Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
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.

You are unable to support your own argument with evidence. The only 'evidence' you have posted are statements by people in the Apollo program in the context of the Apollo program actually happening.

You haven't made any attempt to support your own argument and have merely handwaved away evidence on the grounds that you don't like the smell of it.

Tough.

Opinions count for nothing: data don't lie, and the data prove we went to the moon.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

Nixon cancelled Apollo because he was about to get caught (along with Howard Hughes).

about to be be caught?? so they were about to be caught BEFORE they announced the cancellation of Apollo 20.. and decided to fly 4 more missions AFTER being almost caught??

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

if you believe this, then it should be easy for you to prove.. news paper clippings perhaps?? since you refuse to show us the TV ratings that would support this.. i mean if the American public was bored of the NFL not many/if any would be willing to pay millions for 30 seconds adtime during the superbowl..

it shouldnt be hard for you to prove your claim, show us the TV ratings.. show us the public outcry for the cancellations of apollo missions, the protests, anything..

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

Nixon cancelled Apollo because he was about to get caught (along with Howard Hughes).

Or even the real reason why Nixon resigned ?

So to recap what we've got in this thread, NASA didn't have the technical ability to land men on the moon and return them safely but they did have a cloaking device so they could launch an undetected time traveling probe into the future to get the pictures of the real time weather patterns to use in their faked, live footage? Or are we saying that a few centuries from now someone will discover time travel and decide to go back to the 60's to fake the moon landing? It's probably the latter because Nixon's presidency would have likely ended differently if he had a time machine . . . or a cloaking device for that matter

originally posted by: choos

it shouldnt be hard for you to prove your claim, show us the TV ratings.. show us the public outcry for the cancellations of apollo missions, the protests, anything..

choos you clearly lost the plot to the Apollo soap opera.

TV ratings, in themselves, won't prove or disprove that the American public were "bored" with Apollo. If that were true - then you could also argue that the Viet Nam fake war was very popular with the public because the network news (print & broadcast) made time for the war on a daily basis.

I love the fact that you keep asking for TV ratings because it provides me with another opportunity to educate you on the relationship between the news media & Richard Nixon's first term administration. The one word I see consistently used by historians with regard to that relationship is "cynicism".

In order for you to begin understanding Nixon's hate-affair with the media I'd like you to take 11 minutes to study the Spiro Agnew Des Moines speech which he delivered exactly one day before the launch of Apollo 12.

In part,

At least 40 million Americans every night, it's estimated, watch the network news. Seven million of them view A.B.C., the remainder being divided between N.B.C. and C.B.S. According to Harris polls and other studies, for millions of Americans the networks are the sole source of national and world news.

Now how is this network news determined? A small group of men, numbering perhaps no more than a dozen anchormen, commentators, and executive producers, settle upon the 20 minutes or so of film and commentary that's to reach the public.

The American people would rightly not tolerate this concentration of power in Government. Is it not fair and relevant to question its concentration in the hands of a tiny, enclosed fraternity of privileged men elected by no one and enjoying a monopoly sanctioned and licensed by Government? The views of a -- the majority of this fraternity do not -- and I repeat, not -- represent the views of America.

Listen to it here
www.youtube.com...

Read it here (AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio)
www.americanrhetoric.com...

That's right. Agnew's speech of November 13, 1969 perfectly represents the Nixon cynicism for news media, especially network television. It was a tough speech from Nixon, via Agnew, to that "small group of men" who run the networks. The very next day Richard Nixon flew from the White House to Cape Kennedy to watch the Apollo 12 lift-off and quickly disappear into the fog... he spent all of about 90 minutes at the Cape.

choos, when Spiro Agnew points out that a "small group of men" decided what goes on the networks, this marginalizes and reduces the significance of the TV ratings... the ratings which you believe would disprove me --- yet you fail to post any of them.

Nixon's cynicism for the tv network news (read: Eastern establishment) translated directly to all of his White House aides, it percolated into almost every discussion, his best and most loyal insiders carried that cynicism with them every where. This ongoing abusive and strained relationship between Nixon and the networks, culminated in a TV show "Watergate", which had all the ingredients of a successful soap opera.

