.



They didn't see a chunk if wood in his house for almost 20 years and mistakenly think it was a real moon rock after he died. Drees had to have told his it was a real moon rock, as they wouldn't have come to that belief otherwise.


You have no proof of this.



Middendorf certainly believed it was a real moon rock, too. He knew nothing of it "not being real".


You have no proof of this.


Both parties were under the belief it was a real moon rock.


You have no proof of this.


The issue at hand, as I told you, is that a fake moon rock was given under the belief it was real...


You have no proof of this.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 02:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

The issue is whether it was even presented, or whether people are mistakenly recalling other events.

There is far more evidence to support my contention that the rock and card were put together by two artists for an exhibition and are entirely unrelated than there is for any claim that it was given by Apollo astronauts on the goodwill tour.

No matter how many times I have requested your proof that the fossil was donated on the goodwill tour you have been unable to provide. All quotes by Middendorf are ambiguous and subject to the effect of time on fading memory.

When you have your proof, please post it.


See my last post, for evidence it was fraud

There is NO issue that it was presented. Both parties confirmed that it was. It cannot be mistaken for something else, by both parties, let alone the fact there IS a fake moon rock. The Drees family gave it to the Dutch museum. Middendorf confirmed he presented the "little piece of stone" to Drees.

It happened - so get over it, already.

The card, as I said, is not relevant to the main issue, which is that a fake moon rock was given, under the belief it was real.

Same as when it was presented - the fact is that it WAS presented. Whether or not it was presented during the goodwill tour does not change that fact.


Anything else, or is that about it?



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

See my last post, for evidence it was fraud


YOur last post contained nothing remotely resembling anything that could conceivably be likened to evidence.



There is NO issue that it was presented. Both parties confirmed that it was.


No, they haven't. Drees certainly never confirmed anything, it is not even certain that he donated the fossil, or the card. All we know that is that his family donated his effects to the Rijksmuseum. The two items were allegedly part of that collection. See my post about the drawer.

Middendorf did not confirm that he gave him any rock at all, never mind this specific one. I believe his comments about it concern the event pictured in Ove32's post above. There is more proof to support that than your contention.


It cannot be mistaken for something else, by both parties,


If you have any proof that either party believed it was a moon rock, post it.



let alone the fact there IS a fake moon rock.


Nope. It was never given as a lunar rock, no-one ever claimed it was. Proof, if you have it, would be helpful to your cause.


The Drees family gave it to the Dutch museum.


They gave a box of effects to the museum. Prove the fossil was in it.



Middendorf confirmed he presented the "little piece of stone" to Drees.


Prove it. Show me the exact words where he specifically confirms that this specific rock was given by him to Drees on this occasion.



It happened - so get over it, already.


Proof. Post some.


The card, as I said, is not relevant to the main issue, which is that a fake moon rock was given, under the belief it was real.


But the card is all you have to supposedly connect the two items.

NO rock was given, at all, by anyone, to anyone, on this goodwill visit. No-one on this visit or remotely connected with it claimed it was a lunar rock. No-one.



Same as when it was presented - the fact is that it WAS presented.


Proof would be good. Except you have none.



Whether or not it was presented during the goodwill tour does not change that fact.


Wait, so not only does the card from Middendorf have nothing to do with it (you know, the card that mentions Apollo 11's visit), but now it doesn't even matter if the fossil was presented during the visit, which is the whole point of these farcical claims of yours?

You're effectively dismissing your whole story.



Anything else, or is that about it?


We were done dozens of pages ago when you failed to provide the evidence to support your claim that this was donated as a lunar sample by Middendorf to Drees.

We are even more done now that you've decided that Middendorf's card referring to the Apollo 11 visit is irrelevant and that it doesn't matter whether or not the rock was donated on that visit at all.

I repeat, again:

There is no proof whatsoever that this fossil was given to Drees by Middendorf.

There is no proof whatsoever that anyone remotely connected to the Apollo 11 visit claimed it was a lunar sample, or denied that it wasn't a lunar sample, or any combination of words combining 'moon', 'rock', and "here have this".

There is very little proof that the rock and card were both in Drees' collection donated to the Museum, or that anyone connected them in any way whatsoever.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 02:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, we've already answered that question - it WAS represented to be a moon rock in the first place.


You have no proof of this.



The two people who were there - Drees and Middendorf - believed it was real.


You have no proof of this.


Drees has to believe it was real,


You have no proof of this.


since his family donated it to the family under the belief it was real.


You have no proof of this.



They didn't see a chunk if wood in his house for almost 20 years and mistakenly think it was a real moon rock after he died. Drees had to have told his it was a real moon rock, as they wouldn't have come to that belief otherwise.


You have no proof of this.



Middendorf certainly believed it was a real moon rock, too. He knew nothing of it "not being real".


You have no proof of this.


Both parties were under the belief it was a real moon rock.


You have no proof of this.


The issue at hand, as I told you, is that a fake moon rock was given under the belief it was real...


You have no proof of this.


Saying I have no proof, over and over, makes for a very convincing argument. indeed!

Why do I even bother?



Oh well, all those people out there who don't have their heads stuck in the sand will be able to assess the evidence I've presented for themselves. They will come to realize that a fraud was indeed perpetrated. Whether you like it or not.



posted on May, 17 2015 @ 02:43 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

I posted that to make a point: you have no proof of anything you're claiming here at all. I've asked for it, other people have asked for it, you have not provided anything.

Not.

One.

Thing.

Now you're even arguing that the basic components of the story don't even matter.

Why do you bother? No-one's asking you to.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join