Neil Armstrong, Talk About Transparent, PooPoos Apollo Fraud , Then Proceeds to Go All Ballistic

reply to post by CHRLZ


If there was a court trial then the astronauts would have to swear on a bible. Sounds good to me.

reply to post by decisively

How about all of them?

1) The FIDO H. David Reed/Apollo 11 Mission Report Contradiction, a contradiction that in and of itself demonstrates Apollo 11's fraudulence.

There was never any contradiction. He did not have an exact set of coordinates at the time, as he himself says. He did not need them, as he also says. Several differing sets of coordinates have been provided, each using a different method and, thus, different systematic errors. You still haven't said whether all the coordinates you did your fancy figgerin' with were ME or PA.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

2) The twin lies of Tom Stafford and ain'tstronaut sidekick James McDivitt. Tom Stafford's saying in the context of the Apollo 12 post flight news/press conference that he did not see lightning, as a matter of fact, in that conference, the audio of which I shall be posting , it was claimed that NO ONE, NOT A SINGLE PERSON IN THE FIRING ROOM SAW LIGHTNING, yet Stafford wrote in his book WE HAVE CAPTURE that he looked up from his console and saw two bolts of lightning come down and "BAM !!!", hit the pad. McDivitt, also stationed in the Firing Room at launch time claimed to have seen lighting as well. Twin les, those of Stafford and McDivitt, twin lies to match the twin imaginary lightning bolts everyone INCLUDING STAFFORD HIMSELF, DENIED SEEING AT THE TIME OF THE APOLLO 12 POST LAUNCH NEWS CONFERENCE. (For those who have not actually heard this one, fasten your seat belts. The fall out is nothing less than sensational. We pick up no less an Apollo Program Fraud dark luminary than PAO Jack King and weclome him to the Pantheon of those dwelling in this unholy and disgrace ridden realm.

Human memory rewrites itself in the face of newer evidence. That is not lying. Any real historian could tell you that.

3) Borman making the very not credible claim/LYING his jive heiny off with regard to his story about trying to make himself sick(vomiting, diarrhea) in cislunar space by INTENTIONALLY taking Seconal a second time. This Borman WROTE HIMSELF.

*yawn*

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

4) USAF General Samuel Philips, Head of the Apollo Manned Missions, and by NO COINCIDENCE, just prior head of the US Minuteman Program, writing/LYING in the May 1969 National Geographic that vaccination, in so many words, guaranteed INFLUENZA immunity. This particular lie of Phillips, in and of itself, proving Apollo 8's inauthenticity, and so along with that critical lynchpin of a fraudulent event, all of Apollo inauthenticity

Was General Samuel C. Phillips an epidemiologist? In any event:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

5) Alan Shepard's bogus Meniere's Disease cure/LIE in which 7-8 months after William House's shunt surgery, NASA physicians were able to "show'/demonstrate the following well confirmed as fraudulent facts;

a) that vertigo generated by the pathophysiology of a Meniere's Disease based process in Shepard's operative ear would not recur, EVER

Where did they say that?

b) that vertigo generated by a Meniere's Disease based pathophysiologic process developing in Shepard's previously unaffected ear would NEVER OCCUR

Where did they say that?

c) that an established 40 dB hearing loss was erased by the William House surgery and Shepard post surgery was then in possession of normal hearing

That's not exactly what either of them said.

6) Slayton's/NASA medical's LIE LIE LIE LIE that Shepard's a-fib disappeared in the context of Slayton's vitamin program and proof of said cure by virtue of a Mayo Clinic cath/coronary angiogram, a proceedure which all physicians know does not in any way demonstrate the underlying etiology accounting for the pathoelectrophysiology in most cases of a-fib, a clean cath leaving docs right where they started from, with the exception of then knowing only that coronary artery disease was not to blame, something in Slayton's case they would have surmised without the cath anyway.

No one ever said that Slayton was "cured." He was eventually found fit to fly in space because his condition was no longer considered a serious problem. Slayton might have personally credited his vitamin regime, I credit more liberal physical standards in later, near Earth orbital flights.

I could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, but shan't.

No, you can't. You've shot your wad. But I'm sure you'll continue to repeat yourself.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

If there was a court trial........

A "trial"??

Based on what, exactly??

What "crime" has been alleged??

I wonder, sometimes, at the mind-set of some people......whew!!

