Apollo Moon Landings a Hoax? Then Read This

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


You present one tiny snippet from an 81-year old woman to support a conspiracy theory?

I'll put this to the forum, you just demonstrated selective referencing in such a hilariously embarrassing degree like taking a rubber beebee to an artillery fight. Sorry but I would feel really inadequate if I used something like that to support a side of a debate.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by Frira
I have the advantage of having lived through the moon missions and some of my peers, as a child, had parents and family friends working on Apollo, my own Dad a major player in a minor role.

There are only 12 astronauts who ever walked on the Moon. There are only 12 astronauts who could possibly testify to the reality of what they did up there. Only 9 of them are still alive.

You did not address a single item in the OP. Sigh.

Here is a quote from Pete Conrad during an Apollo 12 press conference segment:

Pete Conrad:

I think this is one of the best 16-mm pictures I ever seen that Dick took of Intrepid leaving. We've done our separation and were waiting, excuse me, we've done our undocking and waiting for Dick to separate and leave us, so that we get over on the night side and do our first alignment prior to the descent orbit injection burn.

The first time I looked at this movie it looked so unreal to me I thought , if I saw that in a Hollywood movie I'd say that it was a fake... but I was there and so were Dick and Al and we'll all vouch for the real thing here.

When an astronaut says something looks "fake" or "unreal" how do you explain it? Is he exaggerating? Is he using colorful commentary? But the fact is Pete Conrad said it looked "fake" and there is no way around that.

edit on 9/29/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: tags bloody tags

It says what it says. He used the words, "descent orbit injection burn" but those you ignore, while taking "unreal" and "fake" out of context (by ignoring the predicate). In other words, you look at the words and see what you want to see, but you do not see what is there. I cannot help you with that.

Originally posted by FriraIt says what it says. He used the words, "descent orbit injection burn" but those you ignore, while taking "unreal" and "fake" out of context (by ignoring the predicate). In other words, you look at the words and see what you want to see, but you do not see what is there. I cannot help you with that.

How is it possible to take UNREAL and FAKE out of context? He said the film looked fake. He is an astronaut. Do you disagree with what the astronaut said?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

How is it possible to take UNREAL and FAKE out of context? He said the film looked fake. He is an astronaut. Do you disagree with what the astronaut said?

Nearly everyone who has been involved in something extraordinary has said "I couldn't believe it!" Who do you believe?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by FriraIt says what it says. He used the words, "descent orbit injection burn" but those you ignore, while taking "unreal" and "fake" out of context (by ignoring the predicate). In other words, you look at the words and see what you want to see, but you do not see what is there. I cannot help you with that.

How is it possible to take UNREAL and FAKE out of context? He said the film looked fake. He is an astronaut. Do you disagree with what the astronaut said?

edit on 9/29/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: sp

Do I have to do a grammar class?

Here is your quote:

"The first time I looked at this movie it looked so unreal to me I thought , if I saw that in a Hollywood movie I'd say that it was a fake... but I was there and so were Dick and Al and we'll all vouch for the real thing here."

He was there, when it was filmed.

"IF I SAW THAT IN A HOLLYWOOD MOVIE I WOULD THINK..." that is a hypothetical-- countered by the next statement...
"BUT I WAS THERE."

That is the context, and pretending you do not know it, is how in the heck you can take the words out of context.

When a dishonest person removes the surrounding words to give the actual stated words a different meaning, the charge is, "that was taken out of context." You have provided us an excellent and exact example of how that is done.

If you do not understand that, as I said before, I cannot help you. I speak English and think rationally-- no hope for me communicating with those who speak and think otherwise.

reply to post by Frira


I don't need a grammar lesson so your entire screed is avoiding the point at hand. The point at hand is Pete Conrad's quote.

Pete is quoted as saying

The first time I looked at this movie it looked so unreal to me I thought , if I saw that in a Hollywood movie I'd say that it was a fake... but I was there and so were Dick and Al and we'll all vouch for the real thing here.

Do you know where thhis Pete Conrad quote comes from?

It comes from the A12 post-splashdown press conference. In fact, Phage is the one who located a portion of that press conference and posted it to the Aussie Genius thread. This was no doubt a difficult and troubling statement for NASA to deal with. It's reasonable to conclude that NASA didn't want any more press conferences with the astros after Apollo 12. This might also explain the present difficulty in finding post-splashdown press conferences for some of the other flights. Right DJ?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

How is it possible to take UNREAL and FAKE out of context? He said the film looked fake. He is an astronaut. Do you disagree with what the astronaut said?

Nearly everyone who has been involved in something extraordinary has said "I couldn't believe it!" Who do you believe?

So Pete Conrad is exaggerating his claims and then he vouches for it and his buddies will vouch for it. It seems that the only people who can vouch for that A12 video are the A12 astronauts themselves.