That classic Nixonian cynicism is echoed in the comments of Weinberger, Shultz and Agnew. The comments by Mueller, Kraft, Tindall support my conclusions : the American public were not "bored" with Apollo moon landings, they were distracted by other things in the news, and soap operas; the networks were under the control of Eastern establishment, a "small group of men"; anti-Nixon forces dictated the news to the American public; pro-Nixon loyalists cynically used the networks to control the public's perception of the Viet Nam situation, domestic unrest and the Apollo program cancellations;

choos you keep trying to move the goal posts but Nixon already scored the touch down and a field goal. The TV ratings for Apollo don't matter as much as you think they do, for if they did, you would have posted them already.

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

Nixon cancelled Apollo because he was about to get caught (along with Howard Hughes).

Or even the real reason why Nixon resigned ?

Nixon had more than one reason to resign when and how he did. He had disgraced the office for covering up a petty burglary. But that break-in was not an isolated incident it was only the exposed tip of a gigantic iceberg submerged beneath the stormy waves of his administration. His decision to cancel Apollo and keep America in low earth orbit after appointing a Mormon ex-Howard Hughes scientist (Fletcher) to run NASA could be viewed as a scheme to close the book on Apollo and manned space exploration beyond the radiation belts. Since the Russians have never tried to break 475km or tried to send a man (or woman) to cis-lunar space there is a nagging suspicion, 42 years after Apollo 17, that perhaps there are more secrets in the Nixon & Apollo narratives. ... And those secrets would have been washed away, over time, when the 700+ boxes of Apollo telemetry tapes were lost... or when the moon rock auditors discovered evidence of missing moon rocks and poor inventory controls by NASA.

One of the best reasons for Nixon to resign came about after Agnew's departure and the selection of Gerald Ford (Warren Commission) as VP. Ford later gave his presidential pardon to the ex-president - pretty much confirming his guiltiness in all manner of dirty tricks during his administration.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

And where, in the network news broadcasts, did Apollo figure towards the end of the program?

Once again I'll point out that public and political opinion are irrelevant. Opinions are not facts. Apollo's landing on the moon is a demonstrable fact.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

thats a long winded post full of nothing..

the public was not really bored, so to speak, of the Vietnam war, they were quite interested in it.. the difference here is that they were interested in STOPPING the war..

there was literally none of this for Apollo.. if you want to claim that the public was NOT bored of Apollo then it should be easy for you to prove.. the public was VERY interested in STOPPING the Vietnam war and this is fairly easy to prove.. your difficulty in proving what you believe the public is interested in shows you are wrong.. you dont want to be wrong now do you??

p.s. its funny that you criticise that a handful of men control the media and therefore reducing the significance of the TV ratings.. yet you are happy to quote a handful of men out of context to prove yourself..

The excellent book "Marketing the moon" has a section on TV coverage, and it discusses how Apollo was edged out of the news and overall mission coverage reduced.

Here;s one quote from it:

The subliminal message conveyed by network television's coverage and the public's lack of interest was clear and consistent: in the course of less than three years, an acievement that, when first accomplished, was acknowledged as a monumental turning point in human history, was slowly reduced on scope, magnitude, and importance into something commonplace. It was no longer major news.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

I was just a very young boy when the last Apollo mission went up, but as a young teenager, I was very interested in aviation and spaceflight, so I followed the progress of the space shuttle very closely. I clearly remember in the years leading up to the first space shuttle launch (which was just a little more than 8 years after Apollo 17) that the discussions about human space flight in the media were mostly about how the public lost interest in Apollo towards the end of the program.

I remember the 1977 "free-flight" non orbital flights of Enterprise, which was the non space-rated testbed version of the shuttle, and I remember that much of the discussion was around how NASA is trying to recapture the public's lost interest in the space program.

I've always thought the public's increased disinterest in Apollo as the program went on was common knowledge, and I'm surprised people don't remember this (granted, it is more like that they do not know this because they weren't around at the time).

a reply to: Box of Rain

Good points. As an aside one of the test pilots for the shuttle was Fred Haise, of Apollo 13. A couple of other Apollo astronauts also participated in the shuttle programme, so there is a continuity there that is sometimes forgotten by people who take the two programmes in isolation.

