Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Apollo 15, Jim Irwin's historical narrative in review

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

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


pay attention to their respective heights from beginning of the film to when its finished..

is irwin really the tallest?? and how did worden gain 3-4 inches was he kneeling down to begin with?? specifically at the 3min 41second mark on the first tv press conference vid.. so now he has gained 3-4inches and maintains that height for more than 20mins

how about scott?? how did he bounce around like that and how did he gain the 3-4 inches from his starting position?? worden bounces a bit too before the interview..

green screens you say?? green screens have a problem with interation..
at 8mins 18seconds of the third video of the tv interview.. irwin hands something to scott.. so wheres the green screen?? scott cannot be infront of worden and behind him at the same time..

the part where you say worden wipes his nose than wipes it on scotts arm, i see something different..
i dont see worden wiping anything on scotts arm.. i see worden resting his hand on a lever or something that is in front of them.. now scott is clearly behind that "lever" and infront of worden.. yet worden can freely grab that "lever" there is also a time where scott moves his hands in front of that lever too although its hard to see.

still say there is a green screen somewhere?




posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


I agree. I need to study this more, but I wonder if these images are not layered, Scott is in one layer, perhaps green screened, perhaps layered in using a different non green screen technique that would at any rate provide a similar result.

I get the impression they are FORCING the "interactions" between the two layers for the express purpose of encouraging us to draw the then obvious conclusion that the three stooges are in the space ship together there. Obviously, they want this to be matter-0-fact, have us draw the conclusion for want of a better term "subconsciously'. It is not as though anyone had a reason to doubt any of this back then, so you see them sort of reach out to one another and of course it simply encourages the obvious, that they all were together. But if they did not do this sort of thing , it might lead some to suspect hanky panky. It is something worth thinking about. I am going to look at the videos carefully and see what kind of effect the "contact" has, one astronaut and perhaps one layer to another .

So we may come to the conclusion that they have the astronauts "touch" , gesture to one another, do these things in order to create the impression that they are all three together in the field of view. In actuality, not so. What better way to "prove" they are together than have a figure from one layer reach across and touch David Scott who may well have actually not been filmed with the other two.

This is a good one to study. As you pointed out, nothing is floating free, great observation SayonaraJupiter. We might be able to nail them good on this one if we are observant and patient. Study study study this thing, may be a big fat clue lurking in that bogus field of view.
edit on 11-6-2012 by decisively because: comma
edit on 11-6-2012 by decisively because: caps
edit on 11-6-2012 by decisively because: comma, added "one"
edit on 11-6-2012 by decisively because: perhaps> we may
edit on 11-6-2012 by decisively because: aqdded "SayonaraJupiter"



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



I get the impression they are FORCING the "interactions" between the two layers


where?? which part are you refering to??

you know that Irwin passes something to scott right?? and that scott is infront of and behind the "layer" that worden is in??

p.s. its official.. you have no idea what causes bigeminy.. you lied about being a doctor.
edit on 11-6-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

More will be revealed


 


Reading about the postal stamp issue in Irwin's book, TO RULE THE NIGHT, SayonaraJupiter, I got the impression that Dave Scott was the driving force behind this scam. As best I can tell, the astronauts did this on their own to make bucks. But Scott was the major player. So they bring these things along on a PHONY space mission. How incredibly DUMB !!!! I think Slayton was fit to be tied. It is this sort of thing that surly could have busted the fraud wide open in real time. Very bad decision on Scott's part.

I reread Irwin's TO RULE THE NIGHT, not once, but twice over the weekend, and am now looking at his other books in my little collection of astronaut biographies. I have so much to say. Hard to know where to begin really.

Scott had money I gather , and made lots of it during Apollo. Irwin was impressed by his BIG HOUSE. They had this arrangement with TIME and the Apollo astronauts split this big pool of money. Early on, it was a LOT of bucks. I'll detail all of this in upcoming posts here, but just wanted to put a little something out there. It is such a juicy topic. I had no idea some of the astronauts were doing that well monetarily during the Apollo program. I had been under the impression there were nice kickbacks they enjoyed, but not really until after the main acts of the fraud had concluded. The real-time stuff, the money making during the time of the flights, is quite frankly very embarrassing.

