Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

That House report was critical, and rightly so, but it didn't stop Surveyor probes landing on the moon starting a few months after that newspaper article and it didn't stop Apollo 12 popping over to visit one of them. I have some actual eyewitness testimony of that.

So if you have actual eyewitness testimony you must be either Alan Bean or Dick Gordon because Pete Conrad has passed away. Right? That's what eyewitness testimony means. Are you Apollo Defenders now so desperate that you are impersonating astronauts on conspiracy message boards?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


i dispute the provenance of those news article..

is there any reason why one so called legitimate article dated feb 14, 1966 has been edited with the words ($5.5 billion in 2013) and never mentioned that it has been added??

also is there any reason why these cut and paste jobs are hosted on ATS? if you want to prove the credibility of these news articles you will need to do better than ATS.

it is common courtesy to link directly to news articles from their respective sites instead of cut and paste and even edit content, so that EVERYBODY has access to the articles to review it.

If we actually went to the moon back in the sixties, why haven't the USA or any other country went back there yet? So what if you really did not find anything the first time, keep searching the moon till you do find something. Or better yet, you might find some precious, rare metals,minerals or gems on the moon, if you mine for it. I really don't think that we went to the moon and I really feel that we can't leave our atmosphere. If we could actually leave our atmosphere and go to some other planet, don't you think that we would have done it after all these years and all this new technology that we have? Nasa says that they want to go back to the moon in about ten years. If you made it to the moon the first time fifty years ago, why wait ten more years? It all sounds like a bunch of government crap to me!

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

That House report was critical, and rightly so, but it didn't stop Surveyor probes landing on the moon starting a few months after that newspaper article and it didn't stop Apollo 12 popping over to visit one of them. I have some actual eyewitness testimony of that.

So if you have actual eyewitness testimony you must be either Alan Bean or Dick Gordon because Pete Conrad has passed away. Right? That's what eyewitness testimony means. Are you Apollo Defenders now so desperate that you are impersonating astronauts on conspiracy message boards?

Name-calling and glittering generalities.



You will notice I do not say that I am an eyewitness, it is quite clear what I mean, and you are using blatant propaganda techniques to avoid serious discussion and answering questions.

UndercoverJoe
If we actually went to the moon back in the sixties, why haven't the USA or any other country went back there yet? So what if you really did not find anything the first time, keep searching the moon till you do find something. Or better yet, you might find some precious, rare metals,minerals or gems on the moon, if you mine for it. I really don't think that we went to the moon and I really feel that we can't leave our atmosphere. If we could actually leave our atmosphere and go to some other planet, don't you think that we would have done it after all these years and all this new technology that we have? Nasa says that they want to go back to the moon in about ten years. If you made it to the moon the first time fifty years ago, why wait ten more years? It all sounds like a bunch of government crap to me!

china is making progress towards landing man on the moon..

also there have been satellites studying the moons composition for a long time.. who invests in manned mining sites without knowing the composition of whats beneath the surface?
we dont even do that on earth and you want them to do that on the moon??? rare metals minerals or gems all will occur beneath the surface, rarely will it ever be sitting on the surface. human surface exploration of the moon to find minerals is not efficient and not cost effective at all.

and what do you suppose is stopping man from leaving the atmosphere??

and by the sounds of it, to you money is no object so why dont you fund some manned mars/lunar missions?

choos
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

i dispute the provenance of those news article..

is there any reason why one so called legitimate article dated feb 14, 1966 has been edited with the words ($5.5 billion in 2013) and never mentioned that it has been added??

also is there any reason why these cut and paste jobs are hosted on ATS? if you want to prove the credibility of these news articles you will need to do better than ATS.

it is common courtesy to link directly to news articles from their respective sites instead of cut and paste and even edit content, so that EVERYBODY has access to the articles to review it.

choos, can you please explain why you are objecting to my illustrations but you haven't objected to OBMonkey's illustrations. Fair is fair, choos.

I gave the Apollo Defenders a question that they could not answer: Who took picture AS12-50-7362?

The Bonus Question was: Given that 2 out of the 5 windows in the Apollo 12 command module were fouled, I asked: What window, what pristine, clean window, in the Apollo 12 command module was used to capture the image in AS12-50-7362?

Here is the answer that I expect from Apollo Defenders with regard to the AS12-50-7362 problem.
1. The name of the Apollo 12 astronaut who captured that image.
2. The window from which the astronaut did use to capture his image.

Frankly, choos, the failure of the Apollo Defender "team" to answer these 2 simple questions is a dead giveaway and a red flag.


This matter is settled as far as I am concerned the image AS12-50-7362 was captured by a robotic arm equipped with a Hasselblad camera attachment. And there are no images of Conrad, Gordon or Bean in any of the images captured in Magazine Q.

