Department of Homeland Security vs NASA

Starting to get it. Failed to notice that the origin date on this thread is today's date but 2009. Slick. Gotta be good looking to navigate this site.

Originally posted by Phage
1970:

Honolulu (AP) - The world's first customs declaration for imported goods from outer space hangs on Dr. Ernest Murai's office wall.

source

[edit on 8/6/2010 by Phage]

So, enlighten us with your factual precision what is 1970 is referred to:
is it a year (assumption), if so let pick some plausible events:

1970 - the year after Apollo 11 has been faked
1970 - the year US Customs faked Apollo 11 declaration
1970 - the year Apollo 11 astronots play funny with their signatures
1970 - the year Custom officers play funny with Apollo 11 astronots signatures
1970 - the year Dr Murray plays funny with US Customs and NASA
1970 - the year NASA plays funny with AP on US perception of Apollo 11
1970 - the year somebody got angry with Dr Murray and hang mock Apollo 11 history doc on his office wall
1970 - the year publication of another Apollo 11 fake
1970 - the year when it becomes apparent that astronots play dumb, sign any papers and tell the public whatever about stars visuals on the moon
1970 (May) - the year Mr. Armstrong attended space conference in Leningrad where he told the audience about his 2m jumps on the moon; well the soviets did not show live TV of these jumps anyway in USSR who cares

No suggestions again? -
and the usual thread strategy to fill some not relevant but unverifiable sources and wait until the 'moon hoax' proponent make some trivial logical mistake when sorting out this pile of irrelevant rubbish, so you will be able to catch some nuisance and present it as to thread watchers as major debunk and discourage any further research of the subject.

reply to post by bokonon2010

Oh. Now I understand.
You think Apollo 11 was a hoax. And somehow you think that the customs declaration proves it.
Thank you for the clarification.

Who is Dr. Murray?

[edit on 8/6/2010 by Phage]

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bokonon2010

 

Oh. Now I understand.
You think Apollo 11 was a hoax. And somehow you think that the customs declaration proves it.
Thank you for the clarification.

Nope, I think the Apollo 11 Custom Declaration is hoax, and trying to figure out (on that assumption) who may manufacture this and what for.
If all the constructions 'follow the money' falsified, then the A11 Custom Declaration might be genuine, but then the motives of the Declaration begin to factually contradict the official Apollo fairytale.

P.S. Let it be Dr Murray is Dr Ernst Murai, The Customs District Director Honolulu. It sounds funny like 11 year old Obama on shoulders of his uncle at Honolulu watching those capsules ('Mr. President, we have the problem' thread on ATS)

[edit on 6.8.2010 by bokonon2010]

reply to post by bokonon2010

Pardon me. You don't think Apollo 11 was a hoax, you think the customs declaration is a hoax. Thank you for the clarification.
I must have misunderstood when you said this:

1970 - the year after Apollo 11 has been faked

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bokonon2010

 

Pardon me. You don't think Apollo 11 was a hoax, you think the customs declaration is a hoax. Thank you for the clarification.
I must have misunderstood when you said this:

1970 - the year after Apollo 11 has been faked

As I am from the natural science background, my point of view that
the advance subscription to answers of the key questions of a research
is the flawed methodology and clear path to believe/not believe domain (thus not science).

reply to post by bokonon2010


I am finding it difficult to follow your reasoning (after being directed to your thread, by you, via your signature).

Your title, "Department of Homeland Security vs NASA" has nothing at all to do with the topic you presented!

Seems you're discussing a rather trivial matter, the "Customs Form" and quibbling about the year (if I am following..a.s I said, it's rather difficult).

In any case, the event in question occured in 1969.

There was no such thing as the "Department of Homeland Security" existing in the United States at that time.

The "DHS" was only established after the terrorist attacks of 11th September, 2001. (Some time in 2002, if I recall correctly).


This seems a tempest in the teapot, actually...not worth any further discussion, to be frank.....

reply to post by weedwhacker


Don't worry pal. Indeed, the Apollo School Project is off-limits your 'reasoning' so your star buddies just asked mods to kill it.

