Simple Irrationalities Are The Best Way To Show The World Apollo Was Fake

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Thanks to my friends Charlie and Timmy, and my sis for helping me with punctuation, grammar and spelling for this post and encouraging me to start the thread and be an active participant in proving the Apollo Program fake.

The best way to show others that Apollo is fake is to show them the simple lies. This is what I mean by that.

Lots of Apollo people that endorse the official Apollo story always talk about how it is a slam dunk done deal that "of course Apollo is true". They are always saying to us, "there are mountains of evidence in support of Apollo as real and nothing significant to show it really was a scam".

Of course that is not true. But because Apollo even as a scam was scientific in a way then we sometimes get sort of fooled into thinking that you have to sort of know science or math or both at least a little bit to understand the criticism of the phony Apollo Program.

One thing my friend Charlie taught me who is very good at this sort of thing is that you really don't need to be all that much of a science person to understand that Apollo is crazy fake. We spent almost 2 hours yesterday working on a post for another thread here that shows how the Apollo 11 Mission Report is a forgery fake report

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is no question that Apollo is fake and that the little post Charlie and me and my sis did last night proves it. But lots of people cannot understand what we did. Our post exposes an Apollo lie. But for some people it doesn't make sense because it is a technical lie. You need to understand a lot of things scientific and mathematic things to understand what we wrote. It doesn't make sense to non technical people because they cannot understand why it is significant to say the MSFN coordinates and Tranquility Base coordinates are reported by the FIDO to be 5 miles away from one another but our calculation shows them to be 0.72 miles away from one another as reported in the Apollo 11 Mission Report which because of our findings has been proven phony and made up fake.

Charlie and I looked through all of Jarrah's videos and TSD's videos and some others and decided the best simple example of a simple lie that does show Apollo fake is TSD's pointing out Frank Borman's lying about getting sick in space. Here is the video.





This is an important issue we need to address from our side that uncovers the fakery. It is important to do technical work like the post on the MSFN to Tranquility Base distance issue. But we need to also do more work like TSD did here. TSD is pointing out that anyone can go out and read the January 17 1969 LIFE Magazine article that Frank Borman wrote and confirm the contradiction. No commander in his right mind would make himself sick on purpose. Give himself diarrhea. Make himself vomit. Especially in outer space. The other members of the crew could get sick. The diarrhea and vomiting could plog up the equipment and other things could go wrong. It is completely irrational this story and because of that it proves Apollo irrational which translates to fake.

There are lots of simple Apollo story contradictions or inconsistencies or irrationalities that anyone can understand. What I will try to do in this thread is make a collection of them. Things that anyone can understand. Simple inconstancies or contradictions or nonsensical parts and irrational parts of the Apollo stories that prove it fake.

If anyone else knows of nontechnical things like this that help to show Apollo is phony please add yours to my list.

The Frank Borman lying about being sick in space is the first one. If he was really sick to begin with and everyone was so worried then he would not try to make himself sick again by taking a pill that made him sick in the first place. We know Apollo is fake because of this. I would not take a pill on purpose that made me sick and neither would you and neither would Frank Borman.

Thanks again to Charlie and my sis and Timmy for their help always I could not do the more complicated posts without you .
edit on 30-4-2012 by decisively because: i wrote " we sometimes get sort of fooled into thinking" to make the sentence more clear




posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   


science person to understand that Apollo is crazy fake


Actually it might help...

The only conspiracy I personally think might of occurred here is covering up of findings at most, the best lies contain truths...

I believe we went to the moon, and that we aren't being told some things about whats been found.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Wagging the Moondoggie
Read all of his posts on the landing and you'll be quite convinced Apollo was a huge fraud.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


Well of course it helps benrl and a scientific or mathematical approach has always been mine mostly because that is what i am pretty good at

I am not good with movies like TSD and do not have broad knowledge like him some people say he is a doctor but he knows about many different things so he takes advantage of that and can reach more people with his posts and little videos showing the lying

i pointed out that i did this post with charlie and my sis

www.abovetopsecret.com... and i think it is very good and is concise in its own way showing apollo fake

i actually think it is impossible to see apollo as true from that one point about the MSFN Tranquility Base distance lying

but our side needs to publish more stuff that the man or woman in the street can understand this is the purpose of my thread to investigate this approach and develop a presentation for it

edit on 30-4-2012 by decisively because: fixed spelling of a word



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by KnowledgeIsPowre
 


thank you!



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 

The best way to show the world Apollo was fake is Who Mourns For Adonais?

Not sure what that has to do with the moon landing, though.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
I myself have always wondered why there are no pictures taken from the dark side of the moon out in to the solar system. Seems like it would be the shot to have. Kind of like going to the Grand Canyon but only taking pictures of the parking lot. Also the whole radiation/film issue. I have never heard anyone explain how the radiation didn't fry the film and have never seen a picture of the lead box they would have needed for the camera. Maybe there is a good explanation I just have never heard it if there is. The devil is in the details.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 

Well written thread, and good research and speculation. But no, it wasn't faked, at least that's my best guess. Too many people would have to be in on it, hundreds if not thousands, and the equipment on the moon - laser mirrors, etc. - well, you know the arguments. The people that believe it was faked are losing out on the "wow" factor of looking at the moon and knowing that people have walked upon it, and brought pieces of it back. How cool is all that!!!