Your side has decided to gamble it all on the 7362 picture but you all lost that bet. Your stack of chips are now in the hands of the dealer. And I don't think the casino management (Howard Hughes) is going to lend you any more credit tonight.

UndercoverJoe
If we actually went to the moon back in the sixties, why haven't the USA or any other country went back there yet? So what if you really did not find anything the first time, keep searching the moon till you do find something. Or better yet, you might find some precious, rare metals,minerals or gems on the moon, if you mine for it. I really don't think that we went to the moon and I really feel that we can't leave our atmosphere. If we could actually leave our atmosphere and go to some other planet, don't you think that we would have done it after all these years and all this new technology that we have? Nasa says that they want to go back to the moon in about ten years. If you made it to the moon the first time fifty years ago, why wait ten more years? It all sounds like a bunch of government crap to me!

Hello UndercoverJoe, you asked 2 questions,

Question 1. If we actually went to the moon back in the sixties, why haven't the USA or any other country went back there yet?

Answer: Because NASA is hiding the fact that they did not land on the moon 6 times between 1969-1972.

Question 2. If we could actually leave our atmosphere and go to some other planet, don't you think that we would have done it after all these years and all this new technology that we have?

Answer: This is a complex question because you are supposing several things here. The last soft landing lunar mission was a Soviet sample return mission in 1975, with Luna 24. No country has soft landed on the lunar surface since 1975. Source en.wikipedia.org...

Howard Hughes died in April 1976. Since the death of Howard Hughes there have been 0 moon landings (by any country) and lunar explorations did not resume by any country until January 1990, with the Japanese Hiten flyby/orbiter.

SayonaraJupiter

choos, can you please explain why you are objecting to my illustrations but you haven't objected to OBMonkey's illustrations. Fair is fair, choos.

I gave the Apollo Defenders a question that they could not answer: Who took picture AS12-50-7362?

The Bonus Question was: Given that 2 out of the 5 windows in the Apollo 12 command module were fouled, I asked: What window, what pristine, clean window, in the Apollo 12 command module was used to capture the image in AS12-50-7362?

Here is the answer that I expect from Apollo Defenders with regard to the AS12-50-7362 problem.
1. The name of the Apollo 12 astronaut who captured that image.
2. The window from which the astronaut did use to capture his image.

Frankly, choos, the failure of the Apollo Defender "team" to answer these 2 simple questions is a dead giveaway and a red flag.

This matter is settled as far as I am concerned the image AS12-50-7362 was captured by a robotic arm equipped with a Hasselblad camera attachment. And there are no images of Conrad, Gordon or Bean in any of the images captured in Magazine Q.

Your side has decided to gamble it all on the 7362 picture but you all lost that bet. Your stack of chips are now in the hands of the dealer. And I don't think the casino management (Howard Hughes) is going to lend you any more credit tonight.

i think you know full well why and why i specifically chose such wording.. but incase you dont, and since you are complaining about fair is fair..
why is it that you object to the provenance of OBMonkeys post here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

yet can continually make contradictory posts to your own objections such as this:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

it cant be that you have no refutation that you have to resort to petty remarks right??

also what importance is it of who took the photo??
lets say for example, who took the picture of Richard Nixon in all the photos of him you post?? if you cant show us who took the photos will it prove Richard Nixon was a hoax?

also what would you do if there was one clean window?
you seem to be stacking your cards on this one magazine and no others, why do you assume that there was not one single clean window? what would happen to your argument should there be one clean window? will you have to retract all your speculation?

also why do you keep saying pictures were taken by robots?? can you tell us how NASA can hide the launches?? can you find a way that NASA can hide the robots which will be in clear view to everyone involved in construction?? what happens if you cannot? will you try to transfer and evade? perhaps you can use the time machine argument?

and why are you saying we are card-stacking and betting it all on one photo when there are hundreds of photos that can prove we went to the moon?? it seems that you are the one betting it on one photo/magazine with ridiculous claims and not to mention no substance to back it up..

SayonaraJupiter

choos, can you please explain why you are objecting to my illustrations but you haven't objected to OBMonkey's illustrations. Fair is fair, choos.

Can you answer the question?

I gave the Apollo Defenders a question that they could not answer: Who took picture AS12-50-7362?

You'vew been given lots of questions. Where are the answers?

The Bonus Question was: Given that 2 out of the 5 windows in the Apollo 12 command module were fouled, I asked: What window, what pristine, clean window, in the Apollo 12 command module was used to capture the image in AS12-50-7362?

One of the other three, or even one of the LEM windows.

