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

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   
and when someone does go up there and see the camera he left behind, you all will just say "fake"

that's why you have no credibility

you are an extremist and you ignore the facts




posted on May, 30 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


Apollo 11 is "NOT" your primary focus??

Oh.....wow......

....let me ask, then.

I happen to have a fairly good knowledge of how technical systems operate....I mean, I KNOW a lot about the mechanics of such....May I ask what is your "expertise" in this field??

Please, provide a 'cv' of your accomplishments....because, in a Public Internet Forum, one must present.....

........especially when 'one' considers the many, many, many others who can 'frequent' such a Forum, and immediately tear apart any who "deign" to usurp some "faux authority", or "faux understanding".......

(Passes to "YOU"

(PS):


www.myspacemuseum.com...://www.myspacemuseum.com/apollocams.htm
Please visit the site ^ ^ ^ above...and refute it.

OK???



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


The fact they left the most incredible camera in the world on the moon so they could bring back 3 more pounds of rocks proves Apollo Inauthenticity. Very fake that story about the camera. And the facts already support my side. Apollo has been demonstrated fraudulent, as regards that fundamental reality, there is no substantive counter/opposition/possibility.
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: added "proves Apollo inauthenticty""about the camera"
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: removed "?"



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Check out my other threads, they are quite good/informative, especially the long one, the Apollo Fraud Perpetrators List thread

reply to post by PluPerfect
 



Give them a go PluPerfect. Wide range of topics. Lots of PERPS being outed in the other threads. Check it out.

edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: added "informative"



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by decisively
...But there is no question, they are hiding something massively incriminating here...

I missed how you reached this conclusion that you seem so positive about. How exactly is the lack of a video of Armstrong taking certain sample "proof positive" that they are hiding something?

For example, we also don't have a video of Buzz peeing in his urine collection bag, but that doesn't qualify as proof that Buzz never peed.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Gotta' run now, will say more later, but briefly, it is such a HUGE, MONSTROUS DEVIATION FROM THE "WELL REHEARSED EVA" PLAN AND A HUGE DEVIATION FROM THE OBVIOUS WAY TO APPROACH A REAL LANDING SITUATION. They have a big big big problem there they are hiding.

Usually, the bigger the risk they take, the more likely it is that we'll get to the bottom of the scam logistics they are worried about, the more likely it is we'll find out why they are telling this or that particular lie.

This is a big lie. It is doubtful what they are covering for will remain secret long.
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: added " WELL REHEARSED EVA"
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: added "a", caps
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: removed "for"



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


The fact they left the most incredible camera in the world on the moon so they could bring back 3 more pounds of rocks proves Apollo Inauthenticity. Very fake that story about the camera. And the facts already support my side. Apollo has been demonstrated fraudulent, as regards that fundamental reality, there is no substantive counter/opposition/possibility.

First of all, they weren't the "most incredible cameras in the world". They were modified Hasselblads 500ELs.

Secondly, they could always build more cameras.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


The fact they left the most incredible camera in the world on the moon so they could bring back 3 more pounds of rocks proves Apollo Inauthenticity. Very fake that story about the camera. And the facts already support my side. Apollo has been demonstrated fraudulent, as regards that fundamental reality, there is no substantive counter/opposition/possibility.
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: added "proves Apollo inauthenticty""about the camera"
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: removed "?"


incorrect.

there are at least 2 other threads about the interview. there is no need for this one. the reason the gentleman got the interview is armstrongs dad was an auditor. nothing more to it than that

there are many many proofs the apollo missions sent ment to the moon, and not one single credible piece of evidence they did not

please understand your opinion is not evidence.

proof 1 - big muley is much too big to be picked up any any probe. it was picked up by a human. on the moon

proof 2 - cataracts. many apollo astronauts developed cataracts, and in most cases much earlier than would be expected. this of course is related to the hazards of space travel. on the moon

proof 3 - Larry Baysinger independently recorded transmissions from the moon to the earth. where did he have to point his antennae to do this ? at the moon

I'm sure you will reply with what boils down to "fake"

and like neil, I don't care



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

NASA vomit


 


I don't mean technically incredible, but historically incredible. THIS WAS THE CAMERA THAT TOOK ALL OF THOSE FAMOUS PHOTOS FOR GOD'S SAKE !!! It should be in the Smithsonian. Literally, were this real, the camera would be there. Near proof right there of Apollo Inauthenticity.

The reason they "left the Hasselblads on the moon" was because just as one can tell if a bullet came from a particular gun, a forensics expert could tell if photos came from a particular camera, could tell whether or not the camera was actually in the sun at 107 degrees centigrade and so forth.

What if the pics did not come out ? Overexposed ? Underexposed ? Problem with the camera tolerating the heat ? The cold ? What if the pics are not good for whatever reason ?

One needs to study the camera to ensure the next photo session, Apollo 12 would go well.

VERY FAKE , the Hasselblad left on the moon business, total cock and bull.

