Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Please provide some evidence of popular public support for Apollo all the way through the program up to Apollo 17, including the demonstrations of outrage when it was cancelled.

In your own time.

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!

You must read between the lines, DJW001

The 1971 letter says

"Recent Apollo flights have been very successful from all points of view. Most important is the fact that they give the American people a much needed lift in spirit, (and the people of the world an equally needed look at American superiority).

You know as everyone else, that the 1970 flight (Apollo 13) was not successful. So what was successful ? it was the spiritual effect on the American people and the world ! not the manned moon landings, as you seems to think. The whole point of project Apollo was psychological, not what you think, landing a man on the moon.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

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 .

im guessing you have the TV ratings to prove this claim??

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

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 .

im guessing you have the TV ratings to prove this claim??

I think you are out of order choos. I've asked Soylent to support his claim that the American public were "bored" with Apollo moon landings. Then OBM and myself posted some sources. Why don't you review the material and come to your own conclusion??

If you are trying to build a direct correlation between TV ratings and Apollo authenticity then it should be your job to post the TV ratings yourself....by the way.... Roger D. Launius of the Smithsonian Institute (in the report posted by OBM) mentions television only twice - he referenced "All In The Family" and "Sports Night" which were two American TV sitcoms And if TV ratings were sooo important to public perceptions - why didn't Roger D. Launius include TV ratings in his analysis paper???

My conclusion is that the public was NOT bored with Apollo. The idea that the public were bored is a glittering generality and a fallacy.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

But one year after he became the first man on the Moon, surveys in newspapers such as the New York Times and the Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin found that the majority of Americans could not remember his name, says Matthew Tribbe, author of No Requiem for the Space Age.
Tribbe says that changes in culture and philosophy, as well as the geopolitical landscape, throughout the 1960s left the public quickly losing interest in the Apollo moon landing and space exploration in general.

www.bbc.com...

But there were other factors that exacerbated the decline in interest. one was the
sheer strangeness of the events. unlike science fiction writers (and their readers), most
americans had little familiarity with space technology and although tV commentators
struggled mightily to convey the nuts and bolts of the apollo program, arcane concepts
like space rendezvous were, literally and figuratively, over viewers’ heads. in addition,
naSa (and for that matter,the astronauts themselves) tended to emphasize the technical
elements of the program rather than the human experiences that would have been easier
for the public to relate to.then there was lunar science, which increasingly became the
focus of both the astronauts and mission planners as the landings progressed.talk of
breccias and vesicles, of coarse-grained basalt and plagioclase feldspar was not easy for
nonscientists to follow.the cultural divide between scientists and the rest of the populace
was nothing new—it had been described a decade earlier by c.p.Snow in an essay entitled
TheTwo Cultures—but apollo seemed to throw that gap into vivid relief.15

history.nasa.gov...

During Apollo 17, television stations actually received complaints that the broadcast from Apollo was interrupting I Love Lucy.

The only time when more than half of the public believed Apollo was worth the expense came at the time of the Apollo 11 lunar landing in 1969, when Neil Armstrong took humanity's first steps on alien soil. Even then, only a lukewarm 53 percent of the public believed such a momentous historical occasion had been worth the cost.

www.space.com...

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Please provide some evidence of popular public support for Apollo all the way through the program up to Apollo 17, including the demonstrations of outrage when it was cancelled.

In your own time.

According to the Launius report the American public were described as

"not very familiar with the details",

"believe that federal money could be better spent on other programs" and

"relatively unfamiliar with its (NASA's) activities and objectives."

This describes an uninformed public, not a "bored" public. Who uninformed the public? Richard Nixon did!

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

So Richard Nixon was responsible for not informing the public from the beginning of Apollo huh. I'm continually amazed at the power people have, when they aren't even in office.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

My conclusion is that the public was NOT bored with Apollo. The idea that the public were bored is a glittering generality and a fallacy.

if you want to make that claim then you should have no problem supporting it.. TV ratings are good enough for me.. as TV ratings is a good indication on whether or not the public were still interested in the Apollo program..

ie. we shouldnt see a decline in the amount of viewers over each mission.

p.s. dont hoax believers believe that Apollo 13 was staged due to the drop in public interest??

