Apollo 15, Jim Irwin's historical narrative in review

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


NOPE:


Do you think Irwin knew all along that NASA, U.S. manned space flight was a cover for top secret U.S. military projects ? When do you think these guys "find out" this is about weapons, "plane" and simple ?


You will, one day, look back on this as an example of silly youthfulness........as I have already predicted.

And, NO.....the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo manned programs were NOT part of the "cover" for "top secret U.S. military projects".....except inasmuch as ANY experience in rocketry, whether it be any of those public "manned" missions, added to the font of over-all knowledge, in that era of budding space rocketry...

...again, hope the prose is not too profuse........(sad that you felt the need to "complain"....truly sad....)...........




posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 

denver22, please take a shot at the "Apollo beetle", am curious what you think



This is not an Apollo moon hoax thread per se denver22, honestly, why not go over to the Shepard Meniere's Disease thread and take a shot at debunking that nut, it is a hard one.

What did you think of the Wittgenstein beetle analogy ? www.abovetopsecret.com... I think it is rather good. If we both had a "private box", and inside of it was "Apollo", what kinds of things might we say if yours was "authentic" and mine "inauthentic" ? Could either of us "lie" about what we saw and would that matter ?

I think the key to Apollo really lies with the understanding of this allegory. If I did not know better, I'd think I was channeling Plato.....anyhoo denver22, what do you see in your "Apollo box" that I do not? What might you say about what you see that I would not ? Are you following me ? We could solve this whole dang thang tonight you and me.....

edit on 13-6-2012 by decisively because: added "?" and link
edit on 13-6-2012 by decisively because: caps, spacing



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by denver22
 

denver22, please take a shot at the "Apollo beetle", am curious what you think



This is not an Apollo moon hoax thread per se denver22, honestly, why not go over to the Shepard Meniere's Disease thread and take a shot at debunking that nut, it is a hard one.

Been there done that your memory is failing doc that's four times now you have got things wrong
regarding my not have posted in your threads.Why do you keep asking for me to take a shot when
we were only talking in the threads a few days ago which have been debunked.

How can i take you seriously when you can't even remember your own threads with which
I have posted in numerous times the said threads you mention.You said i have not posted on topic
regarding borman , which i proved to you and the class much to your embarrassment numerous
times now that i have not only posted but you keep asking me to take a shot at your threads
when i have been for ages now.Doc are you going senile? just asking there
edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 

denver22, its not a debunkable issue, it's a simple question guy ......



You don't debunk the beetle thing denver22, it's an opinion sort of thing.


If I ask you, "denver22, do you think the girl standing over there is pretty ? ", you don't come back and claim you "debunked" me. You are not making any sense.

I asked you what you thought of the Wittgenstein beetle/Apollo analogy, and specifically asked you what you might see in your Apollo box that I might not see, and if it would make any sense if we said different things or if we could even say different things.

There is no right or wrong answer. You are coming back to me more or less with, "I just debunked the color blue".
edit on 13-6-2012 by decisively because: removed quote mark, spelling, added "?" added quote marks, caps, comma



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by denver22
 

denver22, please take a shot at the "Apollo beetle", am curious what you think



This is not an Apollo moon hoax thread per se denver22, honestly, why not go over to the Shepard Meniere's Disease thread and take a shot at debunking that nut, it is a hard one.
Just told you i have been there doc debunked that nut!...

So i have a question for you if you are a doc define dementia?



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by denver22
 

denver22, its not a debunkable issue, it's a simple question guy ......



You don't debunk the beetle thing denver22, it's an opinion sort of thing.


If I ask you, "denver22, do you think the girl standing over there is pretty ? ", you don't come back and claim you "debunked" me. You are not making any sense.

I asked you what you thought of the Wittgenstein beetle/Apollo analogy, and specifically asked you what you might see in your Apollo box that I might not see, and if it would make any sense if we said different things or if we could even say different things.

There is no right or wrong answer. You are coming back to me more or less with, "I just debunked the color blue".
edit on 13-6-2012 by decisively because: removed quote mark, spelling, added "?" added quote marks, caps, comma
Nice try two save face with twisting my words doc...
Your claims are debunked deal with it trust me you will sleep better..
Define senile ? define dementia? Come on come on doc if you really are answer my question.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 12:12 AM
link   



Originally posted by decisively reply to post by denver22
 

denver22, its not a debunkable issue, it's a simple question guy ......

This is not an Apollo moon hoax thread per se denver22, honestly, why not go over to the Shepard Meniere's Disease thread and take a shot at debunking that nut, it is a hard one.





