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: 68
17
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Another step to disclosure ?..


Russia Demands Probe into U.S. Moon Landing


Russia's investigative committee spokesman has demanded that an international investigation be launched into the U.S. 1969 moon landings, after a US-led investigation into the world governing body FIFA, cast doubt over the fairness of choosing Russia to host the next World Cup.

edit on 20-6-2015 by webstra because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: webstra
Another step to disclosure ?..


Russia Demands Probe into U.S. Moon Landing


No, the article specifically states that they are not investigating whether or not the lunar landings were faked.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

It is indeed, and there are several paragraphs afterwards that would also have suited my intention.

Apollo was Kennedy's vision, and not just Apollo but the other things, the other things being the entire space programme of satellite reconnaissance and unmanned probes.

Nixon rode on his coat-tails, nothing more.


Apollo was von Braun's vision (go watch the Disney films again) and the three films were released in 1955 and 1957. Richard Nixon was vice president. Remember Sputnik? Remember the creation of NASA? The late 1950s is also about the time that Kissinger is writing about the credibility of nuclear weapons and limited wars. Nuclear credibility, which means, politically, the credibility of the United States to have the will to engage in limited wars without using nukes.
history.msfc.nasa.gov...

von Braun sold rockets to Eisenhower, then Kennedy. Without the salesman, Kennedy won't buy it. Apollo was not Kennedy's vision. Yes, JFK gave the big sales speech at Rice, in Houston, Texas, worldwide headquarters of ToolCo, owned by Howard Hughes... JFK is another salesman and no one doubts it was a great speech! Apollo was not JFK's vision.

If anything, Kennedy is riding the coat-tails of von Braun, Mercury, Disney and the Nazi rocket scientists. Although JFK would never live to see any of it happen, the United States would lose a LOT of credibility if Apollo doesn't reach the goal in time.

Johnson and Webb know about the credibility problem - they promptly retired/quit before Apollo 8 lifted off. And it was Christmas Eve, 1968, that the American military test pilots read from the book of Genesis, it was Howard Hughes' birthday. Frank Borman saved American space credibility - it was not the first or last time that the ultra-patriot would serve his country in that respect.

Nixon knows about the Apollo credibility problem because Kissinger is right there in the White House with Nixon for the Apollo 11 launch. Richard Nixon ordered Henry Kissinger to call Howard Hughes on July 16, 1969.

Do you understand why America was in Viet nam? It was to protect, maintain and deliver to the TV audience the aura of American credibility in the nuclear age using limited warfare. The Kennedy people, Johnson and Nixon people, are hardly concerned about what is happening on the ground in SE Asia... they are only concerned with the appearances of US credibility to exercise it's will by force. That's it.

Because United States credibility is inextricably linked with the executive office of the President these guys, JFK, LBJ, Nixon will go to extreme lengths to protect that credibility. Remember how JFK lost a bit of cred on the invasion of Cuba so he had to go get it back during the missile crisis. JFK's placement of military advisors in SE Asia, too, all about keeping up the credibility of the American presidency.

Dust off your history books OBM.

TL;DR JFK not the Apollo visionary; Doctrine of credibility reigns;



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Does your Bizzarro World history book mention Kennedy campaigning on the "Missile Gap" at all?



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

And if you read your history books you would know that Eisenhower had a very pragmatic view of any US space program: it had to have a point and it had to be worth the money.

He viewed a lunar mission as a costly and questionable stunt.

Kennedy chose to go to the moon, not Eisenhower, or Nixon.

Data vs metadata again. Prove they didn't go.
edit on 20-6-2015 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

And if they refused to listen to your evidence, misquoted you, claimed you had forged your tickets, visa stamps and holiday snaps, turned up at your house and demanded you swear on the bible?

Besides, your own reaction to such events is irrelevant. The astronauts' reactions are irrelevant. It is yet another attempt to divert discussion away from data by trying to interpret metadata.

Prove they didn't go to the moon.


Apollo Reviewers are not responsible to prove that they didn't go to the moon. I think that's why you are so confused by what we are presenting to you.



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

And if you read your history books you would know that Eisenhower had a very pragmatic view of any US space program: it had to have a point and it had to be worth the money.

He viewed a lunar mission as a costly and questionable stunt.

Kennedy chose to go to the moon, not Eisenhower, or Nixon.

Data vs metadata again. Prove they didn't go.


