Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


If Nixon and Hughes faked Apollo, that means that man couldn't go for some reason. There had to be a reason to fake it, so why did they?

SayonaraJupiter

At what point did I deny physics? Not in this thread! I have been making the argument that HH was using robots with TV eyes in 1959, obviously, prototypes, but they could be ready a few years later, perhaps as early as 1967, and the $365,000,000 cost-plus fixed fee Surveyor fleet contract proves that HH was ripping off the government, and it proves HH had "funds" to accomplish missions, and my argument continues that perhaps some of those Surveyor missions were clandestine, equipped with drill rigs, robots with TV eyes, and various film cameras, for films that would be "re-manufactured " on earth, in a studio/editing environment.

by saying that nixon was president during apollo 11-17 is basically saying you are denying physics..

why is it that when nixon is president that man suddenly cannot reach the moon anymore and they must absolutely fake it..

hughes excessive spending of money does not in anyway prove that it is 100% impossible for man to reach the moon from 68-72, so stop your "noise", distractions and propaganda and show us exactly what is the physical impossibility that was stopping man from reaching he moon from 68-72.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

It's a collection of slides taken from the TV during the original broadcasts.

Seriously, how does a collection of slides of a TV display prove Apollo?? I could take a picture of my TV, too. It's not a good proof of Anything.

You don't get it do you, so we'll explain it again.

Apollo makes a live TV broadcast.

Live TV broadcast features a Hurricane (amongst other distinctive weather features) in a configuration that only existed on the day of the broadcast).

Satellite evidence confirms those cloud configurations, but the satellite evidence wasn't available at the time of the broadcast and wasn't in colour.

Pictures of that live broadcast are available, both in people's personal collections and in the news media. These two facts demonstrate that the images were not concocted later.

Hurricane Bernice proves Apollo because the photographs of her are from space on a day that Apollo 11 was on the way to the moon. Hurricane Bernice and every other photograph of Earth showing unique cloud patterns proven to exist at the time they were supposed to.

It's not just the slides, it's the events those slides depict and where they came from and where they fit in with the rest of the historical narrative. They fit right in there with pictures shown on newspapers and magazines of things that aren't visible from Earth and weren't known about until later - pictures of Earth that couldn't have been taken from LEO, pictures of the entire moon that couldn't have been taken from Earth, pictures of rocks and craters that no-one knew were there and weren't seen again until the LRO photographed them, and yet there they are in the photographic record from over 40 years ago.

You fail to address these arguments, all you have is a dead discredited president and a mad media mogul that you seem to think only you know about. In reality everyone knows Nixon was a crook and Hughes had lots of money, but only you see to think that proves anything, despite never actually offering any proof other than 'Nixon was a crook and Hughes had lots of money. We know that already, what we don't know is why that proves anything, because after all these pages of you banging on about it you still haven't demonstrated that the personality defects of Nixon and Hughes means nobody went.

SayonaraJupiter

dragonridr

Nobody has bult the pyramids again in over 3000 years does that mean there not there? Transfer! Nobody built a dam to the scale of the 3 gorges dam in china does that mean its chinese propaganda? Transfer! No one launches V2 rockets any more does that mean the british were lying? Transfer! Your logic is so flawed its sad you cant see that. Ad Hominem! Just because something hasnt been repeated doesnt mean it didnt happen.Did you know it took almost 30 years for someone to climb mount Everest after the first time? Transfer! And mind you thats just climbing a mountain its not like going to the moon!

4 transfers in one post! Wow, I'm just amazed at your defense of Apollo.

Well since that is exactly the point i was trying to make we have lift off. You keep talking about how no one has been to the moon in 40 years as this is proof. And now we know you realize this is transfer so this tells us two things. One your doing it on purpose to cloud the issue. And two because your doing it on purpose that makes you purposely trying to cloud the issue because you have no facts to prove apollo was faked. Because if you had proof you wouldnt resort to cheap tricks. So from this point forward lets just stick with the facts from now on i will call you out on every cheap debate tactic you use because i see you know the difference.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos

 

ive never really understood your point about nixon being president for apollo 11-17.. obviously he was president but being president does not defy physics..

why dont you show us instead why it is physically impossible for man to reach the moon in 1968-1972 instead.

