Moon hoax believers: Apollo 13?

There is always the possibility taht the moon landings were indeed faked, that was presented to the public but did also go ahead behind closed doors. The reason for this is as there was such a high risk of failure that they didn't want to take a chance of failing publically whilst the cold war was ongoing.

reply to post by hugediscovery


I agree about the weak evidence, such as the photographs that are meant to show certain objects in front of others. Then you realize they're just Photoshopped slightly with the brightness changed.

Your evidence is pretty interesting although a bit over my head.

"The Dark Side of the Moon" is a mockumentary, it's not a real documentary. That's what's so suspicious about it, and the fact that Rumsfeld was involved proves that it was planted disinfo.

Originally posted by kiwasabi


What seals the hoax for me is the death of Thomas Baron. He was set to deliver a safety report to a Congressional committee on why "NASA will never get to the moon". He was soon killed and the report disappeared.

Curious, are you implying that Baron was murdered?

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
Curious, are you implying that Baron was murdered?

Yes, and indeed he was. There is video of him talking about how he got some threats via phone, but "then they stopped" and then he was dead.

reply to post by hugediscovery


Hugediscovery

Having multiple accounts in order to spread "moon hoax" propaganda perchance?

reply to post by kiwasabi


You make the claim, are you going to provide the evidence?

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by kiwasabi

 

You make the claim, are you going to provide the evidence?

How about you provide the evidence that he wasn't murdered? I don't have time to convince "skeptics".

Here's evidence that the astronauts scheduled to go on Apollo 1 were murdered, so this at least sets the precedent.

Remove quotes from link, I hate how ATS shortens links and sometimes breaks them.

"http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/2/11/00539"

reply to post by kiwasabi


Except that Rumsfeld wasn't involved.

Karel had the cooperation of Kubrick's widow, Christiane Kubrick, and his surviving brother-in-law, Jan Harlan, in the making of the film, both of whom appear using scripted lines. Karel also had the cooperation of some NASA personnel (also using scripted lines) and used recycled footage of staff of President Richard Nixon, including Rumsfeld and Kissinger. Among many giveaways (mainly in the second half) that the entire film is a hoax in jest, there are interviews with people named after characters in Kubrick films, such as a film producer named "Jack Torrance."

en.wikipedia.org...(film)

reply to post by Zaphod58


Ok so it was disinfo but not disinfo created by Donald Rumsfeld, who cares?

reply to post by kiwasabi

Does Scott Grissom think the lunar landings were fake too?

reply to post by kiwasabi


Apparently you do, since you brought up him being involved as possible proof that they were faked. He had nothing to do with it, and it was nothing more than a mockumentary.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by kiwasabi

 

Does Scott Grissom think the lunar landings were fake too?

You should ask him. I was merely quoting him to show precedent for those "in the know" with NASA being murdered.

reply to post by michael1983l


More than a possibility. I just proved it. Think about it. The NASA claim is that the attitude of the LM-CM-Service module stack was determined by way of knowing the CM platform orientation and attitude. But the Command and Service Module can rotate 360 degrees on its long axis in its hook up with the LM at the time of docking and extraction. Then in the case of Apollo 13 there was the explosion with reported "tin canning" of the stack. Even if a precise relationship between the CM platform and the LM platform were known pre explosion , that would be lost with the twisting and disruption of the stack. If your attitude assessment is off by a bit then the ship is driven off target as attitude is the determination of how the ship is pointing. Their alternative would have been to have claimed they did sight stars , but with so much debris about in the setting of a real explosion that explanation could never fly with the Apollo scientists and engineers themselves. They are left with telling this unbelievable story about downloading the CM platform orientation into the LM computer. I believed it for the longest time because i simply never thought it through for myself. You can see that most of the Apollo workers would have been ignorant of all this and would have gone along as the majority lacked the requisite level of knowledge to see through the story. At the same time the navigation and guidance people like Jerry Bostick www.spaceacts.com... can be seen from this vantage to be conspiracy workers. They were on the inside of the hoax.




There is Bostick with the arrow pointing to him. He must be one of the conspirators because he understands as the FDO(Flight Dynamics Officer) you cannot fly the ship without knowing the exact direction in which it is pointing.

reply to post by kiwasabi


Think of it this way kiwasabi, they need to know the direction the ship is pointing to fly it properly. They claimed they knew this from knowing the pointing direction of the command module. They want us to believe the lunar module pointing can be inferred from the command module pointing direction or "attitude". But any confidence they might have in some fixed relationship between the pointing or attitudes of the two ships(their platforms) would be lost in the explosion for one thing as the two ships twisted and moved "tin canned" as they claimed.

reply to post by kiwasabi


Yes kiwasabi, I realize the Dark Side flick was a mockumentary. As I said before it was very good, excellent excellent film on so many levels. I loved it and wasn't a CT person back then when I first saw it.

reply to post by kiwasabi

You have showed a conspiracy theory about a murder.
Not uncommon.

reply to post by kiwasabi


Holy smokes kiwasabi, these people really were playing for keeps. When you consider they were all military it doesn't surprise, especially given what was at stake.

reply to post by hugediscovery


Thanks for explaining, hugediscovery. Wouldn't they have some sort of onboard 3-dimension compass of sorts? Or was that destroyed in the explosion? I guess I do remember that mission control had to navigate Apollo 13 remotely essentially.

Blowing Up Apollo 13, Ship Couldn't Fly Straight

reply to post by michael1983l


Hard for me to believe. Yesterday I was watching a video on Apollo 13 as a believer and today I am blowing the roof off the thing.

Consider this Michael. Say there really was an Apollo 13 with an exploding oxygen tank. The ship is no longer on the free return trajectory and needs to be to get around the moon and home. To get on to a free return path they would need to burn and push the ship into a new trajectory. What is needed to do that?

Let's give them the benefit of actually knowing the LM platform's orientation or equivalently the attitude of the entire stack. I already showed how that couldn't be the case, but let's say they did have that much, would they be able to achieve a free return? Absolutely Not! Why?

The explosion has altered the stack's center of mass. In order to achieve a free return trajectory they would need essentiality to push the ship with the LM engine, push with the engine in a direction right behind the ship's center of mass. If they push elsewhere, not behind the ship's center of mass, it will follow a curved path or even spin if the push is far enough off line.

Now there is no way they have this information before the burn. The only way they could get it would be to push the ship and follow it and so thereby study how it behaves mechanically for a given push of the engine. But they don't do this. They just turn on the engine and push the stack and the stack has had mass blown off of it . It lost an oxygen tank and then some more. It lost a whole lot more. So it is lopsided mass wise and the rocketeers do not know how that mass is distributed. The info in the command module computer does not contain this information. It would have to be empirically determined and they do not even attempt such a determination.

Even if they knew the ship's platform orientation before the burn they would still have needed to know how the mass was distributed in order to push the ship in the correct direction . As the story is told, without any knowledge of the quantity of the mass loss and from where and how the ship's center of mass changed one can conclude that the ship could not have possibly been perfectly steered to a free return trajectory.

This objection to the story as told stands up to any and all scrutiny given the scenario as presented and blows up Apollo 13. It shows the mission to be fake Michael. Amazing really how simply this is. Low lying fruit and we all missed it for so long.