It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by elmoastro
 



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.

define small group, that list you just provided hold about alot of people already.

at the very minimum there were 21 "actors" that had to have been in on it, as they orbited the moon. than you need to add in the back up crews that are not mentioned as much, and these are just the main "actors". the stage crew, you will need a lot of in order to have a quick turn around time, changing sets and scenery locations, changing to different places such as enormous vacuum chambers than to do all the low gravity shots in the vomit comet. thats quite the man power.

than you need writers to come up with the script. i heard 2001: a space oddessey took about 2/3 years to write, filming began in 1965 and the movie came out in 1968 this film is about 161mins long. so if we use this as a basis, than comparing to apollo missions which has hours and hours of film, voice and other records per mission, than inbetween each mission to the moon there should be a minimum of about 2/3 years. so apollo 11 launches 1969, apollo 12 should be ready to launch 1971-1972..




posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by de_Genova
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.


The original footage of Armstong leaving the LEM that NASA received is lost/missing, but they still have the lesser quality video they released to the television stations. They also have all the video for the other five moon landings. PLUS they have all the recordings, the suits, the moon rocks, and the usage of the scientific packages still on the moon, which is about as official as the official record gets. You're simply referring to that one single piece of original footage while intentionally ignoring all this other available evidence to artificially embellish your claim, here. You know that and so do I.


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.


There's also a difference between deriving a conclusion based upon the facts, and deriving a conclusion based upon personal viewpoints you want to be true. That's the definition of "faith based logic" after all.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by taccj9903
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."


The answer is easy- Armstrong was an honest researcher and explorer, and he has no patience with people behaving like idiots and who won't listen to him regardless of what he says. The only thing this video actually proved is that Neil Armstrong was too much of a gentleman to slug an annoying conspiracy mongor.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
What turned the tables for me was this. After watching the Kubrick videos, I went and bought the DVD set of NASA's missions - NASA The Story of America's Courageous Space Explorers, produced by none other than NASA.

It covers Mercury, Apollo, Skylab, Challenger and Columbia-to mars and beyond.

Where it gets interesting is the pre and post-Kubrick influence. As you watch the Mercury and early Apollo documentaries, you notice the eerie 50's hypnotic music as they take you through the training of an astronaut. Anyone with even a little hypnosis understanding sees the videos as programs. Complete with flashes of pictures to subliminally tie together the message thus reinforcing belief. It has t.e look and feel of mind programming and it's blatant. I will try and clip some footage from the DVDs but they're out there cheap. The whole program is a drone voice walking you through a monotone path that assumes YOU are the astronaut. It's comical but very blatant. Again, 40 years perspective versus state of the art at the time.

Bringing Kubrick in gave the production a reality never before seen. Kubrick recreated a B52 for Dr Strangelove with no help from the DoD. But they were so blown away by the technology he used to create the film scenes that they "approached" him to help save America.

As for the "small crew", it would be astronauts and anyone in on the camera and set work. Again, need to know basis, and all of the test procedures and practicing of maneuvers--all of it becomes audio & video to be used as a storyboard for the actual event. Even the guys building the moon stage would be told it was for research and planning. Not hard when the patriotic pill has been swallowed. That is what belief does. It blinds people to truth.

I'm going to find clips of the NASA vids to post as they put the icing on the cake. I had some friends watch with me and they wanted it turn it off because of the blatant hypnotic messages being displayed. And it's straight from NASA.

They realized they were out of their league in the movie making department and the pre-Kubrick influenced videos show it. They were so steeped in hypno mind control stuff and well behind in cutting edge film making at the time. They were blown away by Kubrick and they went to school on him.

I don't even care if we went or not. I just look for the simple truths. I compare the things we can and can't do today with what was claimed to have occurred 40 years ago. It's no secret that governments and gods lie. Too bad when it's your own. Leaves one with an existential crisis that is most easily solved with a shovel and beach sand.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Ok then I'll bite. How did they simulate moons gravity and lack of air then? Where's this super massive studio that has vacuum and anti-grav properties? How did they get the special effects that wasn't matched by anything in decades? No cgi, green screens that would be up to the job. How did they manage to take photos on the surface that would decades later be found to match the exact scenery around the landing sites? Hows the occams going to answer that?
edit on 30/8/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Disc 1 :
Freedom 7 is two hours of eerie music, monotone program voicing, hypnotic and subliminal flashes of pictures. Also, like many of the 50's/60's shows, the scientist act the role as they are being filmed. It's blatant and obvious when you watch it.

The Voyage of Friendship 7 continues with the same video style--taking you through a hypnotically suggested program of what is going on.

It continues with The Four Days of Gemini 4, they continue with the same style but the background music is more patriotic rather than weird 50's hypno.

