Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

originally posted by: turbonium1
That's what all the evidence indicates. Nothing else is relevant.

Very convincing argument. Except there is no such evidence.

That shows you have no interest in knowing the truth.

No matter how much proof there is to support it, you will never, ever accept it. Denial, at all costs, is your chosen path.

Pot, meet kettle.

If NASA would admit to our real capabilities, and milestones not yet reachs, in manned space exploration, we would have no secrets to hide, no more moon hoaxes to argue about, and we'd all be on the same side...

Since you obviously know so much more about it than the people involved, why don't you enlighten us?

originally posted by: turbonium1

That's what all the evidence indicates. Nothing else is relevant.

You are the one "dead set" against the evidence, because it doesn't support your main argument (Apollo as genuine).

The truth is all that matters, not what you or I think is true.

that isnt what all the evidence suggests.. you have Drees grandchildren that admit that they were the ones that related the rock and the card together.. they sold that idea to the museum, NASA's inability to trace gifts added to the confusion..

and then you have quotes from an old 85 year old man trying to remember events 40 years ago..

you are the one that takes these FEW evidence ONLY and make up your grand story..

you completely ignore that Middendorf could be mistaken about which rock and which PM..
you completely ignore that no rocks were given out during the goodwill tour..
you completely ignore that Middendorf showcased a real lunar rock to the then acting PM..
you completely ignore that old people memories fade and are not always reliable..
you completely ignore every single newspaper article from the 60's-70's..

why is your story missing so many facts?

What happens if he didn't give it to him? I've considered EVERY possibility, including that, because I want to know the truth, no matter what it is. To this point, I find nothing to suggest the story as reported is not accurate. Specifically, that Middendorf received the fake 'moon rock' from the US State Dept, and gave it to Drees in a private ceremony.

you done goofed.. nothing to suggest that the report is not accurate??

apart from every single report you have posted is copy pasting from a single source, even stating that the Apollo 11 moon landings occurred in 1959?? you believe that is "accurate"???

You don't know, either, but I DO have supporting evidence on my side. You have nothing at all. You won't accept the possibility of it being true, despite your lack of any evidence.

you dont actually have evidence.. as stated multiple times, the only evidence you have are copy pasted articles from a single source which noted the Apollo 11 lunar landings occurred in 1959..

That shows you have no interest in knowing the truth.

No matter how much proof there is to support it, you will never, ever accept it. Denial, at all costs, is your chosen path.

and you have failed to provide the evidence asked of you to support your claims..

does that show that you have no interest in knowing the truth?? you continue to fail the see the fallacy in your own argument..

why would anyone consider your story as true when its premise is based on speculation with no evidence to back it up??

Denial of the truth, and the refusal to seek out truth, is also what keeps us from greater progress in manned space exploration. NASA, and the Apollo-ites, are more concerned with propping up the Apollo story.

if by "seeking the truth" you mean speculating on peoples intentions as a way of proving the truth.. then i agree you have that down quite good.

unfortunately i dont believe that speculation without evidence is a way of proving what is true.

If NASA would admit to our real capabilities, and milestones not yet reachs, in manned space exploration, we would have no secrets to hide, no more moon hoaxes to argue about, and we'd all be on the same side...

That's just dreaming, unfortunately.

there you go again, speculation to prove what is true..

Why Apollo-ites are so afraid of the truth, is a whole other subject itself

no one is afraid of truth.. what we are afraid of is spreading falsehoods as truth!!

therefore i wont accept speculation to prove the truth.

you want to prove your speculation, provide evidence that supports your speculation.. find some other source that doesnt copy and paste from the same source that doesnt even proof read its articles.

a reply to: choos
you completely ignore that Middendorf could be mistaken ....

after all these years in the agency,, severely doubt Middendorf can distinguish the truth from fiction any more ...all thats left is word salads open too interpretation from certain points of veiw .... i.e. Never A Straight Answer ....

originally posted by: DelMarvel
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Buzz Aldrin is an American hero.

None of this "Apollo reviewer" nonsense will ever change that. It's basically a lame attempt to glom onto the glory like some kind of suckerfish.