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

That's not what I asked for.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

So you don't have the TV ratings or TV schedules that would provide a clue as to how much demand there was from the public to see Apollo on their screens?

Stop moving the goalposts.

originally posted by: choos

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??

Let's review all 4 still frames, shown to you earlier...









In the first still, I noted one pane of glass on the right side overlaps the white area, while another pane on the left side is below it, defined by an edge (the line).

It would only overlap a fraction of an inch, no more than needed. It isn't going to look darker, it only shows the edge.

You say it is space, but space has no such lines. Over-exposing space doesn't render such lines.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey


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


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

You claim they mention it, so you need to support your claim. It is not my claim, it is yours.

Either support your claim, or admit that your claim is a dud...

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
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.

Earth was the most amazing thing about the trip to the moon. So that must be why they never once filmed the Earth FROM the moon!!

That makes perfect sense to you, right?

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

My conclusion is that the public was NOT bored with Apollo. The idea that the public were bored is a glittering generality and a fallacy.

if you want to make that claim then you should have no problem supporting it.. TV ratings are good enough for me.. as TV ratings is a good indication on whether or not the public were still interested in the Apollo program..

ie. we shouldnt see a decline in the amount of viewers over each mission.

You say the public was bored with Apollo, so that was a primary reason the Apollo program was toasted.

Shuttles were much better - nobody was bored, because that program lasted for about 30 years!


Good one.

originally posted by: turbonium1

You claim they mention it, so you need to support your claim. It is not my claim, it is yours.

Either support your claim, or admit that your claim is a dud...

If you'd watched the broadcasts properly and paid attention, you' have heard it. Seeing as you obviously have no idea how to look for things on the internet:

01 06 58 07 LMP
We've got a little distortion in the horizontal direction from banding on our monitor. I wonder if they're getting the same thing?

01 06 58 27 CC
Stand by, Buzz. I'll let you know.

01 06 58 29 LMP
I guess it would be more described as a waviness.

So how about admitting your claim is a dud.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Earth was the most amazing thing about the trip to the moon. So that must be why they never once filmed the Earth FROM the moon!!

That makes perfect sense to you, right?

Never once?

Really?

Apollo 16:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

A still from the LRV camera taken after Apollo 16 returned to orbit:

www.honeysucklecreek.net...

Apollo 17:

www.hq.nasa.gov...





www.hq.nasa.gov...

Do you enjoy shooting yourself in the foot?

originally posted by: turbonium1

Let's review all 4 still frames, shown to you earlier...


In the first still, I noted one pane of glass on the right side overlaps the white area, while another pane on the left side is below it, defined by an edge (the line).

It would only overlap a fraction of an inch, no more than needed. It isn't going to look darker, it only shows the edge.

You say it is space, but space has no such lines. Over-exposing space doesn't render such lines.

that doesnt really match what you said earlier with the moving terminator..

originally posted by: turbonium1
These 4 frames show how they did the 'terminator line' effect. A gold-toned glass pane was placed in front of the 'Earth' transparency, with another gold-toned glass pane behind both of them.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

i didnt notice this earlier, but if there is a gold toned glass pane behind both of them (the top gold pane and the earth transparency), why is the Earth lit but space not lit?? oh let me guess, the bottom gold pane has a cutout where the earth is..

also let me get this straight, you believe the terminator is physically being moved slowly to the left right?? thats why the gold panes are overlapping.. and the astronauts are the ones doing this right??

why in the transcripts or even the audio there is no mention of transparency or even a mention of the hoax if this was to be never to be seen footage??

p.s. im not sure what lines you are talking about, care to point it out?

originally posted by: turbonium1

You say the public was bored with Apollo, so that was a primary reason the Apollo program was toasted.

if you read what i was replying to you would find that SJ claimed that the American public was NOT bored of Apollo and i wanted proof of this claim, that was all.. you read too much into it.