This one fact is extremely incriminating, and indeed, borders on proof of Apollo's fraudulence in and of itself. The vomit peddlers have a little wiggle room, but not much. A flat out unbelievable pile of NASA PUKE is this flat out not credible LIE.
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: spacing
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: added "?"



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aleister

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by choos


If "they" could land equipment on the moon after a flyover, distribute the equipment around so it looks like people had moved it - complete with tracks of rovers which stop at certain points and then continue - why don't you think people went along? Neil Armstrong, who you can't seem to call by name, went to the moon with Buzz Aldrin, walked around on it, made tracks, and left equipment. It seems stupid to have to actually write that just so another point of view can enter your headspace and bounce around in there.
Sounds like the"hoax"required a larger effort than an actual landing.If faked didn't NASA realize that it would be exposed eventually?I saw recent pictures of a lumer flyby showing one of the landing sites.Tese are faked as well?



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

NASA vomit


 


I don't mean technically incredible, but historically incredible. THIS WAS THE CAMERA THAT TOOK ALL OF THOSE FAMOUS PHOTOS FOR GOD'S SAKE !!! It should be in the Smithsonian. Literally, were this real, the camera would be there. Near proof right there of Apollo Inauthenticity.

The reason they "left the Hasselblads on the moon" was because just as one can tell if a bullet came from a particular gun, a forensics expert could tell if photos came from a particular camera, could tell whether or not the camera was actually in the sun at 107 degrees centigrade and so forth.

What if the pics did not come out ? Overexposed ? Underexposed ? Problem with the camera tolerating the heat ? The cold ? What if the pics are not good for whatever reason ?

One needs to study the camera to ensure the next photo session, Apollo 12 would go well.

VERY FAKE , the Hasselblad left on the moon business, total cock and bull.

This one fact is extremely incriminating, and indeed, borders on proof of Apollo's fraudulence in and of itself. The vomit peddlers have a little wiggle room, but not much. A flat out unbelievable pile of NASA PUKE is this flat out not credible LIE.
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: spacing
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: added "?"


What a SHAME..when "desperation" rears its ugly head....

PLEASE, without the sill BB-Code of the [ headline ]...... [ /headline ] BB code tags......

......PLEASE attempt to "STATE YOUR CASE"!

(absent the "theatrics".....)

....because, if your assertions have any merit?

Then, the nonsense in your posts are not warranted.

In fact.....I'd suggest that you take the MANY "hints" here, and go to do the proper research into Apollo...."without" the typical silly 'bias' that seems to be part of your, "to date", so-called "research"........
edit on 30-5-2012 by PluPerfect because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


The fact they left the most incredible camera in the world on the moon so they could bring back 3 more pounds of rocks proves Apollo Inauthenticity. Very fake that story about the camera. And the facts already support my side. Apollo has been demonstrated fraudulent, as regards that fundamental reality, there is no substantive counter/opposition/possibility.
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: added "proves Apollo inauthenticty""about the camera"
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: removed "?"


I believe moon rocks are the most valuable items in the world. Period. So much so that you cannot put a price on them. So any camera, even a solid gold one is not worth as much as even an ounce of moon rocks let alone 3 pounds (going off your info I don't know this to be true).

But in any case, that in no way proves anything what so ever. I would have to suggest that your threshold for proof is much lower than anyone else's if you truly believe this. Maybe it is a matter of semantics. I really think these actions are what detract people from your information, you are too quick to claim things are proven when in fact nothing of the sort has been done.

I hate to use the knuckle heads on ATS as a measuring stick, but just the lack of support in your threads is proof positive that your ideas are faulty. ( See what I did there?
) You would probably have much more support if you instead claimed that Armstrong is a reptilian. Sad I know.

**edit**

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


The fact they left the most incredible camera in the world on the moon so they could bring back 3 more pounds of rocks proves Apollo Inauthenticity.



Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

NASA vomit


 


This one fact is extremely incriminating, and indeed, borders on proof of Apollo's fraudulence in and of itself. The vomit peddlers have a little wiggle room, but not much. A flat out unbelievable pile of NASA PUKE is this flat out not credible LIE.
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: spacing
edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: added "?"


Well which one is it? Proof or borders on Proof? It feels petty of me to point this out but I think it is important you see the difference from our point of view.
edit on 5/30/2012 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)
edit on 5/30/2012 by sputniksteve because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Mufcutcakeyumyum
reply to post by Rob37n
 

I for one have never contemplated this, and am intrigued.
Doing a bit of quick delving, I found this, which to me onlt partly explains.
It says the pod depressurized, then the hatch was opened and gear tossed out. Does this mean whilst the door was open, they were exposed whilst in their suits? Surely opening the door would have reversed the depressurization process?

www.airspacemag.com...


Enter pod, pressurize, take of backpacks, hook up to pod's air supply via hoses while keeping the suits on, depressurize, open hatch, throw out stuff...easy game

What a ridiculous idea! The air would suck in through the open hatch and blow astronots inside!