Strictly speaking Apollo didn't end completely with Apollo 17, just the lunar aspects of it. Apollo astronauts and equipment continued to be used in the Skylab missions and Apollo-Soyuz link up.

Apart from the fact that they stayed in LEO, there was one other difference between Apollo and the Shuttle, in that while the Shuttle cost a lot of money it could at least recover some of that cost by carrying payloads into space, including commercial satellites.

Equating shuttle missions with Apollo is not a fair comparison. They had different objectives and requirements and operated in an entirely different political framework.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
The excellent book "Marketing the moon" has a section on TV coverage, and it discusses how Apollo was edged out of the news and overall mission coverage reduced.

Modern marketing executives comment on Nixon's Apollo marketing success?
mitpress.mit.edu...

"The astronauts were like rock stars." - David Meerman Scott

I think that is a good quote. I think that I'm going to use it a lot.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
The excellent book "Marketing the moon" has a section on TV coverage, and it discusses how Apollo was edged out of the news and overall mission coverage reduced.

Here;s one quote from it:

The subliminal message conveyed by network television's coverage and the public's lack of interest was clear and consistent: in the course of less than three years, an acievement that, when first accomplished, was acknowledged as a monumental turning point in human history, was slowly reduced on scope, magnitude, and importance into something commonplace. It was no longer major news.

OBM, your source says that there was a "subliminal message conveyed by network television's coverage" at the end of the Apollo program. What was that subliminal message? Who was sending it and who was receiving it?

Your cherry picked citation does NOT justify why the author believes that the "public's lack of interest was clear and consistent."

I'll provide you with that justification, from your own source.

"I think there are a number of reasons. All of them can be looked at from different perspectives." - David Meerman Scott

In the audio interview the authors elaborated on the topic public sentiment, and claim to have identified that "shift". Do you know what that "shift" was?

"It became about rocks, really. And that is a more challenging story to sell than the one of adventure, and exploration and of actually getting to the moon.

So, that "shift" in story - or to translate it into marketing terms - that "shift" in the product life-cycle - it's appeal to it's audiences became a challenge to engage with the audiences in such a way that there would be a lot of that fanfare."

And we just talked about television and the importance of television, for Apollo 11 there was twenty-four seven coverage and interest started to tail off as they moved towards Apollo 12 the second lunar landing. But an amazing and rather unfortunate event happened on the surface of the moon astronaut Alan Bean when he was turning on the camera he pointed it toward the sun and it fritzed out the camera, burned out the eye of the camera and we didn't get that live video feed from the moon." - David Meerman Scott

OBM, the authors of your source are making a very good and clear case that there was a "shift" in the network coverage from exploration to rock collecting as early as Apollo 12.

Vice-President Spiro Agnew said that the networks were run by a small group of men. This should be simple enough for you to understand. Vice-President Agnew delivered his backlash to the media exactly one day before the launch of Apollo 12.

Why are you so cynical about the public? Why are you trying to put the blame on a "bored" public?? The public did not decide what the networks broadcasted! They sat in front of their television screens receiving subliminal messages. (subliminal messages - your source)

What was that subliminal message and where did it come from? Was it the networks? Was it the well oiled NASA p.r. machine? Was it from inside the Nixon administration? Or did it come directly from Nixon's desk?

You have to deal with the "shift" in coverage somehow. How will you explain it? By blaming the American public??

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

you talk about cherry picking and yet you do it yourself...

you missed the "and the public's lack of interest"

originally posted by: choos
p.s. its funny that you criticise that a handful of men control the media and therefore reducing the significance of the TV ratings.. yet you are happy to quote a handful of men out of context to prove yourself..

choos, let me make this perfectly clear. The American public were anxiously awaiting the live color tv images from Apollo 12.



As we have seen elsewhere in the Apollo Mythology - Apollo 12 crew members famously forgot to take any pictures of themselves with the Hasselblad cameras in going to or coming from the "moon".

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

choos, let me make this perfectly clear. The American public were anxiously awaiting the live color tv images from Apollo 12.

cool story, was it the same level of anxiousness as Apollo 11?? did the remaining Apollo missions receive the same level of anxiousness or was it dropping??