One day, I believe that Gus Grissom will finally be recognized as the one true hero. He spoke the truth, and refused to accept taking part in the sham, as the so-called 'first human on the moon'. He was murdered because of it, and no astronaut will ever speak the truth again.

Astronauts you now regard as heroes will be known as liars, which is the truth.

Bill Kaysing said he was contacted by one Apollo astronaut, James Irwin, who wanted to discuss it with him. Irwin mentioned his phone could be bugged, and asked Kaysing to call him at home, and gave him his number. When kaysing called him a few days later, Irwin was dead. From a heart attack.

Irwin seems to be the only Apollo astronaut who wanted to speak out, since Grissom earlier. Irwin must have been aware he was in danger, as he mentioned the phone tap. He may have paid with HIS life, for trying to speak the truth.

I do have respect for Neil Armstrong, but not as a hero. To me, he always seemed to look uncomfortable, even ashamed, when he discussed the Apollo 11 mission. I think that's the main reason he rarely spoke about it, not because of his (supposedly) wanting so much 'privacy'.

Armstrong gave clues about the truth being hidden - "remove one of truth's protective layers". He cannot be referring to future truths, yet to be discovered - as space exploration discovering the unknown.

A truth has to already exist, to be protected, by "layers". And to remove one of the layers protecting a truth.
A 'protected' truth is a secret, we do not know about. Armstrong is telling these people there are secrets, the truth is protected, guarded, hidden, kept in secret. He hopes that one day, those people can remove one of the layers, so we will finally know the truth. He wants people to know the truth about Apollo, and this was his unique way of telling us.

The Apollo astronauts have to lie, or else they would die - from heart attacks, in capsule fires, or by stalling their cars at train crossings...after all, many automobiles, like Apollo training capsules, have doors which cannot be opened from the inside!!

originally posted by: DelMarvel
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Buzz Aldrin is an American hero.

None of this "Apollo reviewer" nonsense will ever change that. It's basically a lame attempt to glom onto the glory like some kind of suckerfish.

One day, I believe that Gus Grissom will finally be recognized as the one true hero. He spoke the truth, and refused to accept taking part in the sham, as the so-called 'first human on the moon'. He was murdered because of it, and no astronaut will ever speak the truth again.

Astronauts you now regard as heroes will be known as liars, which is the truth.

Bill Kaysing said he was contacted by one Apollo astronaut, James Irwin, who wanted to discuss it with him. Irwin mentioned his phone could be bugged, and asked Kaysing to call him at home, and gave him his number. When kaysing called him a few days later, Irwin was dead. From a heart attack.

Irwin seems to be the only Apollo astronaut who wanted to speak out, since Grissom earlier. Irwin must have been aware he was in danger, as he mentioned the phone tap. He may have paid with HIS life, for trying to speak the truth.

I do have respect for Neil Armstrong, but not as a hero. To me, he always seemed to look uncomfortable, even ashamed, when he discussed the Apollo 11 mission. I think that's the main reason he rarely spoke about it, not because of his (supposedly) wanting so much 'privacy'.

Armstrong gave clues about the truth being hidden - "remove one of truth's protective layers". He cannot be referring to future truths, yet to be discovered - as space exploration discovering the unknown.

A truth has to already exist, to be protected, by "layers". And to remove one of the layers protecting a truth.
A 'protected' truth is a secret, we do not know about. Armstrong is telling these people there are secrets, the truth is protected, guarded, hidden, kept in secret. He hopes that one day, those people can remove one of the layers, so we will finally know the truth. He wants people to know the truth about Apollo, and this was his unique way of telling us.

The Apollo astronauts have to lie, or else they would die - from heart attacks, in capsule fires, or by stalling their cars at train crossings...after all, many automobiles, like Apollo training capsules, have doors which cannot be opened from the inside!!

originally posted by: turbonium1


One day, I believe that Gus Grissom will finally be recognized as the one true hero.

He already is.

He spoke the truth, and refused to accept taking part in the sham, as the so-called 'first human on the moon'. He was murdered because of it, and no astronaut will ever speak the truth again.

