Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

I don't think the public were bored of Apollo and I do not think that the news media were truly inattentive.

Unfortunately for you what you think and what actually occurred are two different things. Google Apollo mission headlines for each mission in turn. See how many hits you get after Apollo 11. It spikes with 13, but then what?

Oh, and in case you hadn't noticed no-one is arguing against the idea that Nixon cancelled Apollo. What is being argued here is your erroneous mistaking of coincidence with causality. Apollo was not cancelled in 1972, it was cancelled long before that - 1972 just happened to be the last lunar Apollo mission.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: Imagewerx

As did the media's attention.By this time any mention of them at all was pushed right to the end of news bulletins in an 'And finally.....' snippet at the end-if we were lucky.

What else could have overshadowed the last two Apollo missions? It was a busy year for Richard Nixon and other important news stories.

I have no idea as I was only 12 at the time,but I remember asking my dad why the moon news wasn't on the news programs any more.His answer was something along the lines of 'They don't consider it news any more because every moon landing looks the same'.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

In your wordpress link it stated "500 other protesters went to the Kennedy Space Center at the time of the Apollo 11 launch to call attention to the plight of the poor of the United States."

In your link from FEB 1971 "200 black protesters from Daytona Beach" and the "March Against Moon Rocks".

Based on your argument, so far, it is clear that SCLC protest activities decreased by 60% in the 20 months Apollo 11 to 14.

It was not unusual for the SCLC to be "blasting Nixon" at any time during his presidency. The SCLC were constantly hounding him about issues of poverty, criticising statements against his policies and they were mobilized against his election campaigns.

Here is a bit about the SCLC, since you brought up the subject of it, I think it is only right to show the readers of the thread that the SCLC was not an anti-NASA anti-space anti-Apollo organization. The SCLC did not specifically target Apollo - their target was awareness of the poverty situation. en.wikipedia.org...

Another thing the readers might like to know about the SCLC, since you brought it up, is that it was Dr. Martin Luther King's organization. The leaders who inherited the SCLC after King was assassinated were merely carrying on the campaign that was begun by King.

In 1968, SCLC planned a Poor People's Campaign to be held in Washington, D.C. The goal of the campaign was to unite
poor people from all races, ethnic groups, and regions to dramatize their plight and to seek redress. Dr. King interrupted his
schedule to go to Memphis in support of striking sanitation workers. James Lawson of Memphis had requested that Dr. King
lend his voice and leadership to the Memphis protest. It was to be Dr. King's final project. He was assassinated in Memphis on April 4, 1968. vi.uh.edu...

Caspar Weinberger and George Shultz shared their thoughts in this memo. Shultz signed it that he agreed with Cap. The reasons behind Richard Nixon's cancellation of Apollo.

This is the famous document which shows that the Nixon administration were looking for ways to get out! of the Apollo film business and bring NASA back down to low earth orbits.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Unfortunately for you what you think and what actually occurred are two different things.

Jupe could tell you what colour underwear Nixon was wearing on feb 12th 1973, which he then translates into 'proof they didn't land on the moon'.

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
Jupe could tell you what colour underwear Nixon was wearing on feb 12th 1973, which he then translates into 'proof they didn't land on the moon'.

There are limits to my source material. But if the Apollo Defenders still want to say that the American public were "bored" with Apollo I'd like to see some sources on that... not just references to SCLC protests at random Apollo launches.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Funny... this letter makes explicitly clear that the Apollo lunar landing programs were successful. Why did you post it? It proves you 100% wrong!

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
Jupe could tell you what colour underwear Nixon was wearing on feb 12th 1973, which he then translates into 'proof they didn't land on the moon'.

There are limits to my source material.

But if the Apollo Defenders still want to say that the American public were "bored" with Apollo I'd like to see some sources on that... not just references to SCLC protests at random Apollo launches.

You are more than capable of doing this for yourself and I have suggested a method of doing this - namely searching for newspaper headlines of the various Apollo missions and see how many you can find. As I have spent a lot of time looking for exactly those newspaper articles for both my website and for my personal collection I know what the result will be. I can't post links to things that aren't there.

You can also search for TV listings during the period to see how much coverage the missions got.

Both of those should give you more than adequate proof that there was no public appetite for Apollo once the fundamental mission goal was achieved, the only exception being the human interest drama of Apollo 13.

You can either do this and post your findings, do this and avoid posting them because they kind of mess up your claim, or you can not bother. Your call.