As we have seen elsewhere in the Apollo Mythology - Apollo 12 crew members famously forgot to take any pictures of themselves with the Hasselblad cameras in going to or coming from the "moon".

oh i remember this argument.. Apollo 12 never took candid photos of themselves which proves (to you only) that they never went to the moon..

and yet at the very least Apollo 11 did, which should prove to you (but apparently it doesnt because double standards) that they did reach the vicinity of the moon.

funny troll..

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

you talk about cherry picking and yet you do it yourself...

you missed the "and the public's lack of interest"

Typical response from the hydra-headed Apollo Defense. The Apollo Defenders, god bless 'em, have latched on to the popular idea that the American public were "bored" with Apollo. When one Defender is discredited, another Defender leaps to the Defense. The Apollo Reviewers relish the challenge of research and we that is why we come to these threads to educate and to illuminate.

In the last several pages I have given a thorough and thoughtful review to the popular fictional narrative that the American public was "bored" with Apollo.

It will take a long of time for the Apollo Defenders to completely digest this new media information (Agnew, Apollo 12, and David Meerman Scott) because they are so used to the baby food that NASA dishes out them - spoonful after loving spoonful. From time to time these Apollo babies need to be burped.

I know this will come as a total shock to some readers in this thread but it needs to be said :
The Apollo Defenders need potty training.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

typical response from SJ, the fingers in ears going lalalalalalala..

if you want to say the public was NOT bored of the Apollo moon landings then you need to show that the PUBLIC was NOT bored of it..

using quotes from a handful of people that you can count on one hand which is out of context does not show what the public perception is..

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

typical response from SJ, the fingers in ears going lalalalalalala..

if you want to say the public was NOT bored of the Apollo moon landings then you need to show that the PUBLIC was NOT bored of it..

using quotes from a handful of people that you can count on one hand which is out of context does not show what the public perception is..

My handful of people:

Chris Kraft
George Mueller
Bill Tindall
Caspar Weinberger
George Shultz
Spiro Agnew
Roger Launius
David Meerman Scott

And I want to make this perfectly clear: Roger Launius is a Mormon scholar who wrote Launius, Roger D. - Joseph Smith III: Pragmatic Prophet.

"This book should be read by every serious scholar of Mormonism and of American religious history--and by persons who love a good story well told." -- Paul M. Edwards, Western Illinois Regional Studies

Even NASA knows that Roger Launius is a Mormon Apollogist and has written several books on the subject of Mormon defense: source www.nasa.gov...

He is also involved in the study of nineteenth century history. His book, Joseph Smith III: Pragmatic Prophet (University of Illinois Press, 1988), won the prestigious Evans Award for biography. He has also co-edited Differing Visions: Dissenters in Mormon History (University of Illinois Press, 1994), Cultures in Conflict: A Documentary History of the Mormon War in Illinois (Utah State University Press, 1995), and Kingdom on the Mississippi Revisited: Nauvoo in Mormon History (University of Illinois Press, 1996).

www.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

typical response from SJ, the fingers in ears going lalalalalalala..

if you want to say the public was NOT bored of the Apollo moon landings then you need to show that the PUBLIC was NOT bored of it..

using quotes from a handful of people that you can count on one hand which is out of context does not show what the public perception is..

choos, when I linked Roger Launius to the Mormon defense and I linked David Meerman Scott to the Marketing defense -- don't you realize that you have lost the momentum in this thread and you can never hope to get it back?????

This thread amounts to a 354 page refutation to every Apollo Defender out there. Nixon cancelled Apollo and kept America in low earth orbit for 40+ years by dedicating NASA to the space shuttle. The person that Nixon selected to run the space shuttle program after Apollo was cancelled was a Mormon scientist, ex-Howard Hughes scientist, James C. Fletcher.

The Russians have never broken through the Glass Ceiling of 475km and your childish defense of Apollo is becoming to be quite tiresome indeed.

choos you are trapped in a chapter of history that never existed. Richard Nixon owned the Apollo narrative - he cancelled Apollo when he had exactly what he wanted - a propaganda advantage over communism.