At what point did I deny physics? Not in this thread!

This was never said i suggest you re read this is what is called Straw man tactics.

I have been making the argument that HH was using robots with TV eyes in 1959, obviously, prototypes, but they could be ready a few years later, perhaps as early as 1967, and the $365,000,000 cost-plus fixed fee Surveyor fleet contract proves that HH was ripping off the government, and it proves HH had "funds" to accomplish missions, and my argument continues that perhaps some of those Surveyor missions were clandestine, equipped with drill rigs, robots with TV eyes, and various film cameras, for films that would be "re-manufactured " on earth, in a studio/editing environment.

Theres a couple of attacks in this run on sentence so i wont break it up but treat it as a group you use two here first is Argument from adverse consequences your saying that HH company designing a robot proves he ripped off the government on surveyor, then you make people try to assume this act to be true to move into a speculative theory.This is actually two por debate tactics used in one the Slippery slope argument and a Non sequitur.

Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

If Nixon and Hughes faked Apollo, that means that man couldn't go for some reason. There had to be a reason to fake it, so why did they?

Hughes and Nixon had multiple motives, overwhelming means and ample opportunities, beginning from 1957, to formulate and cement the American response to Sputnik. National security and national prestige are two reasons. Political power and corporate cash flows are two more reasons. After JFK set his outlandish goal, by the end of the decade, HH and RN, by 1968, had achieved the peak of power in the United States, and for economic, political gain, they decided to fake Apollo on TV, images and films, in transcripts, completing the legacy of JFK's moon landing speech, culminating in the historical document of Nixon's interplanetary telephone conversation with Apollo 11 astronauts that was broadcast on TV.

It always comes back to TV.

The image that OBMonkey uses for his "proof" of Apollo, AS12-50-7362, comes from Magazine Q and there are some problems already with Magazine Q because some of the images from Magazine Q are not available on the server. And just look at all those fouled up windows. It makes taking good pictures a little more difficult when there is only 1 clean window to shoot from.

reply to post by choos

by saying that nixon was president during apollo 11-17 is basically saying you are denying physics..

I have never denied physics in this thread. Get over it.

SayonaraJupiter

Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

If Nixon and Hughes faked Apollo, that means that man couldn't go for some reason. There had to be a reason to fake it, so why did they?

Hughes and Nixon had multiple motives, overwhelming means and ample opportunities, beginning from 1957, to formulate and cement the American response to Sputnik. National security and national prestige are two reasons. Political power and corporate cash flows are two more reasons. After JFK set his outlandish goal, by the end of the decade, HH and RN, by 1968, had achieved the peak of power in the United States, and for economic, political gain, they decided to fake Apollo on TV, images and films, in transcripts, completing the legacy of JFK's moon landing speech, culminating in the historical document of Nixon's interplanetary telephone conversation with Apollo 11 astronauts that was broadcast on TV.

It always comes back to TV.

This is a narative were your actually trying to rewrite history without any proof. it starts out as an Ad Hominem attack of Nixon knowing about watergate and use this to justify he created some evil plan involving NASA without any proof. This is a massive fail and only shows your desperation. This also relies on guilt by association because you use Nixon and Howard Hughes to besmirch NASA like either of these two could control NASA policy. Your also purposefully confusing cause and effect again epic fail.

Now to correct this please post the meeting these two had making the plans you claim do you have transcripts an eye witness testimony? Also we need to know How Nixon could plan Apollo when it was started under a different administration do you have evidence that shows Kennedy turned over administration of NASA to Nixon even though he wouldnt have the power to do so? Please correct this or this statement is a useless narrative of fiction.

SayonaraJupiter
The image that OBMonkey uses for his "proof" of Apollo, AS12-50-7362, comes from Magazine Q and there are some problems already with Magazine Q because some of the images from Magazine Q are not available on the server. And just look at all those fouled up windows. It makes taking good pictures a little more difficult when there is only 1 clean window to shoot from.

edit on 10/25/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)

Well your at it again you make accusations with no proof implying the missing photos some how invalidates the others it doesnt. This is called Circumstantial Ad Hominem again nothing more then noise. And in such a short statement you then move on to create something called a false dilemma i suggest you read up on this one you do it alot. So are you implying the astronauts couldnt see out the window because they forgot to windex it?