As for this thread, indeed you can't see the problem with the false Customs Declaration being signed by some folks Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins.

Do you really believe that
just because DHS embraced the department Customs Patrol Border after some Osama looking guy has been shown on Fox News
therefore all the Border Declarations have been void?
Just try yourself or ask your buddies to joke way through US Customs posing as astronauts (Russian price 200mil per ticket soon if you prefer the only real space option).

So, the choices of your beliefs in Apollo fairy tales in this thread:
_________

false Custom Declaration - wrong date and wrong items (moon rocks did not cross US border at Honolulu airport) signed by some guys claimed travelled to the Moon.

OR

the Custom Declaration is a joke [=hoax] of both NASA and US border patrol officials
as they laughing all the way while US watching Apollo TV series and saying that it is was real.
(Though sightings of Santa by Robert Peary discovering north pole has stronger backing by official US Congress act. Why not to submit the same kind of Congress act for Apollo - this way will no more misinterpretation of TV series 'for all mankind'.)

[edit on 6.8.2010 by bokonon2010]

reply to post by bokonon2010


Just when I thought I was starting to understand the point of this thread.... I suggest you take a deep breath and try to locate your sense of humor. Technically, they were back on American soil when they stepped out onto the aircraft carrier, so they probably didn't need to fill out a customs form at all. You just don't "get it," do you? First customs form filled in with "Moon" as place of departure? Think about it.

reply to post by DJW001


He doesn't get it....AT ALL!

This much has become painfully obvious.

If one wished to get all "technical" about it (and forgetting the humor, because it IS funny!) let's see.....

----The Astronauts could be considered to have been Diplomats...therefore, as is the case with most diplomatic travels, normal Customs and Immigration entry procedures are dispensed with.

----The "diplomatic" angle isn't quite correct, however, since the Moon isn't a formally recognized 'national' entity of any kind. It certainly isn't autonomous, nor does it possess any civilization, nor inhabitants, to have 'claimed' it as their territory. The Astronauts, as American citizens employed by the American government, 'landed' on quite literally a "new world", and even planted a flag of their country. This does not convey "ownership", nor even "territorial" status for the entire planetoid, but it could be semantically argued that they established the first American "embassy". Therefore, all the terrain they trod upon is considered "American soil", and they really did not embark on an international journey at all.

----The Astronauts were all active-duty military at the time, if memory serves. Therefore, technically, they were also exempt from "normal" Customs and Immigration procedures.

Anyone who sees this clever and humorous lark as some serious problem...needs to get their head examined!!!









[edit on 7 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by DJW001

 

He doesn't get it....AT ALL!

This much has become painfully obvious.

If one wished to get all "technical" about it (and forgetting the humor, because it IS funny!) let's see.....

----The Astronauts could be considered to have been Diplomats...therefore, as is the case with most diplomatic travels, normal Customs and Immigration entry procedures are dispensed with.

----The "diplomatic" angle isn't quite correct, however, since the Moon isn't a formally recognized 'national' entity of any kind. It certainly isn't autonomous, nor does it possess any civilization, nor inhabitants, to have 'claimed' it as their territory. The Astronauts, as American citizens employed by the American government, 'landed' on quite literally a "new world", and even planted a flag of their country. This does not convey "ownership", nor even "territorial" status for the entire planetoid, but it could be semantically argued that they established the first American "embassy". Therefore, all the terrain they trod upon is considered "American soil", and they really did not embark on an international journey at all.

----The Astronauts were all active-duty military at the time, if memory serves. Therefore, technically, they were also exempt from "normal" Customs and Immigration procedures.

So, do you admit that the Apollo 11 Custom Declaration is joke and hoax
[en.wikipedia.org...:_tricks.2C_fraud.2C_fiction],
endorsed by NASA and Department of Homeland Security?

Are you aware other Apollo jokes/hoaxes of this kind?

and in the same time you insist that Apollo program are describing real historical events like Moon landings? If so, did you follow this advice ?:

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Anyone who sees this clever and humorous lark as some serious problem...needs to get their head examined!!!