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


You are so funny

Thank you!!!! Made me laugh so hard!!!

I like that episode very much by the way



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Ladysophiaofsandoz
 


Dear LAdysophiaofsandoz,

The dark side issue is an interesting one

Consider that if one was on the dark side then the astronauts would be utilizing dim light photography to begin with

There is no sunlight and the exposures would be long so this disqualifies the excuse given for light side photography "the cameras were set for short exposures and so forth and of course that is appropriate for bright light conditions"

now they are on the dark side and do not have that excuse for not picking up stars

astronaut worden (apollo 15) claimed that when he was on the back side there were so many stars he could not tell one from the other and if that is the case then how did he sight stars

my point there is on the back side they would be expected to pick up stars and lots of them depending on the pretend circumstances

great point about the film



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


Thank you Aleister,

If Apollo is true then how do you account for Borman taking seconal two times and in the case of the second time actually trying to make himself sick ?

If Apollo is true then how do you account for landing the Eagle spaceship on the moon and not knowing where it is ?



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
iz it just me or the way the OP writes plus the way the linked video is narrated,

its hard to take seriously as it keep saying its so obvious, so simple, and here i'm going to show you... and

all it is, is incoherent, repetitive ramblings.

i was expecting to see actual proofs not annoyingly repeated suspense and the voice... arghhh



posted on May, 1 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by BiggerPicture
 


BiggerPicture,

Sorry about my writing

even when my sister and friends help me it can be very repetitive

i have a disability and it affects my writing though it is interesting that even when i was only 11 they tested me and i had a vocabulary that was in the top 1/1000 for adults

my math skills of course are very strong and that is how apollo found me

you may try your hand at confirming my calculations here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

if you have followed that and it should not be to hard for you then you will prove to yourself that apollo is a scam

I will try and have my friends and sis help me more with the composition aspects of my posting

having said all of this the main point of my thread here is that in this particular case one can see apollo is a fraud because no one in their right mind would intentionally take a pill to make themselves sick and have diarrhea all over a space ship

think about it for yourself . say you are riding in a car and have bad diarrhea all over your car and you realize after cleaning it up that 3 hours before the diarrhea you took a seconal pill . would you take another pill the next day to on purpose go to the bathroom diarrhea all over your car to prove to yourself that the seconal pill is what made you sick the day before ? of course you would not and that would make no sense at all. but Frank Borman the astronaut said this is exactly what he did.

so you may read the LIFE magazine from January 1969 and in Frank Bormans own words read this is what he claims to have done . that is what TSD is exposing in the video. the theme is one of citing Frank Borman as being completely irrational and not making any sense himself. he is lying to cover up the fact that his illness in space was actually fony but you do not even need to know all of the details about why it is that the illness is fake. the mere contradiction proves TSD's point very well.

my sis will be around tomorrow to help me again and i can write to you more if you like

in the meantime you can try to do one of the apollo 11 mission report real time eagle landing site calculations for yourself as i did for the MSFN solution and convince yourself beyond any reasonable doubt apollo is very fake

try the PNGS solution for example BiggerPicture if you have even basic high school math skills should be easy for you

thank you for your posting



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Consider that if one was on the dark side then the astronauts would be utilizing dim light photography to begin with


They did do dim light photography:

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...


There is no sunlight and the exposures would be long so this disqualifies the excuse given for light side photography "the cameras were set for short exposures and so forth and of course that is appropriate for bright light conditions"

now they are on the dark side and do not have that excuse for not picking up stars


This is what stars look like when you photograph them from a moving spacecraft:







www.lpi.usra.edu...
edit on 2-5-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-5-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


DJW001,

Your point does not invalidate mine. My point was that one would be expected to see "evidence" of stars on the back side images. If the imaging was in a sense dedicated, stars could indeed be photographed from a spaceship. If not dedicated, one might see streaking and so forth. But images of stars in some sense/form one would be expected to see.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Your point does not invalidate mine. My point was that one would be expected to see "evidence" of stars on the back side images. If the imaging was in a sense dedicated, stars could indeed be photographed from a spaceship. If not dedicated, one might see streaking and so forth. But images of stars in some sense/form one would be expected to see.


Have you tried to photograph stars at night? They require long exposures. Anything bright, like the Moon, will be washed out. The dim light photography was an attempt to study albedo variations on the surface, so you seldom if ever get a slice of "sky" in them.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I do not get the point of your point. No one is claiming dedicated photographs under some given set of conditions would produce images of such and such a quality.

