Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlordCommunism, terror and rogue states... like Cambodia in 1970, Iran 1979, it's a really long list.
uhhh... the threats where intensely real. I lived 'em. Any related "conspiracy" lies in the government's reaction to those real threats to national and global peace.

Like the Gulf of Tonkin was real?

Originally posted by Springer

the notion of a hoax of that magnitude not being outed by the Soviets (as Skeptic Overlord has pointed out), or more ludicrous yet, the notion the Soviets would have collaborated with the U.S., should be enough to convince any student of geopolitical history that NASA really sent men to the moon.

edit on 5-31-2013 by Springer because: added a critical "how"

'Any hoax would've been exposed by the Soviets' I cringe every time I hear this one!

It's easy for anyone to understand why it doesn't hold up..

Simply look at the Soviet reaction to the JFK murder. It was the ideal opportunity for the Soviets to pounce on, and they did absolutely nothing with it.

If you want to compare further, the US public was far more skeptical of the official JFK story than the official Apollo story. So the Soviet propaganda machine would have been much more effective with JFK.

Soviet silence on JFK is clear evidence that they were not our sworn enemy in a so-called "Cold War", or a so-called "Space Race".

I suppose you think we suddenly became partners in a joint space mission only three years after being arch-foes?? Can you imagine President Truman and Emperor Hirohito going on a Hawaiian vacation together in 1948?!!

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

I think if you looked down at your own shoelaces right now you would probably see that they have been tied together by Richard Nixon and Werner von Braun! It's pretty clear that your side doesn't care about the Nixon/Paperclip angle.

Ah... there we go. Just because I don't believe your conspiracy theory (that has lots of refuting evidence), I must suddenly be on the "other side" and against conspiracies and all that rot. Seriously? You went there?

The main flaw in your rebuttal is that you underestimated Richard Nixon. It should be a commandment on ATS to never underestimate RN!

Nixon interfered with the 1968 peace negotiations during the '68 election period. Nixon was, in fact, a traitor when he did that.

Nixon was promising to get out of Viet Nam in Miami. 20,000 Americans died in Viet Nam and over 100,000 were injured for that promise. We will probably never know exactly how many Vietnamese died in Nixon's first term because the military industrial complex was busy calculating kill counts, exaggerating kill counts, and posting fake kill counts in the American newspapers. Maybe you should catch up on your history just a bit.

You keep defending Richard Nixon and you are going to lose this thread for good. The general rule is don't underestimate Richard Nixon or Howard Hughes because they would do anything to win. Anything and that includes faking a moon landing to beat the Commies.

Originally posted by turbonium1

I didn't make those claims, you merely attributed them to me. You're the one who made a claim about aluminum adequately shielding a crew for 6 days or so - a la Apollo missions. I said the experts never supported your claim, which is true.

Nor did I claim about killing all onboard. I simply repeated what the experts said, which is that aluminum will increase the radiation hazard beyond LEO, and it is inadequate for shielding a crew beyond LEO. Those claims are also true..

ok, not kill, my bad.
from your own words, the alumunium shells should have caused the astronauts to have suffered severe health effects, this is for a 6-12 day mission..

which leaves in the possibility that they could land on the moon and safely return in 12 days time. because they clearly have not reached the LD50 levels yet.. so for a 12 day mission if the havent even reached the LD50 levels for a mission such as apollo 11, 8 days is reasonable to believe that it should be possible to survive without much effect.

No, you assumed the flags are there as if it was an established, proven fact. I can't prove there are no flags there, either, so I' don't take it as an accepted, proven fact. That was my main point here/

well given that they havent even gotten close to the LD50 levels its safe to assume that they can land on the moon to plant the flag.

They could have placed things on the moon by unmanned craft, obviously. But it wouldn't look like a genuine manned landing without a lot of work. For example, I'm sure the footprints would be really hard to fake.

As for NASA not knowing if others will develop such satellites, they'd still have trouble trying to create realistic-looking fake landing sites by unmanned vehicles.

edit on 1-6-2013 by turbonium1 because: typo

ah yes, im glad you understand this most HB cant seem to comprehend this. so you understand why its very likely that man has landed on the moon now?

reply to post by turbonium1


Frank Borman went to Russia in June of 1969. That's the same month that NASA launched Biosat 3.

