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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 609
377
<< 606  607  608    610  611  612 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
You know that 16-mm DAC that Edgar Mitchell brought back from the moon??
You know that 16-mm DAC that was supposed to be destroyed in the LM after the mission was complete?

NASA want's that camera so bad they are going to jury trial. Could this camera hold secrets?



You do realise that a camera doesn't hold much of anything. Some hold film. If there were secrets in there they would be on the film. Noone is charging Edgar for stealing film. Film can be removed and stored seperately.
for making crap up again.
edit on 12/10/2011 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


I only wrote 4 sentences there. Which of those sentences was I making up "crap"? Is it the last sentence bout holding secrets?

I think Mitchell's camera is a pretty cool relic from the Apollo Mythology. But the problem is that Mitchell also believes there was a cover up at Roswell. That makes Edgar Mitchell a conspiracy theorist by default.

Why does NASA still protect the Apollo relics with such vigilance? When I was reviewing some JFK material I realized the importance of cameras in conspiracies because the FBI examined Lee Harvey Oswald's camera and made test pictures from it.

Can you comment on this? Is it possible to take Mitchell's camera and run test pictures with it to finely determine the camera's optically unique characteristics? What I mean is to do a forensic style investigation on his camera and compare photos allegedly made during Apollo with test photos.

What has NASA got to hide?



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I don't know why they would go after him. I would let him keep it. But on the other hand I'm not historically significant byreucratic agency. If there would be some problems with the lens such as a scratch or some defect you might match it to pictures taken with it. I doubt there's any other way but I'm not a forensic specialist. For one you can test all the perspective stuff with another similar camera / lens setup and also considering that it's shooting on film doesn't leave artifacts such as digital sensor cameras do.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Let's review some history.

Webb;s opinion was that the US was #2 in the space race. The only other player in the space race was Soviet Russia.

Webb Quits in 68 mere weeks before Apollo 8 circumnavigates the Moon and reads from the Book of Genesis on Christmas. Thomas O. Paine, the General Electric wonderboy, is at the helm of NASA.

Let's go back a decade, to 1957, to the Eisenhower administration, during the time when Richard Nixon was Vice President of the United States.


Sputnik 1 (Russian: "Cпутник-1" Russian pronunciation: [ˈsputʲnʲək], "Satellite-1", ПС-1 (PS-1, i.e. "Простейший Спутник-1", or Elementary Satellite-1))[1] was the first artificial satellite to be put into Earth's orbit. It was launched into an elliptical low Earth orbit by the Soviet Union on 4 October 1957. The unanticipated announcement of Sputnik 1's success precipitated the Sputnik crisis in the United States and ignited the Space Race, a part of the larger Cold War. The launch ushered in new political, military, technological, and scientific developments. While the Sputnik launch was a single event, it marked the start of the Space Age.


If you go to Google News Archives and type in "propaganda" you are going to find a lot of newspaper articles that relate to Sputnik, Eisenhower, and not surprisingly, a lot of articles related to Eisenhower's reaction to Sputnik. You can also see that there are many articles which reveal the glimpses into the past.. specifically "Red Paranoia".

Today, thankfully, we are not subjected to "Red Paranoia" on a daily basis. Instead, we are subjected to "terror propaganda". But the mechanisms are the same in each case.

Eisenhower clearly defined the Military Industrial Complex in his farewell address. Kennedy, who narrowly defeated Richard Nixon in 1960, was aware of the huge propaganda value of space accomplishments. JFK used the space race as a means of giving a peaceful project to the M-I-C. The industrialists were happy with the federal funding and produced a large array of money wasting projects.

However, JFK was only willing to give the M-I-C one project... the project of landing man on the Moon. JFK was not willing to give the M-I-C the other project of curtailing the influence of Communism in SE Asia.

JFK is killed by a head shot in 1963 because the M-I-C wanted to run a war for profits and JFK was in the way. Only a few months after JFK was killed in Dallas (LBJ's home state) the Gulf of Tonkin incident is presented to LBJ as a way to keep the M-I-C preoccupied by making bombs, napalm, Agent Orange, and killing lots and lots of brown people.