Anyway, I have much to say SayonaraJupiter about Irwin now. The money thing, for example, how did Scott get so much money for his BIG HOUSE, has really piqued my interest and so will be looking into that with more than just a bit of enthusiasm.

One last brief comment here is to draw attention to the inclusion of the "eclipse" in the Apollo 15 in flight conference video. Obviously they do this stuff to vet the videos as authentic. My intuition tells me there is some weakness here with this kind of thing I have overlooked so far. I need to think about it for a while, let it cook sort of thing, but for what it is worth, we may do well to study their "best evidence". I gotta' feeling there is a big payoff here for our side.

Much much much more to follow.......Great thread.......



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



The crew's 298 covers were not returned until 1983, after the astronauts filed suit against the government for their return


its interesting how the astronauts are willing to go against NASA when they are done wrong by them, yet according to you, NASA have complete control of all their astronauts which is why not a single one of them has spoken out and tried to profit from interviews regarding faking the moon landing..

and also nice dodging again "Dr Decisively" i think its clear as daylight now that you are NOT a doctor. but.. we all already knew that.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


Yes seems like some of the conspiracy hoaxers have moon rocks in there heads
The government nasa to diffo things .

Seems moon hoaxers don't know who to point the finger at now



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos
 
"Moon rocks are the same as Earth rocks."
Because they look the same until you undergo analyisis


Neon 21 and Argon 38 isotopes are found in Moon rocks but not in Earth rocks.




.
edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Some points on the Apollo 15 in flight press conference video, PART ONE

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Obviously, the video deserves and will receive an insane amount of scrutiny. Went through it once just now, will make a few points;

1) The initial scene where Scott "slides" into view. Totally consistent with a layering scheme. When I say "layering", I don't mean only green screening. There are other techniques. In a broad sense, what I mean by "layering" is that Scott is shot independently so he can be seen to bob up and down and so create the weightless illusion. This can be done using anyone of a number of techniques. Scott's image is then "layered" over the "background", which in this case includes Worden and Irwin.

2) Once he slides into view, they all make this effort to look at one another. I believe this is staged/forced. I believe these images to be layered. Worden and Irwin are instructed to look to their right and Scott to his left.

3) Irwin and Worden perhaps make contact with that dangling cord. Don't believe Scott has access, not in his layer, so he cannot touch it even were he to want to, at least as best I can tell from what I have so far seen.

4) After futzing with the cord, lots of looking at one another. Seems contrived. Suspect more of this staging/forced overacting to create the impression that they are together.

5) When Worden answers the first question, he looks down, keeps glancing down. He may be reading, in which case this is not a spontaneous press conference, and would also mean the astronauts have foreknowledge as regards the questions. This would of course be a nice little proof of inauthenticity. Needs more study.

6) The whole Genesis Rock thing is too weird. How do the geologists on earth know enough to give newspaper reporters some feedback along the lines that this may be the oldest rock yet found on the moon or whatever nonsense they came up with ? This is BULL, staged, bogus, NASA vomit.

7) Irwin makes the comment about the "layering" he saw/observed in a large mountain or group of same. Don't buy this for a minute either. What is Irwin doing spewing that BULL out. I read his book, he ain't into geology like that. Pure NASA vomit. This was Harrison Schmitt's role, to feed the astronauts this utter jive so they would sound literate in this regard.

8) I cannot see Irwin so well. Scott may be looking up/down. Not as noticeable as with Worden, but Scott might be reading, looking at notes up/down. This needs study.

9) What is the lighting here supposed to be ? Does not look natural at all. I need to research that. If it is supposed to be sunlight, I ain't buying it.

More to follow.....



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


Excellent. See you in the Debate Forum on this one!



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 

Cannot possibly be live



This inflight conference cannot possibly be live. Too much of a risk they'd make a gaffe. This thing was taped, prerecorded, and in my mind, at least the way I see it now, edited with layering techniques to create the Scott bobbing illusion.

