The Invisible Lightning of Fraudulent Apollo 12

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 2 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Apollo 12 was alleged to have been hit by lightning 11/14/1969, just a bit over half a minute into its flight. Then it got hit again just a little under a minute into flight. So the bogus tale goes.

The national weather service claimed that there was no lightning in the area whatsoever 6 hours before or after the launch. Thousands and thousands of eyewitnesses were there including scores of photojournalists. All of the major networks covered the event. No one saw lightning, well almost no one anyway. Among the the only photos taken of the lightning were those taken by NASA's automatic cameras.






No photos by photojournalists right there at the launch scene, no photos/video by NBC, CBS, ABC, BBC, French news people on sight, German Newspeople on sight and so forth. How fake can anything be ? Well pretty dang fake if one reads about this Apollo 12 jive.

The first person to suggest the phony bird was hit by phony lightning was booger gonads Pete Conrad himself. Why did Conrad and NASA Apollo Spacecraft Manager and former fraudulent Apollo astronaut and D grade thespian James McDivitt see lightning and essentially no one else(few exceptions and we'll get to those)?

Maybe the lightning hit dim witted Pete in the mouth and gave him that dumb gap toothed grin ?

Anyhoo, this thing is fake fake fake beyond the stars.

Many here know that the LM was powered off of course at launch and so when the thing supposedly got in orbit they could check everything out but that. The LM itself could not be checked in earth orbit. And rather unbelievably, they DECIDED TO GO TO THE MOON WITH A LM CARRIED ABOARD A SHIP HIT BY LIGHTNING, THE LM NOT EVALUABLE FOR ELECTRONIC EVALUATION UNTIL WELL AFTER APOLLO 12 WAS GIVEN CLEARANCE TO LEAVE EARTH ORBIT AND HAD DONE SO, ACTUALLY HAD LEFT EARTH ORBIT.

Interestingly, and in contradiction to NASA's own telling of the tale, Andrew Chaikin wrote in the relevant section of A MAN ON THE MOON that they did check out the LM in earth orbit. This is an interesting subplot of this particular aspect of the Apollo 12 fraud and well underscores how pop culture journalists were manipulated in this context to help create little tales or "patches" as I sometimes call them. In this way, little problems are papered over. That is, you sort of have to have it both ways. Logistically, a real LM could not be checked out in earth orbit under the circumstances, and so NASA must write that in its official records. On the other hand, it is more than a little implausible, sending a lander on its way to the moon, a lander carried in a ship hit by lightning twice, a lander with aluminum foil walls, a lander the electronics of which could not be assessed until it was ordered out of earth orbit. So dim witted Andrew Chaikin dutifully writes this down and it found its way into his dumb book.

Some authors like David Harland are probably perpetrators, fraud insiders themselves. Indeed, they are major players. They are WRITING THE PHONY STORY. That is obvious. On the other hand, guys like Chaikin are naive and very very very very very very dumb, wasting their dim witted lives in the role of sycophantic chroniclers of the lives and activities of great days gone by cowards, writing about the likes of Aldrin, Collins and Armstrong, men whose testicles required the use of an electron microscope in their location at the time of their respective astronaut induction physical exams.

But I digress.

Would anyone in their right mind go to the moon in this Apollo 12 thing ? Of course not.

How fake ?

VERY !!!

One of NASA's more robust tales of unmitigated jive is this Apollo 12 booger gonad piloted yarn.



edit on 2-5-2012 by decisively because: added "WELL AFTER"
edit on 2-5-2012 by decisively because: CHANGED TENSE OF SENTENCE FROM PRESENT TO PAST
edit on 2-5-2012 by decisively because: ADDED , "IN THIS WAY"
edit on 2-5-2012 by decisively because: word misspelled
edit on 2-5-2012 by decisively because: comma added
edit on 2-5-2012 by decisively because: removed "the"




posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
A curious tale indeed; and an incident I'd long ago forgotten about. I'm not sure I share your assessment of some of our astronauts, but I do agree that there many anomalies in our space program that could use a strong light being shone on them.

I plan to look a little further into this incident myself. In the end I may or may not agree with you, but thanks for bringing it up for more scrutiny....



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Have to admit that I am not one of the people who believe that we did not go to the moon. I also admit that, other then reading a few threads on ATS, I have done 0 research on the subject. With that in mind please explain the purpose of NASA faking a lightening strike. Not sure what this does to promote the theory that we never actually went to the moon.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


Ex_CT2, as you know airplanes observed/followed the Saturn Vs on their way up and out, such as planes can observe and follow a large rocket. Guess what ? No lightning....

You may know this already, the claim was the rocket caused the lightning. It was a gigantic and particularly capable lightning rod. Even if that were the case, last time I checked, lightning was quite visible.


NASA's camera got a pic www.hq.nasa.gov... and no one else saw it ?


FAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
edit on 2-5-2012 by decisively because: removed "planes"



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
So are you telling me Apollo 12 did not go to the moon?



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by abeverage
 


Of course Apollo space ships go to the moon, or might anyway. They just carry military equipment and not people.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Well, for one thing, you proved that there was lightning at the Cape and it happened shortly after liftoff. That more or less destroys all of your logic doesn't it?

Exactly how big of a bolt of lightning do you require to have hit the spacecraft? Maybe it was a teeny little one as sometimes hits aircraft but leaves them usually totally intact so that they complete their destined route.

I frankly don't accept your account. No way. Maybe I could have been more curious about your thread had you not worked overtime throwing in insulting words toward about every person included in you account. That manner showed an overly strong bias that surely was also reflected in the details you chose to present and those you left out.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 



If Spacecraft Chief James McDivitt actually saw lightning, how come NO ONE ELSE DID ? There were only 500,000 people there. Does James McDivitt have special eyes, or is he an Apollo Fraud Insider ? GEEEEEEEE I wonder, so complicated this world of invisible lightning.
edit on 2-5-2012 by decisively because: added ?



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Granted, the point is rather trivial, my having produced yet another full on proof of the unmitigated absolute metaphysical certitude of Apollo's inauthenticity. I come up with 3 or 4 a day to be sure, no big deal it's so easily demonstrated fake, apollo is, any half witted test pilot can do it, and for a sixth grader, well in that case, it is super easy.

BUT!!!, to conclude that just because these proofs of Apollo Fraudulence, as absolute and vacuum sealed and no wiggle room free for the lying stooge astronauts as they are have become now so commonplace that they can almost be ignored is NO REASON TO DISCOUNT THE GREAT SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENTS THAT OCCURRED THERE IN HOUSTON IN THOSE HEADY AND EVER SO GIDDY TIMES, WHEN THE ASTRONAUTS TESTICLES, NO BIGGER THAN QUARKS, WERE DISCOVERED.

It was breathtaking, I mean just ask Apollo Fraud Perpetrator Gene Kranz for God's sake how excited he was to read the paper every morning 'bout this kind-0-thing.

So yeah......I know it's easy to discount this stuff, 40 years plus gone by. It's like the atom bomb, the first linear accelerator or what have you. But this was and remains big time stuff and so.....Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.....

edit on 2-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling for a word, added ?
edit on 2-5-2012 by decisively because: added "that"
edit on 2-5-2012 by decisively because: added a comma and "know"



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


Last point, in case it zipped by you. Since no one else saw the lightning, and since no one else there filming, NBC, ABC, CBS, BBC got it on tape,we may all conclude with unmitigated metaphysical certitude that the lightning picture was/is a forgery. It most certainly is not a photo taken at Cape Rip Off the US Taxpayer that day, 11/14/1969.

There were a few other pics of lightning that did turn up, and as those already familiar with the bogus tale can attest, studying those rather odd cases of catching phony lightning in a phony bottle will shed further light on what can only be described as the most heinously embarrassing, lowest, dumbest, most inanely idiotic point in American history, perhaps quite literally in all of human history. That is quite literally NO EXAGGERATION.....


I mean really, ever hear of a group of people planting weapons over your head and then going around saying that they flew to the moon and ain't they the sweetest and most peaceful of folks. Makes one want to write to Obama , does it not?

Write to that dude and tell him to SPILL THE SPACE BEANS, TELL THE PUBLIC TODAY !!!!!!!



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


Ex_CT2, as you know airplanes observed/followed the Saturn Vs on their way up and out, such as planes can observe and follow a large rocket. Guess what ? No lightning....

You may know this already, the claim was the rocket caused the lightning. It was a gigantic and particularly capable lightning rod. Even if that were the case, last time I checked, lightning was quite visible.


NASA's camera got a pic www.hq.nasa.gov... and no one else saw it ?


FAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
edit on 2-5-2012 by decisively because: removed "planes"

OK now, understand this: You may make any CLAIMS you like. But a thread about an imaginary lightning strike whose main point of proof is a photo of the lightning strike in question is not likely to get a free pass as PROOF. I said I want to look further into it; yours is not the only point of view out there.

Once I am thoroughly persuaded in my own mind as to its authenticity or inauthenticity, then I will have successfully denied ignorance. Otherwise--my accepting your decidedly subjective claim of proof is more like _embracing_ ignorance....



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Explain to me again in real simple terms why they said it was struck by lightning when you say it was not.
And explain again in simple terms their reasonings for making such claims.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


The electronics went out, "nonsensical" data on the EECOM's and other flight officers' screens. Fuel cells not feeding power to the CM. Conrad claims to have seen a flash and so did McDivitt. No one saw the second hit, at least that is my understanding. Essentially everyone there, thousands and thousands and thousands of people, saw nothing.

