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

Actually, the interview with Patrick Moore was one of the most focussed interviews I have ever seen between two pretty innocent parties for the time, it was a discourse about the experience.
We know they went to the moon, that is not in dispute.

I think this thread should have been titled "I think Neil Armstrong is lying because what he says goes against my warped world view for which I have no evidence" but that's just me and my desire to deny ignorance, not read about it in detail.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
It's hilarious how well this thread demonstrated the moon hoaxer crowds. It attracts 2 types of people. The liars who make up the claims in their YT vidoes. After that the believers who dont even bother to check any facts see that and go around the web repeating the claims. When they are proven wrong they yell "NASA lies, We've proven it!" like a child with a temper tandrum and they claim victory. Never mind reality or anything like that

c'mon,...i mean people that question something the government did....that's never done here on ATS...the moon landing and 9/11 are never, ever, supposed to be questioned. only retards and idiots would do that.
now....anything said or done by Obama...those are always called into question...

reply to post by jimmyx


It's not questioning that's the problem, it's the people that, no matter what the evidence, believe what they want to believe, even after being shown without any shadow of a doubt, that they are wrong. Trying to prove the moon landing happened to a hoax believer is the same as trying to prove evolution to a creationist. They don't care what the evidence shows because their belief system is faith based, not evidence based.

Originally posted by captainpudding
I think this thread should have been titled "I think Neil Armstrong is lying because what he says goes against my warped world view for which I have no evidence" but that's just me and my desire to deny ignorance, not read about it in detail.

Why are you trolling and reviving dead threads?
The Effery today!!!

reply to post by iamusic


Could you perhaps try being on topic?

I've been a follower of the moon landing threads on ATS and other sites for years.

What i find strange is why would these so called debunkers come to a conspiricy site in the first place, and spend year upon year defending nasa ?

The only reason i can come up with is that they have an a motive, they will claim their presence is to "educate" people on the moon landings.

For this reason and for this reason alone, i'm now conviced the moon landings where a hoax.

reply to post by exponent


If there was focus then how did they do it while the cameras were attached to their chest with no visual reference? Just asking.

The astronauts seem to be acting strange at that time in interview as if they are hiding something. They dont seem happy for people who just stepped on another world. Very strange.

reply to post by AthlonSavage

The astronauts seem to be acting strange at that time in interview as if they are hiding something. They dont seem happy for people who just stepped on another world. Very strange.

Please post a video of yourself giving a press conference after you have returned from another world so we can see how they are supposed to behave.

Originally posted by Raffles
I've been a follower of the moon landing threads on ATS and other sites for years.

What i find strange is why would these so called debunkers come to a conspiricy site in the first place, and spend year upon year defending nasa ?

Quite simple really. The motto of this site is to "deny ignorance" the motto of hoax believers is "be ignorant". We come here to deny ignorance. Conspiracy theories need evidence, if you don't present any evidence it's not a theory. A real conspiracy theorist actually looks at the evidence and makes a conclusion, the hoax believers make a conclusion then look for evidence.

reply to post by captainpudding


Sorry my friend i don't believe that for a minute.

Why would a said poster spend 4-5 years posting on the same topic and nothing else for year upon year, it doesn't make any sense unless he has an agender.

I've been a member of this site longer than most and it this topic intrigues me more than any other, the amount of hatred that comes from the pro nasa side against the hoax side is amazing and also very telling.

What i want to know is why do you guys care so much about what I THINK ?

If i wanna think the moon landings are fake so be it, what does it matter to you ?

I'm happy to talk about the moon landings with posters like jra but not with the rest of the nasa defenders that have shown up in the past few years most are bunch of nasty posters imho, and i don't blame jarrah white for not showing up here, it would have been great if he did turn up and debated jra a class act imho

Guess what i've even had lunch at the kennedy space center with charlie duke, a moment i will remember for the rest of my life but having said that i now believe they where fake. and yes charlie was asked if the moon landings where fake, you can guess what his answer was still a top bloke though..

a reply to: de_Genova

Lets take a liars poll OK? See if you can enumerate the number of times Neil Armstrong lies us in this BBC interview.

Peter Hyatt is a statement analyst and has gone through the interview mentioned and it is rather interesting what he picked up.

Hes lying alright and good at it.
It is difficult to say where fact ends and fiction begins with the Apollo mission.
They sure as crap didn't walk on the moon their suits would of not cooled them sufficiently in excursion lengths they were on moon.

a reply to: DJW001

A contrived reply to wash over the fact they are appear very uncomfortable in answering questions. They're hiding something alright any fool can see it.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

Did you watch the analysis of Neil Armstrong being interveiwed by Patrick Moore that Peter Hyatt did that i posted on this page?
Peter Hyatt explains how he spots truth and deception from reading and listening to statements. He was asked to do the Neil Armstrong analysis after he had done the McCann analysis.
Both are incredibly interesting.

a reply to: AthlonSavage

I know that you have had it explained to you before in another thread exactly how the the PLSS (Portable Life Support System) worked yet here you are still peddling this nonsense. Here are the tech specs for the PLSS:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

It worked just fine.

a reply to: AdamOver

Evidence you clearly dont know what your talking about. There were 3 fuel cells on board supplying power. These generate power through a chemical reaction and could easily keep thr batteries charged and the lights on.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

This analyst has zero experience with military personnel. There is no i in team he was an astronaut before that an airforce officer. His whole adult like he was trained that individuals don't accomplish things groups do. Talk to any one who was in the military and they say we instead of I when talking about things they did. For example if i was telling you a story about Afghanistan i would say we were pinned down by a sniper not i was. You would say we sa we him in this tower and started working our way towards him.

This doesn't mean veterans didnt experience these things or lying its simply training. In his case his team is all the astronauts so his replies say things like we.

Also vets don't like to be called hero and avoid it ot was always a group effort. He was made a hero and just like vets was uncomfortable with that as well