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

page: 13
7
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


Where did you copy most of the text in this ranting post from? What is the original sourcing of much of the diatribe?

Because entire paragraphs are written in a style that belie having been directly lifted from somewhere, and not written "off the cuff", so to speak.

ATS rules are specific --- cite your externally quoted sources, many of which fall under copyrighted regulations.


Oh, and BTW: The gist of the rant RE: "seeing stars" and the attempted "argument" is fraught with nonsense, and is total bollocks. There are so many variations of Sun angles and mission-critical functions and work activities that allowed for very limited "free time", depending on which mission, and under what parameters, to allow for "sight-seeing".

Also, the Astronauts were intelligent enough (unlike many of the original "hoax" perps) to know that seeing the stars from the position of the Moon, only some ~240,000 miles from Earth, would have no special significance.....since their spatial relationships to one another would not be altered, at that meagre distance.

They understood the concept of parallax.....again, something many in the "hoax believing" community fail to grasp.




posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 

The fraud per se, our appreciation for Apollo as charade and not a genuine manned lunar landing program, should be a given by now



It is NOT a claim, it is an observation. There is nothing in dispute with respect to the simple observation of concern here. Armstrong steps out of the tv video frame of reference at the time of his contingency sample collection. No one disputes that. It is plain for all to see. Another point not in dispute, Armstrong takes photos before he collects the contingency sample. He was not supposed to do that. The Flight Activity Officer(FAO) can even be heard in some audio tapes to be encouraging the CapCom to tell Armstrong to collect the rocks. There is nothing in dispute in that regard as well.

What is not clear is what Armstrong is running from. That is the whole point of this thread. To explore that issue. My first guess has to do with contamination of moon rocks by rocket exhaust. This would include contamination by simple water. This does not have to be the case. We may find cold space precipitated nitrogen/N2 or carbon dioxide/CO2 would have been expected on the rocks were this real. As inert as N2 or CO2 may be, in space they would "freeze" and there on the lunar surface be expected to fall, provided these exhaust substances remained in the shade.

My rocket exhaust guess may prove to be off target. We may find Armstrong to have been running from something else entirely, but running from SOMETHING, indeed he was.

We know Apollo is fraudulent, of this we can be absolutely sure. There is incontrovertible evidence proving Apollo to be a non manned lunar landing charade. This, based on NASA's own astronaut medical records, NASA's own accounting of medical problem details, not to mention the astronauts' own first person accountings of their medical problems. Apollo is proven fraudulent simply on the grounds of Shepard's fraudulent Menierie's Disease cure, simply on the grounds of Deke Slayton's fraudulent vitamin atrial fibrillation cure, simply on the grounds of Borman's bogus diarrheal cislunar space illness(see my recent academic piece, "Was Frank Borman An ALIEN with acid for diarrhea and puke ?";
www.abovetopsecret.com...) in the "Nature Abhors A Fraudulent Cislunar Vacuum As Truth Does Inconsistency, Short Circuiting Apollo" thread; www.abovetopsecret.com...), simply on the grounds of chief Apollo physician and front line QUACK Charles Berry's view of LM as an ICU equivalent for the treatment of bigeminy; www.abovetopsecret.com...

I could go on, but shan't.

So we know Apollo is 10 plus fake. By now, that should be a given for any American that is scientifically literate. What we are doing here, in threads like this, is trying to fill in the gaps, understand what it is they were doing when they were pretending to be on the moon, understand the machinations of the fraud with respect to every ridiculous detail.

I don't know exactly why Armstrong stepped away from the LM in this bogus staged scene. That is the whole point of the thread, to explore that, figure it out. The fraud per se, our appreciation for Apollo as charade and not as a genuine manned lunar landing program, should be a given by now for most of us that have spent time reading the Apollo narrative.
edit on 11-6-2012 by decisively because: fixed link
edit on 11-6-2012 by decisively because: fixed link
edit on 11-6-2012 by decisively because: fixed link
edit on 11-6-2012 by decisively because: comma



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


[quoteIt is NOT a claim, it is an observation. There is nothing in dispute with respect to the simple observation of concern here. Armstrong steps out of the tv video frame of reference at the time of his contingency sample collection. No one disputes that. It is plain for all to see. Another point not in dispute, Armstrong takes photos before he collects the contingency sample. He was not supposed to do that. The Flight Activity Officer(FAO) can even be heard in some audio tapes to be encouraging the CapCom to tell Armstrong to collect the rocks. There is nothing in dispute in that regard as well.

