Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Gene Kranz's Remarkable Self Incriminating Gaffe, The Storied Ship, " Fraudulent Apollo 13 "

page: 11
8
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



That is Hollywood's version of fake history. NASA endorsed it, Gene Kranz endorsed it and, obviously, every NASA cheerleader will endorse it because Gene Kranz is some kind of hero to them. So many people watched that successful 1995 movie and they really believe that Gene Kranz said that! That's what I mean by controlling the historical narrative.


You still haven't defined what the phrase "historical narrative" means.




posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DigItLosseJam
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


They weren't there for the scammy O2 bomb scare. Left before that. Came after the scam tank blew. That's what Leibergot said and he knows right better than you do now don't he ?



where does he say that?

In this post you mention that "all the fight directors including Eugene Krantz" said this happened - what is the soutrce for the information - where can it be viewed?


Leibergot said no one was there.


Oh - well that's clearly not true!!



You saying you know better than him ? Show us a pic of Mitchell or Young. SY Leibergot show that pic to prove no one was there.


I don't know anythign about who was there and who wasn't - except fro Krantz - you said that the room had emptied of all except the flight directors so Mitchell couldn't have been there - so it's simply an obvious question when did that happen, in order to establish the timeline.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I shouldn't need to. It is self explanatory. It's only two words: "historical" and "narrative". Try saying them out loud and maybe you will understand it. Someday. Hopefully.

You still need to explain why you have such an urgent need to control it. In truth, you don't own the narrative. Neither do I. But I want a more accurate, less mythological Apollo narrative.

So many times I have just scratched the surface of Nixon's Apollo and I find C I A written all over it. From Howard Hughes' Surveyor spacecraft to Richard Underwood at the photo lab. Farouk El Baz and Edward Nixon. Does that ring a bell? Miraculous healings of Michael Collins, Alan Shepard and Jim Irwin. Deke Slayton, the CIA station chief. The Stamp Dealers with Howard Hughes money connections in Florida and Las Vegas. Using the spacemen for American diplomacy when the stated purpose was "For All Mankind" well it wasn't like that during the super paranoid anti-communist pro-war Nixon years, was it?

There's more. The Lovelace Clinic, for example. The early Hollywood connections with Tv video enhancement technology. The Swiss Bank accounts of Apollo 15. The $70,000 payouts from Life magazine. The free Corvettes.
The quick money astronauts like Shepard and Dave Scott. The 18.5 minutes of blank transcript from Apollo 12's secret stand up EVA that uncannily mirrors the 18.5 minutes that were famously erased from Richard Nixon's White House tapes. the missing telemetry tapes from Accession #A694099 or the moon rocks which never had "adequate controls". Etc. Ad infinitum.

The Apollo 13 teledrama is just one chapter of the Nixonian Tv propaganda surge which took place entirely under his presidency. This has nothing to do with "For All Mankind" this has everything to do with American flag patriotism fat rockets and fat paychecks for the U.S. military industrial complex.

Worshipping of idols does not sit well with a skeptical point of view. In my view, there are no idols. If someone constructs an idol it is my responsibility to knock it down. The obvious conclusion is that your narrative is constructed with a fatal defect. A defective narrative deserves to be toppled into a heap of ashes and regolith.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



I shouldn't need to. It is self explanatory. It's only two words: "historical" and "narrative". Try saying them out loud and maybe you will understand it. Someday. Hopefully.


According to the dictionary, an "historical narrative" is a work of fiction that uses real historical events and chronology as a framework or background. That's certainly not of any concern to a real historian, beyond the light it sheds on the contemporary concerns of the author.


You still need to explain why you have such an urgent need to control it. In truth, you don't own the narrative. Neither do I. But I want a more accurate, less mythological Apollo narrative.


You have never accused me of trying to control anything. On the other hand, you are now admitting that you want to write your own historical fiction. That's fine with me, so long as you do not present it as actual history. Serious historical research has rules.


So many times I have just scratched the surface of Nixon's Apollo and I find C I A written all over it.


That is due to your lack of objectivity; you are simply finding what you wish to find. You could also scratch the surface looking for Presbyterians, and find enough evidence to write a completely different fiction.


There's more. The Lovelace Clinic, for example. The early Hollywood connections with Tv video enhancement technology. The Swiss Bank accounts of Apollo 15. The $70,000 payouts from Life magazine. The free Corvettes. The quick money astronauts like Shepard and Dave Scott. The 18.5 minutes of blank transcript from Apollo 12's secret stand up EVA that uncannily mirrors the 18.5 minutes that were famously erased from Richard Nixon's White House tapes. the missing telemetry tapes from Accession #A694099 or the moon rocks which never had "adequate controls". Etc. Ad infinitum.