What's this then you said it wasn't a debunking issue then you say go take a shot "debunking that nut"
Doc define "dementia" prove you are a real doc?
edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)
edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)
edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)
edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)
edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by denver22

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by denver22
 

denver22, please take a shot at the "Apollo beetle", am curious what you think



This is not an Apollo moon hoax thread per se denver22, honestly, why not go over to the Shepard Meniere's Disease thread and take a shot at debunking that nut, it is a hard one.
Just told you i have been there doc debunked that nut!...

So i have a question for you if you are a doc define dementia?


Here it is in your own fritzin' writing denver22




Here you are claiming you have been there and "debunked that nut". I just informed you it was not a nut to debunk. It would be like debunking my asking you to comment on Obama's health care plan.

I believe you do not understand the point and if you do not simply say so. It is not an easy issue to deal with.

Look denver22, I am not out to bust your chops, I just wanted to know if you understood the point about the beetle and if you did/do , I want to know what you think. If you think the question is weird , or do not understand it fine, but it is not "debunkable" .

Geeez................
edit on 14-6-2012 by decisively because: spelling



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by denver22
 

denver22, please take a shot at the "Apollo beetle", am curious what you think



Doc goes nuts!?!




I just informed you it was not a nut to debunk.


Are you sure you said that.lets see what you said down below


This is not an Apollo moon hoax thread per se denver22, honestly, why not go over to the Shepard Meniere's Disease thread and take a shot at debunking that nut, it is a hard one.

YOU are asking me to debunk Shepards Meniere's disease, notice how you say debunk that nut.
Well if you are referring to that nut being Shepherds Meniere's disease being a tough nut to debunk
then i am afraid it has been. Regarding your "claims of fraudulence" were debunked your nuts
were squeezed, busted, your whole claim done away with! debunkem the end.
Also i have been on the thread you mention, geez don't you read your posts doc?.
Ohh i forgot you do not, as i have already pointed that one out.I just wanna say that
Your brain is going doc, sort it out ! you are making yourself out to be rather silly in
this thread.You attempt to twist my words to save face,when you know that you are beaten.

Define dementia doc? define senile? come on .A real doc could answer that simple question easily?

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



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


you are mistaken in thinking that "seeing apollo" in the box.. because its not.. it was televised throughout the world large parts of it.. the only part that might be in the box is everyones own interpretations of it. where as you see lies and deceit, the world sees what they see.

ie. say theres only one box.. and theres a monkey in there, a NASA official will look inside and say theres a monkey in there. yourself and sayonara especially will say BS, have a look inside and see a chimpanzee and say they are "lying" because they specifically said monkey and not chimpanzee, sayonara might go one step further and not look at all and say theres a giraffe in there but thats not the point.. since the NASA official "lied" about that therefore they must be lying about man landing on the moon.

quote from djw that i liked (not exactly how he done it).. you are basically connecting this 2+2=banana just with more colourful words and an excessively long rant.
edit on 14-6-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by denver22


This is not an Apollo moon hoax thread per se denver22, honestly, why not go over to the Shepard Meniere's Disease thread and take a shot at debunking that nut, it is a hard one.


I have


Here you are claiming you have been there and "debunked that nut". I just informed you it was not a nut to debunk.

But what did you just mentioned above about taking a shot at debunking your shepard thread?


If you think the question is weird , or do not understand it fine, but it is not "debunkable"

yes it is and has been --- moving along
edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Irwin had a "cover" during this period when he was working in the capacity of test-pilot-to-be for the YF-12A. He was pretending to be going to Hughes Aircraft to be working as the director of the test force for the ASG-18 fire control system.


The Jim Irwin ~ Howard Hughes connection was to be expected. Nixon's Apollo movie was casting for 12 men to fake a moon landing. This has C I A written all over it.

Irwin was rejected by NASA a couple of times, maybe 3 times, before he was accepted. NASA's Astronaut Group 5 (the 'Original 19') selected by NASA in April 1966. Source Wiki. en.wikipedia.org...


Amputation was considered initially as an option in the case of Irwin, but he and the foot both survived. Borman came to the hospital to visit Irwin. I suspect Borman knew what Irwin's "secret job was". This is a hunch on my part.


BORMAN! I KNEW IT! I like what the what-if's that come out of this connection.


Do you think Irwin knew all along that NASA, U.S. manned space flight was a cover for top secret U.S. military projects ? When do you think these guys "find out" this is about weapons, "plane" and simple ?


Maybe the secret military/CIA project, involving Hughes and Jim Irwin, was the production of the biggest space propaganda movie of all time?

This is about the same time frameSurveyor's are going to the moon in quick succession. nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Surveyor 1 was launched 30 May 1966
Surveyor 7 was launched Launched 07 January 1968



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Only if NASA were a cover for top secret military projects. You have yet to provide any evidence that was the case. In fact, all of the evidence is against it. DynaSoar? Air Force. MOL? Air Force. These weren't even secret!