I think LBJ went along with this fake threat of the Gulf of Tonkin in order to keep the M-I-C from killing him, too.

Like so many propaganda projects, this project lasts longer than any presidency. When LBJ announces he isn't running in 1968 then it leaves the field open for Nixon's reemergence from the wilderness. And in 1968 Richard Nixon was ready to enact his revenge on the Kennedy's and returned from the wilderness in full force. He ordered killed RFK in California (his home state). Nixon hated the Kennedy's so much he ruined Ted Kennedy's chance at the presidency by framing him up in the murder of Mary Jo Kopechne. This murder occurred while Nixon was at Camp David and while Apollo 11 was on it's fake journey to the moon.

Once Nixon is in the White House he is not about to let any Communists beat him in the propaganda game and he finds himself at the helm of a 10 year NASA project to beat the Commies to the Moon. We all agree that Nixon was a Commie hating Republican from the 1950's. We all agree that Nixon hated the Kennedy's since 1960 when JFK beat him in American's first televised presidential debates.

And then Webb quits suddenly in October 68. Paine has already been put in place by LBJ as Webb's successor. Apollo 8 goes to the moon in December 68 (after Nixon has won the election) which is a huge propaganda win for the USA. American Astronauts are reading the Bible from outer space. The project is successful because of the Military Industrial Complex has been receiving a huge stream of money from the federal government for 10 years.

Nixon swears into office in 1969. All the Apollo Moon Landings occurred under Richard Nixon's presidency. Nixon hated the Commies. Nixon was aware that the Apollo Moon landings were faked by the Military Industrial Complex and decided to go along with the propaganda hoax, reaping the benefits of propaganda, and using the propaganda to skillfully negotiate with the Commies from a position of superiority.

Nixon understood the meaning of Sputniks in 1957/58 when it was orbiting the earth and bleeping it's signal down on Washington DC. Sputnik was a massive win for the Commies. Sputnik also turned out to be a win for the M--I-C. And Nixon hated the Commies, too. Nixon also knew that TV was the best propaganda tool available to him. That's why Nixon gave the okay for the Military Industrial Complex to fake the moon landings.

That's why Edward Nixon hired Farouk El-Baz at Bellcomm.
edit on 10/13/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: home state political assassinations project

edit on 10/13/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: fake weekend at Camp David

edit on 10/13/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: grammars



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



I know exactly the opposite. You simply refuse to accept what you cannot understand.


I understand perfectly..

It's you that is being contrary with your answers..

I think you like a "$$ each way"...



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Let's review some history.


Let's.


Webb;s opinion was that the US was #2 in the space race. The only other player in the space race was Soviet Russia.


Was that his actual opinion, or was he attempting to manipulate Congress in order to get more funding?


Webb Quits in 68 mere weeks before Apollo 8 circumnavigates the Moon and reads from the Book of Genesis on Christmas. Thomas O. Paine, the General Electric wonderboy, is at the helm of NASA.



Mr. Webb was in the leadership of NASA when tragedy struck the Apollo program. On January 27, 1967, Apollo-Saturn (AS) 204, was on the launch pad at Kennedy Space Center, Florida, moving through simulation tests when a flash fire killed the three astronauts aboard--"Gus" Grissom, Edward White, and Roger Chaffee.


history.nasa.gov...

Why do you suppose Webb might have stepped down? Why are you so obsessed with that Bible reading? What should they have read? Das Kapital? What does Paine's employment history have to do with anything? He was an electrical engineer who eventually learned how to manage huge research facilities. Research facilities don't get much larger than GE.


Let's go back a decade, to 1957, to the Eisenhower administration, during the time when Richard Nixon was Vice President of the United States.


And Farouk el Baz was doing post-graduate work in the United States. Meanwhile, Ed Nixon had already gotten his degree in geology half a decade earlier in an attempt to infiltrate the Apollo Program. The Nixons plan well ahead.