Originally posted by decisively All parties do, those that call me silly and then spend day and night blasting away at our "alternative Apollo narrative" . You make our case for us. Your anxiety is ever so palpable.

It means you are doing good work decisively!

Soon, when the Japanese and Chinese get on the moon with rovers and HD cameras, we will have final confirmation of the fraud. This is what makes NASA so nervous with fearful anxiety...
This is why NASA has put ex-general, ex-astronaut Charles Bolden in charge of the Keep Out zones on the Moon. Because there is a N E W R A C E T O T H E M O O N!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


LOL!!!!!

Soon, when the Japanese and Chinese get on the moon with rovers and HD cameras, we will have final confirmation of the fraud.

AND, when said countries return actual photos that confirm the existence of the Apollo sites, in situ?

WHAT will be the 'refrain' of the "Apollo Hoax" idiots, then????

Get ready to "spin" it again.....because, people who live in "FantasyLand" will need to continually pull the covers over their heads, in order to block out reality..........

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

It means you are doing good work decisively!

No, it means we're having fun at decisively's expense.

Soon, when the Japanese and Chinese get on the moon with rovers and HD cameras, we will have final confirmation of the fraud.

No; when other nations confirm the fact of the landings, Moon Hoax believers will accuse them of fraud.

This is what makes NASA so nervous with fearful anxiety...

On the contrary, NASA provides seed money for promising private sector endeavors.

This is why NASA has put ex-general, ex-astronaut Charles Bolden in charge of the Keep Out zones on the Moon. Because there is a N E W R A C E T O T H E M O O N!

It is to preserve all mankind's historic legacy. I, for one, can't wait to see them for myself.

Originally posted by PluPerfect
AND, when said countries return actual photos that confirm the existence of the Apollo sites, in situ?

WHAT will be the 'refrain' of the "Apollo Hoax" idiots, then????

Get ready to "spin" it again.....because, people who live in "FantasyLand" will need to continually pull the covers over their heads, in order to block out reality..........

They've already moved the goalposts at least once before.

They used to say "I'll believe we went to the moon once we get pictures of the Apollo sites". But then after pictures such as this were released:



...they have changed their mantra to:

"prove those pictures aren't fake"

or

"prove that equipment and those footpaths weren't put there by robotic missions after the fact"


I sometimes think that even if the Moon Hoax believers were taken to the moon and shown the Apollo equipment and footprints in person, some of them would find reasons to not believe Apollo ever went to the moon in 1969 and early 1970s. They would say something like "prove that 'Armstrong's footprint' wasn't put there by a robotic probe" or "I was drugged and hypnotized into believing I was taken to the moon and shown those things".

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


"Keep out zones"???

This is why NASA has put ex-general, ex-astronaut Charles Bolden in charge of the Keep Out zones on the Moon.

Once again, spinning out of control are you?

Let's look at the ACTUAL facts, absent the nonsensical "spin" and rhetoric that was implied, up ( ^ ^ ^ ) there:

NASA sets guidelines for Apollo moon landing sites
Published November 8, 2011

“Importantly, it recognizes that future missions can disturb or change the earlier lunar sites in ways that scientific and historic information can be lost,” O’Leary said. Also, some of the sites are still active and continue to provide data — such as Apollo retro-reflectors used to measure the distance between the Earth and moon via laser ranging.

“It was time for a preservation strategy,” O’Leary said.

Now....how "unreasonable" is that??

Please, by all means, explain that this is 'not' a qualified request, on the part of NASA.....

reply to post by PluPerfect


Exactly.
One of the things that prompted these recommendations was the Google Lunar X Prize.

The Apollo landing sites have a historical significance, and people feel that historical signifince should be preserved -- just like other historically significant sites are preserved on Earth, such as the Pyramids or the Roman Colosseum. When the Google Lunar X Prize officially got started at the end of 2010 (registration for the Prize closed on December 31, 2010), NASA saw that there may be rovers driving around near those historical Apollo sites, and felt the need to write guidelines and recommendations for how they should be preserved. Those recommendations were released in 2011.

Those recommendations specifically mention the Google Lunar X Prize, and the possibility that there may be robotic rovers sent to the moon by X prize contestants, as one of the reasons the recommendations were deemed necessary. They also give recommendations (again, ONLY recommendations) that spacecraft don't fly directly over the sites so as not to contaminate the sites with propellant, or in case of a error that causes the craft to crash.