Gemini VIII they're produced as documentaries and become more like normal shows.

The final clip on disc 1 is Apollo 11. Here the flash subliminals are constant and blatant. The eerie music is back, the hypnotist's voice takes you through the entire story. This clip is the one that blew me away. The others were obvious hypno, but this one had outright flashes of pictures interspersed much like showing a picture of popcorn or a coke in a movie theater. It's crazy how obvious it is. Again, 40 years perspective.

If you were sitting there watching this in real time as I was, you would be blown away. First, TV was only a couple decades old mainstream. The idea that we were going to the moon must have been mind blowing and at that time, why wouldn't anyone trust the US Governemt? The good guys. Us. America.

Some will always see what they want to see (belief). Some open to the mounting evidence that things aren't exactly jake.

I highly recommend picking up a copy of the DVD set and doing your own comparisons.





edit on 30-8-2012 by elmoastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Again, "Kubrick's Odyssey" takes you through all of the special effects. The movie "The Shining" is Kubrick's way of telling the world that he was involved in faking the footage. When you watch "The Shining" through the lens of a man trapped in a contract he can't get out of, it becomes one of the most fascinating whistle-blowing films ever made.

There weren't green screens. They had a 3M screen that used glass to reflect images. Hoagland misidentifies the anomalies. You can actually see the scaffolding behind the screen. When you compare the techniques in 2001 and Apollo 11, they are identical. It's brilliant and it's mind-blowing.

Time to grow up to the fact that just because we're taught (programmed) to believe in everything from patriotism to 9/11 to Jesus, there's no way out unless one can get past their own programs.

I have no reason to doubt as my background is aerospace engineering. I'm all for it. But the evidence now is starting to show it's age. It just takes people awhile to come to grips.

NASA Budget: Unlimited

No bucks, no Buck Rogers.
edit on 30-8-2012 by elmoastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Imagine if George Lucas had been able to make Star Wars in 1969. That film blew the doors off special effects and left the world in awe. Now imagine that Lucas made Star Wars as an Apollo mission using 1980 technology in 1969.

If Apollo footage and newsreels were enough in the 60's, imagine how blown away people would be if it had future tech involved.

Assume those with budgets have access to future tech. Advantage goes to hoaxers in the short term.
edit on 30-8-2012 by elmoastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by de_Genova
 



C'mon OP. There's more reason to think they DID land than there aren't.
I'm not sure why stars weren't visible but if he were to lie I'm sure he would've gotten all his lies in order and rehearsed the correct answers so not to call attention to his answers.

I believe in my heart of hearts, the astronauts got chased/warned off the Moon by the very creatures inhabiting the far side. So, bases? There already are Moon bases!

Sound too far-fetched? Not really. Most of us know the government is not forthcoming when it comes to UFOs/alien visitation so it's more probable aliens DO exist than don't..... and that's why the secrecy.

So given that 'common sense' reasoning, it is very likely some race or races are using the Moon as their base as previous reported by remote viewers. Don't believe in RVers? Why would the government employ them? See: Ingo Swann!I



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by elmoastro
 


BS. 2001 doesn't even come close to apollo footage / photographs. They had no technology to fake the landings but they did have the technology to actually go there. The whole kubric angle has been beaten to death many times over.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
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?


Stop with the childish accusations and ad hominum attacks.....the photos that it (the LRO) allegedly took are fake(d) as in photoshop fake..........as were the Apollo missions themselves fake.
edit on 30-8-2012 by de_Genova because: add info


For example: NASA has an arrow pointing to what they claim is a fallen American flag in the photo below......how ridiculous can it get.......please show us the flag OK?

BTW - what's that dark area that surrounds the alleged descent stage hardware? Huh? Is that supposed to represent the scrorched moon surface from the terrible blast on takeoff? ROTFLMAO again.............NASA's claims are absolutely ridiculous.
edit on 30-8-2012 by de_Genova because: add pic



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by taccj9903
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."


The answer is easy- Armstrong was an honest researcher and explorer, and he has no patience with people behaving like idiots and who won't listen to him regardless of what he says. The only thing this video actually proved is that Neil Armstrong was too much of a gentleman to slug an annoying conspiracy mongor.


I don't agree, he looked like he was nervous and avoiding the question. I mean why not just take a quick moment to do it and put an end to the controversy, at least for the guy holding the bible. He could have taken the money and given it to his church or local charity. For me, an honest God fearing man would gladly swear on the bible about such a great accomplishment, why wouldn't he do it? However, I guess since he is dead now we will never know for sure but it still seems quite suspicious.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by de_Genova
 



For example: NASA has an arrow pointing to what they claim is a fallen American flag in the photo below......how ridiculous can it get.......please show us the flag OK?


So if it's fake, why not do a better job of it?