If you go to Google News Archives and type in "propaganda" you are going to find a lot of newspaper articles that relate to Sputnik, Eisenhower, and not surprisingly, a lot of articles related to Eisenhower's reaction to Sputnik. You can also see that there are many articles which reveal the glimpses into the past.. specifically "Red Paranoia".


Correction: if you go to Google you will find a lot of articles about the "Red Paranoia." Google tracks your searches and tailors the search results to confirm your biases.


Today, thankfully, we are not subjected to "Red Paranoia" on a daily basis. Instead, we are subjected to "terror propaganda". But the mechanisms are the same in each case.


Yes, thank the Historical Dialectic Communists are out. Terrorists are in.


Eisenhower clearly defined the Military Industrial Complex in his farewell address. Kennedy, who narrowly defeated Richard Nixon in 1960, was aware of the huge propaganda value of space accomplishments. JFK used the space race as a means of giving a peaceful project to the M-I-C. The industrialists were happy with the federal funding and produced a large array of money wasting projects.


Are you implying that American elections are legitimate? That Nixon, with his vast and unscrupulous resources was unable to rig the election? Yes, JFK used a number of Federal resources in order to combat the Soviet Union through "soft power." These included the space program, the Peace Corps, Radio Free Europe, and so forth. One of the principle advantages of the space program is that it helped develop America's industrial base, creating employment. Is that a bad thing? It also provided materiel that could, if necessary, be used to defend the country in the event of a "hot" war with the Soviet Union. Is that a bad thing? Is getting the economy humming without going to war a bad thing? Oh, and if you think all that money poured into R&D was a waste of money, you should probably just throw your computer and cell phone away.


However, JFK was only willing to give the M-I-C one project... the project of landing man on the Moon. JFK was not willing to give the M-I-C the other project of curtailing the influence of Communism in SE Asia.



The Kennedy administration remained essentially committed to the Cold War foreign policy inherited from the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. In 1961, the U.S. had 50,000 troops based in Korea, and Kennedy faced a three-part crisis—the failure of the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the construction of the Berlin Wall, and a negotiated settlement between the pro-Western government of Laos and the Pathet Lao communist movement.[These made Kennedy believe that another failure on the part of the United States to gain control and stop communist expansion would fatally damage U.S. credibility with its allies and his own reputation. Kennedy determined to "draw a line in the sand" and prevent a communist victory in Vietnam, saying, "Now we have a problem making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place", to James Reston of The New York Times immediately after meeting Khrushchev in Vienna.


To be continued...
edit on 13-10-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-10-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


moving right along...


JFK is killed by a head shot in 1963 because the M-I-C wanted to run a war for profits and JFK was in the way. Only a few months after JFK was killed in Dallas (LBJ's home state) the Gulf of Tonkin incident is presented to LBJ as a way to keep the M-I-C preoccupied by making bombs, napalm, Agent Orange, and killing lots and lots of brown people.


You are now stating opinion as fact. We do not know what Kennedy would have done about Viet Nam had he lived. We also do not know with any certainty who actually shot JFK. It may have been Cubans retaliating for JFK's sanctioning the assassination of Castro. It may have been the Mafia retaliating for JFK's forcing Edgar Hoover to investigate organized crime instead of Hollywood celebrities. It may have been Moon Men retaliating for JFK's proposed invasion of their homeworld. For that matter, in order to tie it in with the subject of this thread, it may have been the work of a lone psychopath with a chip on his shoulder. In any event, what does any of this have to do with the Moon Landings? Oh wait, I get it now! You're trying to paint an ugly picture so people will be inclined to swallow your arbitrary conclusion. It's just your usual, overwrought, worn out, one note propaganda technique.


I think LBJ went along with this fake threat of the Gulf of Tonkin in order to keep the M-I-C from killing him, too.


Ding ding ding! Gulf of Tonkin! Ten bonus points. Having speculated that the "Military Industrial Complex" assassinated Kennedy, you use that speculation to speculate that LBJ escalated the war in Viet Nam to avoid being assassinated himself. It couldn't possibly be that Johnson was a bit of a blunt instrument when it came to diplomacy and international relations. In any event, what does any of this have to do with whether or not anyone landed on the Moon?