You can even do some other basic searching to get stuff like this:

www.theatlantic.com...

www.academia.edu...

Just admit you were wrong and move on.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Again, you are offering us the same information regurgitated... you dressed it up with different hyper links... but it's the same.

1. The SCLC protesters, you keep offering this as "evidence" of public dissatisfaction with the space program spending. I agree - it is evidence of that. However, the SCLC were not involved in the space policy decisions for Richard Nixon, in August of 1971.

2. Again, you offered Roger D. Launius ... is he the best source you have??? One guy who worked at the Smithsonian? These are his conclusions: this is from your own source btw www.academia.edu...



3. The new guy who wrote a book way back in 1964 that doesn't say anything about Richard Nixon's decision. That's not going to fool anybody.

Perhaps the most comprehensive attempt to lay out the case against the space program came from the sociologist Etizioni, in his now nearly impossible to find 1964 book, The Moon-doggle: Domestic and International Implications of the Space Race.

What does Etizioni's book from 1964 tell us about Richard Nixon's decisions to a) cancel Apollo b) cancel the Saturn V, and c) cancel America's ability to send human beings beyond the radiation belts? Nothing.

Look at it from my perspective. I have Chris Kraft, Bill Tindall, George Mueller, Caspar Weinberger and George Schultz - all of them are blaming Nixon and the networks...

You are trying to tell us that the SCLC or Roger Launius had anything to do with Richard Nixon's decisions to cancel Apollo and the Saturn V --- and that's a load of Christmas Reindeer Doo-doo.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Funny... this letter makes explicitly clear that the Apollo lunar landing programs were successful. Why did you post it? It proves you 100% wrong!

Even funnier... is the Apollo Defenders attitude that Richard Nixon's first term didn't play a significant role in the Apollo program. Well, Nixon DID play a significant and leading role... he cancelled Apollo and the Saturn V and then he invested in the shuttle which would keep NASA in low earth orbit for 42 years.

Wernher von Braun's dreams to utilize Apollo/Saturn hardware to get to Mars in the 1980's were squashed, by NASA administrator James Fletcher, the Mormon scientist who had connections to Hughes Aircraft, who was selected by Richard Nixon to oversee shuttle development after Apollo/Saturn was cancelled.

Remember how George Mueller put it:

You demanded evidence that public interest in Apollo declined, you were given it and have clearly either not bothered to do what I suggested or have done it and found that it proves you wrong somehow.

You have found another bogus contention to chew to death and will no doubt continue to do so no matter how many times you are proved wrong, just as you have done before.

I have not presented the same evidence, I presented different evidence showing exactly the information you seemed incapable of finding yourself. You managed to cherry pick things that you think supports your argument but ignore the stuff that doesn't, like this from the introduction of the Launius report (which I don't recall posting before, but if I did then you should really have remembered that the information you were demanding did actually exist and you knew about it):

Consistently throughout the 1960s a majority of Americans did not believe Apollo was worth the cost, with the one exception to this a poll taken at the time of the Apollo 11 lunar landing in July 1969. And consistently throughout the decade 45–60 percent of Americans believed that the government was spending too much on space, indicative of a lack of commitment to thespaceflight agenda

You can't demand supporting evidence for a claim, get presented with it and then just dismiss it because you don't like it. If you have other evidence, get up of your lazy backside and find it, stop demanding other people wipe it for you.

Here's something else you can try. Why not search ebay fpr contemporary Apollo souvenirs. Not the specialist stuff, but the sort of thing that gets produced to appeal to mass markets because business people think there's a profit in it. Compare the amount of results you get for Apollo 11 souvenirs with, say, Apollo 15 or 16. That should give you another clue as to how much people were still buying into Apollo by the end of the missions.

Once again, you seems to think people who support the Apollo programme think that it was not hamstrung and eventually cancelled by Nixon. No-one has ever said that. He also seems to think (despite how many times you have been told otherwise) that every one who supports the Apollo programme supports Nixon and everything he did, which is nonsense.

You can bet your Yankee dollar that if he thought it was still a vote winner he would have kept on backing it. The evidence out there, that you can't be bothered to find for yourself, clearly shows that it wasn't.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Public interest in the Apollo missions certainly waned by Apollo 15 or so -- there is no doubt about that.

and

The reason they stopped going was public interest in the moon landings waned. The public got bored of going to the Moon,

Well, you were making these claims that the public was bored and the public interest in moon landings waned. Are you going to post some sources on that?