Eisenhower pulled his own space stunt, it was called Project Score en.wikipedia.org...(satellite)

"The overall project was conducted in such secrecy that only 88 people were aware of its existence. "- Wiki

See, it's all about that credibility:

On the day of the launch, Eisenhower had a schedule at the White House that coincidentally involved hosting a delegation from Soviet-controlled Poland. At a White House dinner that evening, he was informed of the success of the launch, at which point he interrupted the dinner and revealed the project's existence to the audience. His announcement pointedly described that although SCORE was a peaceful mission, the U.S. now had the capability of delivering a nuclear weapon from space. - Source Wiki



posted on Jun, 20 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter


Apollo Reviewers are not responsible to prove that they didn't go to the moon.


Then what is it you do, exactly?



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Confused? No.

Bored? Yes.

Disinterested? Yes.

There s a very small number of people out there who claim we did not go to the moon. They present either insubstantial, conflicting or no evidence whatsoever in support of that claim. The fuss over metadata, the data about the data, trying to find holes in it or inconsistencies in it. They do this because the data themselves are unassailable. They fail.

Your focus on a dead failed president is an obsession with metadata. It proves nothing about the data, and it certainly does not prove they did not go to the moon. You have disclosed nothing new about Apollo, and your revisionist approach has not changed history or the facts of the mission one iota.



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 01:37 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

You have mistaken the icing for the cake.



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

www.space.com...


edit on 21-6-2015 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

oh dear - lets actually have a look at the front page of the dallas times herald for 21st NOVEMBER 1963 - shall we ?

hint - this simple exercise has obviously never been attempted by a self proclaimed " apolllo reviewer "

the portion of the front page that ATS member " misinformation " presents contains 3 stories - not these stories are in 3 seperart collums - notice the black lines dividing them - its a ubiquitous newspaper format - that everyone but " apollo reviewers are familiar with

story 0ne : " nixon today ... JFK tommorrow " - is simply an account of mr nixon visiting dallas for various meetings - one of wich is with the president of pepsi .

the actual text states :


former vice president richard m nixon left found himself in dallas on a quick business trip thurdsay on the eve of president kennedys visity to the city with mr nixon is don kendal president of the pepsi cola bottling co mr nixons new york law partnership represents the soft drinks company


story two : " congo set to cut ties with reds " - an irrelevant [ for the purpose of this thread ] story of international politics

story three : " plea for space plan kicks off JFK tour " i am not going to transcript the article - but it simply details president kennedy giving a speech in san antonio addressing criticism of the space program he has initiated

link hi res scan of the relevant section

so - once again " apollo reviewers " either lie or do not even review thier own sources [ irony noted ]

but bottom line - the newspaper shows zero link betwween nixon and the apollo program in 1963


editted to add : clarification on newspaper collums :

story two - is actually important [ for purpose of this thread ] - as it graphically shows the use of collums to seperate stories that have no connection to each other - collums are just formatting - to fit all text and pictures onto the page

edit on 21-6-2015 by ignorant_ape because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 06:21 AM
link   

a reply to: ignorant_ape
but bottom line - the newspaper shows zero link betwween nixon and the apollo program in 1963


showing a link between nixon and the apollo program in 1963 wasn't the exact intension in this particular instance,, exposing the propagandists ludicrous conjecture that nixon was inefficacious during this time was the hidden agenda ...ergo..concordantly, the false left-right paradigm ...


The night before Kennedy was killed, a party was held at the palatial home of oil millionaire Clint Murchison. There were some very powerful people gathered there, including Richard Nixon, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, H.L. Hunt, undoubtedly the richest man in the land, John McCloy, a director of Chase Manhattan Bank, one of the biggest financial institutions in the land, and Lyndon Baines Johnson, within twenty fours to find himself the most important man in the land.

According to ex-CIA agent Robert D. Morrow, sometime during the evening, most of this group retired, along with others, for a private meeting. He claimed in a book he wrote, First Hand Knowledge: How I participated in the CIA-Murder of President Kennedy, Interestingly, on the eve of the assassination, Hoover and Nixon attended a meeting together at the Dallas home of oil baron Clint Murchison. Among the subjects discussed at this meeting were the political futures of Hoover and Nixon in the event President Kennedy was assassinated.

It was during this evening that Madeleine Brown claimed Johnson told her that he would not have any more problems with Kennedy after the next day.





Richard M. Nixon was given numerous chances to become president. Why? With the failed election of 1960 to JFK, why did the Republicans ask for him to come back. Usually, a loss of the presidency is political death for someone trying again.