Like so many propaganda projects, this project lasts longer than any presidency. When LBJ announces he isn't running in 1968 then it leaves the field open for Nixon's reemergence from the wilderness. And in 1968 Richard Nixon was ready to enact his revenge on the Kennedy's and returned from the wilderness in full force. He ordered killed RFK in California (his home state). Nixon hated the Kennedy's so much he ruined Ted Kennedy's chance at the presidency by framing him up in the murder of Mary Jo Kopechne. This murder occurred while Nixon was at Camp David and while Apollo 11 was on it's fake journey to the moon.


I assume you know a great deal about propaganda projects' duration from your own personal experience. Where is your evidence to support your speculation that Nixon was responsible for RFK's murder? And do you honestly think Ted Kennedy was "framed?" He drove his bloody car off a bridge while drunk. Unfortunately, Mary Jo Kopechne just happened to be along for the ride. Nixon couldn't even pull off a simple burglary and keep it quiet. Thank you for bringing up Apollo 11, at least. Now please provide some evidence that it was "fake."


Once Nixon is in the White House he is not about to let any Communists beat him in the propaganda game and he finds himself at the helm of a 10 year NASA project to beat the Commies to the Moon. We all agree that Nixon was a Commie hating Republican from the 1950's. We all agree that Nixon hated the Kennedy's since 1960 when JFK beat him in American's first televised presidential debates.


Cute how you use the expression "propaganda game," then wave your hands and all that industrial effort to build spacecraft disappears in a puff of rhetoric. We all agree that that Commie hater Nixon opened up relations with China simply to vex the Soviets, right? And if Nixon hated the Kennedys so much, why didn't he expose the fraud? The US still had more missiles and warheads than the Soviets, so who needed a fake space program?


And then Webb quits suddenly in October 68. Paine has already been put in place by LBJ as Webb's successor. Apollo 8 goes to the moon in December 68 (after Nixon has won the election) which is a huge propaganda win for the USA. American Astronauts are reading the Bible from outer space. The project is successful because of the Military Industrial Complex has been receiving a huge stream of money from the federal government for 10 years.


Webb left after the Congressional investigation into a very real, very deadly and highly publicized NASA failure. At least you admit Apollo 8 actually went to the Moon. Why are you so obsessed with that Bible quote? It's actually just one of the oldest poems on Earth. Would you have preferred Gilgamesh? At least we agree on this: "the project was successful."



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Nixon swears into office in 1969. All the Apollo Moon Landings occurred under Richard Nixon's presidency. Nixon hated the Commies. Nixon was aware that the Apollo Moon landings were faked by the Military Industrial Complex and decided to go along with the propaganda hoax, reaping the benefits of propaganda, and using the propaganda to skillfully negotiate with the Commies from a position of superiority.


The first lunar flight occurred before Nixon was sworn in. He would have had every motivation to expose JFK's and LBJ's perfidies to reap the propaganda value. Using the word "propaganda" three times in a single sentence is not merely redundant and boring, it is extremely poor propaganda.


Nixon understood the meaning of Sputniks in 1957/58 when it was orbiting the earth and bleeping it's signal down on Washington DC. Sputnik was a massive win for the Commies. Sputnik also turned out to be a win for the M--I-C. And Nixon hated the Commies, too. Nixon also knew that TV was the best propaganda tool available to him. That's why Nixon gave the okay for the Military Industrial Complex to fake the moon landings.


Yes, Nixon understood the real meaning of Sputnik. It has nothing to do with propaganda. It has to do with controlling the high ground. Space has limitless military applications, that's why the "Military Industrial Complex" was so interested in it. They needed to build real rockets, real satellites and put real mean in space. Nixon understood this. JFK built his career by exploiting the "Missile Gap." Don't you think Nixon would relish the chance to expose JFK's failure to win the "space race?" As for television being the best propaganda tool, it doesn't hold a candle to the internet.