Have you reviewed the source material that was posted by OBM and myself?

I don't think you can continue to push the fallacy that the American public was "bored" with moon landings. It is a f a l l a c y .

It is the same thing as the "400,000" fallacy. Apollo Defenders use these fallacies when they are practicing the techniques of propaganda.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
This really isn't difficult.

it was a camera test. They were testing the camera. They were using the lo gain antenna and the picture quality wasn't brilliant. They commented on the poor quality, including the rippling effect you mention, in the audio throughout the broadcast.

This TV image, and let's not forget that they are isolated fragments of a TV broadcast, shows the camera adjusting to changes in focus, aperture and lighting as it is moved around.

They don't say anything during the specific scene I'm referring to here. Are you referring to comments being made later in the footage, where they mention a rippling effect? If so, cite the point in the clip it's mentioned.

If the effect is mentioned, then it's likely an attempt to cover their butts - like usual.

It doesn't mean it isn't a special effect, just because they make up a lame excuse for it.

This is a rippling effect, likely using glass panes. Exactly as we see it, in the still frame.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
You might want to check the quality of your source material because I've watched my DVD of that broadcast many times and haven't seen what you've managed to reproduce. Gee, do you think poor quality rendering of a poor quality broadcast might just have something to do with it?

You just told me that they mentioned the ripple effect!

Now, you're saying the ripple effect is NOT there??

Which one is it, then?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
The TV image shows time and date specific weather patterns that could not have been known about beforehand because the satellite images weren't available.

Have a high quality Hasseblad image taken at the same time:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

The terminator is exactly where it should be for that broadcast, as has been demonstrated to you already in this thread many times.

Everything you need to explain what is in that picture has been given to you many many times but like choos' apology you somehow manage to skip over it.

Now, is this being filmed in cislunar space by your mystery spacecraft or a studio? Make your mind up.

The Earth images were taken by unmanned craft.

The images were sent back to NASA, and used as a special effect for this Apollo footage.

This Apollo craft was NOT in space, during this specific footage. It was all done in a mock craft, on Earth.

It certainly lends a sense of realism to the Apollo footage, sure.

Why do you think they spent so much of their time on it?

Images of Earth had already been taken by unmanned craft, at such distances. Apollo's footage of the distant Earth would be crappy, in comparison.

Why would they waste so much time on getting footage of Earth, then?

Just to show how small Earth appears when (ahem) they're half-way to the moon?


They are supposed to be going to the moon, but they spend hours trying to film Earth out of every little window?



Think about it, now...

a reply to: turbonium1

They are supposed to be going to the moon, but they spend hours trying to film Earth out of every little window?



Think about it, now...

It's absurd to send astronauts to take pictures of the earth when satellites were capable of doing it. This smells like a Howard Hughes publicity stunt.

originally posted by: choos

so you are going to compare a low quality video feed capture with a high quality photo?? i dont get what this proves??
you want to prove that the still frame is from a low quality video feed and the image is of much higher quality is that it?? well cant argue there..


it sure doesnt, if i lowered the quality (ie. pixels per inch) of the image i posted what do you think it would look like??

It wouldn't look like the still, for one thing.

The still has a distinct line.

I traced the line with a black pen in an earlier post.

The line matches with the Earth's 'terminator' line, in all subsequent stills.

A pane overlaps a bright white object, on the right side. A distinct line marks the edge of the overlapping pane, under which is the white object.

Also, it remains dark around the gold areas in the still. And the gold areas are confined in a circular shape.

If it was over-exposure, all 'space' would be gold, and not remain black, let alone with a gold circle shape to boot!.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: turbonium1

They are supposed to be going to the moon, but they spend hours trying to film Earth out of every little window?



Think about it, now...

It's absurd to send astronauts to take pictures of the earth when satellites were capable of doing it. This smells like a Howard Hughes publicity stunt.

It was blatantly obvious.

The best way to convince people they were really going to the moon was to film the Earth, getting smaller and smaller, out of their rear windows. And give detailed descriptions of what they saw, like a mountain range, etc.

Of course, filming Earth and describing a mountain range was much more important than identifying hazards like the VA Belts... who cares about that!!!

Apollo will be exposed as a hoax, to the world, one day.

It is inevitable.