This is a shameful lie. If NASA were so concerned about his whistleblowing why are the stories about his very vocal criticism so freely available? Many astronauts are openly critical of NASA, they are still with us.

Astronauts you now regard as heroes will be known as liars, which is the truth.

This is deluded fantasy, and will never happen.

Bill Kaysing said he was contacted by one Apollo astronaut, James Irwin, who wanted to discuss it with him. Irwin mentioned his phone could be bugged, and asked Kaysing to call him at home, and gave him his number. When kaysing called him a few days later, Irwin was dead. From a heart attack.

The only true thing about this story is Irwin's heart attack, after a period of heart illness. How very convenient that Kaysing was unable to follow up his story. This is because Kaysing is a liar, and this claim is a lie.

Irwin seems to be the only Apollo astronaut who wanted to speak out, since Grissom earlier. Irwin must have been aware he was in danger, as he mentioned the phone tap. He may have paid with HIS life, for trying to speak the truth.

This is not true and has no basis in fact whatsoever.

I do have respect for Neil Armstrong, but not as a hero. To me, he always seemed to look uncomfortable, even ashamed, when he discussed the Apollo 11 mission. I think that's the main reason he rarely spoke about it, not because of his (supposedly) wanting so much 'privacy'.

This is your opinion, based on supposition and bias, and is not true. If you listen to his interviews and the pre- and post-flight conference he was actually the most articulate of the three crewmen in front of an audience. He also spoke regularly about Apollo 11 and his experience, he was just choosy about his appearances.

Armstrong gave clues about the truth being hidden - "remove one of truth's protective layers". He cannot be referring to future truths, yet to be discovered - as space exploration discovering the unknown.

That is exactly what he was talking about: future space exploration. He gave no clues about hidden truths to a conspiracy, ever, because there isn't one and never has been one.

A truth has to already exist, to be protected, by "layers". And to remove one of the layers protecting a truth.
A 'protected' truth is a secret, we do not know about. Armstrong is telling these people there are secrets, the truth is protected, guarded, hidden, kept in secret. He hopes that one day, those people can remove one of the layers, so we will finally know the truth. He wants people to know the truth about Apollo, and this was his unique way of telling us.

You have no concept of metaphor. Was it true that DNA controls cell replication before Watson and Crick, or was it magic?

The Apollo astronauts have to lie, or else they would die - from heart attacks, in capsule fires, or by stalling their cars at train crossings...after all, many automobiles, like Apollo training capsules, have doors which cannot be opened from the inside!!

Except they are not telling lies, because the historical record provides unequivocal and unambiguous proof of the truth of their stories. Hoax proponents, on the other hand, have nothing but lies, insinuation and lack of knowledge about the subject to prop up their deluded fantasies.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: turbonium1


One day, I believe that Gus Grissom will finally be recognized as the one true hero.

He already is.

The Apollo Defenders know about Gus Grissom but the average person on the street has never heard of him.

Are there any manned space missions going above 475km in space altitude? No???

a reply to: turbonium1

Irwin seems to be the only Apollo astronaut who wanted to speak out, since Grissom earlier. Irwin must have been aware he was in danger, as he mentioned the phone tap. He may have paid with HIS life, for trying to speak the truth.

Turbo, check out this thread on Jim Irwin.

Apollo 15, Jim Irwin's historical narrative in review
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why would NASA send Jim Irwin to the moon??? Jim Irwin was a walking medical disaster... he had heart problems... he had severe leg injuries from a plane crash... it makes no sense that NASA Dr. Charles Berry would put Irwin on a moon mission. It makes NO SENSE AT ALL.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

The only true thing about this story is Irwin's heart attack, after a period of heart illness. How very convenient that Kaysing was unable to follow up his story. This is because Kaysing is a liar, and this claim is a lie.

Irwin had heart problems before he went on Apollo. Irwin also had his legs smashed in a plane accident. Irwin also worked in a "cover job" on the Falcon missile factory.

You need to read up on your history dude because we are gonna take you to town on Jim Irwin.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I look forward to your presenting some form of reasoned argument as to why Irwin did not walk on the moon, as opposed to character assassination, insinuation and ill informed dissection of events prior to and after Apollo 15.