Here is the answer that I expect from Apollo Defenders with regard to the AS12-50-7362 problem.
1. The name of the Apollo 12 astronaut who captured that image.

Either Alan Bean, DIck Gordon or Pete Conrad. They were all there, there are photographs of them on other magazines.

2. The window from which the astronaut did use to capture his image.

One of the 3 clean windows.

Frankly, choos, the failure of the Apollo Defender "team" to answer these 2 simple questions is a dead giveaway and a red flag.

Frankly, your tactic of picking on one image and trying to dictate the terms of the debate is a transparent propaganda technique.

This matter is settled as far as I am concerned the image AS12-50-7362 was captured by a robotic arm equipped with a Hasselblad camera attachment.

The matter is settled as far as I am concerned: the photograph was taken by a human being on cislunar space.

And there are no images of Conrad, Gordon or Bean in any of the images captured in Magazine Q.

Why should there be? I've taken whole cards full of photos on holiday with no people in them. The photography program for each Apollo mission was laid out well in advance. They did not have an endless suypply of magazines. They did not have too much spare capacity for wasting pictures on tourist snaps.

Your side has decided to gamble it all on the 7362 picture but you all lost that bet.

On the contrary. I posted that one example as an image of two things - it could only have been taken in space and it could only have been taken at a specific point in time. You have accepted that. You gambled your credibility by claiming there were no people in the whole magazine of photos, then when one was found you started making up nonsense about robots that just makes your whole theory even more ridiculous.

I can post many many many more examples of photographs and video stills of Earth that can only have been taken in space and on a specific date and time, all backed up by mission transcripts. I cna post pictures of details on the lunar surface that could only have been taken there because they show details no-one knew about. Hell I can even post pictures of stars.

Your stack of chips are now in the hands of the dealer. And I don't think the casino management (Howard Hughes) is going to lend you any more credit tonight.

The dealer's bankrupt.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

Either Alan Bean, DIck Gordon or Pete Conrad. They were all there, there are photographs of them on other magazines.

Why don't you show us or link to one single image of a recognizable face (Conrad, Bean or Gordon) in any of these magazines Apollo 12 70mm magazines. www.lpi.usra.edu...

The Apollo 12 mission carried seven 70MM cameras. Three individual cameras and a block of four cameras that made up the Lunar Multispectral Experiment. There were a total of 1725 exposures made with 3-4 images produced for each of the 142 exposures on the multispectral experiment. The number of images on 14 magazines of film was; 1438 images on black & white film, 571 on color film, and 104 on infrared film.

It says that the Apollo 12 crew were equipped with 7 (seven) 70mm Hasselblad cameras. Wow! That's a lot of cameras! That's 2.33 Hasselblads per astronaut.

Why don't you start looking at those 14 magazines real close again. There are no faces because it's a "moon" set, those are actors on the set, and Conrad, Bean never walked on the surface of the real moon.

I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. I scanned through all those magazines just a few minutes ago. Perhaps I missed something that you can see?

OBMonkey, Why don't we pool our resources together? Will you help this thread (and me) to find a human faces in any of the Apollo 12 Hasselblad magazines, of which there were allegedly 14 magazines?

onebigmonkey

Your stack of chips are now in the hands of the dealer. And I don't think the casino management (Howard Hughes) is going to lend you any more credit tonight.

The dealer's bankrupt.

OBMonkey, although we are adversaries in this thread I have to admit that your sense of humor is top notch. Kinda like that notch between Pete Conrad's two front teeth.

No, the dealer is never going bankrupt because there is a steady stream of suckers who are lined up to play the game. The dealer maintains the ability to cover any bet.

But it does appear that the Apollo 12 Hasselblad magazines are bankrupt of human faces. How much are you willing to bet on the Apollo 12 magazines? Are you gonna go "all in"?

reply to post by choos

and why are you saying we are card-stacking and betting it all on one photo when there are hundreds of photos that can prove we went to the moon?? it seems that you are the one betting it on one photo/magazine with ridiculous claims and not to mention no substance to back it up..

I'm calling your bluff choos. You show me one human face in the 14 magazines of Apollo 12 images.

At this very moment... I am calling every loan shark I know... so that I can double down on this hand.

If you would like to FOLD on this hand then I get your chips on this and we can start another hand. How's that?

SayonaraJupiter

I'm calling your bluff choos. You show me one human face in the 14 magazines of Apollo 12 images.

At this very moment... I am calling every loan shark I know... so that I can double down on this hand.

If you would like to FOLD on this hand then I get your chips on this and we can start another hand. How's that?

can you prove that a mobot took the photo?? i want you to show me one piece of robotic equipment in any of the photos..

it cant just be merely speculation right?

oh wait i forgot it had its cloaking device on.

