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
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
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
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.
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!!!
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
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
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:
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.
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.
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
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.