There is already a long dead thread full of the latter, and I have no intention of indulging in your necromancy.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: onebigmonkey

The only true thing about this story is Irwin's heart attack, after a period of heart illness. How very convenient that Kaysing was unable to follow up his story. This is because Kaysing is a liar, and this claim is a lie.

Irwin had heart problems before he went on Apollo. Irwin also had his legs smashed in a plane accident. Irwin also worked in a "cover job" on the Falcon missile factory.

You need to read up on your history dude because we are gonna take you to town on Jim Irwin.

His heart problems first showed up when apollo 15 surgeons were monitoring his vitals. It wasn't until after he returned to earth months later he had a heart attack. But more to the point how does this prove he didn't go to the moon?? He could have been a paraplegic doesn't Nagate the fact that he went. I know maybe Nixon drugged him I know Nixon involved in your scenario some where.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

Why would NASA send Jim Irwin to the moon??? Jim Irwin was a walking medical disaster... he had heart problems... he had severe leg injuries from a plane crash... it makes no sense that NASA Dr. Charles Berry would put Irwin on a moon mission. It makes NO SENSE AT ALL.

and yet he did..

so like you said, why would an Apollo hoax program put a walking medical disaster as an astronaut to actually walk on the moon?

did he pay to have the privilege?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

You need to read up on your history dude because we are gonna take you to town on Jim Irwin.

no you are not - you are just going to churn out spurious innuendo

PS - i too am eager to hear why you belive that an alledged hoax program would include irwin ?

it cuts both ways - so stop JAQing off and actually answer questions - its thereputic

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

You don't think anyone is going to bump that ridiculous thread, do you? If you have anything to say, post it on this one.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

This is a shameful lie. If NASA were so concerned about his whistleblowing why are the stories about his very vocal criticism so freely available? Many astronauts are openly critical of NASA, they are still with us.

We have never seen any whistleblowers - that's the whole problem.

NASA was only making a point with Grissom. Nobody speaks the truth, as Grissom did, in other words.

Grissom may also have said - it was going to be hoaxed, or it was never going to work, or so forth...

But it was never heard...

One day, I believe we will finally know it.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
The only true thing about this story is Irwin's heart attack, after a period of heart illness. How very convenient that Kaysing was unable to follow up his story. This is because Kaysing is a liar, and this claim is a lie.

So he's a liar, and no proof is needed!

He had no apparent motive for lying about it, but you would obviously know that he was lying, to accuse him of being a liar....

You accuse people of being liars and don't have any clue that evidence is required. It is not an option.

No way...

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
This is your opinion, based on supposition and bias, and is not true. If you listen to his interviews and the pre- and post-flight conference he was actually the most articulate of the three crewmen in front of an audience. He also spoke regularly about Apollo 11 and his experience, he was just choosy about his appearances.

It is all about one's opinion, you can't say what is true or false about my view, or anyone else's..

Our opinions vastly differ, on this matter. So we can now move along...

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
That is exactly what he was talking about: future space exploration. He gave no clues about hidden truths to a conspiracy, ever, because there isn't one and never has been one.

A truth must exist, to protect it.

We find a truth, in space exploration.

You think a truth has 'protective layers', for whatever reason, a truth is always being protected, in 'layers'. Nobody actually knows what those layers are, but we must remove one of those layers to find a truth.

Exploration of space, means exploration, discovery, of things unknown, in our desire to know...

Nobody knows a truth yet, but it will have layers of protection, and one of these layers must be removed before you get to a truth!! .

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
You have no concept of metaphor. Was it true that DNA controls cell replication before Watson and Crick, or was it magic?

Yes, it works so much better.....as a metaphor!! Not...

A truth is being protected. It is protected. Something protects it. A metaphor doesn't work here.

Layers can work as a metaphor, and unraveling the layers to discover/find a truth ...

The problem is that a truth cannot be 'protected', in any scenario.

Protecting a truth means only one thing - that it is a secret ....

originally posted by: turbonium1

We have never seen any whistleblowers - that's the whole problem.