NASA tortured the monkey and the mission failed.

Life Sciences Payload

Organisms
A single 6 kg male pigtailed monkey (Macaca nemestrina) named Bonnie served as the experimental subject on the mission (Fig. 4-13).

The animal was instrumented with sensors for 33 channels of physiological data. Implanted sensors included bipolar electroencephalographic electrodes, electrooculographic sensors, electromyographic leads, cardiovascular function and respiration sensors, and temperature sensors in the brain and peritoneal cavity. Catheters were chronically implanted in the saphenous vein and both femoral arteries to measure blood pressure, and in the bladder to collect urine. Four identically instrumented monkeys served as ground experiment controls.

It's worse than a Frankenstein movie. Jesus, they destroyed that poor monkey. And Frank Borman was in Russia. Making the deal for Nixon.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Proposed recommendations that never amounted to anything,

NASA set those guidelines for others to follow, nonetheless. Whether or not others comply with NASA's request is another matter.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
and even if so, could never be enforced?

This is another matter as well. It would probably be impossible to enforce such a thing. NASA's bark is worse than its bite here.


In effect, NASA is saying 'Please don't go to the moon and disturb any of the stuff we say that we've left there!'

One may ask NASA - If it has such scientific and historical value, why don't they even have a single close-up image of any of the sites, over 40 years later?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
The main flaw in your rebuttal is that you underestimated Richard Nixon. It should be a commandment on ATS to never underestimate RN!

...

You keep defending Richard Nixon and you are going to lose this thread for good. The general rule is don't underestimate Richard Nixon or Howard Hughes because they would do anything to win. Anything and that includes faking a moon landing to beat the Commies.

So your argument is 'Nixon was untrustworthy and did some dodgy stuff. Therefore the moon landings were definitely faked.'

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

Originally posted by turbonium1
'Any hoax would've been exposed by the Soviets' I cringe every time I hear this one!

It's easy for anyone to understand why it doesn't hold up..

I cringe too. It's just as bad as the 400,000 fallacy or the "my uncle worked at NASA during Apollo and he's telling the truth" or the thousands of scientists who never spoke out about the provenance of the moon dust they were studying, analyzing and publishing reports for.

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
The main flaw in your rebuttal is that you underestimated Richard Nixon. It should be a commandment on ATS to never underestimate RN!

...

You keep defending Richard Nixon and you are going to lose this thread for good. The general rule is don't underestimate Richard Nixon or Howard Hughes because they would do anything to win. Anything and that includes faking a moon landing to beat the Commies.

So your argument is 'Nixon was untrustworthy and did some dodgy stuff. Therefore the moon landings were definitely faked.'

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

edit on 1/6/13 by Sankari because: typo...

Every manned lunar mission from Apollo 8 to Apollo 17 was totally under Richard Nixon's control. And you must admit that NASA does only what the President says, nothing more, nothing less.

No Presidents since Nixon have gone back to the moon. It is a pretty stark reality that most Apollo Believers are unable to deal with. With Apollo, Nixon is always in there in the shadows watching his movies at Key Biscayne with his best buddy BeBe Rebozo.

Originally posted by choos

ok, not kill, my bad.
from your own words, the alumunium shells should have caused the astronauts to have suffered severe health effects, this is for a 6-12 day mission..

which leaves in the possibility that they could land on the moon and safely return in 12 days time. because they clearly have not reached the LD50 levels yet.. so for a 12 day mission if the havent even reached the LD50 levels for a mission such as apollo 11, 8 days is reasonable to believe that it should be possible to survive without much effect.

The reports state aluminum is not only a poor radiation shield beyond LEO, it actually intensifies the radiation hazard! They don't say aluminum is an adequate shield beyond LEO whatsoever. They don't say aluminum is adequate for missions of ANY period!! It isn't adequate for a few hours, or a few days, or a few months!! NO MISSION AT ALL!

