How many times does Neil Armstrong lie to us in this 1970 BBC interview.

page: 5
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Dead 'men' walking. Armstrong is being intentionally deceptive here - in the extreme, and he and his comrades appear to have been MKUltra victims. ..........Rather than to be in a celebratory mood they seem to be in attendance at a funeral. Perhaps the "moontards" here should ask themselves what the hell is going on here? This 3 min. video clip of what must have been an excruciatingly painful, and very long "press conference" is truly bizarre. Please recall previous comments here in this thread regarding Armstrong's strange and innapropriate 'body language' that exposes him for the liar that he really is (was.) NASA executives probably were throwing 'high fives' all over the place upon hearing of his demise. As in "Whew."

And here is the clip of Armstrongs's cryptic "veil of truth" absurdity........can one of the "moonies" here please explain this to us 'ill informed' non-believers - aka "hoaxers" what is meant by this nonsense remark?


edit on 28-8-2012 by de_Genova because: added text




posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Well you are jumping all over the place. Noone gives a damn what your gut feeling is. Provide some evidence other than wild accusations that stem from nothing more than your imagination. Just try at least. Remember the motto of the site.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Well you are jumping all over the place. Noone gives a damn what your gut feeling is. Provide some evidence other than wild accusations that stem from nothing more than your imagination. Just try at least. Remember the motto of the site.


First off - May I remind you that I am the OP of this thread - if you don't like what you see here, of if you find it so disagreeable then you might consider starting your own thread. As for the tenor and tone of the thread and of the motto(s) of ATS see below.


General Conspiracies: This forum is dedicated to general conspiracy theories, cover-ups, and government scandals that may not fit into other topical forums on ATS. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups.Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.
edit on 28-8-2012 by de_Genova because: added text



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by de_Genova
 




NASA executives probably were throwing 'high fives' all over the place upon hearing of his demise. As in "Whew."


If NASA had been as powerful, resourceful and influential enough to manufacture your imagined hoax space programme don't you think that if they had reservations about Armstrong and any other astronaut they would have simply 'manufactured' his / their 'demise' a long time ago and explained it off as natural causes etc?

As for his alleged cryptic comment - I see nothing there - he is simply trying to inspire the next generation to seek to uncover the universes mysteries etc - nothing more, nothing less.

You really are just clutching at straws and imagining things in a desperate attempt to vindicate your pre-conceived ideas which lack any substance at all.

You quote the motto of this site - it is Deny Ignorance, not wallow in ignorance.

I, and I suspect the vast majority of members, originally came to this site to seek out alternative theories and to question the accepted etc - but I for one like to see at least some attempt at reasoned thought, critical thinking and supportive evidence to back theories / opinions up.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by de_Genova
 


Yeah unlike the OP which was somewhat original my reply was directly to that one specific post. If you get tingly feeling from a video that does not a conspiracy theory make. Especially when you claim facts based on nothing but your gut feeling. You provide no evidence to support these claims.
We've gone through these several times on the board already. You should try the search function. It's really handy.



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps reply to post by de_Genova
 
Yeah unlike the OP which was somewhat original my reply was directly to that one specific post. If you get tingly feeling from a video that does not a conspiracy theory make. Especially when you claim facts based on nothing but your gut feeling. You provide no evidence to support these claims.
We've gone through these several times on the board already. You should try the search function. It's really handy.


Gut feelings are what usually propel interested persons to pursue something more in depth, particularly if they are suspicious about the nature of the enterprise in question. My own "gut feeling" about NASA began long before July 16, 1969. It was only after much study and research on the fraudulent nature of NASA as a co-called legitimate government agency - which it never was - that I began to inquire as to the NAZI origins of NASA as a military operation having initially been formed as a national defense agency responsible for keeping information secret from the American people so that they could pursue a warlike agenda in tandem with the usurpation of space - culminating in the Star Wars program and beyond.

We all know of the war criminal NASA space scientist Werner von Braun who had been a top leader (SS officer) in Adolph Hitler’s Nazi rocket program and was brought to the U.S. after the war along with several hundred other notorious criminal Nazi's who formed the foundations of a neo-Nazi cult on American soil 'formally' known as NASA. von Braun was once quoted as saying rather threateningly, “We find ourselves faced by strong powers whose base of operations is at present unknown to us.”

This quasi military governmental institution presently known as NASA now functions as a department of the executive branch of government, ultimately answerable solely to the president of the United States, an agency created through the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 having hobbled out of the Pentagon and the department of Defense. According to that Act, NASA is presently operating as a “civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States.”



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Feel free to provide the evidence you have uncovered. Braun involvement is not nothing new. The whole NAZI business thought would make a nice historic expose. So how bout it?



posted on Aug, 29 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sprtpilot
It is obvious to anyone with an IQ over, say, 90 that the technology used in 1969 could not have done what they presented.

NASA admits to have used staged photographs and releasing them at the time as authentic.

NASA today is researching solutions to problems like lethal to humans radiation that they must solve to return to the Moon or go to Mars.