Originally posted by bokonon2010
As I am from the natural science background,

Reading 'The Ladybird book of home experiments' and staring at the stars does not make one a scientist, you clearly are not of the scientific community because I don't think there is a serious, professional scientist out there that would disbelieve the Moon Landing. The scientific evidence far outweighs the conspiracy claptrap that pollutes the Internet on the subject. Besides, it would be instant career suicide and also hold one back substantially from doing their job as we rely so much on data gathered from the program and the spin offs from the technology used.

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by bokonon2010
As I am from the natural science background,

you clearly are not of the scientific community because I don't think there is a serious, professional scientist out there that would disbelieve the Moon Landing.

Could you open the thread where you defend this thesis, as this might be related to your physics undergrad career. Start with these:

www.youtube.com... - Dr David Groves
msp.warwick.ac.uk... - Prof Colin Rourke
manonmoon.ru... - Dr Aleksandr Popov [en.metapedia.org...-Popov]

Good luck, Mr. Gorsky!

[edit on 7.8.2010 by bokonon2010]

reply to post by bokonon2010

Popov placed the burden of proof on NASA,[1] and denied all Moon landing evidence, dividing it to five groups:
Visual (photo, film and video) material that can successfully be made on Earth, in cinema studios.
Obvious counterfeits and fakes, when visual material from ordinary space flights on Earth orbit is presented as Moon material.
Space photos, attributed to the astronauts but which by that time could already be made and were made by space robots, including American ones.
Devices on Moon (e.g., light reflectors)—by that time both American and Soviet automatic "messengers" had sent on Moon several tens of similar devices.
Unfounded, unprovable claims, e.g., for about 400 kg of soil, overwhelming part of which NASA keeps safe and gives only grams for checking.
Thus he concluded that the NASA claims on Moon landings are left unproven, and pursuant to science rules, in the absence of trustworthy evidence, the event, in this case the American Moon landings and their loops around the Moon, cannot be considered real, that is, having taken place.[1] He also confirmed Pokrovsky's results for the speed of the Saturn V at S-IC staging time (see above).[1][1] Popov accused the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee of trading the 1970s Détente for covering up the US Moon hoax and stopping the Soviet Moon programme.[1]

en.metapedia.org...
No political agenda here. Remember, the Apollo program is history, not science. You cannot prove that Alexander the Great was real. You cannot use science to prove Napoleon existed (those bones in the tomb could be anyone.) You are welcome to believe anything you want.

Originally posted by DJW001
No political agenda here. Remember, the Apollo program is history, not science. You cannot prove that Alexander the Great was real. You cannot use science to prove Napoleon existed (those bones in the tomb could be anyone.) You are welcome to believe anything you want.

Did holocaust happen?

(You can also address this in www.abovetopsecret.com...)

Dear moderators, this is not off-topic or personal, but the analogy;
The ontological questions [en.wikipedia.org...] have to be clarified for the Apollo program research.
The opponent and others are often confused about it.

reply to post by bokonon2010

So, do you admit that the Apollo 11 Custom Declaration is joke and hoax
[en.wikipedia.org...:_tricks.2C_fraud.2C_fiction],
endorsed by NASA and Department of Homeland Security?

No.

The Department of Homeland Security didn't exist until 2002.

HOW could they have been involved in 1969, if they did not yet exist?

AND...what is your point here? It is not very evident...


BUT, the "immigration" form? Very clever, and cute....to commemorate an historic first.

( Geeeee...gets me thinking....wonder if Christopher Columbus' Italian government had anything similar upon HIS return to Italy??? )

Gawd! You need to lighten up, and get a clue......

reply to post by bokonon2010

Dear moderators, this is not off-topic or personal, but the analogy;
The ontological questions [en.wikipedia.org...] have to be clarified for the Apollo program research.
The opponent and others are often confused about it.

There is some confusion here, to be sure. As I have tried to explain, this is an historical question and historical methodology should be applied. If someone has a body of evidence to present, they are urged to present it. If they have an argument to construct that is supported by fact, they should submit it and be prepared to see it criticized and defend as far as possible. Deeper philosophical questions are beside the point. A radical ontological stance can collapse into mere solipsism.