A bit of a technical dilemma in your argument don't you think DJ?

You're arguing semantics. What a waste of time.

Originally posted by Illustronic
You're arguing semantics. What a waste of time.

Watch the video and come back here and tell us if it looks fake or unreal to you. Can you do that?

What video, this thread is 29 pages long and was never about some video you reference.

reply to post by Illustronic


In the Aussie Genius thread we had the question come up: Where can we find Apollo post-splashdown press conference videos on the internet? It was easy to find A11. It was easy to find some A13 and some of A17. The rest of them are harder to find. There are also some press conferences in space that you need to look at before forming an opinion on the reality or non-reality of Apollo.

Phage found some tiny portions of the A12 press conference here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

I don't need a grammar lesson so your entire screed is avoiding the point at hand.

No, you don't need a grammar lesson. You know perfectly well what Conrad was expressing, you are just trying to distort it in the absence of any other evidence to support your case. What you need is a lesson in subtle propaganda techniques. You have tried this gambit on two different threads and it simply doesn't work. If it doesn't work, don't use it.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Frira

 

I don't need a grammar lesson so your entire screed is avoiding the point at hand. The point at hand is Pete Conrad's quote.

Pete is quoted as saying

The first time I looked at this movie it looked so unreal to me I thought , if I saw that in a Hollywood movie I'd say that it was a fake... but I was there and so were Dick and Al and we'll all vouch for the real thing here.

Do you know where thhis Pete Conrad quote comes from?

It comes from the A12 post-splashdown press conference. In fact, Phage is the one who located a portion of that press conference and posted it to the Aussie Genius thread. This was no doubt a difficult and troubling statement for NASA to deal with. It's reasonable to conclude that NASA didn't want any more press conferences with the astros after Apollo 12. This might also explain the present difficulty in finding post-splashdown press conferences for some of the other flights. Right DJ?

edit on 9/29/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: tags

edit on 9/29/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: add

It is right there in your own words, you wrote:

"I need a grammar lesson"

If I take out the word "don't," then your own words confirm my impression. How can you argue that?

I repeat:

It says what it says. He used the words, "descent orbit injection burn" but those you ignore, while taking "unreal" and "fake" out of context (by ignoring the predicate). In other words, you look at the words and see what you want to see, but you do not see what is there. I cannot help you with that.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
How is it possible to take UNREAL and FAKE out of context? He said the film looked fake. He is an astronaut. Do you disagree with what the astronaut said?

edit on 9/29/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: sp

So, you have succeeded in showing us that Pete Conrad said the he thinks that the film of his Moon flight looks like a Hollywood movie. Great. Thanks.

But everything else Pete Conrad has said (including in the same breath that he likened the A12 film to a Hollywood movie) sounds as if Pete Conrad definitely went to the Moon and it was all real.

So what's your point?

I mean, I've used the phrase "it doesn't feel real" or "it looks fake" in the past when talking about actual highly emotional events that I have beenthrough. Haven't we all? Sometimes I think the video of my wedding looks fake -- as if it was happening to someone else instead of me, even though I was there. So why are you ignoring everything else Conrad said about that flight and keying on that one phrase?

Originally posted by DrizzyBoss

 

 

I bet I can guess who DrizzyBoss was in one try!

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Well stated Soylent Green and after reading your response I have reconsidered the problem. I think the best way to answer this problem is to agree that Pete Conrad is not a film expert. He isn't qualified to comment on that "fakeness" or the "unrealness" of that 16mm film.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Well stated Soylent Green and after reading your response I have reconsidered the problem. I think the best way to answer this problem is to agree that Pete Conrad is not a film expert. He isn't qualified to comment on that "fakeness" or the "unrealness" of that 16mm film.

As a human being, he is qualified to say the same things many other humans say about highly emotional experiences, such as "I can't believe that happened" or " that film of me doing that doesn't seem real".

Besides, he wasn't doing a film analysis, but rather just stating his feelings about his once-in-a-lifetime experience -- an experience that was captured on film.

Originally posted by Frira
I have the advantage of having lived through the moon missions and some of my peers, as a child, had parents and family friends working on Apollo, my own Dad a major player in a minor role.

To the generation after my own, the man on the moon missions "just happened" as if out of the blue—just something the news media reported. Ah! But many lives were involved of real people, not actors.

For my generation… we were connected to the whole process of it. We were aware of the steps and stages, the failures and the successes progressing toward the goal-- and not just from the news, but from the dinner table, hearing about Dad's business trip to "Houston." There were stories of his co-workers as well. His co-workers would sit on our porch and I would listen to them chat. All a performance for an elementary school kid that few would suspect would know as many technical details as I did?