Lendon Johnson did not run for a second term in 1968 , so why did he. Was he making way for Richard Nixon and the only person in the way was Robert Kennedy who was killed. Johnsons not accepting the second term is very suspect and the many deaths made way for Richard Nixon. Johnson moved aside (was there a LBJ and Nixon connection to get rid of a sitting president JFK and future president RFK. It goes back to the "whole bay of pigs thing".








edit on 21-6-2015 by Misinformation because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: ignorant_ape
but bottom line - the newspaper shows zero link betwween nixon and the apollo program in 1963


showing a link between nixon and the apollo program in 1963 wasn't the exact intension in this particular instance,,


yes you showed your intentions in that post quite clearly..

you demonstrated how a typical hoax believer tends to link anything to the moon hoax theory..

hoax believers would be embarrassed by your behaviour.. so im pretty sure you are a troll with the sole purpose to make them look stupid.. and your post linking Nixon and space proves just that.



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation

exposing the propagandists ludicrous conjecture that nixon was inefficacious during this time was the hidden agenda ...ergo..concordantly, the false left-right paradigm ...



Never been claimed. Complete fabrication.



posted on Jun, 21 2015 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: choos


hoax believers would be embarrassed by your behaviour.. so im pretty sure you are a troll with the sole purpose to make them look stupid.. and your post linking Nixon and space proves just that.


Correct. This thread is one of the worst "Moon Hoax" threads ever, thanks to the "contributions" of certain members. Apollo Hoax threads should provide a forum for educating people about space science and history. That's not happening here because the "contra" side refuses to say anything concrete.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 02:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

your dishonesty has reached new lows - PS from now on - please only use words you understand - your word salads are nauseating and betray your incompetance



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation


showing a link between nixon and the apollo program in 1963 wasn't the exact intension in this particular instance,, exposing the propagandists ludicrous conjecture that nixon was inefficacious during this time was the hidden agenda ...ergo..concordantly, the false left-right paradigm ...


The false left-right paradigm you speak of is another way to refer to the "politics of division."

Nixon was a master at the politics of division - he expended a lot of time and effort in his first term toward "re-organizing" the executive branch of government, in order so that he could appoint his loyalists into positions of authority that compromised the separation of powers guaranteed by the US Constitution. Nixon (using a poker metaphor) stacked the deck so to speak by appointing his staunch loyalists to various assignments in government; refining, strengthening, redefining and expanding the powers of the President. There is no question amongst historians that Nixon's aim was to highlight the inefficiency of the "establishment bureaucracy" which he hated and to consolidate power into his own office.... for the sake of US credibility.

However, Nixon is not concerned with actual credibility but only the appearance of credibility.

That's why when troops were withdrawn from combat in SE Asia he escalated the air war because carpet bombing civilians was essential to his politics of division AND to the credibility of the United States president.

The same example is true of Apollo. Once A11 was back home from the "moon" Nixon's need for appearances of credibility in space was no longer essential. His politics of division immediately saw the budget opportunities to divide the public away from NASA, to divide NASA's influence from the annual budget process, finally, to divide NASA from within by excluding all the NASA voices (von Braun, Mueller, Paine) who were singing songs about going to Mars by the mid 1980's.

WE ALL KNOW it was absolute bollocks - that even with vast improvements to Apollo technology it cannot get to Mars, that the astronauts would die of space radiation exposure. That's why Nixon needed a new loyalist NASA administrator who would simplify the decision for him - James Fletcher who sold the space shuttle idea as cheap & reusable, 50 flights per year, etc.

This was Nixon's politics of division at it's best... he divided NASA from manned exploration of outer space for 10, 20, 30,40 going on 50 years, but, kept the credibility of the "moon landings" which he saw as useful to him only in terms of maintaining the appearance of American technical superiority against the enemies (communism, worldwide) which constantly sought to undermine Americas will to power in the nuclear age.

Nixon: "When the President does it that means that it is not illegal."
Frost: "By definition."
Nixon: "Exactly."


edit on 6/23/2015 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

And if you read your history books you would know that Eisenhower had a very pragmatic view of any US space program: it had to have a point and it had to be worth the money.

He viewed a lunar mission as a costly and questionable stunt.

Kennedy chose to go to the moon, not Eisenhower, or Nixon.

Data vs metadata again. Prove they didn't go.


God just pulled me up to heaven for tea and crumpets with him and Jesus....

Prove, I didn't go...

drrr.....

Jaden
edit on 23-6-2015 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden

God just pulled me up to heaven for tea and crumpets with him and Jesus....

Prove, I didn't go...


bit silly comparing a story you made up about a personal experience with something that was well known to the world..

your own personal story involves you and you alone..
Apollo involves several hundred thousand people, with millions watching it live..

and also.. science supports the reality of Apollo.. science has yet to support the reality of God and jesus..

hoax believers want to believe Apollo was faked, they cant prove that it is fake otherwise it would have been done so by now..
why does science support the reality of Apollo but the moon hoax theories require that the laws of physics be broken??



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join