Craft can still fly tangentially to these sites, which would still provide them with the opportunity to take all of the hi-resolution pictures they want of the Apollo sites

The Apollo 11 and Apollo17 sites (being the first and last) are given the most importance in these recommendations, and have a larger area that robotic rovers should stay clear of. The other Apollo sites have less strict access guidelines. These guidelines in fact encourage detailed photography of some of the Apollo sites by the Google Lunar X prize robots, or other robots.

Here are those recommendations (link opens directly to a 4.5MB pdf file):
www.nasa.gov...


Think of it this way: If an independent group said they were going to start examining Stonehenge, don't you think that the British Government might write up the protocols that group should follow in order not to destroy anything historically significant around Stonehenge?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People



Yes:

The Apollo landing sites have a historical significance, and people feel that historical signifince should be preserved -- just like other historically significant sites are preserved on Earth, such as the Pyramids or the Roman Colosseum.

AND, as I've previously mentioned, sites such as Stonehenge. For example.

I've visited Stonehenge.....( we were kept at distance, as "average" tourists )....I've been to Cairo, and to Giza, and seen the "Great Pyramids" (among others)...I've been to Rome ('Roma'), and seen the Colosseum.......and, yes....ALL of those sites deserve consideration for their historical relevance.

ALL of them!!! This includes sites on the Moon, too!!

reply to post by PluPerfect


YOUR SOURCE, lunarscience.nasa.gov...

Keep-out zones
Beth O’Leary, an anthropology professor at New Mexico State University said that the NASA guidelines create a series of keep-out zones and boundaries around the historic artifacts and features at all Apollo sites. Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 are acknowledged as having special historical and cultural significance, she said.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

This is why NASA has put ex-general, ex-astronaut Charles Bolden in charge of the Keep Out zones on the Moon.

NASA is recommending that certain precautions be taken to protect the historical and scientific integrity of landing sites.

You mean a rover with a HD camera won't be able to get good enough images from 75 meters away from the Apollo 11 landing site?

A. For the Apollo 11 site, the exclusion zone extends 75 m from the lunar module descent stage to encompass all hardware and human activity (Figure 4).

You mean a rover with a HD camera won't be able to get good enough images from 3 meters away from the Apollo 12 descent stage?

More access should be provided to individual components/artifacts at the Apollo 12, 14-16 sites in order to allow for enhanced scientific and exploration-based assessments. The following exclusion zones have been identified by component/type:
Descent stage – 3 meters buffer distance
Lunar rover (LRV) – 1 meter buffer distance
ALSEP experiments – 1 meter buffer distance
Sampling sites – 1 meter buffer distance
All other artifacts (flag, tools, storage bags, etc.) – 1 meter buffer distance No restrictions on footprints/LRV tracks outside the indentified exclusion zones.

www.nasa.gov...

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


If this Anthropology professor from New Mexico State University used the exact phrase "Keep-Out Zone", then they would be misrepresenting what it is (at least tone-wise). The phrase "Keep-Out Zone" (in my opinion) connotes a feeling of being absolute and militant. In reality, NASA's recommendations are not enforceable, and carry no penalty for anyone who does not abide by them.

Granted, the guidelines do encourage future robotic craft to keep a safe distance from certain artifacts and sites that have been deemed historically significant, but they can get close enough to many so that pictures can still be taken of these objects and sites.

Maybe it was the author of this NASA article that used the phrase, but even then I wouldn't agree with the connotations it engenders.

WE are doing good work SayonaraJupiter

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


You are a most courageous and gifted person SayonaraJupiter, not to mention a most valued and respected friend.

I truly hold you in the highest regard.

reply to post by DJW001

Reverse Rendezvous radar solution and accurate selenographic coordinates privide the very same information, no difference, at least with respect to concerns regarding an imagined launch of an imagine lunar lander

Having coordinates and having a rendezvous radar solution are two ways to say/KNOW the same things. The reverse rendezvous radar solution gave/gives selenographic coordinates, knowing the selenographic coordinates allows one to define with great accuracy the CM/LM dynamic relationship assuming the CM ephemeris/orbital behavior was well defined, which it was.

reply to post by decisively

Having coordinates and having a rendezvous radar solution are two ways to say/KNOW the same things. The reverse rendezvous radar solution gave/gives selenographic coordinates, knowing the selenographic coordinates allows one to define with great accuracy the CM/LM dynamic relationship assuming the CM ephemeris/orbital behavior was well defined, which it was.