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by de_Genova
 


Dodge away. Provide evidence of your claims or admid that you're making stuff up.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Whilst science and history clearly tells us that apollo was real, the descepincies in the video footage is very questionable. How can you explain the same area that was shown on two separate occasions when they are meant to be miles apart? That isn't fake, that is true.

Since Apollo, and up untill modern day, humans have only travelled what, less than 500 miles above the earth, clearly because of the radiation. Yet Apollo astros travelled up to 250,000 from earth. And returned safely with no Ill effects whatsoever. Six times no less.

I believe they just orbited the earth, but never set foot on the moon.

While its ok to be a private person as Armstrong clearly was, his reluctance to be the face of NASA was very strange. Whether it was his decision or not is unknown. Between him and aldrin, I think aldrin was better under pressure when questioned on the alledged hoax. As shown numerous times. But Armstrong would've probably cracked if questioned heavily.

Either way Neil Armstrong is one of the most famous people to ever walk the earth, yet he could've walked down the street practically unnoticed. I personally find that weird.

I can't believe though, with today's technology we haven't got clear low level pictures of the Apollo 11 lander and the equipment around it. It would put the conspiracy to bed once and for all. I mean, the 40th anniversary of the event passed by with no fanfare at all. Imagine the media scrum to get that picture.

Regardless of the costs, the progression of the space program would've involved repeated trips and bases on the moon, it makes perfect sense. We went there with 60s technology, yet we can't now?

C'mon on...



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by thesneakiod
 



Whilst science and history clearly tells us that apollo was real, the descepincies in the video footage is very questionable. How can you explain the same area that was shown on two separate occasions when they are meant to be miles apart? That isn't fake, that is true.


How do you explain Hokusai's Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji? Are they fake?


Since Apollo, and up untill modern day, humans have only travelled what, less than 500 miles above the earth, clearly because of the radiation. Yet Apollo astros travelled up to 250,000 from earth. And returned safely with no Ill effects whatsoever. Six times no less.


Argument from incredulity.


I believe they just orbited the earth, but never set foot on the moon.


You can believe that if you want, but it makes your world a much smaller place.


While its ok to be a private person as Armstrong clearly was, his reluctance to be the face of NASA was very strange. Whether it was his decision or not is unknown. Between him and aldrin, I think aldrin was better under pressure when questioned on the alledged hoax. As shown numerous times. But Armstrong would've probably cracked if questioned heavily.


How do you react when complete strangers accuse you of being a liar?


Either way Neil Armstrong is one of the most famous people to ever walk the earth, yet he could've walked down the street practically unnoticed. I personally find that weird.


Why? Are you mobbed by paparazzi as you walk down the street?


I can't believe though, with today's technology we haven't got clear low level pictures of the Apollo 11 lander and the equipment around it. It would put the conspiracy to bed once and for all. I mean, the 40th anniversary of the event passed by with no fanfare at all. Imagine the media scrum to get that picture.




Oh, wait... you think this is fake too. So what would be the point?


Regardless of the costs, the progression of the space program would've involved repeated trips and bases on the moon, it makes perfect sense. We went there with 60s technology, yet we can't now?


Both the Chinese and Russians are working on it. You can always claim they are faking it as well.
edit on 31-8-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by thesneakiod
 



Whilst science and history clearly tells us that apollo was real, the descepincies in the video footage is very questionable. How can you explain the same area that was shown on two separate occasions when they are meant to be miles apart? That isn't fake, that is true.


How do you explain Hokusai's Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji? Are they fake?


Since Apollo, and up untill modern day, humans have only travelled what, less than 500 miles above the earth, clearly because of the radiation. Yet Apollo astros travelled up to 250,000 from earth. And returned safely with no Ill effects whatsoever. Six times no less.


Argument from incredulity.


I believe they just orbited the earth, but never set foot on the moon.


You can believe that if you want, but it makes your world a much smaller place.


While its ok to be a private person as Armstrong clearly was, his reluctance to be the face of NASA was very strange. Whether it was his decision or not is unknown. Between him and aldrin, I think aldrin was better under pressure when questioned on the alledged hoax. As shown numerous times. But Armstrong would've probably cracked if questioned heavily.


How do you react when complete strangers accuse you of being a liar?


Either way Neil Armstrong is one of the most famous people to ever walk the earth, yet he could've walked down the street practically unnoticed. I personally find that weird.


Why? Are you mobbed by paparazzi as you walk down the street?


I can't believe though, with today's technology we haven't got clear low level pictures of the Apollo 11 lander and the equipment around it. It would put the conspiracy to bed once and for all. I mean, the 40th anniversary of the event passed by with no fanfare at all. Imagine the media scrum to get that picture.




Oh, wait... you think this is fake too. So what would be the point?