That's why Edward Nixon hired Farouk El-Baz at Bellcomm.


Not because he was a geologist?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


You seem to know a lot about Nixon's position regarding the Apollo missions, you say he knew about the landings having been faked, and took advantage of that? Provide a source please, or should we put it down to 'creative thinking' or even 'just plain making stuff up'?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   
3 weird things about this 2009 article.
www.guardian.co.uk...


Neil Armstrong to skip Apollo 11 eventFirst man to walk on the moon will not take part in Nasa event celebrating the 40th anniversary of the lunar landing.



I can understand that Neil Armstrong has been described as "shy" or "notoriously shy" but I didn't know he was
" deeply suspicious of fans and of the press. ".


Michael Collins, meanwhile, remained in the stifling command module, hurtling around the moon and preparing at an instant's notice to initiate one of 18 rescue procedures, should something fail on the surface below.


18 rescue procedures? How does a CMP perform a rescue operation on the surface? Drop a rope down and let them climb up?


Tomorrow, the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 launch, the US space agency is showing new broadcast-quality film of Aldrin and Armstrong's lunar excursion, including footage said to have been locked away in Nasa storage since the event.


If that last statement is true - what else has NASA got locked away in storage for 40 years?

edit on 10/13/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: rearrange



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
How credible is Frank Borman? Not very.


HARWOOD: There is a committee that you were on that—I don’t want to say “There’s
mystery about it,” but it—the Crew Safety Committee that you were on, I guess, from ’63 to
’64. Just—can you—do you even remember what that was? Or can you clarify what it was?

BORMAN: I don’t have any idea what it was. I can’t remember. It wasn’t very important.
I—the main thing that I had as the rocket specialist was to make certain that the crew had a
chance to escape in the event of an anomaly with the launch.


Source history.spacebusiness.com...
edit on 10/13/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: source



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Nixon sent Borman to Russia just weeks prior to the Apollo 11 lift off.


BORMAN: I—you know, I was sent over to Russia by Mr. Nixon with the goal to starting the
process that led to the Apollo-Soyuz Program; and I spent 10 days there on the—July of
[19]’69. And we then invited the cosmonauts back. So, you know, I had hoped that it had
ended in Apollo-Soyuz. So—but I never had the in my wildest dreams, did I ever have any
idea that the Russians would essentially become a Third World country. You know, I looked
upon them as the Big Bad Bear in the Cold War. And now they’ve sort of disintegrated
economically and every other way.
history.spacebusiness.com...

and back in Washington DC by July 16th.

after Apollo 8, I had been assigned to the White House as liaison to prepare for Apollo 11.
And so I got to know Mr. [President Richard M.] Nixon pretty well and the people up there.
history.spacebusiness.com...

I'm sure Frank Borman got along quite well with Nixon, both of them were rabid anti-communists.


And in that, you know, I wanted to beat Kennedy’s goal—I wanted to meet Kennedy’s
goal. But the more important thing to me was beating the Russians. There—this—I took
very seriously this Cold War and the idea that we were somehow second-rate to a
Communist country.
history.spacebusiness.com...

In his oral history Borman doesn't mention that his flight to Russia was almost a goner...

Borman was to arrive with his wife and two sons (ages 15 and 17). There is lots of high-level interest in the visit and meetings. They are unsure -- is Borman just a visiting astronaut or an official representative of the American aggressors? Borman's plane makes an emergency landing in Canada when an engine fails en route. .
www.astronautix.com...

The Russians described Borman as ..

Kamanin finds Borman to be disciplined and precise. He is at the same time a skilled orator, diplomat, and born politician.
www.astronautix.com...

And later Borman is in Russia again ... July 1970.

Borman will visit the USSR again tomorrow.
www.astronautix.com...

Nixon must be using Borman in the capacity of "astronaut/diplomat" but Borman breezes over this in his oral history. His trips seem to be a vital stepping stones toward the later Apollo/Soyuz missions.

