Vaporizing the Bolshoi

reply to post by Capablanca

The May 21 1961 Life Magazine featured an article allegedly written by Alan Shepard himself. The article is clearly not written by Shepard. That is an aside which should probably be covered by others in the appropriate thread. Take a look at the National Geographic article alleged to have been written by David Scott about his Apollo 15 adventure. This is another obvious forged composition. A thread dedicated to this subject of counterfeit astronaut writings may be helpful to our cause.

The article allegedly by Shepard which you allege was in the May 21, 1961 Life Magazine was actually in the May 19, 1961 issue:



The article in National Geographic which you allege was allegedly by Dave Scott, was in fact credited to Kenneth F. Weaver. If these errors had been made by someone representing NASA you would claim that these inconsistencies were PROOF that Apollo was FRAUDULENT. Please feel free to respond the next time you come back. Giuoco Piano has a nice ring to it, but I bet you'll go with Tarrasch Defense, for obvious reasons.

The PBS special on the Manned Orbiting Lab (MOL) came out in 2007. James Bamford the investigative journalist wrote and produced the television piece. Bamford implies in the PBS special that up until these strange spacesuits were found that no one in the public knew anything about MOL and its planned reconnaissance missions. It had remained a secret. Then his show which begins with Bamford saying he tracked down astronaut Lawyer just before the astronaut died (2005) and this subsequently changed everything. Bamford went on to discover all of these interesting things about MOL and its secret mission to photograph the Soviet Union and he revealed these things to the public for the first time. But that cannot possibly be true because in the book "Deke", Deke Slayton discusses the MOL's apparently not so secret mission and that book was published in 1994, 1995. This is a little from the "Deke" book about MOL_____

Actually, it was going to be thirty days of taking pictures and spying. MOL was mostly a manned military reconaissance platform. (That’s why it was in polar orbit, where you passed over all of the earth’s surface in the space of twenty-four hours.) Anyway, over three years they got seventeen pilots into MOL, mostly Air Force, but also a couple of Navy guys and a Marine. Flights were originally supposed to start in 1968, then kept getting pushed back because of budget and design problems. In the spring of 1969 it looked as though all the technical problems had been licked, but flights were still three years off. Suddenly—I think it was in the course of one week in early June—MOL got canceled. The story was that President Nixon himself had killed it for financial reasons. (MOL had cost over $1 billion by that point.) NASA had the Apollo Applications project going. What did the country need two space stations for?

Cassutt, Michael; Slayton, Donald K. (1995-06-15). Deke!: An Autobiography.

One claim Bamford makes in his film is that manned reconnaissance imaging became as good as manned imaging would be or close to it anyway. That is why MOL was cancelled. But that cannot be true because it was not until the mid 1970s that real time transmission of a large volume of images was possible. Something like 1976 or so. They could send some images in the late 1960s and early 1970s but it would take forever to send many detailed images. The advantages to having men on board the photographing platform was that they could review the images themselves and interpret them. They could send the most important images immediately. They could verbally report on others. This type of thing. The Russians actually did this. Presumably we did too aboard our spacelabs.

Bamford himself is dealing in disinformation here. His PBS program is intended to lead the public astray and encourage the public to believe that now the truth about MOL is known.

reply to post by DigItLosseJam


Welcome back again Decisive! Again sorry for the accusation if for some inconceivable coincidence you aren't actually Decisive.

I am tempted to give you some pointers on how to come back and NOT be spotted on your first day registering but seems pointless. This is a little embarrassing though, really.

When one pauses to realize the Manned Orbiting Lab was just aU2 going faster and higher. Faster and higher even than an SR-71. Well then you get to coming to terms with the notion that there was no way in all get out they'd give up on the MOL and actually cancel it. Of course they built it and of course it was useful. I have a great idea. It just fell on top of me. One of the ways to study Mercury through SkyLab and Shuttle is to study U2 and SR-71. What is it those platforms could do that KH's couldn't do ? Real time activities of course and then there must be things beyond that. It's my very first original idea in the field of Apollo studies. Sure they were up to more than that. But the reconn activities are U2 and SR-71 on ste.roids. Stroke of genius if I do say so meeself

reply to post by DigItLosseJam

When one pauses to realize the Manned Orbiting Lab was just aU2 going faster and higher. Faster and higher even than an SR-71. Well then you get to coming to terms with the notion that there was no way in all get out they'd give up on the MOL and actually cancel it. Of course they built it and of course it was useful. I have a great idea. It just fell on top of me. One of the ways to study Mercury through SkyLab and Shuttle is to study U2 and SR-71. What is it those platforms could do that KH's couldn't do ? Real time activities of course and then there must be things beyond that. It's my very first original idea in the field of Apollo studies. Sure they were up to more than that. But the reconn activities are U2 and SR-71 on ste.roids. Stroke of genius if I do say so meeself