Also SayonaraJupiter, the questions are not so out there. NOTE HOW THE FALL FALL FALL FALL IS EMPHASIZED. It was STAGED STAGED STAGED STAGED. And then Irwin comments about it to endorse this notion of spontaneity when nothing could have been further from the truth, ditto for the genesis rock. What better way to get people to see it as real time than to plant these events, GENESIS ROCK FIND, EMBARRASSING FALL BY IRWIN, and so forth, and then go on to make reference to them in a recorded, bogus, "in flight" video conference that because it contains these elements comes across as "live".

This raises the issue regarding the quindar tones again. They may have to do with the live editing of this NASA vomit.



edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: comma
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: commas



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


quindar tones.. so what was the quindar tones?? capcom cant speak over the astronauts or the astronauts cant speak over capcom??

still no clue about bigeminy??... so much for doctor.. why not just come clean that you lied about it? oh yea you cant.. since your "side" is trying to force how contradictions/lies can prove everything as fake.
edit on 12-6-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   
doubled and so deleted
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: doubled and so deleted



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Faith In Science, Faith In Apollo



In a broad general sense SayonaraJupiter, this is the most interesting and provocative Apollo thread I have encountered since I have been engaged with my friends in this fascinating and important activity. Subtly so, but interesting and provocative nevertheless.

The idea of simply exploring the lives of the principals, they do not necessarily even have to be direct fraud participants/PERPS, the astronauts wives for example would be interesting, but exploring those lives not through the prism of fraud per se, but rather, from the perspective of simple acknowledgement, the simple acknowledgement that these lives occurred in the context of an American Manned Space Program that was fraudulent. What is left, what do we see, without the bogus "science" ?

No one has written Jim Lovell's biography from such a perspective, nor Armstrong's, nor Irwin's, nor mine, nor yours for that matter. To be sure, the closer one is to the fraud, the more warped one's life becomes/became in consequence. Sort of like the effect of mass on space-time, the nearer one was to the deceit, the more transmogrified became the physiognomy.

So one reads and looks at as much as one can, from the Apollo 15 in flight conference, to Irwin's television ministerings, to his account of his heart attack at age 43, to his account of finding the Genesis Rock on the moon, deconstruct his life in a way by telling the story again by simply writing down its bare boned facts, this happened and then that happened, and then retell the thing as a whole, now taking into account the truth about Apollo's inauthenticity, not by emphasizing FRAUD in its active sense, but rather, simply by way of factoring out the unreasonable and ever so irrelevant scientific pretense.

I am not sure what one then finds, what we shall be left with SayonaraJupiter, because it has never really been done before, this sort of deconstructive examination in detail of the simple facts that were said to have made up a man's life, in this case an astronaut's life, and then reconstructing it all, putting the whole thing back together in a way that could not be done with Humpty Dumpty, acknowledging the original story of a man's life was distorted by a telling that featured odd cultural biases, social institution prejudices; communist illiteracy, unreasonable faith in science, unreasoned paranoia, love for money, power and faux prestige, not to mention whatever else have you.

I am reminded of Michel Foucault's brilliant way of pushing one to see the world differently, if only the bias of social institution could be somehow massaged from the foreground. en.wikipedia.org...

Too often I personally read the lives of these men, men like Irwin, too directly, as PERPS, nothing more, nothing less. But such a study as the one being offered here in this very thread, may have much to say not only about who James Irwin was, but who the rest of us are as well, were we only able to succeed in massaging from the foreground that complex social institution that was and remains an unreasonable and undeserved FAITH in science, FAITH in Apollo.

edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: added "bogus"
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: cultural> social
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: added "who"
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: added "?"
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: comma
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: added "in this very thread"
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: caps



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by decisively

How does one know a "genesis rock" when one SEES one ? Boy them ain'tstronauts are smart (NOT) !!!!


Irwin's first task is to take a panorama of the site which he did -read on doc. At the same time Scott aligned the S-band antenna of the Rover with the Earth. This allowed Mission Control to operate the TV camera. Ed Fendell was in charge of controlling the camera and took his own pan

so geologists in the backroom could see the site. The backroom kept track of everything that astronauts did on geology.