Because of Conrad's claim and that of McDivitt and a few other NASA types, a lightning strike was considered the most likely explanation for the problems. It was not until much later that the photos were discovered. The pics were not available in any sense in real time. They were taken by an automatic camera. The diagnosis was based on a handful of personal claims and the problem as understood by ground personal being consistent with a lightning strike.

No one saw this but a few NASA boys. No one filmed this but a few NASA boys. This thing is way way way way way way FAKE.

edit on 2-5-2012 by decisively because: added comma



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by VeniVidi
 


Why did Borman poop in the Apollo 8 space ship ? Everything cannot be nominal, otherwise it looks suspicious. It already looks too nominal, by that i mean not credible. So this heiny jive stuff is viewed as helping, makes it look authentic/spontaneous.

There are several other considerations, but this should get you going.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


OK. You argument centers on a lightning strike. Do a search for recorded events around other rocket launches and some fighter jet experiences that detail how a UFO shot a beam of light at the rocket or plane and caused some degree of a problem. You could also check on the beams shot by UFOs into missile silos that deactivated the systems.

How would NASA explain that event on the Apollo flight? A flash of light from where!? Oh, yeah. Lightning! That sounds good!

Lasers were in early development at that time and with the laser tracking that would have been required for such a hit 50 seconds into the flight over the sea with the target moving at several thousdand miles per hour, that does not seem viable. Nor, as you say, does lightning fit the situation.

A hit via a UFO beam weapon seems more likely...like it or not.

Of course the filmed data of that event which may have also recorded a nearby UFO would not be available or those few frames removed from the records of the flight.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Aliensun
 


I vote for phony lightning, but you are of course welcome to your own opinion.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


My oh my,

This is rather interesting. Someone at another website thought they had "identified" me and had this to say about what I wrote here. "There" is a reference to ATS;

"I went there. It didn't take long for him to be asked what the purpose of faking the lightning strike was.

IIRC, he said here that NASA faked the lightning striek (for publicity, storytelling, or something), and that the lightning strike meant it was too risky to go to the moon and that the ship should have come right back to earth because the parachute controls might have been damaged (can't go to the moon with bad parachutes, you might not get back to earth safely. Better just to come back to earth) and the LM might not have worked (can't go to the moon without a working LM, right Apollo 8?), and therefore Apollo 12 was fake and everyone involved is a horrible lying criminal which proves that Apollo 12 did indeed go to the moon, but carrying robotics and automated craft (of which no records exist)."

Fascinating, No ?



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Wow, you just don't stop do you. Out of all the silly ideas you have made threads about recently this one has to be the silliest. Good god man, are you just making this stuff up to annoy people? You're denying the lightning strike on Apollo 12?

I mean...........................WHY?

What could possibly be the point of lying about the lightning?

You are just trolling aren't you.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Ahh yes troll did your sista help you write this too. We went to the moon get over it. Were too broke with the welfare state to go back



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by mrwiffler
 


My view is that most of this kind of stuff has to do with making the fraud more generally plausible. How can it be fake if the Saturn V was hit by lightning ? How can it be fake, if Borman pooped all over his spaceship ? How can it be fake, if an O2 tank blew and these guys aboard Apollo 13 were "stranded" in space, dark death lurking just outside, a cabin crack away from sucking them out and putting the big kabosh on humanity's pathetic effort to test the waters of the cislunar vacuum? I'll say more about this a bit below.

First of all, to repeat, when I say fraud, when my friends and I discuss Apollo as "hoax", we essentially never use that term , "hoax". Because hoax implies a fun and games , one upping the Ruskies scam, and this was most decidedly not what Apollo was. Apollo, indeed all of the "manned" U.S. space effort was primarily a cover for American military programs; surveillance, reconnaissance, ICBM targeting/tracking/ performance, Dyna-Soar development(space shuttle like bomber), Manned Orbital Lab(permanent MANNED orbiting reconnaissance platform). As Mrecury, Gemini, Apollo are going on, it is THIS STUFF, the military stuff that is being effected, put into place.

In order for this thing to work, it has to be believable and THE MOST IMPORTANT PEOPLE TO FOOL ARE THE MISSION CONTROL GUYS AND NASA PERSONAL NOT IN THE KNOW. Of the 400,000 Apollo workers, perhaps 500 if that know this is a military operation through and through. You have to fool everyone else. How do you do that ? Make the scenarios not so NOMINAL.

Lightning, poop, blown O2 takes, and so forth. Sometimes the anomalies are functional. For example the legendary 1202 program alarm of the Eagle's descent, an obvious ploy to create an excuse for Armstrong to not pay attention to where it was that he was going and so then say that he did not know where it was that he had landed.

edit on 5-5-2012 by decisively because: added ?
edit on 5-5-2012 by decisively because: commas





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join