Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: cestrup

That film is of very poor quality. So much so, that it's hard for me to determine much.

Cestrup, Don't waste your time arguing about a youtube video with an Apollo Defender. They are having a laugh on you, they are taking the piss.

Every Apollo Defender knows that this youtube video consists of non-original video copies and are non-admissable evidence that would be thrown out of any debate, public hearing or grand jury proceeding.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

Well please explain this using your best physics!!!!

Why doesn't WMD post the best evidence, perhaps a video served off a .gov server??

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Well there is a choice. You can have .rm (which I don't have a player for so can't check) or .mpg.

Here's the direct link to the latter: www.hq.nasa.gov...


What about all the home-brew photo montages that you love to post on here? Those are perfectly OK, I suppose? Or the photos of Nixon, Kubrick et al that you post with no attribution at all?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: cestrup

That film is of very poor quality. So much so, that it's hard for me to determine much.

Cestrup, Don't waste your time arguing about a youtube video with an Apollo Defender. They are having a laugh on you, they are taking the piss.

Every Apollo Defender knows that this youtube video consists of non-original video copies and are non-admissable evidence that would be thrown out of any debate, public hearing or grand jury proceeding.

Wow lots of glittering generalities but absolutely no attempt to answer any questions. Looks like the witness is in contempt of court.

originally posted by: cestrup
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

I believe you raise an interesting point about the "400k Fallacy". I work for a large corporation but I hardly know the inner-workings of the stock holders or those at the top with the mahogany offices. That doesn't stop me from being an expert of the product I sell, because I am - but if they were to pull off some type of sham, I could easily be fooled and I'd probably sell the idea as I'm told to (unknowing that I'm being deceitful to my customer base).

I see your point and I completely agree with it because I have seen exactly the same phenomenon in my active military and corporate experience. Layers of contractors, full time employees, managers, directors, officers, executive officers and beyond them is the board of directors and beyond THAT is the Chairman. In the mafia the chairman is the Godfather....

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Wow lots of glittering generalities but absolutely no attempt to answer any questions. Looks like the witness is in contempt of court.

Where are the Apollo Defenders who will defend this youtube video? Are you going to step up to the plate OBM? Would you use this crappy youtube video as your best evidence?

Are you going to respond to the Apollo Defender who submitted the crappy youtube video?? Hint: it was one of your own, WMD.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: cestrup
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

I believe you raise an interesting point about the "400k Fallacy". I work for a large corporation but I hardly know the inner-workings of the stock holders or those at the top with the mahogany offices. That doesn't stop me from being an expert of the product I sell, because I am - but if they were to pull off some type of sham, I could easily be fooled and I'd probably sell the idea as I'm told to (unknowing that I'm being deceitful to my customer base).

I see your point and I completely agree with it because I have seen exactly the same phenomenon in my active military and corporate experience. Layers of contractors, full time employees, managers, directors, officers, executive officers and beyond them is the board of directors and beyond THAT is the Chairman. In the mafia the chairman is the Godfather....

No the chairman is Frank Sinatra AKA Chairman of the board just so you know Sammy Davis was chairman of bad attitude.. So Frank was in on this Apollo hoax thing figured he was to busy chasing women go figure. Is there anyone else involved like Don Knotts i always thought he looked suspicious back then.I know he hung out in vegas alot along with the Chairman and of course we all know howard Hughes was there so there you go they had to be in on it.See if it werent for you we wouldnt have know Frank was a liar also heard he was rich you know like that sheppard guy that must mean he did something right?

See im getting good at making vague generalities been watching you for like 200 pgs.

Where are the Apollo Defenders who will defend this youtube video? Are you going to step up to the plate OBM? Would you use this crappy youtube video as your best evidence?

No need. I already posted a link to the same video, on the nasa.gov server, as requested.

Now, perhaps you could provide an original reputable source for this image:



Or this one:



If I might borrow your words, SayonaraJupiter knows that these images consist of non-original photographs combined with rather poor graphic design, and are non-admissable evidence that would be thrown out of any debate, public hearing or grand jury proceeding.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Wow lots of glittering generalities but absolutely no attempt to answer any questions. Looks like the witness is in contempt of court.

Where are the Apollo Defenders who will defend this youtube video? Are you going to step up to the plate OBM? Would you use this crappy youtube video as your best evidence?

Are you going to respond to the Apollo Defender who submitted the crappy youtube video?? Hint: it was one of your own, WMD.

are you going to step upto the plate and prove apollo was a hoax or not??? im not going to hold my breath because you cant even decide whether or not Nixon being president was instrumental in the hoax..


to date, you have not provided a single piece of evidence that it was a hoax. the only thing you have been doing is to troll these topics and derail them with your nixon infatuation..

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Wow lots of glittering generalities but absolutely no attempt to answer any questions. Looks like the witness is in contempt of court.

Where are the Apollo Defenders who will defend this youtube video? Are you going to step up to the plate OBM? Would you use this crappy youtube video as your best evidence?

Are you going to respond to the Apollo Defender who submitted the crappy youtube video?? Hint: it was one of your own, WMD.

Why? Because you said so?

Why not go find a better source for it, maybe on one of the many DVDs there are available for purchase? Seems to me that a better quality video would prove your point much more than it would prove mine, so off you trot and find one.