META The poker analogy works good in an Apollo thread, does it not?

I know this sounds like a crazy idea, but I think we could apply the principles of poker to each and every object of dispute in the Apollo program.

Obviously, NASA is the "House", they are the casino, they are the dealers of the cards, the deck is stacked by NASA and there are suckers lined up to play a hand at "Apollo Poker".

choos

SayonaraJupiter

I'm calling your bluff choos. You show me one human face in the 14 magazines of Apollo 12 images.

At this very moment... I am calling every loan shark I know... so that I can double down on this hand.

If you would like to FOLD on this hand then I get your chips on this and we can start another hand. How's that?

can you prove that a mobot took the photo?? i want you to show me one piece of robotic equipment in any of the photos..

it cant just be merely speculation right?

oh wait i forgot it had its cloaking device on.

choos, If you don't have good cards at the deal it would be a good idea for you to FOLD. The mobot theory is like having 4 Aces.

Ace of Clubs. There are no human faces in the 14 magazines of Apollo 12 pictures in the 70mm catalogue. www.lpi.usra.edu...


Ace of Diamonds. Howard Hughes was testing *Top Secret* US Army navigation computers in 1938 he says that robot control "did most of the flying."



Ace of Hearts. Howard Hughes made "Hell's Angels" in 1930, a film that Stanley Kubrick listed in his top ten; it was a silent film at first, converted to a talkie, en.wikipedia.org...'s_Angels_(film)

Ace of Spades. Hughes is building Mobots and Surveyor spacecraft at the same time. There is also a mention of 3 Surveyor "test flights" and that means there were not 7 Surveyors, but TEN.

SayonaraJupiter

choos, If you don't have good cards at the deal it would be a good idea for you to FOLD. The mobot theory is like having 4 Aces.

Ace of Clubs. There are no human faces in the 14 magazines of Apollo 12 pictures in the 70mm catalogue. www.lpi.usra.edu...


Ace of Diamonds. Howard Hughes was testing *Top Secret* US Army navigation computers in 1938 he says that robot control "did most of the flying."


Ace of Hearts. Howard Hughes made "Hell's Angels" in 1930, a film that Stanley Kubrick listed in his top ten; it was a silent film at first, converted to a talkie, en.wikipedia.org...'s_Angels_(film)

Ace of Spades. Hughes is building Mobots and Surveyor spacecraft at the same time. There is also a mention of 3 Surveyor "test flights" and that means there were not 7 Surveyors, but TEN.

you really think the mobot is a good "hand"???

how did they hide it during construction of the command module and construction of the saturn V?? you realise how many people are involved with its construction? cloaking device??

and not to mention that your mission plan for the mobots was to expect the FIRST launch to be scheduled in 1973. time machine??

you are bluffing.

reply to post by choos

you are bluffing.

I'm all in. I've got 4 aces. Let's see your cards.
Do you have a straight flush?

SayonaraJupiter

I'm all in. I've got 4 aces. Let's see your cards.
Do you have a straight flush?

edit on 11/21/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: to add

straight flush???? i have a royal flush..

and ive had the cards face up the entire time.. you just refuse to acknowledge it..

how did they hide the mobot inside the command module during construction of both the command module and the saturn V??????????????????????????? cloaking device??

and by your own "evidence" of the mobot, how did they publish in 1969 after apollo 11, a plan for first launch in 1973 when they were supposed to launch prior to each apollo mission????????????????? time machine??

choos

SayonaraJupiter

I'm all in. I've got 4 aces. Let's see your cards.
Do you have a straight flush?

edit on 11/21/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: to add

straight flush???? i have a royal flush..

and ive had the cards face up the entire time.. you just refuse to acknowledge it..

Yeah, speaking of face cards, I'm waiting for you to show those face cards in the Apollo 12 magazines. How can you have a royal flush when I already showed all 4 aces?

how did they hide the mobot inside the command module during construction of both the command module and the saturn V??????????????????????????? cloaking device??

and by your own "evidence" of the mobot, how did they publish in 1969 after apollo 11, a plan for first launch in 1973 when they were supposed to launch prior to each apollo mission????????????????? time machine??

Referencing back to that report which I am too busy to link again... do you remember the references? There were 5 of 9 references that were published before Apollo 8 so that means over 50% of that October 1969 report was written years earlier.

And I also said that it's not required to fit the entire 2000lb mobot into the capsule, just the arm, fitted with a Hasselblad mount, fitted with a remote controls for camera adjustments, fitted with remote controls for snapping pictures.

It's really simple: The Apollo 12 capsule in cislunar space was not crewed with human astronauts!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


So the arm had some kind of super advanced power supply powering it? Power supplies, even for small robots were huge in the 60s.