Wrong, of course. Transmission bandwidth would be critical if the images were to be transmitted in real time. As it was, the technology of the time would require the fine grained film to be physically de-orbited and processed if the resolution were to be satisfactory. This would involve constant recalculation of re-entry windows, coupled with a chance of physically losing the goods. MOL was never practical; there is good reason to believe it was never a serious program. I have already suggested it was a cover for BLUE GEMINI; that was your bridge between the U-2 and SR-71. The SR-71 was flying before Skylab and the Shuttle so, as usual, your line of reasoning makes no sense.

reply to post by DJW001


The Russians claimed they had the most important Alamaz images in the hands of their managers in 2 hours. Select photos were transmitted. Not real time but better than the SR-71. I think they must have been photo imaging from any and all platforms. Abrahamson was an MOLnaut and he headed SDI. SDI must be a cover for something else altogether.

duplicate

duplicate

duplicate

duplicate

duplicate

To think they went to the moon is completely rediculous. It's so proposterous. How would they get threw the van allen belt? Stanley Kubrick had a moon set done at that time which he was using for a movie. He's the one that let them use it for there fake moon landing. They needed to also appear to be winning the space race during the cold war. Also I seen the luner lander in the DC air and space museum. It's a stage prop. It's not real. You can tell. That was the biggest hoax ever done. Still everyone believes they went there. Freakin morons.

reply to post by r2d246


van allen belt radiation is over-rated.. its only a problem for pro-longed stays in the area..
the apollo missions passed through the belt in minimal time and the radiation levels were well within safety limits.
spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov...
have a read.


and why would they need to appear to be winning the cold war?? was it because they could not/did not want to lose to the russians??
this would mean that if they faked it, than the russians would know as they would have been closely monitoring it, if the russians are able to expose the hoax, than it should be an instant win for them in a sense.. yet they didnt?

reply to post by WeaselSpencer

The Russians claimed they had the most important Alamaz images in the hands of their managers in 2 hours. Select photos were transmitted. Not real time but better than the SR-71. I think they must have been photo imaging from any and all platforms. Abrahamson was an MOLnaut and he headed SDI. SDI must be a cover for something else altogether.

In order for MOL to spy on the Soviet Union effectively, it would need to be launched at a high inclination. Could a Titan III-C have lofted MOL into a stable obit at such a high inclination? Since SDI potentially violates a number of treaties, why would a potentially illegal program be used as a cover for something else? As usual, your reasoning does not make sense.

Originally posted by r2d246
To think they went to the moon is completely rediculous. It's so proposterous. How would they get threw the van allen belt? Stanley Kubrick had a moon set done at that time which he was using for a movie. He's the one that let them use it for there fake moon landing. They needed to also appear to be winning the space race during the cold war. Also I seen the luner lander in the DC air and space museum. It's a stage prop. It's not real. You can tell. That was the biggest hoax ever done. Still everyone believes they went there. Freakin morons.

Can you please show proof of your claim? Please compare the movie set backdrops with the Apollo footages and pictures and show these to be identical sets. It has been shown many times on ATS that Kubrick did not produce any so called "Apollo Moon landings".

Originally posted by r2d246 That was the biggest hoax ever done. Still everyone believes they went there. Freakin morons.

Been down this road so many times buddy! so come on what questions you
have regarding man not goin to the moon? they have all been debunked the questions of the moon hoaxers
however if you have something new then please tell us morons all your evidence ?.

reply to post by r2d246


Lol calling us morons.

Ridiculous
Through
Lunar

I know I am a moron, but this little lesson might be useful in the future.

uhhhh....you're correct???? it kinda doesn't make sense of what your saying'...

Originally posted by Blackbird2012
uhhhh....you're correct???? it kinda doesn't make sense of what your saying'...

Whats up doc? what doesn't make sense..

OP, you lost me on your first line "There is no question that Apollo missions were fraudulent".

Plenty of questions left, I'm afraid.