If you can't be bothered to do that, why not try and answer some of the many questions you've been asked instead of your feeble transfer techniques?

a reply to: onebigmonkey

I already gave him a direct link to the MPG video hosted on nasa.gov, as requested, but I think he was too busy posting his picture detailing 1970s movie parties, and didn't notice.

a reply to: Rob48

What are your complaints with Kaysing? Of course, this is directed towards those whom believe in the Apollo missions. Do you guys think he was trying to make money by selling a lie? Or do you think he was sincere and just wrong? I ask this in confidence because I'm sure you do not agree with his views.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48

What are your complaints with Kaysing? Of course, this is directed towards those whom believe in the Apollo missions. Do you guys think he was trying to make money by selling a lie? Or do you think he was sincere and just wrong? I ask this in confidence because I'm sure you do not agree with his views.

Speaking for me, I've never really paid much attention to the "personalities" spouting the hoax claims. The claims all tend to be variations on a theme, so only the ones who distinguish themselves by, for instance, getting smacked on the jaw by an astronaut (hi Bart!) stand out from the chatter.

So I don't know much about Bill Kaysing, but I see from a quick look on the internet that he was quite a prolific author, with a kind of anti-government, off-the-grid kind of mentality even before he picked up the Apollo baton.

My guess to his motivation: book sales. Maybe he figured out he couldn't "Eat Well on a Dollar a Day" after all!

Whether or not he honestly believed the stuff, I couldn't say. I have never read any of his books. Plenty of people manage to convince themselves of all sorts of things. But promoting a lie for 30 years like he seems to have done, in the face of all the evidence, surely requires either deliberate dishonesty, or a total lack of intellectual rigour. Once you've written a book based on the hoax theory, publicly accepting the truth kills your cash cow, so...

Personally I think he was a fraud trying to make money.

He exaggerated his qualifications, expertise and access to NASA. He was undoubtedly present in key areas at some points, but he had very little to do with anything important. None of his claims had any kind of scientific, engineering, or even logical support but that didn't stop him peddling them for decades trying to make money from people who did even less research than he did.

He died poor and respected only by people with too much tinfoil on their hands.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
people with too much tinfoil on their hands.

Hands?

U r doing it wrong!

a reply to: Rob48

Now, perhaps you could provide an original reputable source for this image:

You guys love that reflector-deflector technique!

My images are informational illustrations and I do not claim that anonymous astro-actors snapped my pictures in cis-lunar space or on the moon. Therefore, my images are non-controversial and non-debatable.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: Rob48

Now, perhaps you could provide an original reputable source for this image:

You guys love that reflector-deflector technique!

My images are informational illustrations and I do not claim that anonymous astro-actors snapped my pictures in cis-lunar space or on the moon. Therefore, my images are non-controversial and non-debatable.

Translation: the rules do not apply to me, only to people who disagree with me. Pretty standard.

a reply to: dragonridr
I like where you are going with this Dragon! But...

Frank Sinatra was not the real Chairman, that was Hughes. Hughes owned 6 hotel/casinos in Las Vegas, what did Sinatra own? Hughes owned Hughes Aircraft which built the Surveyors. What did Sinatra own? Hughes owned Hughes Airwest airlines. What did Sinatra own? So Sinatra is basically an imposter... Sinatra doesn't reach the level of Chairman or Godfather.

Sinatra proved he was not the Chairman when he 'rented' Howard Hughes top floor suites at the Brittania Beach Hotel after Hughes escaped to Nicaragua in early 1972.... which brings us right back the time frame of Watergate and the time frame of Apollo 16 mission and the Clifford Irving Hoax.

Here is Hughes with Ava in NYC in 1946, a mere 63 days after his incredible XF-11 crash in Beverly Hills.


Sinatra is always getting sloppy seconds after Howard Hughes... lol. Ava Gardner included!

Gardner's third and last marriage was to singer and actor Frank Sinatra, from 1951 to 1957

originally posted by: Rob48
Translation: the rules do not apply to me, only to people who disagree with me. Pretty standard.

Illustrations are not controversial. NASA's Apollo 12 70mm images are controversial.

Why don't you work on finding out who the photographer was for all those Apollo 12 images?

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.

I'm sure if all the Apollo Defenders got together and worked on it for about 10 years you could attribute a small percentage of those images to 1 of the 3 astronauts. Here's an easy one. Which astronaut took the pictures?


I say it was a Howard Hughes Mobot robot-arm installed with a camera mount, inside an unmanned command module. Prove me wrong using the Apollo 12 70mm catalog.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Why not go find a better source for it, maybe on one of the many DVDs there are available for purchase? Seems to me that a better quality video would prove your point much more than it would prove mine, so off you trot and find one.

So your Defender buddy posted a ridiculous, blurry youtube video and you did not offer a defense for it. I think this proves that the youtube he posted is non-admissable as evidence.

I think the Defenders really need to understand the rules of evidence... because I think those rules will help your argument but only if you observe those rules! You can't just put up blurry youtubes and expect those be taken seriously by the Apollo Reviewers.

However, I will stipulate, that youtubes have some good uses, for example, documentary, narration, interviews with expert witnesses, oral histories, etc. Analyzing blurry pixels in a youtube video is not one of those good uses.