What about the A-12? It was kept a secret. The test pilot selection criteria for the A-12 is basically the same as selecting for an astronaut.




The Lockheed A-12 was a reconnaissance aircraft built for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) by Lockheed's famed Skunk Works, based on the designs of Clarence "Kelly" Johnson. The A-12 was produced from 1962 to 1964, and was in operation from 1963 until 1968. The single-seat design, which first flew in April 1962, was the precursor to both the twin-seat U.S. Air Force YF-12 prototype interceptor and the famous SR-71 Blackbird reconnaissance aircraft. The aircraft's final mission was flown in May 1968, and the program and aircraft retired in June of that year. Officially secret for over forty years, the CIA began declassifying A-12 program details for release in 2007.


I think we are looking at an astronaut with solid C I A connections.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Stafford, Collins, Irwin, Borman, the Dyna-Soar pilots, the Manned Orbital Lab Pilots, all of these guys coming out of this place SayonaraJupiter. It is more than suspicious.

You are so good/talented at this stuff. Thank you for all of the great posts !!!!



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


I agree, agree with your point about test pilot selection/astronaut selection being the same. These guys are, the way I see it, OVERT, not covert agents, but they are SECRET AGENTS nevertheless, working on God only knows what. Presumably it is military, at the very least reconn/surveillance, though I suspect much much much much more.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



I agree, agree with your point about test pilot selection/astronaut selection being the same.


Of course they're the same; the occupations have similar requirements. Try actually reading Dr. Lawrence E. Lamb's "Inside the Space Race: A Space Surgeon's Diary." I am, and can't wait to start busting your chops with it.


These guys are, the way I see it, OVERT, not covert agents, but they are SECRET AGENTS nevertheless, working on God only knows what. Presumably it is military, at the very least reconn/surveillance, though I suspect much much much much more.


No, they are pilots.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


I agree, agree with your point about test pilot selection/astronaut selection being the same. These guys are, the way I see it, OVERT, not covert agents, but they are SECRET AGENTS nevertheless, working on God only knows what. Presumably it is military, at the very least reconn/surveillance, though I suspect much much much much more.
maybe, presumably,might of could of, the way you see it with iffs and butts, are not how facts are based sunshine.When sayonara has finished handing out ice creams instead of showing us proof and playing around with each other, or whatever it is you two do Then maybe, you could show us proof that they are secret agents. Put your money where your over sized mouths are and show us.
edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
FROM HERE - second vid in the post -------> www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by decisively

The Apollo 15 In Flight Press Conference



1) Only Scott Bobs around like he is in outer space. Obviously they are trying to "fool" us into thinking that this is a genuine space mission by having Scott float up and down as you see him doing there. Worden and Irwin are sort of painted on there, glued if you will, to the CM backdrop. Bit of an exaggeration, but not much. This is an example of a "weightless scene" which we may have "figured out". Keep in mind, all weightless scenes were NOT done the same way. This one more likely than not employed a layering technique, like green screening or something similar. Scott is the overlay. He would have been shot with nothing but GREEN behind him and then when layered, the only thing one would see from that filming would be Scott, the green having been subtracted out.


The Gif is in the Extenal link below............
RE: Apollo 15 In Flight Press conference part Two www.youtube.com...

I copied the vid into V Downloader and I also opened it for viewing in Virtual Dub so as to
examine it very closely. At frame 2:41 or so Worden goes for his nose. In doing so so as his hand comes down he momentarily rests it on an upright object in front of all of them. As he’s doing that it appears as though his hand brushes against the pocket of Scott’s left arm. Here is a Gif of that incident.

Code for forums for the Gif - GIFSoup

Direct link for the Gif gifsoup.com...



In Virtual Dub I slid the cursor bar rapidly back and forth and the fakery of Scott’s “floating” antics become quite apparent. Its possible that he’s merely ‘jumping’ up and down from a seated position OR there is a device under the seat that accomplishes the up and down motion.

The fact that Worden’s hand goes between the vertical object and Scott’s arm leads me to believe that there is not a green screen involved. BUT it’s still a faked scene in spite of that fact. They are deliberately creating an illusion of him floating.

edit on 17-6-2012 by Vitruvian because: edit



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitruvian
 


LMFAO: All i see is him wiping his bogey on him fact no fraudulence there just playing around
If wiping your bogies on your freinds jacket is a crime then he is guilty as charged lol



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitruvian
FROM HERE - second vid in the post -------> www.abovetopsecret.com...


The fact that Worden’s hand goes between the vertical object and Scott’s arm leads me to believe that there is not a green screen involved.

No green screen there, but there is gonna be one hell of a green bogey on his sleeve
that's for sure...





top topics
 
8
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join