And yet he remained in view of the 16mm DAC, which synchronizes perfectly:




What is not clear is what Armstrong is running from. That is the whole point of this thread. To explore that issue. My first guess has to do with contamination of moon rocks by rocket exhaust. This would include contamination by simple water. This does not have to be the case. We may find cold space precipitated nitrogen/N2 or carbon dioxide/CO2 would have been expected on the rocks were this real. As inert as N2 or CO2 may be, in space they would "freeze" and there on the lunar surface be expected to fall, provided these exhaust substances remained in the shade.


He is not running from anything. Let's have a look at that DAC footage:




My rocket exhaust guess may prove to be off target. We may find Armstrong to have been running from something else entirely, but running from SOMETHING, indeed he was.


Actually, if he did move out to avoid the "rays," he made a good call, remember this result:

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Repeating the same stupid question does not make it profound.


We know Apollo is fraudulent, of this we can be absolutely sure. There is incontrovertible evidence proving Apollo to be a non manned lunar landing charade. This, based on NASA's own astronaut medical records, NASA's own accounting of medical problem details, not to mention the astronauts' own first person accountings of their medical problems. Apollo is proven fraudulent simply on the grounds of Shepard's fraudulent Menierie's Disease cure, simply on the grounds of Deke Slayton's fraudulent vitamin atrial fibrillation cure, simply on the grounds of Borman's bogus diarrheal cislunar space illness(see my recent academic piece, "Was Frank Borman An ALIEN with acid for diarrhea and puke ?"; ]


Spare us your latest hymn to bodily fluids. Let's just meet in the Debate Forum and be done with it, shall we?



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by decisively

Thought I was a kook that didn't know squat ?

reply to post by DJW001
 


My answer to you is NO !!!!!!! DJW001, for the reasons stated previously. I am more than willing, indeed am eager, to debate NASA docs, named PERPS, professional astronomers and so forth.

Might gumption filled of you DJW001, rather nervy of you wouldn'tcha' say, to persistently engage in calling me a "moron", an "idiot", as paradox called me a "retard"(to his credit, he at least desisted with regard that particular insult) and then challenge me to a debate and expect me to assent. Who taught you your manners ?

If you do not like the way I pick on the ain'tstronauts and mop cislunar space with their heiny jive lyin' fannies, TOUGH...... If you believe it to be a double standard my slamming them from time to time as I do, TOUGH... I am intentionally provocative with them and with good reason. I wrote to Armstrong long ago and warned him about what I was capable of in more ways that one, as I wrote to others. I informed them they could choose to talk/go public themselves,

Who taught you your manners ?


Some of these people on the side of the belief we went to the moon may of lost someone from the challenger or colombia maybe even related to the accused .
Ever wondered why you get called names, coming out with the things that insult relatives of the bereaved and such. Have you know respect for the dead etc?Your threats towards the astronauts is nothing short of appalling you should be locked up . So what you are you gonna do about Armstrong? 'whats this "more ways than one" -threat to Armstrong all about?
as you are just demonstrating how clearly mad you are just like Sibrel .
edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 


People focus their anger at the astronauts rather than at the management of nasa, and then at all the think tanks run by the rich snobs of the world who have financial and pyschological advantage at keeping many mysterious secrets to themselves.

The president of the usa himself is not entitled to everything he/she SHOULD know, if he/she is expected to run the country reasonably well. There are many security clearances that are above top secret and few people possess. It is the government within the government. The supposed reason for the president not knowing everything is because he/she runs for only 4 to 8 years and thus not trust worthy enough. Stupid fabrications of masons and zionists alike!