Is Frank Borman a fake? He says that he never really thought about losing radio contact on the dark side of the moon....

You know, the Tracking people wanted us to stay up there a month. I didn’t want to
stay more than one—it was a give-and-take, and Kraft called the shots. So we ended up
going around 10 times, and I never really thought about, you know, going around behind—
you’d lose radio contact; but that’s about all.


How can he be a real astronaut on a mission around the moon and "I never really thought about, you know, going around behind - you'd lose radio contact; but that's about all." What an outrageous statement for an astronaut to make.. especially the world's first astronaut to orbit the moon. I figured he was covering up for something because he hates communists and was doing a favor for Nixon in Russia.

Borman returns to the US. In the July 14, 1969 edition of The Age news.google.com...


Borman also attacked National Aeronautics and Space Administration doctors for being too concerned with germs. Borman was particularly incensed by a controversy over a proposed dinner at which President Nixon was to dine with Apollo 11 astronauts the night before their flight. The dinner was called off after Dr. Berry, medical director of NASA, was quoted as saying he did not think the President ought to come for fear of contaminating the spacemen.

edit on 10/13/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: incensed by controversy



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
You guys think maybe NASA has copies of the press conferences in their Library?

www.governmentattic.org...



I'd like to see the "APOLLO 16 SPOOF MADE BY CREW NOT FOR AIR"



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
One of the main reasons I watch Jarrah White videos whipping NASA in the Moon Hoax Debate is because Jarrah White always goes directly to the source material. He will show you right on the screen the source material and then he reads it out loud in a documentary style which has just the right edge to it.

What I don't like about his videos is that he often lowers himself to the standard of his base rivals and most vehement haters. This thread shouldn't come to that.

Let's face it. Nobody in this thread has ever examined a lunar sample with scientific instruments or flown in space. There are many people in the thread who have great insights, experience and knowledge but in the end... only 12 men walked on the Moon.

The real value of this thread to ATS is that anyone can step in at anytime AT ANY OF 600+ PAGES and learn something about Apollo!
I respect the opinions of the knowledgable posters in this thread as much as I respect Frank Borman.

Frank Borman didn't walk on the Moon but was a dedicated Cold Warrior and a Bible thumping Christian man who was sitting in Richard Nixon's office when Apollo 11 launched. In Frank's recollection the mission was completed with Apollo 11. His career at NASA was done - he moved over to Eastern Airlines.

I was really fascinated by this video of Frank Borman (watched it several times) this video is so cool because I am an Apollo skeptic. Frank is old age here and his memory is going badly... but... I interviewed my own grandfather 2 years ago and he reacted to questions in the same blunt manner. Yes I did, by the way, ask my own grandfather where he was when the Apollo landed on the Moon. My grandfather replied "I was probably watching it on T.V."


Perhaps it is impossible to understand what it was like for Frank to be a Cold Warrior and so dedicated to his mission. But Frank and my grandfather both have something in common: they both watched the Apollo 11 launch on tv. Probably.




posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Sorry for the large picture size (to DJW). Here is Nixon's Presidential Diary for that day when Apollo 11 launched. It shows that Frank Borman was actually in the "small office" rather than the "Oval office."



In the previous video I showed Frank Borman's interview on CSPAN with the head of the Nixon Archives Anthony Naftali. It is important for Apollo researches (defenders + skeptics) to merge these two sources together, this video & this diary, and to synthesize both these source materials into a coherent picture of the past.

With respect to the ATS guidelines and to the topic of the thread :

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!


Please be an example for our newer members and make every post matter.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


You seem to know a lot about Nixon's position regarding the Apollo missions, you say he knew about the landings having been faked, and took advantage of that? Provide a source please, or should we put it down to 'creative thinking' or even 'just plain making stuff up'?



That's what the CIA does best! creative thinking and making stuff up



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



I can understand that Neil Armstrong has been described as "shy" or "notoriously shy" but I didn't know he was
" deeply suspicious of fans and of the press. ".


Talk about lame... not only are you using a secondary source, you are cherry picking it!