None of which you can knit together into a coherent plot. The characters in your fiction do not behave consistently, there are meaningless coincidences and plot holes large enough to fly a Saturn V through.



The Apollo 13 teledrama is just one chapter of the Nixonian Tv propaganda surge which took place entirely under his presidency. This has nothing to do with "For All Mankind" this has everything to do with American flag patriotism fat rockets and fat paychecks for the U.S. military industrial complex.


A perfect example. Every film about Apollo, even the most blatantly propagandist, includes footage of JFK's speech. Very few show Nixon at all. If Nixon masterminded an easily accomplished hoax, why did he cancel the final three missions? They would have been the perfect way to deflect attention from the Watergate Scandal. Again, your plotting is illogical and characterization inconsistent.


Worshipping of idols does not sit well with a skeptical point of view. In my view, there are no idols. If someone constructs an idol it is my responsibility to knock it down. The obvious conclusion is that your narrative is constructed with a fatal defect. A defective narrative deserves to be toppled into a heap of ashes and regolith.


I agree. Remember this series of posts?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And yet people still burn incense at the shrine of that lying fraud.
edit on 18-7-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



You have never accused me of trying to control anything. On the other hand, you are now admitting that you want to write your own historical fiction. That's fine with me, so long as you do not present it as actual history. Serious historical research has rules.


You constantly underestimate Richard Nixon and his influence on the historical Apollo 13 narrative.
And remember, Nixon really liked the movies. He got the idea for Apollo 13 from "Marooned".

In fact, on December 20, 1969, Nixon watched the move "Marooned". The director of that film, John Sturgess, also directed "The Eagle Has Landed" in 1976. So many Hollywood connections> Ron Howard's historical revisionism>
Tv video enhancements in the early 1970's during Apollo 15, 16 and 17. Too many connections to ignore, really.

www.imdb.com...



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


I love the weightless scenes in Marooned. So bad ! Watching that the first time is when I realized the US space missions were fake too. I am not kidding . Boom ! It hit me ! So funny but true.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

You constantly underestimate Richard Nixon and his influence on the historical Apollo 13 narrative.
And remember, Nixon really liked the movies. He got the idea for Apollo 13 from "Marooned".

In fact, on December 20, 1969, Nixon watched the move "Marooned". The director of that film, John Sturgess, also directed "The Eagle Has Landed" in 1976. So many Hollywood connections> Ron Howard's historical revisionism>
Tv video enhancements in the early 1970's during Apollo 15, 16 and 17. Too many connections to ignore, really.

www.imdb.com...


i see.. so nixon watched the movie marooned on december 20.. that is where he got the idea for the incident involving apollo 13 which was launched on april 11 1970.

this gives them a total of less than 4 months to come up with the entire script acting voice acting all rehearsed with no mistakes in one full take spanning 6 full days (including coordinating all the hollywood editing) without making mistakes..

they must be gods to pull this off in less than 4 months.



posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by WeaselSpencer
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


I love the weightless scenes in Marooned.
Decisively i love the way you are floating arond
ATS in a sock puppet vaccum marooned in delusion .




I am not kidding . Boom ! It hit me ! So funny but true.
Im not kidding doc it hit
me boom!, this is ur fourth attempt it's so funny and true..

edit on 19-7-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by DigItLosseJam
 


Edgar Mitchell is beyond disgusting. That whole touchy feely psycho nut job business is a touchy feely psycho nut job front . That guy doesn't believe that made up nonsense about the spiritual realm interfacing with the realm of phony Apollo space missions. The idea is if Mitchell comes up with stuff that whacked, Apollo has got to be legit. What nut case would both participate in fake Apollo missions AND spew psycho-spiritual-Tom Cruisesque heiny jive nonsense ? So they expect you to buy all of it. The whole thing being so very far fetched, it simply has to be true.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by CrushTheWeenies
 



Edgar Mitchell is beyond disgusting. That whole touchy feely psycho nut job business is a touchy feely psycho nut job front . That guy doesn't believe that made up nonsense about the spiritual realm interfacing with the realm of phony Apollo space missions. The idea is if Mitchell comes up with stuff that whacked, Apollo has got to be legit. What nut case would both participate in fake Apollo missions AND spew psycho-spiritual-Tom Cruisesque heiny jive nonsense ? So they expect you to buy all of it. The whole thing being so very far fetched, it simply has to be true.


Do you have anything concrete to support this entirely subjective opinion?



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



I think he is phony and disgusting too. They wouldn't let him get away with that idiotic stuff were this real. The fact he spews it and NASA doesn't object is plenty proof it is a ruse.



posted on Jul, 21 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
As the OP is no longer here to defend his position, this thread is closed.
edit on Sat Jul 21 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join