As a sample was collected they would note its number, location and description on a card.

Your ploy to steer people from the truth is ridiculous and futile.. Must try harder ! these astronauts had training also they learn't from previous missions and was debriefed by others .So i have just blown that claim of yours away whats next?
edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by choos
 


Where in the world did Berry come up with this stuff ? I actually could not believe it, I really could not, can't, won't, shan't.

"It's serious, if he were on Earth. I'd have him in ICU being treated for a heart attack."[10] Endeavour's cabin atmosphere was 100% oxygen (when in space), so it was decided that he was in no serious danger by Dr. Charles Berry.[10] Specifically "In truth,...he's in an ICU. He's getting one hundred percent oxygen, he's being continuously monitored, and best of all, he's in zero g. Whatever strain his heart is under, well, we can't do better than zero g."[10]

In truth, he's in an ICU ? Berry would have him in an ICU being treated for a heart attack ? Endeavour's cabin was 100 % O2 and so he was in no danger ? He's being continuously monitored and best of all he is in zero g ?

Excuse me while I wet my pants laughing.... Sorry, this one is really that bad...... Any medical people out there make heads or tails of this ?


edit on 10-6-2012 by decisively because: caps


translation: i dont know what bigeminy is, even though im a "doctor" who graduated from the medical school of google search engine.. so instead of admitting it im going on a childish rant to badmouth others and continue trolling..


Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
It doesn't make sense they sent Jim Irwin up to the moon when Berry must have known that Irwin had irregular heartbeats after exercise. Berry is a cover up artist, qwack doctor, a CIA doctor. Richard Nixon co-wrote this script.


so sayonara perhaps you can tell me what bigeminy is? its a harmless question and i fully expected your mate to answer it.. turns out i was wrong and he wasnt as smart as i thought he was, you seem to be good at searching for things perhaps you can help me out about what causes bigeminy or atleast what caused Irwins bigeminy?



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



In a broad general sense SayonaraJupiter, this is the most interesting and provocative Apollo thread I have encountered since I have been engaged with my friends in this fascinating and important activity. Subtly so, but interesting and provocative nevertheless.


This thread is about as interesting and subtle as a spotty backside hanging out the window of a school bus.


The idea of simply exploring the lives of the principals, they do not necessarily even have to be direct fraud participants/PERPS, the astronauts wives for example would be interesting, but exploring those lives not through the prism of fraud per se, but rather, from the perspective of simple acknowledgement, the simple acknowledgement that these lives occurred in the context of an American Manned Space Program that was fraudulent. What is left, what do we see, without the bogus "science" ?


Not content to besmirch the reputation of courageous explorers and accomplished professionals, your twisted mind has now aimed its loathing at their wives. You are beneath contempt. You are not worthy to debate me.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 

Surprises and remarkable new insights galore.....



This will be an interesting breakthrough thread denver22 in which we shall explore the issue with respect to which geologists were PERPS. My sense is that some big players shall be named, Shoemaker and Lee Silver types, though not to get way ahead of ourselves.

Most importantly, the issue of "hoax" per se is secondary with respect to SayonaraJupiter's broad theme of a "historical narrative" viewed with FRESH 21st century eyes.

to be sure, as this thread evolves, there will be surprises and remarkable new insights galore.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



to be sure, as this thread evolves, there will be surprises and remarkable new insights galore.


No, it will be the usual toilet humor and libel punctuated by lengthy self-righteous pompous diatribes. The only surprise would be if you actually agreed to a formal debate.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Apollo And Wittgenstein's Beetle



Sometimes I think of Apollo as something that became animated by virtue of our community's measured and directed infusion of words, like Frankenstein was animated by electricity, and here, by "Apollo" I mean a shared/community perception of a collection of events occurring in the 1960s and 1970s, a being given life by virtue of that community's use of language in the grandest of terms, the terms of man's first great exploration of space, a new language that described the first landings upon the surface of mother earth's closest luminary.