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by denver22
 


People focus their anger at the astronauts rather than at the management of nasa,
This
guy doesn't read his posts they are appaling ...



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 

Where's the water, CO2 and N2 ?



From Donald Beattie's, TAKING SCIENCE TO THE MOON, Beattie relates this and that regarding the first collection of lunar rocks. In a sense, one would expect the rocket exhaust, N2, CO2 and H2O to be more or less inert. But nevertheless, wouldn't some of it, a trace, show up in some samples ? A transcendental clue ? Here is Beattie;

The oldest samples dated gave radiogenic ages of approximately 4.7 to 4.9 billion years B.P. (before the present). Others gave dates of 4.13 to 4.22 and 3.78 billion years (some of the older dates were later disputed), in general much older than the first dates offered by LSPET. Only traces of carbon were found (one anomalous sample contained almost five hundred parts per million), and there was no evidence of any bio-organic compounds. One group of investigators (R. D. Johnson and C. C. Davis) stated that some of the high carbon readings might be attributable to contamination introduced during sample preparation or toerrors in analytical techniques." They suggested that an upper limit of ten parts per million would be correct for indigenous lunar organic material. They thought the small amounts of carbon detected in some of the samples might have come from the solar wind or from carbonaceous chondrites that had struck the Moon in ages past. Water was not identified in any of the minerals analyzed, nor did Luis Alvarez find any magnetic monopoles. Some samples studied for remnant magnetism seemed to indicate that the Moon once had a small magnetic field, perhaps 1,000 to 1,500 gammas, or about one-thirtieth of the current field of the Earth. The present magnetic field was much smaller, however, on the order of 10 to 30 gammas, the latter figure coming from the magnetometer at the Apollo 12 site that returned data by the time of the conference.
edit on 17-6-2012 by decisively because: commas
edit on 17-6-2012 by decisively because: added "but nevertheless", "a trace "



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by decisively
 

Where's the water, CO2 and N2 ?



From Donald Beattie's, TAKING SCIENCE TO THE MOON, Beattie relates this and that regarding the first collection of lunar rocks. In a sense, one would expect the rocket exhaust, N2, CO2 and H2O to be more or less inert. But nevertheless, wouldn't some of it, a trace, show up in some samples ?
whay the hell are you going on about now.............?



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Where's the water, CO2 and N2 ?


You need to start reading other people's posts:

adsabs.harvard.edu...



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Read the posts decisively carefully ...



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 



Read the posts decisively carefully ...


Too late. Read the posts carefully, TSD.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 
It appears decisively will no longer be responding to us, even if he does read the posts carefully.

Who do you suppose he will be reincarnated as?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Gibborium
 


One thing for sure is he will be able to spot! I am very curious what was the final straw. Any ideas?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Gibborium
 


We already have an answer! Please welcome capablanca!

Yes mods are fully aware.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 


Ha, I figured that out after the first post I read. For being a prolific writer, LOL, his posts are identical to decisively's. I have noticed a MOD has been hounding him in a few of his threads.

Let's see how long he lasts before this account is banned as well.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


But all U.S. presidents are aware of NASA's Apollo hoax. It is one of the things they must be briefed on relatively early. They can be blindsided otherwise. Much of U.S. strategic offense and defense was established by way of the space program(s). The presidents must know what weapons are available to them. To know the weapons is to know what really happened during Apollo.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by lanthammysteriosos
 


why would they know?? what happens when a president gets put into power but is very much unintelligent?? he will give the game away..

say someone like george w bush.. he has his on days.. but he also very much has his off days.. kinda risky dont you think?? plausible deniability much??

but no.. you have already confirmed that ALL US PRESIDENTS know of the apollo secret.



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
Cool still a D thread going. I just wanted to say that it was a blast learning so much from ya'll. It made me really really happy to see the bloviating Decisively banned over and over and over again. 1 thing is for sure, his actions at the end there, his death throws as it were, were painful and embarrassing to watch. But my main point is, they certainly didn't appear to be the actions of a 50+ year old doctor did they?



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 






top topics



 
7
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join