Wrong on three counts:

First, there were multiple coordinate systems then in use. A series of numbers would be meaningless unless the coordinate system was well established. This is one of the reasons for the confusion at the time. The Moon's exact shape was not yet known. There was no "sea level." The rendezvous radar established the relationship between the LM and CSM in space, not relative to the Moon. Using certain assumptions, one could calculate coordinates in a given coordinate system, but then there would be two points at which systematic error was possible.

The selenographic coordinates are ultimately irrelevant to the launch and rendezvous procedure, as you would know if you had bothered to watch pluperfect's video.

Finally, the CSM's orbit was not well defined. It was naggingly unpredictable due to local mass concentrations. Fortunately, it was well tracked and both craft had enough maneuvering capacity to compensate for any uncertainty.

reply to post by Phage


The USA has taken 3 steps, unilaterally, to cover up Apollo Heritage/Hoax sites.

1. Avoid signing the "Moon Agreement" of 1979,
2. Issued "Keep Out Zone" rules for Apollo sites, and last, but not least,
3. Placed ex-general, ex-astronaut, Charles Bolden in charge of NASA.

These three specific moves, taken together, are seemingly unrelated moves, but with 1 underlying purpose :
to protect the Apollo mythology sites from open and direct scientific scrutiny.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

The USA has taken 3 steps, unilaterally, to cover up Apollo Heritage/Hoax sites.

1. Avoid signing the "Moon Agreement" of 1979,
2. Issued "Keep Out Zone" rules for Apollo sites, and last, but not least,
3. Placed ex-general, ex-astronaut, Charles Bolden in charge of NASA.

1. How does not signing the Moon Agreement protect Apollo sites? Article XII of the Outer Space Treaty (which was signed) is identical in spirit to Article 15 of the Moon Agreement

Article XII All stations, installations, equipment and space vehicles on the moon and other celestial bodies shall be open to representatives of other States Parties to the Treaty on a basis of reciprocity.

Article 15
1. Each State Party may assure itself that the activities of other States Parties in the exploration and use of the moon are compatible with the provisions of this Agreement. To this end, all space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on the moon shall be open to other States Parties

Not signing the Moon Agreement can hardly be considered "unilateral" when 182 others have not done so either.

2. There are no rules, there are recommendations.

3. How can the NASA administrator "protect" the Apollo sites when there is nothing to prevent anyone from approaching them?

reply to post by decisively

Reverse Rendezvous radar solution and accurate selenographic coordinates privide the very same information, no difference, at least with respect to concerns regarding an imagined launch of an imagine lunar lander

"YOUR" words...

...now, please pay CLOSE attention to these two videos.....I have posted them before, but apparently they were NOT watched.....so, back to school:



And, Part '2':



(Those, above ... ^ ^ ^ are all from page 4 of this very ATS thread).

I suggest one pays attention, and actually WATCHES the videos, in order to learn something.....


The POINT of those videos, once one watches them fully, is CLEAR.

The "exact" location of the launch point, for Apollo 11 (Or, ANY of the Apollos) did NOT have to be precise.......the approximate "location". yes...and THAT was well known.....the rest? Could be "solved" on orbit

FACE IT!!! This peculiar 'obsession'???

What a phenomenal WASTE of time!!!

To quote the 'Rock Band" that call themselves "Pink Floyd".......

"....:Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way......."

reply to post by Phage


Good questions.

1. How does not signing the Moon Agreement protect Apollo sites? Article XII of the Outer Space Treaty (which was signed) is identical in spirit to Article 15 of the Moon Agreement

Answer: The USA desires to avoid certain language in the "Moon Agreement" of 1979. You should ask NASA why the USA is not a party to the "Moon Agreement". It seems like a harmless agreement among friendly nations. Why would USA not sign?

2. There are no rules, there are recommendations.

Answer: Call them what you like. The Apollo Keep Out zones are contrary to UN language which states unequivocally, "shall be open". Shall be open. Read it and weep.

3. How can the NASA administrator "protect" the Apollo sites when there is nothing to prevent anyone from approaching them?

Answer: With undeclared, militarized, anti-satellite weapons, e.g., space lazers, which can heat up enemy satellites causing them to malfunction or by blinding the star sensors, as was done with Kaguya and Chandraayan, respectively.