I am at times reminded of Ludwig Wittgenstein's "beetle" strangely enough;

en.wikipedia.org...

(see the beetle section in the article, and read the whole thing/article as well to boot)

Surly one might charge, or suggest in a friendly and thoughtful way at any rate, that to suggest "Apollo" might be a beetle of sorts, or "James Irwin astronaut" a beetle of sorts, is so far out of context that to even gingerly endorse as much, "Apollo" as Wittgensteinian beetle, does nothing more in this situation than identify the person bringing up said possibility as if not frankly kooky, then occultly kooky in any event.

What would or should the WORD "Apollo" have to do with the problem of MIND and Wittgenstein's approach to its understanding by way of the celebrated PRIVATE LANGUAGE ARGUMENT of which the beetle story played some small, curious and insanely beautiful literary role ?

Kooky or not, play with the idea a bit, and see what you find. You shall come away surprised.

Imagine each of us to have a "box", a "private box", into which only the box's owner can see, and inside the box the owner "sees Apollo", in the very same Wittgensteinian sense as that of the great 20th Century philosopher's encouraging us to look into a box and see our own private beetle.

Can people LIE !!!! about their "Apollo in a box" in the same way one might be able to LIE !!!! about Wittgenstein's beetle in a box ? DOES IT EVEN MAKE SENSE TO PERMIT LYING IN THIS TYPE OF "LANGUAGE GAME" ?????

Wittgenstein never addressed the notion of what it might mean to say out loud something intentionally misleading about one's beetle, TO SAY SOMETHING DISHONEST IN A THIRD PERSON SENSE, AND AT THE SAME TIME SAY SOMETHING INWARDLY AND OTHERWISE, PRIVATELY AND OTHERWISE, SOMETHING IN A FIRST PERSON SENSE TO ONESELF. If one did that, permitted "dishonesty" in the context of the Wittgensteinian beetle thought experiment, would that change our views about our public use of terms such as "APOLLO" ?

What happens to me when I address the public with "a description of Apollo that is outside of my own box", a LIE ?

What would the admission of "lying" to this "language game" do to our understanding of what things are, or CAN BE/MIGHT BE, as with "Apollo", or who people are or CAN BE/MIGHT BE , as with "James Irwin" ? Is it even possible to allow lying here ? It may make no sense in terms of lying's being a logical impossibility under the circumstances of this "language game".


In what ways do the demands of a community to have a shared truth limit the options in Wittgenstein's beetle game, our Apollo game ?

Wittgenstein never considered such difficulties, and as a matter of fact, was tortured by his own personal lies and moral imperfections. Perhaps the great man's philosophy was hamstrung by his shortsightedness. Certainly we can all see this now given our authority's penchant for dishonesty and our community's affinity for engaging in shared self deceptions.
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: added quote marks
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: added "/article"
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: suggest>even gingerly endorse
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: caps
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: spelling
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: added "BE", caps
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: at> in, rate>event
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: oter>otherwise
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: does> would, added " Is it even possible to allow lying here ? It may make no sense in terms of lying's being a logical impossibility under these terms. "
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: added "circumstances of this "language game".
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: for > of
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: added, ,"and here" ,"a being" "as something that become animated by virtue of our community's measured and directed infusion of words, like Frakenstein was animated by electricity"
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: removed "here"
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: in > by virtue, added "use of"
edit on 12-6-2012 by decisively because: added "AND OTHERWISE"



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 

My five minutes with with doc..



All that drivel about thinking outside the box is what we did as children before our plates set etc.
I get the feeling that you have been reading to many Dan Dare comics, and saw one two many a Twilight zone episode, who has major problems trying to distinguish between facts and what could of happened As a ground base for proof.

What could of happened is not proof of fraudulence
You are claiming it didn't by saying that it could of happened therefore your whole argument for Apollo fraudulence is debunk destroyed and a waste of your time and ours.

Now doc if you wanna talk about alternate reality regarding alternate Apollo then please post in the relevant categories.. If your not sure of directions then ask a mod for assistance .





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join