Shuttles were much better - nobody was bored, because that program lasted for about 30 years!

Good one.

im not claiming that the SOLE reason why Apollo was axed was because of public boredom towards it.. it played a part but how do you think any president is going to get re-elected by choosing to do what majority of the public deems as a waste of money??

originally posted by: choos

also let me get this straight, you believe the terminator is physically being moved slowly to the left right?? thats why the gold panes are overlapping.. and the astronauts are the ones doing this right??

Don't forget turbo also believes that this was actually filmed in space by some unnamed magical mystery space craft, so there must be a couple of guys out there floating around in space suits moving those gold panes in front of the fake Earth...in space...erm....

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

My conclusion is that the public was NOT bored with Apollo. The idea that the public were bored is a glittering generality and a fallacy.

if you want to make that claim then you should have no problem supporting it.. TV ratings are good enough for me.. as TV ratings is a good indication on whether or not the public were still interested in the Apollo program..

ie. we shouldnt see a decline in the amount of viewers over each mission.

You say the public was bored with Apollo, so that was a primary reason the Apollo program was toasted.

Shuttles were much better - nobody was bored, because that program lasted for about 30 years!


Good one.

Turbo, I appreciate your views in this thread. The Apollo Defenders will never offer any evidence that the American public were "bored" with Apollo.... they will only attack with glittering generalities.

I think that WE, the Apollo Reviewers, have won this round. The American public were never "bored" with Apollo --- I would argue that the public were distracted from Apollo by the cynical media machinations of Nixon between 1969- 1972.

The Apollo Defenders have argued that the American public were "bored" by Apollo moon landings.... which ALL takes place entirely within the Richard Nixon's first term in office. You made an excellent point by showing that the Space Shuttle continued for 40+ years and under 6 administrations... the American public has never been "bored" by the space shuttle.

Good Show, Turbo.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

My conclusion is that the public was NOT bored with Apollo. The idea that the public were bored is a glittering generality and a fallacy.

if you want to make that claim then you should have no problem supporting it.. TV ratings are good enough for me.. as TV ratings is a good indication on whether or not the public were still interested in the Apollo program..

ie. we shouldnt see a decline in the amount of viewers over each mission.

You say the public was bored with Apollo, so that was a primary reason the Apollo program was toasted.

Shuttles were much better - nobody was bored, because that program lasted for about 30 years!


Good one.

Turbo, I appreciate your views in this thread. The Apollo Defenders will never offer any evidence that the American public were "bored" with Apollo.... they will only attack with glittering generalities.

I think that WE, the Apollo Reviewers, have won this round. The American public were never "bored" with Apollo --- I would argue that the public were distracted from Apollo by the cynical media machinations of Nixon between 1969- 1972.

The Apollo Defenders have argued that the American public were "bored" by Apollo moon landings.... which ALL takes place entirely within the Richard Nixon's first term in office. You made an excellent point by showing that the Space Shuttle continued for 40+ years and under 6 administrations... the American public has never been "bored" by the space shuttle.

Good Show, Turbo.

Wow - despite posting evidence for you (no matter how many times you claim we haven't) and suggesting ways you can prove it for yourself you're just going to hand wave away all proof to the contrary and argue that there was a massive groundswell of popular support for Apollo and massive protest and disappointment when it was cancelled.

You haven't won anything, you've just ignored things that proved you wrong.

It is moot: public enthusiasm or lack of it does not prove Apollo did or did not happen. TV ratings do not invalidate the data. The data prove Apollo happened.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Take into consideration the statements of George Mueller, Bill Tindall and Chris Kraft... and Caspar Weinberger and George Shultz... well... your sources don't really stand up. Nixon cancelled Apollo because he was about to get caught (along with Howard Hughes). The Apollo/Saturn V program was meant to continue... according to Mueller. The hardware could be used to get us to Mars in the 1980's... according to Von Braun.

The American public were not "bored" by Apollo moon landings. I don't think anybody in this thread supports that idea, except, maybe you.