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by decisively
I don't mean technically incredible, but historically incredible. THIS WAS THE CAMERA THAT TOOK ALL OF THOSE FAMOUS PHOTOS FOR GOD'S SAKE !!! It should be in the Smithsonian. Literally, were this real, the camera would be there. Near proof right there of Apollo Inauthenticity.

The reason they "left the Hasselblads on the moon" was because just as one can tell if a bullet came from a particular gun, a forensics expert could tell if photos came from a particular camera, could tell whether or not the camera was actually in the sun at 107 degrees centigrade and so forth.

What if the pics did not come out ? Overexposed ? Underexposed ? Problem with the camera tolerating the heat ? The cold ? What if the pics are not good for whatever reason ?

One needs to study the camera to ensure the next photo session, Apollo 12 would go well.


The reasons you state for wanting the cameras back are valid. From a historical perspective, it would be nice to have as many artifacts from the Apollo missions as possible. Also, you're right that if the pictures didn't come out, then it would be nice to know if it was a design flaw or a mistake made during the actual manufacturing of the camera...

...ALTHOUGH, if it was a design flaw (which would be worse) then BOTH cameras (Aldrin's and Armstrong's) would have bad images. Bad images from both cameras would indicate a design flaw -- but they knew the design; the actual physical camera wouldn't help them there. Bad images from one camera would indicate a manufacturing mistake -- and it would be good to know specifically what that manufacturing mistake was so the same mistake wasn't made again.

Nevertheless, it's a question of risk versus reward. It was deemed that the reward of having additional moon rocks was more important than having additional historical artifacts (i.e., cameras). In addition, NASA's opinion was having additional rocks was deemed more important than being able to troubleshoot the cameras in the eventuality of the pictures being bad.

People could debate which was more important (moon rocks or a camera), but the fact that NASA's opinion was that the moon rocks were more important is by no means proof of a hoax.

Besides, if they were hoaxing it, then why not just say that the LEM had enough capacity to carry back the cameras? I mean, why go through all the hassle of explaining why the cameras had to stay on the moon?

By the way, the astronauts also left the backpack portion of their spacesuits on the Moon. Those would have made great museum items, also.

edit on 5/30/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by decisively

Check out my other threads, they are quite good/informative, especially the long one, the Apollo Fraud Perpetrators List thread

reply to post by PluPerfect
 



Give them a go PluPerfect. Wide range of topics. Lots of PERPS being outed in the other threads. Check it out.

edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: added "informative"


There's all complete and utter nonsense...just like this one


Your camera argument is beyond laughable. What do you think is more interesting for people who plan a mission to the moon? Anything they find up there, or a camera they can rebuild a thousand times on earth if necessary?

What a joke of a thread
edit on 30-5-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Mufcutcakeyumyum
reply to post by Rob37n
 

I for one have never contemplated this, and am intrigued.
Doing a bit of quick delving, I found this, which to me onlt partly explains.
It says the pod depressurized, then the hatch was opened and gear tossed out. Does this mean whilst the door was open, they were exposed whilst in their suits? Surely opening the door would have reversed the depressurization process?

www.airspacemag.com...


Enter pod, pressurize, take of backpacks, hook up to pod's air supply via hoses while keeping the suits on, depressurize, open hatch, throw out stuff...easy game

What a ridiculous idea! The air would suck in through the open hatch and blow astronots inside!


Here is the procedure, step by step. I highlighted the part that you may have missed:

- Enter pod
- pressurize
- take off backpacks
- hook up to pod's air supply via hoses while keeping the suits on
- depressurize [this may be what you missed, bokonon]
- open hatch
- throw out stuff

for completeness, I would add,
- close hatch
- repressurize
- take off helmet, breathe LEM's air
- unhook from LEM's air supply
- go home

edit on 5/30/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


I figured the last part is kinda obvious



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

My Apologies.



I apologize to all the sane and sober readers of this thread for bringing up the issue of "exhaust residue" in the context of Armstrong taking the contingency samples at a modest distance from the LM. I knew that decisively would ignore the clear evidence of contamination from Apollo 17 sample 70011, but failed to anticipate that he would seize upon the absence of water as a new cause celèbre. Rather than try to explain the concept of sublimation and ionization, I will simply hope that he will circle back to one of his other fixations. I also apologizefor providing a link to a video that synchronizes both the TV and DAC footage, as he now seems to be fixated on proposing conflicting contrafactuals:

"The mission was scripted and pre-recorded."

"Armstrong deviated from the script."

My bad.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by decisively
 
Honestly I didn't read your last 3 posts filled with chemistry and numbers because it would mean nothing to me.

None of it answers the question of "Why would they travel 238,900 just to pick up contaminated rocks?"


Indeed, by Occam's razor, the conjecture of such travel is nonsense.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


While I see it as simply cognitive dissonance, the differential diagnosis of a professional may indicate a more severe condition. If only the OP knew what differential diagnosis really meant.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join