That said, I would claim if Apollo was real and the photo experts did want good shots of stars, they could have been obtained with dedicated work from both the CM and the lunar surface as well.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


there is nothing wrong with the apollo 11 report

the solution from the MSFN being about 5 miles off, was because the earth-moon LOS was nearly normal with the tracking velocity. this gave it an inherent error of about 13ft/sec.

this is beginning to look like you are looking for something that doesnt exist so much that you made it exist.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



That said, I would claim if Apollo was real and the photo experts did want good shots of stars, they could have been obtained with dedicated work from both the CM and the lunar surface as well.


No, that's not what you said, actually. But just to humor you:



images.jsc.nasa.gov...

Of course, the CSM SIM bay mapping camera also photographed star fields to synchronize its survey photos. What was your point, exactly?



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Allow me to clarify,

We know with absolute certainty that Apollo was/is FRAUDULENT. One may say this with utter confidence as Alan Shepard, a man alleged to have been diagnosed with Meniere's Disease would never have been sent to the moon were Apollo real. One may say Apollo is full on FRAUDULENT with utter confidence because were Apollo real , Frank Borman would not have intentionally tried to make himself sick in outer space, as he himself wrote that he did in a January 17 1969 LIFE Magazine article. One may say Apollo is full on FRAUDULENT with utter confidence because were Apollo real, Gene Kranz would not have given the "RA RA let's use the LM as a "lifeboat" speech" 15 minutes from the time the Apollo 13 phony explosion occurred, before they even knew if the phony LM was OK. One may say Apollo is full on FRAUDULENT with utter confidence because were Apollo real, John Aaron would not be able to tell that the phony Apollo 13 O2 tank explosion was not "insrtrumentational " in nature from his home. One may say Apollo is full on FRAUDULENT with utter confidence because were Apollo real, full blown creep and unconvicted felon and pretend astronaut John Young would not have claimed he was in the MOCR at the time of the phony Apollo 13 O2 tank explosion and Sy Leibergot has a photo to prove Young is a lying jive heiny twit. One may say Apollo is full on FRAUDULENT with utter confidence because were Apollo real, the lunar area two map(LAM-2 map) made by DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MAP MAKERS would not have been FRAUDULENTLY misgridded and mislabeled. One may say Apollo is full on FRAUDULENT with utter confidence because were Apollo real there would have been experiments done by real scientists to support the bogus claims of the Cortright Commission Apollo 13 Phony Explosion Investigators that here was a total of 1.1 pound of Teflons, and an undisclosed amount of aluminum, that burned in the phony O2 tank causing the pretended service bay rupture. One may say Apollo is full on FRAUDULENT with utter confidence because were Apollo real unconvicted felons Edgar Mitchell and Alan Shepard would have found Cone Crater on their phony trip to the moon. One may say Apollo is full on FRAUDULENT with utter confidence because were Apollo real, Eagle launch FIDO H. David Reed would not have been told that no one in mission control knew within 5 miles as to where the Eagle was on the morning of 07/21/1969. One may say Apollo is full on FRAUDULENT with utter confidence because were Apollo real, they would not have published in the bogus Apollo 11 Mission Report phony coordinates as regards the real time MSFN PNGS and AGS Eagle landing site solutions, a point well addressed by myself; www.abovetopsecret.com..., and not a once responded to by you or any other member of this forum, PROOF of it's truth in outline, details notwithstanding. One may say Apollo is full on FRAUDULENT with utter confidence because were Apollo real, someone besides NASA STOOGES would have seen the bogus Apollo 12 lightning and photoed/videoed it. After all, there were only hundreds of thousands of people watching. One may say Apollo is full on FRAUDULENT with utter confidence because were Apollo real, they would not have sent their phony LM to the moon after a phony lightning strike not being able to check the phony thing out in low earth orbit. One may say Apollo is full on FRAUDULENT with utter confidence because were Apollo real Michael Collins would not write in his rag of a book CARRYING THE STERNO that he could not see stars at all from the pretend ship Columbia looking up sun OR DOWN SUN. Yet his dim witted stooge of a partner, Aldrin, claimed in his idiotic read MAGNIFICENT DESPERATION, that he saw millions of stars. One may say Apollo is full on FRAUDULENT with utter confidence because were Apollo real, Neal Armstrong would not have claimed that he never saw stars from the surface of the moon or during sunlit conditions from space while unconvicted convict Alan Shepard wrote in his two bit cock and bull jive heiny rag MOONSHOT with gangster and twit Deke Slayton that stars WERE EASILY SEEN. And you never made your own Sibrel movie to prove TSD wrong, so THAT must be on target too.

Need I go on ? Believe me I can......and on and on and on.....

So please DJW001, do excuse me. It is hard for us to keep our facts straight when we are reading and being fed this HOKUM! Thank you very much. Rather discouraging at times being treated with utter contempt by felons who call themselves patriots.

With regard to the pics. Let me say it this way so you are not confused about my views any longer. Any photos they have were NOT TAKEN BY ASTRONAUTS CIRCLING OR LANDED UPON THE MOON. AND THAT MY FRIEND I HAVE PROVEN BEYOND ANY DOUBT. Try and prove me wrong. No chance...
edit on 3-5-2012 by decisively because: speliing
edit on 3-5-2012 by decisively because: added comma





new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join