"He will not be doing interviews or photos," said Isabel Lara, a spokeswoman for the Smithsonian. Nor will he be signing autographs, being reportedly suspicious of souvenir hunters since he discovered in 2005 that his Ohio barber had sold some of his hair to a collector for $3,000.


Your own source.


18 rescue procedures? How does a CMP perform a rescue operation on the surface? Drop a rope down and let them climb up?


Don't ask me, ask Daniel Nasaw. He's the one who made that statement, as well as this one:


According to his biographer James Hansen, Nasa threw out existing protocol that would have had Aldrin, the lunar lander pilot, as first out of the craft and on to the moon.


As we all know, the LM hatch opens inward. There was no choice but for the LM Commander to exit first. Nasaw is quoting a secondary source himself here. That source is simply wrong.


Tomorrow, the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 launch, the US space agency is showing new broadcast-quality film of Aldrin and Armstrong's lunar excursion, including footage said to have been locked away in Nasa storage since the event.


Said by whom, exactly? We know that they showed the "cleaned up" video from Honeysuckle Creek; is it just possible that Nasaw is garbling things again?



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



How credible is Frank Borman? Not very.


How does this make him "not very credible?" Do you remember exactly what you did over fifty years ago? In any event, he went on to recall:


I remember: We went to Aerojet once to look at—for—to look at a Titan II firing. And I was concerned (we were all concerned) that—the Titan has two barrels. And we were concerned that—what we be the turning moment if one of those barrels failed at launch. And, the Aerojet people informed us that that could never happen. There were all kinds of safety devices. We would never have a failure mode where one rocket would—where one barrel wouldn’t light. So they proceeded to turn it on, and guess what happened? Only one barrel lit. You never saw more chagrined Aerojet people in the world. But they fixed it.


Your own source again.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



How can he be a real astronaut on a mission around the moon and "I never really thought about, you know, going around behind - you'd lose radio contact; but that's about all." What an outrageous statement for an astronaut to make.. especially the world's first astronaut to orbit the moon. I figured he was covering up for something because he hates communists and was doing a favor for Nixon in Russia.


Good thing you're not an astronaut. Are you afraid of the dark, too? And what does the Apollo-Soyuz negotiations have to do with anything?



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



One of the main reasons I watch Jarrah White videos whipping NASA in the Moon Hoax Debate is because Jarrah White always goes directly to the source material. He will show you right on the screen the source material and then he reads it out loud in a documentary style which has just the right edge to it.


Jarrah relies so much on cherry picking that he never provides links to his sources. For example, in the "Moon Rocks" video I am preparing to critique, I had to freeze frame and screen capture to get the address of the website he got his JSFC-1 lunar simulant material from. Despite his droning on and on reading numbers, he leaves out the most important thing:


ORBITEC is creating several advanced simulant materials that share many of the unique properties of lunar regolith.


www.orbitec.com...


What I don't like about his videos is that he often lowers himself to the standard of his base rivals and most vehement haters. This thread shouldn't come to that.


That's hilarious! Jarrah is the one that started the whole "you're not qualified to drive a garbage truck" tone. Have the one line posts you've been making lately been any better?


Let's face it. Nobody in this thread has ever examined a lunar sample with scientific instruments or flown in space. There are many people in the thread who have great insights, experience and knowledge but in the end... only 12 men walked on the Moon.


To the best of your knowledge.


The real value of this thread to ATS is that anyone can step in at anytime AT ANY OF 600+ PAGES and learn something about Apollo! I respect the opinions of the knowledgable posters in this thread as much as I respect Frank Borman.


Agreed.


Frank Borman didn't walk on the Moon but was a dedicated Cold Warrior and a Bible thumping Christian man who was sitting in Richard Nixon's office when Apollo 11 launched. In Frank's recollection the mission was completed with Apollo 11. His career at NASA was done - he moved over to Eastern Airlines.


You have a peculiar way of expressing your respect.
edit on 14-10-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 606  607  608    610  611  612 >>

log in

join