Now to correct this we need some evidence again some testimony telling us there missing because of a conspiracy or the missing pics displayed showing us why NASA didnt display them then i can tell you why. We also need some proof the window was to fouled as you put it to take the pictures so please show some proof of your claims or once again useless information. You really need to work on debate especially when your so quick to judge others.

SayonaraJupiter

by saying that nixon was president during apollo 11-17 is basically saying you are denying physics..

I have never denied physics in this thread. Get over it.

so then why do you keep saying that nixon was president for apollo 11-17??

you say it like since nixon was president that it is absolutely impossible for man to reach the moon.. am i misinterpreting what you are saying??

perhaps you should get over the fact that nixon was president of the USA during apollo 11-17.. because it is not evidence that it is impossible for man to land on the moon during the apollo era.

so will you or will you not provide the evidence that it is 100% impossible for man to have reached the moon back in 68-72??

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Way to avoid the question. WHY did they fake it. If man could get to the moon, there was no reason to fake it. If man couldn't get to the moon, then they would have to fake it, but why can't we get there?

Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Way to avoid the question. WHY did they fake it. If man could get to the moon, there was no reason to fake it. If man couldn't get to the moon, then they would have to fake it, but why can't we get there?

WHY did they fake it? I answered that question. HH & RN wanted Apollo to be a sure thing. Failure was not an option.

Why can't we get there? Because they could not make it happen, for real, by the deadline, JFK's end of the decade. Failure to make the deadline would result in a tremendous loss of prestige and confidence in the United States of America, and it would also hurt Nixon's chances of re-election in 1972. Once again, failure was not an option.

As usual, you have underestimated Howard Hughes, Richard Nixon and the significance of the JFK deadline.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


And what stopped them from getting there then?

You overestimate both the people you say were involved and more, the technology of the day and its ability to pull off a hoax so perfectly no one involved could tell.

choos

SayonaraJupiter

by saying that nixon was president during apollo 11-17 is basically saying you are denying physics..

I have never denied physics in this thread. Get over it.

so then why do you keep saying that nixon was president for apollo 11-17??

you say it like since nixon was president that it is absolutely impossible for man to reach the moon.. am i misinterpreting what you are saying??

perhaps you should get over the fact that nixon was president of the USA during apollo 11-17.. because it is not evidence that it is impossible for man to land on the moon during the apollo era.

so will you or will you not provide the evidence that it is 100% impossible for man to have reached the moon back in 68-72??

choos, you haven't figured out my strategy? I don't need to prove anything to you 100%. All I need to do is chip away at the mythology of Apollo until the columns collapse and the temple of Apollo worship will fall apart under it's own weight.

Speaking of weight, your Apollo boys dumped the Hasselblad cameras on the surface of the "moon" because they were too heavy to bring back to Earth. That's the official story. How heavy were the cameras, choos? Not so heavy that Ed Mitchell couldn't sneak one back to earth, am I right? And NASA went spastic when they found out Mitchell was trying to sell that camera. What has NASA got to hide with the cameras, choos?

These Hasselblad cameras are the same cameras which had reseau pattern plates in them. These the same 'fiducials' that even now Arizona State University is busy photoshopping. It's another pillar of Apollo that has been kicked over and crushed into tiny bits. Yet, you will defend photoshopping Apollo images, because you are an Apollo Defender. You require 100% proof well there is your proof, image manipulations by NASA/ASU.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


And all you've done is speculate and insinuate. And thrown fake magazine covers around. You haven't "chipped away" anything. There is zero evidence for your claims, other than movies Nixon watched.

SayonaraJupiter

choos

SayonaraJupiter

by saying that nixon was president during apollo 11-17 is basically saying you are denying physics..

I have never denied physics in this thread. Get over it.

so then why do you keep saying that nixon was president for apollo 11-17??

you say it like since nixon was president that it is absolutely impossible for man to reach the moon.. am i misinterpreting what you are saying??

perhaps you should get over the fact that nixon was president of the USA during apollo 11-17.. because it is not evidence that it is impossible for man to land on the moon during the apollo era.

so will you or will you not provide the evidence that it is 100% impossible for man to have reached the moon back in 68-72??

choos, you haven't figured out my strategy? I don't need to prove anything to you 100%. All I need to do is chip away at the mythology of Apollo until the columns collapse and the temple of Apollo worship will fall apart under it's own weight.