Only how it will be exposed is still unknown.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

so you are going to compare a low quality video feed capture with a high quality photo?? i dont get what this proves??
you want to prove that the still frame is from a low quality video feed and the image is of much higher quality is that it?? well cant argue there..


it sure doesnt, if i lowered the quality (ie. pixels per inch) of the image i posted what do you think it would look like??

It wouldn't look like the still, for one thing.

The still has a distinct line.

I traced the line with a black pen in an earlier post.

The line matches with the Earth's 'terminator' line, in all subsequent stills.

A pane overlaps a bright white object, on the right side. A distinct line marks the edge of the overlapping pane, under which is the white object.

Also, it remains dark around the gold areas in the still. And the gold areas are confined in a circular shape.

If it was over-exposure, all 'space' would be gold, and not remain black, let alone with a gold circle shape to boot!.

did you miss my post about the glare??

the over-exposure is making the glare more prominent.. the gold tint you see is that glare.. hav eyou not been paying attention to the images i have been posting??? they are the same, the glare from the sun makes the darkness of space a different colour, yet further from the sun it is still black..



p.s. out of curiosity, why would the black line where the two gold panes overlap be obvious?? is that where it is thickest so the least amount of light shines through?? you believe light is shining through the two overlapping panes therefore we see a golden tint, so why is it that ONLY the line you claim to see is darker then the rest of the two overlapping panes??

let me put it this way, if i shine a light behind two pieces of over lapping paper it will be darker than shining through one piece of paper, the edge of the paper wont appear darker than the two overlapping pieces of paper.. it wont be light area to very dark line to darker area, if you get what im saying..

infact, if that is light passing through the golden panes as you claimed earlier, why is the overlapping areas NOT darker than the non overlapping areas??

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: turbonium1

They are supposed to be going to the moon, but they spend hours trying to film Earth out of every little window?



Think about it, now...

It's absurd to send astronauts to take pictures of the earth when satellites were capable of doing it. This smells like a Howard Hughes publicity stunt.

It was blatantly obvious.

The best way to convince people they were really going to the moon was to film the Earth, getting smaller and smaller, out of their rear windows. And give detailed descriptions of what they saw, like a mountain range, etc.

Of course, filming Earth and describing a mountain range was much more important than identifying hazards like the VA Belts... who cares about that!!!

the VAB were traversed in less than 2 hours.. by the time they were playing with the cameras they were well past the VAB.. so this "logical" thinking of yours doesnt make sense..

originally posted by: turbonium1


They don't say anything during the specific scene I'm referring to here. Are you referring to comments being made later in the footage, where they mention a rippling effect? If so, cite the point in the clip it's mentioned.

If the effect is mentioned, then it's likely an attempt to cover their butts - like usual.

It doesn't mean it isn't a special effect, just because they make up a lame excuse for it.

This is a rippling effect, likely using glass panes. Exactly as we see it, in the still frame.

They mention it during the broadcast. You are welcome to find it if you are so concerned about it.

You just told me that they mentioned the ripple effect!

Now, you're saying the ripple effect is NOT there??

Which one is it, then?

Not talking about the ripple there, as I'm fairly sure you know. We're talking about the allegedly gold colour.

The Earth images were taken by unmanned craft.

The images were sent back to NASA, and used as a special effect for this Apollo footage.

This Apollo craft was NOT in space, during this specific footage. It was all done in a mock craft, on Earth.

So how do you think they managed to go from live broadcast of Earth, exactly as it should have been, to astronauts in zero G?

Provide some proof of your nonsense.

It certainly lends a sense of realism to the Apollo footage, sure.

Why do you think they spent so much of their time on it?

Images of Earth had already been taken by unmanned craft, at such distances. Apollo's footage of the distant Earth would be crappy, in comparison.

How did they take photos and TV of Earth in advance of the weather features being there to photograph? Your claim makes no sense whatsoever - it's impossible without a magic time machine.

Why would they waste so much time on getting footage of Earth, then?

Just to show how small Earth appears when (ahem) they're half-way to the moon?

Yes. That is pretty much it. You are in space. There is either the moon, the blackness of space, or the Earth. Why not film Earth?

They are supposed to be going to the moon, but they spend hours trying to film Earth out of every little window?



Think about it, now...

You think it about it, just for once.

All the astronauts I have met have said the same thing: the most amazing thing about the trip to the moon was not the moon, it was Earth. I have seen other conspiracy sites whining about the fact they didn't take enough images of Earth, know you're moaning that they spent too much time showing the most spectacular thing in view? What sort of idiot would go into space and not film Earth?