Only one element of the many has to be found to be scientifically bogus to discredit the lunar landing claims:
the lunar lander single rocket engine could not have worked;
the radiation danger was not solved, there was essentially zero protection while on the lunar surface;
the film photography could not have survived the radiation, studio perfect photographs are presented as those made by astronauts with no way to focus, set, or frame;
there was no way to heat or cool the lunar lander while on the surface;
the risk of leaving bodies on the moon was too great, they knew the tech was insufficient for the deadline of 1969;
it was a "matter of national security", any means necessary justified the end.

think about it critically




And yet recent photos of the moon landing site taken in the last month or so show the whole area exactly as Armstrong said took place, even down to the flag that was knocked over by the rockets of the LEM when it took off.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by sprtpilot
 


Lots of negatives I'm afraid but very short on the alternatives...If you don't believe it, give us what you think is the truth.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   
edit on 30-8-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 04:13 AM
link   
I didn't read through every reply but I've always wondered about this video where Neil Armstrong is asked to swear on the bible (guess he was a devout Christian) that he walked on the moon. The guy even offers him $5000 to put an end to the controversy. I wonder what he meant by the comment he made to that guy with the bible, "Mr XXX you do not deserve the answers."




posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Project Orion was cancelled, because it was going to take 18 years to have us orbiting the moon even before there could be a landing. It could be America was far more efficient in the 1960s. Look at the JointStrikeFailure 20 year failure. The only way to prove the moon landings were not faked, is to have either the US or another country put men back on the moon. The Russians could track the Apollo orbiting of the moon, but they had no way of knowing if the US landed men on the moon.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 05:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies ......And yet recent photos of the moon landing site taken in the last month or so show the whole area exactly as Armstrong said took place, even down to the flag that was knocked over by the rockets of the LEM when it took off.


Ohhh - you mean this blob that the arrow points to? I know this sounds a bit sarcastic, but these photos from the 3 landing sites make me laugh as in ROTFLMAO. The photos are as phoney as a 3 dollar bill. The new batch of images released by NASA supposedly represent three different lunar landing sites: Apollo 12, Apollo 14 and Apollo 17. Where oh where is the greatest of them all - Apollo 11?
Many are hoping these phoney images will help solve some of the mystery and some of the unanswered questions from the Apollo missions, such as whether the planted American flags are still standing.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikellmikell
IQ 137 here you gotta do better than that.


this is starting to turn into a Mensa fight apparently...who's got the bigger IQ? mines only 128...im not ashamed of that.


Could it have happend...sure...how do we know? we weren't there.

Anything else is pure speculation...unless you know for sure.
edit on 30-8-2012 by Kastogere because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
At the risk of violating ATS terms of service, I have to say that these moon hoaxer conspiracy theorists are among the most horribly uninformed and unrepentently ignorant people I've ever encountered. I can understand conspiracy theorists' point of view on other conspiracies like, say, the JFK assassination, sicne there are so many undocumented pieces of information which almost begs people to offert speculation to fill the vaccuum (I.E. where Kennedy's brain went). Although I don't agree with them, I can even understand the rationale of the 9/11 truthers since there are a LOT of things we don't know (I.E. the specific evidence linking the attack to Al Qaida). It almost demands that we come up with out own speculation to fill in the blanks.

On the other hand, the Apollo moon landing was probably THE most well documented event you can think of. How the astronauts ate, the velocity needed to escape Earth's gravity, how the spacecraft avoided the Van Allen radiation belt, the exact locations where the LEMs landed on the moon, all of it, to the point where we even know how the astronauts crapped in space. I just did a 15 second Google search on "no stars on the moon" and I got 242 MILLION hits explaining why stars wouldn't be visible on the moon. Yet incredibly, there are still people who are claiming "the moon landing was a hoax or else we'd see stars on the photos", telling me they don't even bother to spend the 15 seconds to even look up the answers to their own questions. That's bad enough, but they're even becoming so self righteous and arrogant to the point where they insist "you gotta have an IQ of 90 to think we ever went to the moon". Either these people are lying through their teeth unrepentently, or, they're simply lazy as hell and never bother to listen to the answers they're being given, and it only makes the people making these claims look stupid and foolish, not anyone else..

ATS' motto is to "deny ignorance". Is this really "denying ignorance" or is it "Embracing ignorance like Linus holding onto his security blanket"?
edit on 30-8-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by de_Genova
 


You copy / paste from some fringe page or what? So now the LRO is fake. Fine you are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to ask for evidence to prove that. Can you do that?



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
At the risk of violating ATS terms of service, I have to say that these moon hoaxer conspiracy theorists are among the most horribly uninformed and unrepentently ignorant people I've ever encountered. On the other hand, the Apollo moon landing was probably THE most well documented event you can think of.


When NASA was petitioned by many interested parties for the audio/pictorial and textual evidence of the Apollo 11 mission they were told by all of NASA's top officials that there was NO official record of the event - they didn't exist. Amazingly they claimed to have NO original account of the Apollo 11 mission. What a preposterous joke. So much for the "well documented" BS.