Representing a major contractor, one day, one of my Dad’s associates at NASA brought a stack of film canisters to a meeting. Afterward, he handed them to my father telling him that they were films used internally but he might find them interesting. It changed my life, and I was just a kid.

From that point, my Dad always returned from his NASA trips with a new stack of films for us to watch together. He brought notebooks of data for me to pore over. I soaked up everything my Dad told me about his work and everything I was given to read. On vacation, my Dad took me through Mission Control in Clear Lake several times, and on one occasion, to Huntsville, and to the Cape.

I was about to post a picture I took of Apollo 12 and 13, both inside the Vertical Assembly Building (where I got to inside and toured—you may bow, reverently ;-) ) but realized I would lose copyright by posting here.

Here is a lesser one I'll share:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/03959eb788db.jpg[/atsimg]


So, I’ll stop there and ask:

I knew some of the computer technicians who worked on the project. So who were the programmers who fed false data to those technicians so as to fool them as they monitored the systems? Because the men I knew have no doubt that the landings were real. I could be wrong, but I do not believe an IBM 360 was capable of being “hacked” in 1969— and they weren’t easy machines to hide!

The "proof" that so many look for needed no proof to those who were connected to the program in time, and in our relations. These were people who came out of the aerospace industry—known for their expertise—not actors and not stupid.

Twenty years later, chatting with a stranger on a plane who recognizes my last name and asks "Is your father, so-and-so?"
"Yes. You knew him?"
"Yeah. I was on the NASA systems during the moon landings..." and the stories fly-- some of which I had already heard from my Dad. That stuff doesn't come out of a hoax. They make up stories to remember to share with a chance encounter with a child of a co-worker twenty years later? Just in case they ever bump into him?

Life does not work that way. It seems to me that hoaxes of the scale being imagined by some can only be believed by persons without sufficient life experience upon which to test what is real and amazing from what is hoax.

As a child of nine, I fly to Huntsville with my Dad just after Apollo 11 returned. I am one of three kids in an auditorium full of adult professionals—VIPs, all connected to manned moon missions. The lecturer is Wernher von Braun. He is done with the Saturn project—he designs and fixes designs—but since it worked, he was moving on. His lecture was about what was next. He shows slides of a reusable winged vehicle that would become the Shuttle.

Now if the project was a hoax, what are the odds that these professionals (my Dad, friends of his-- people I knew) would bother? My Dad and his buddy, a very famous man, were so proud of their work, they brought their kids. Lucky me! Or would you have me believe my Dad just pretended to be proud—a man whose IQ blew through the top and whose good character was (and is) legendary?

What are the odds that von Braun would behave as if done, and ready to move to the next project?

Unless you intend to tell me that I am in a scenario like the Truman Show and everyone in my life was, and remains, merely an actor perpetuating a hoax, then reality is as I know it to be—and, therefore, we went to the moon.

Ah hah !

Now I understand the reason for the personal attack

Yup

Think you know everything about the Apollo missions ?

Then Watch This Video !


Apollo 12's - Secret & Undeclared EVA

During the November 1969 flight of Apollo 12, Mission Commander Charles "Pete" Conrad and Lunar Module Pilot Alan Bean touched down on the Moon at a landing site known as "Statio Cognitium" ("Known Base"), located near the eastern edge of Oceanus Procellarum - the "Ocean of Storms".

NASA's official historical record for that second lunar landing mission has always publicly declared that the pair of astronauts conducted two EVAs during their 31.5 hour stay on the lunar surface. Today however, we will closely examine some highly relevant and extremely revealing official archive evidence that will demonstrate to you that NASA's official claim that only two EVAs were conducted during Apollo 12 is a LIE.

The truth is that after they landed at Statio Cognitium but prior to carrying out their two declared moonwalks, astronauts Conrad and Bean first conducted an entirely covert, classified Standup-EVA, journeying outside the pressurized security of their Lunar Module without the public ever knowing about it. Most shockingly, you will see that NASA has even accidentally acknowledged in recently published official archive documentation that this totally off-the-record, clandestine SEVA I am describing did in fact take place during the Apollo 12 mission - blatantly admitting not only that it happened, but even telling us when and why it was conducted!

In this presentation, I have attempted to explain the relevant evidence about this covert, off-the-record operation in such a way that even those who may not be entirely familiar with the technology and techniques involved in Apollo lunar surface operations will still be able to appreciate not only how and why NASA did this covert S-EVA during Apollo 12, but also understand just how the space agency was able to keep the global public totally ignorant of the fact that this clandestine lunar surface operation was ever even taking place.

Read more: www.youtube.com...

Since NASA lied about the Apollo 12 mission ...

You have to wonder, what else about the Apollo missions have they lied about ?