Speaking of weight, your Apollo boys dumped the Hasselblad cameras on the surface of the "moon" because they were too heavy to bring back to Earth. That's the official story. How heavy were the cameras, choos? Not so heavy that Ed Mitchell couldn't sneak one back to earth, am I right? And NASA went spastic when they found out Mitchell was trying to sell that camera. What has NASA got to hide with the cameras, choos?

These Hasselblad cameras are the same cameras which had reseau pattern plates in them. These the same 'fiducials' that even now Arizona State University is busy photoshopping. It's another pillar of Apollo that has been kicked over and crushed into tiny bits. Yet, you will defend photoshopping Apollo images, because you are an Apollo Defender. You require 100% proof well there is your proof, image manipulations by NASA/ASU.

If you want to write science fiction your in the wrong thread and your doing it again your debate tactics are poor. So what was on the cameras that they decided not to bring them back since they took the film? As far as chipping away thats laughable you havnt even scratched the paint to chip away you have to show people evidence to support your claims otherwise they are meaningless.

SayonaraJupiter
choos, you haven't figured out my strategy?

Your "strategy" seems to be posting vast quantities of made up silly stories, not based on anything factual.

SayonaraJupiter
...Speaking of weight, your Apollo boys dumped the Hasselblad cameras on the surface of the "moon" because they were too heavy to bring back to Earth. That's the official story. How heavy were the cameras, choos? Not so heavy that Ed Mitchell couldn't sneak one back to earth, am I right? And NASA went spastic when they found out Mitchell was trying to sell that camera. What has NASA got to hide with the cameras, choos?...

First of all, the camera wasn't Edgar Mitchell's to sell. That may be the issue there. I don't think NASA should set precedent by allowing astronauts to sell NASA-owned hardware.

Second, every pound of hardware tossed overboard allows for more rocks and dust to be more safely taken back. Sure -- the amount of weight wasn't so perfectly figured that Edgar Mitchell could not possibly bring back a camera. The added weight of the stowed-away camera simply meant an extra bit of fuel needed to be burned on ascent. For the most part, it doesn't really matter. However, as safety protocol goes, the less weight, the better, and if they wanted to be within written safety margins, they needed to dump "X" pounds of hardware to bring back "Y" pounds of rocks and still be within safety protocols.

Does being heavier mean doom for the astronauts? No, but there is a certain weight protocol that is supposed to be met by the flight rules. And the flight rules stated that certain items (cameras, the astronaut's spacesuit backpacks, human waste, etc) be left on the moon to save weight. It seems like an obvious thing to do to reduce weight/save fuel.

These Hasselblad cameras are the same cameras which had reseau pattern plates in them. These the same 'fiducials' that even now Arizona State University is busy photoshopping. It's another pillar of Apollo that has been kicked over and crushed into tiny bits. Yet, you will defend photoshopping Apollo images, because you are an Apollo Defender. You require 100% proof well there is your proof, image manipulations by NASA/ASU.

I'm not sure I ever understood your issue with the cross-hatching. So what if the cameras had reseau plates that produced images with crosshairs? How is that evidence of a hoax?

And so what if they are producing images with the crosshairs being photoshopped out? I think there is probably a demand for people wanting Moon image artwork with the cross-hairs cleaned up.

onebigmonkey
Please can anyone claiming they used wires to hoist astronauts identify:

1) the harnesses
2) the wires
3) the guys operating the pulleys that moved the wires and harness
4) How they edited this out of the continuous footage of lunar EVA's, especially the live broadcasts.

As a helpful aid, here are photographs of an astronaut in the harness they used to actually help them train:

edit on 20-10-2013 by onebigmonkey because: plural

They edited the wires, etc. first, and simply said it was live footage being shown to us.

You've assumed it was live footage, so editing out wires, etc. would be impossible. We'd find evidence of any such wires, etc. in the footage, but we don't.

You assume we landed men on the moon. You assume these men filmed it, too. Assume the footage was also beamed back to Earth. Assume that we watched it all unfold in real time, on our TV sets.

No go.