There's a very big difference between a real event and a fraudulent one. The Apollo missions were propagandistically "well documented" outright frauds..............it was all a hoax - one gigantic "fraud of the century." Put it in the same category as that other "fraud of the century" the 9/11 propaganda mission.
edit on 30-8-2012 by de_Genova because: add info



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
I call bs. You go around making claims left and right. However you provide 0 evidence. Nasa has a huge amount of evidence that is the most analysed in human history. No foul play has been found.
NASA 1 - You 0



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I watched the Apollo missions as a kid on tv. I had no reason to doubt.

But as an adult I've come to learn about human psychology and how it relates to economics, politics and science. Every discipline is subject to the limits of the individual. A belief in a god of a specific faith puts certain boundaries on the individual. It gives the ego component comfort and can lead to a happy life but it still may not be able to face the ultimate question of the open-minded: "What are my own flat-earth beliefs that even if shown evidence to the contrary, I would still believe (have faith in)?" -- a difficult question for a culture that has no concept of life being a mirror of what we bring to it.

What does this have to do with Apollo? Well, for me it starts with Stanley Kubrick. Something happened during 2001 filming, the Apollo "missions", and the making of "The Shining". Kubrick's involvement opens enough doors of doubt to at least explore the possibility of a staged landing. "Kubrick's Odyssey" is a fascinating dissection of the similarities between Kubrick's techniques and those used by NASA.

The logical answer for me is found using Occam's Razor - select from the possible scenarios the one with the fewest assumptions, or the simplest in explanation.

Did NASA design and build rockets for the Apollo missions? Obviously.
Did NASA train astronauts for these missions? Obviously.
Did NASA have teams of specialists, scientists and engineers working on the program? Obviously
Did NASA contract out hundreds of thousands of components to the tech industry, basically launching Aerospace Engineering to new heights? Obviously.
Did NASA launch rockets into space? Obviously.
Did NASA recover vehicles upon splashdown/re-entry? Obviously.

But what happened in between?

What makes sense to me is this. The desire to trump the fear of cold-war threats caused the US to make some bold claims as to their capabilities. Look at countries that tend to "save face" (Japan, China, most eastern countries) and how they control/spin propaganda to make them look good. The US is caught in a physics problem, half of which they can complete and half of which is highly suspect.

So what do you do?

Kill a bunch of birds with one stone.

How do you save face and at the same time complete the impossible mission? You continue as planned. You develop all of the technology you think you'll need. You will test it and refine it to get the mission to a point of having the hardware to do it. You create an entire industry that funnels through NASA's tech needs and spills into military and commercial applications. You create jobs through this backwards economics but the jobs are real, the tech is real, the emotion and investment in national pride is real.

Win win win win win.

So back to Occam. Is it easier to build the technology you think you'd need and roll the dice as the world watches you shoot the moon? Or is it easier to reap all of the benefits of the missions without having to do the near impossible?

You only need a small group to pull it off. Actors & directors. Astronauts & production crew. You have state-of-the-art film gear and a highly secretive and focused group put together all of the "scenes" you would need.

Which is easier? Do it or film/fake a chunk of it?

The 99% not in the know who are working on the project are working on real technologies. The stuff isn't fake. But when you control the data that is sent to the computers, the film images that are relayed, and the audio, you control the information funnel and it's not hard to see how this could be done. It's all tv screens, line graphs, lights and indicators. Complex? Absolutely. Easier than actually going? Obviously.

It took 30 years to be able to see the advances in film tech & CGI to see cutting edge tech of the sixties look like Plan 9 from Outer Space complete with strings.

There was a lot at stake and failure was not an option. NASA might be the vehicle that launched the US into sole territory as super power of the world through it's tech development. And they didn't even have to go to the moon to do it.

It's brilliant if true. I'm afraid Occam might agree.

When there's no reason NOT to believe something, it can be as powerful as believing in something. Two sides of the same coin. It's the bi-polar nature of ego-driven political systems to do whatever it takes to be the best, remain in power, save face, save the world, save the economy. What if you can accomplish all of these? Would it be worth it for the greater good in terms of jobs, tech and quality of life, not to mention thrusting a country to the top of the power pile?

Now look at these clowns running for office. How much do you trust any of them? Pathological liars, the lot of them. Over and over. Yet we still hold on beliefs that fit our belief framework.

Anyhow, that's where I'm at with all this.
edit on 30-8-2012 by elmoastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
It's difficult to analyze in real time. Perspective is needed. In the twelve years since 9/11, enough questions have been raised and video analyzed to see there are some real holes in the official story. The curve is shortening, but our nature to believe is still the same. It takes a shorter time to see the truth but we are still subject to present moment blow-your-mind technology. State of the art in the sixties is kid's play today. State of the art in 2001 is an iphone app now. At the time, it's near impossible to have any real facts other than a feeling that things are or are not right. Given perspective, it becomes obvious.

My kids watched the Kubrick's Odyssey and at the end my eleven year old said, "It's totally fake."

He does his own videos on skateboarding and kids today are tech-deep in video. Not tough to see how this played out. Unless one is trapped in the prison of belief.





new topics
 
12
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join