There is a good reason for this: we went to the moon, there is no conspiracy to reveal.

NASA was only making a point with Grissom. Nobody speaks the truth, as Grissom did, in other words.

Grissom may also have said - it was going to be hoaxed, or it was never going to work, or so forth...

But it was never heard...

One day, I believe we will finally know it.

We already know it: we went to the moon, Grissom was killed (along with two other astronauts, including the first American to walk in space 50 years ago) in a tragic accident.

You accuse people of murdering Grissom, Chaffee and White and don't have any clue that evidence is required. It is not an option.

So he's a liar, and no proof is needed!

He had no apparent motive for lying about it, but you would obviously know that he was lying, to accuse him of being a liar....

You accuse people of being liars and don't have any clue that evidence is required. It is not an option.

No way...

It is massively ironic of you to insist on evidence when you have repeatedly been asked to provide evidence of your own claims and have provided none whatsoever. Kaysing lied about his scientific qualifications and security clearance. He lied when he claimed NASA suppressed stars in photographs from Apollo missions. He lied about all kinds of things on his shoddy poorly put together book. If you want a motive for his lies, I suggest you look at how much his books cost, and how much his TV appearance fees were. His motive was to make money and a name for himself.

It is all about one's opinion, you can't say what is true or false about my view, or anyone else's..

Our opinions vastly differ, on this matter. So we can now move along...

No, you can have an opinion, but when it is based on incorrect information and biased assumptions then your opinion is wrong. You don't get to dismiss your failure to support your arguments and opinion so easily.

A truth must exist, to protect it.

We find a truth, in space exploration.

Protecting the truth that Apollo went to the moon against the lie that is the hoax claim is why I am here.

You think a truth has 'protective layers', for whatever reason, a truth is always being protected, in 'layers'. Nobody actually knows what those layers are, but we must remove one of those layers to find a truth.

Where do I say truth has protective layers? You are putting someone else's words in my mouth and constructing an argument from it. You can't do that. Armstrong employed a metaphor. You seem not to understand it.

Exploration of space, means exploration, discovery, of things unknown, in our desire to know...

Exactly the metaphor Armstrong was employing.

Nobody knows a truth yet, but it will have layers of protection, and one of these layers must be removed before you get to a truth!!

You aren't making any sense.

Yes, it works so much better.....as a metaphor!! Not...

A truth is being protected. It is protected. Something protects it. A metaphor doesn't work here.

Layers can work as a metaphor, and unraveling the layers to discover/find a truth ...

The problem is that a truth cannot be 'protected', in any scenario.

Protecting a truth means only one thing - that it is a secret ....

Nope, you failed at understanding the metaphor again. The whole point of exploration of space, about which Armstrong was speaking, involves making discoveries about the unknown. Armstrong is not dropping hints about secrets, he is using emotive language to inspire future astronauts.

There is no secret: we went to the moon. All of the evidence is out there and all the evidence is unequivocal.

All you are doing is regurgitating a discussion over the metadata and avoiding presenting any actual data.

Evidence is not an option.

I feel sorry for the Apollo astronauts, actually.

Before Apollo, they (mostly) had a very good life, and though they all faced risks, it was simply a part of the job..

They were doomed, forever after, by being chosen to become the 'heroic' Apollo astronauts..

A fate nobody would ever choose, if they ever had a choice.

To die or not, was/is the only choice.


Look at their reactions to any hoax questions - intense fear, and stress, by the very real chance of exposure.

originally posted by: turbonium1

A fate nobody would ever choose, if they ever had a choice.

To die or not, was/is the only choice.

someone forgot to tell Harrison Schmitt that..

since the lunar geologist community were the ones that forced him into Apollo 17.. which must mean they were the ones behind the hoax and not NASA.

a reply to: turbonium1

Look at their reactions to any hoax questions - intense fear, and stress, by the very real chance of exposure.

You are hallucinating. All I've ever seen has been pity for the questioners ignorance or righteous anger for the charlatan's attempt to demean the astronaut's bravery and accomplishments. People who try to make themselves look big by demeaning others make me sick.