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.

 

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

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Simple Irrationalities Are The Best Way To Show The World Apollo Was Fake

According to this source history.nasa.gov... , the Apollo 15 TV press conference began approximently at MET 270:21:55, as a matter of fact,


270:21:55 Henize: We're close to ready. Are you ready for the big press conference?


But according to this source history.nasa.gov... the Apollo 15 TV press conference did not take place. Because it is not mentioned in the original 2001 NASA publication or the revised 2004 edition, there is a simple irrationality, with no explanation.


Orloff, Richard W. Apollo by the Numbers: A Statistical Reference. NASA SP-2000-4029, 2000. The online version includes all the extensive text and useful tables of the hard copy edition. The author has also made a number of corrections to the data in the hard copy edition. The online version does not include the original photos. Source history.nasa.gov...






posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
It is simply not rational to believe that NASA would forget to include the Apollo 15's TV news conference in the time line. It is the basis for a fraudulent episode in the mythology of Apollo.

NASA's SP-2000-4029 Apollo by the Numbers: A Statistical Reference., by Richard Orloff does not include a TV news conference at 270:21 in the time line.

270:21:55 Henize: We're close to ready. Are you ready for the big press conference?

Earlier, in the same NASA published time line, they mentioned a short 5 minute TV test at 173:05 TV transmission started and 173:10 TV transmission ended.

Therefore, to omit the TV news conference at 270:21 is a major falsification of the official history.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


The reference you mentioned was by a "Richard Orloff".

Gee....you don't think perhaps he simply made a......a mistake! (Do you? I mean, since I see so many Apollo "hoax" claimants stumbling around, making mistake after mistake, well)......

....or, do you think that every independent archivist that writes a book on history gets it 100% correct every time?



Here, a bit about Richard:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

As you see, he is associated with the seminal work "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal". A work in progress......

....(AND, pay particular heed to the key word, there: "surface".....)....

ALSO, about the book you mentioned....looky here:


The book presents statistical information about each of the manned Apollo flights that has been long buried in numerous technical memoranda and historical studies.


It is hardly expected to be fully comprehensive, since it attempts to cover ALL the Apollo missions, in the one book....perhaps Mr. Orloff did not make a "mistake", after all....simply focused on the statistical information, as the snippet describes.....a TV interview for public consumption on the way home after the Lunar EVAs is hardly something that was "buried in numerous technical memoranda and historical studies."!



edit on 12-6-2012 by PluPerfect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by PluPerfect
 


NASA published a time line (sp-2000-4029) and the time line didn't include the TV interview at 270:21.

How can I trust any NASA sources knowing that they are still publishing, in 2004, revised Apollo time lines that omit important mission milestones?

Richard Orloff is not a credible source. SP-2000-4029 is not a credible source. That's why NASA is retreating from space and the Japanese, Indians and Chinese will soon discover the truth about Nixon's Apollo after 40 years of myth-making and historical revisions.



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 




NASA published a time line (sp-2000-4029) and the time line didn't include the TV interview at 270:21.


NASA "hosted" on their website a well-resourced OUTSIDE archival publication.....doesn't mean that they ('NASA') in all their bureaucratic complexity micro-managed EVERY aspect!! What foolishness!!




How can I trust any NASA sources knowing that they are still publishing, in 2004, revised Apollo time lines that omit important mission milestones?


Pardon me, but what a STUPID sentiment! And, a non-sequitur "question"!



Richard Orloff is not a credible source.


LOL!!!! LOL, LOL, LOL!!! Yet, just up-thread, YOU used HIS book as....[cough, cough] "proof" of Apollo "fraud"!!



Sorry....hope you can choke up and not drown on your own bile....


Next:



That's why NASA is retreating from space and the Japanese, Indians and Chinese will soon discover the truth about Nixon's Apollo after 40 years of myth-making and historical revisions.


Oh, even MORE hilarity!!

Oh, yes indeed......the "Japanese, Indians and Chinese" will, most certainly, "soon discover".....the REALITY of Apollo, there on the Moon....as ALL OF THEM ALREADY KNOW!

Alas...the few remaining "Apollo Hoax" wannabes, such as yourself (Et Al), will come to realize the wasted efforts....and should (rightly) hang your (their) heads in shame, as a result.

I look forward to that year....for, it is very soon anon....... ("Flowery" prose in lieu of the other silly poster, on this topic. WHO, I am beginning to suspect, is NOT being fully "honest" here.....nor, on "YouTube".....send a 'U2U', if that doesn't make "sense" just yet.....)......




top topics
 
10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join