Regardless of the costs, the progression of the space program would've involved repeated trips and bases on the moon, it makes perfect sense. We went there with 60s technology, yet we can't now?


Both the Chinese and Russians are working on it. You can always claim they are faking it as well.
edit on 31-8-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



What pointless retorts. Shouldnt have expected anything less from you really. What has mount fuji got to do with two separate views of an area that's supposed to be miles apart on the moon?

I have never been questioned on going to the moon. If I did, and it was believed by some to be fake, I'd expect people to ask me about it. So what have strangers coming up to me have any relevance? I'm talking about the reluctance on armstrongs part to be the face of NASA which he should be.

The picture you posted is not an argument and you know it. They could easily take clearer, lower photos of the landing sites. Please don't tell me they can't, we know the level of detail they can get of earth from satellites kilometres above.

Both the Chinese and Russians are working on it? Are you being serious? The USA had a massive headstart (seeing as they done it) yet they can't now. So after being involved with the space race over 40 years ago, Russia are still incapable of putting a man on the moon?

Stop talking rubbish. If they couldn't go then it was because it couldn't be done. And by the looks of it, they still can't. Russia may well have been able to track Apollo, but they certainly couldn't know if they landed on the moon. Please show me proof they did.

Anyway, you didn't explain or debunk any of my points.

(stand by for the usual derogatory post from you....)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by thesneakiod
 



What pointless retorts. Shouldnt have expected anything less from you really. What has mount fuji got to do with two separate views of an area that's supposed to be miles apart on the moon?


The surface of the Moon tends to be quite monotonous. There are no trees, buildings or fishermen to frame the distant mountains, as there are in Hokusai's prints of Mount Fuji. Remove all the interesting clutter, and Mount Fuji pretty much looks the same, wherever the prints were made.


I have never been questioned on going to the moon. If I did, and it was believed by some to be fake, I'd expect people to ask me about it. So what have strangers coming up to me have any relevance? I'm talking about the reluctance on armstrongs part to be the face of NASA which he should be.


If you were an Olympic athlete, and people kept coming up to you saying: "Admit it! You're doping, you cheat!" how would you deal with them? Why do you believe Armstrong "should" be the face of NASA? NASA has thousands of employees, all of them vital to its mission. Armstrong was chosen because he was a team player, not a publicity hound.


The picture you posted is not an argument and you know it. They could easily take clearer, lower photos of the landing sites. Please don't tell me they can't, we know the level of detail they can get of earth from satellites kilometres above.


Okay, I knew that wouldn't satisfy you. How about this one?



Let me guess: you want to be able to read the labels on the cast off backpacks.


Both the Chinese and Russians are working on it? Are you being serious? The USA had a massive headstart (seeing as they done it) yet they can't now. So after being involved with the space race over 40 years ago, Russia are still incapable of putting a man on the moon?



Russia's moonshot hope 'not a dream'
by Staff Writers
Moscow (Voice of Russia) Aug 30, 2012

Russia has proposed a joint project with Kazakhstan and Ukraine to build a heavy rocket capable of launching manned missions to the Moon. It believes this project could be accomplished within three years.


www.moondaily.com...


Stop talking rubbish. If they couldn't go then it was because it couldn't be done. And by the looks of it, they still can't. Russia may well have been able to track Apollo, but they certainly couldn't know if they landed on the moon. Please show me proof they did.


I cannot prove anything to someone who categorically rejects any and all evidence. As I said, you are free to believe anything you want.


Anyway, you didn't explain or debunk any of my points.


You didn't make any points, you asked a series of rhetorical questions. However, if you feel that radiation is a serious barrier to lunar exploration, you can better inform yourself here:

www.irpa12.org.ar...

You will note that this report is not from NASA.

Edit to ad quicker loading link:

www.mainsgate.com...
edit on 31-8-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Haha I did make points, and yet you still didn't answer my question of why they were in the same locations when we're told they're meant to be miles apart? It's a blatant lie from NASA which you, as per usual gloss over with your usual panache.

Same again with the fact that Russia have never been there and the USA have never been back. It's doesn't make sense why it hasn't happened, and there's been no real argument for it. Yet you just passed it off as something I will or won't believe. Hardly a debate that is it?

And being a winning Olympian, I'm sure the thousands that watched me win my event will vouch for me... Last time I recalled, there was no one on the moon watching them.
You may not find it odd that he has the most famous name ever yet owns an unknown face. But I do, and millions of others also do.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
It's funny though, that no way did NASA expect their footage to be put under so much scrutiny now, I believe they never thought that today's computers would be as advanced to pick their whole program apart.

Can someone explain to me in laymans terms, how theres no spec of dust on the feet of the landers? Plus no blast crater underneath it? Cos the lander couldn't have just been placed there could it.....?



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join