All you come back with is the Apollo claim, with its nonsense radiation data. Your Apollo data is NEVER ONCE CITED IN THESE REPORTS. What does that tell you about its validity and importance?

Originally posted by choos

well given that they havent even gotten close to the LD50 levels its safe to assume that they can land on the moon to plant the flag.

No, you have assumed those are the actual radiation levels, without having any valid proof, and then you assume they could plant the flag!

Originally posted by choos

ah yes, im glad you understand this most HB cant seem to comprehend this. so you understand why its very likely that man has landed on the moon now?

No, I understand why they used fake moon sets on Earth.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Every manned lunar mission from Apollo 8 to Apollo 17 was totally under Richard Nixon's control.

Proof please. Even if that was true, how would it prove the moon landing was fake?

And you must admit that NASA does only what the President says, nothing more, nothing less.

Why must I? You've given me no reason to believe this. Even if it was true, how would it prove the moon landing was fake?

No Presidents since Nixon have gone back to the moon.

So what? How does this prove the moon landing was fake?

No presidents since Nixon have fought a war in Vietnam. Does that mean the Vietnam War never happened?

Originally posted by Sankari
No presidents since Nixon have fought a war in Vietnam. Does that mean the Vietnam War never happened?

Well, according to some conspiracy theorists yes it does. The same as Concorde never existed, as you cannot today fly on a SST. We cannot go back to the moon today so that means we never went there....

The experts know the Apollo spacecraft were made on aluminum. The experts know Apollo's aluminum spacecraft supposedly flew safely beyond LEO - not only once or twice, but NINE TIMES .

The experts know Apollo has radiation data to back it all up, of course.


Yes, indeed, the experts know all these things about Apollo.

So the experts say aluminum is not only a poor radiation shield beyond LEO, it increases the hazard. How do they explain Apollo then? They don't.

What about the Apollo radiation data? The experts completely ignore it.

How nice of them. A bit like parents who let their kids think Santa Claus is real by ignoring the basic facts which show he's a fake. And how else could presents magically appear underneath all those Christmas trees?!? .

Originally posted by turbonium1

The reports state aluminum is not only a poor radiation shield beyond LEO, it actually intensifies the radiation hazard! They don't say aluminum is an adequate shield beyond LEO whatsoever. They don't say aluminum is adequate for missions of ANY period!! It isn't adequate for a few hours, or a few days, or a few months!! NO MISSION AT ALL!

All you come back with is the Apollo claim, with its nonsense radiation data. Your Apollo data is NEVER ONCE CITED IN THESE REPORTS. What does that tell you about its validity and importance?

but the fact is, the experts are saying that humans can survive beyond LEO for periods between 6-12days.. NASA are experts in this field.. and so are other scientists.. nobody has refuted this.. the aluminium could turn the radiation to a deadly level.. but heres the kick.. it will take a lot longer than 12 days of exposure to see its damage. and another kick, future manned missions beyond LEO will all take longer than 12 days. the reports understand this the scientists understand this. you appear to not.

No, you have assumed those are the actual radiation levels, without having any valid proof, and then you assume they could plant the flag!

well, we have NASA saying thats what happened.. and then we have you saying that it cant, expert vs typical conspiracy theorist.. hmm tough choice there.

i suppose you have proof that the levels of radiation should make them all sick?

No, I understand why they used fake moon sets on Earth.

fake sets on earth doesnt explain real sets on the moon, which one day could be imaged by other nations. NASA would have known this back in the 60's so you understand how difficult it would be to use robots, remember they have suggested a buffer zone of a mere 1m and 3m for some sites, not the full 50mile barrier from the surface.

p.s. when do you suppose or which year was it that NASA worked out that they cant reach the moon with humans??

Originally posted by turbonium1
The experts know the Apollo spacecraft were made on aluminum. The experts know Apollo's aluminum spacecraft supposedly flew safely beyond LEO - not only once or twice, but NINE TIMES .

The experts know Apollo has radiation data to back it all up, of course.


Yes, indeed, the experts know all these things about Apollo.

So the experts say aluminum is not only a poor radiation shield beyond LEO, it increases the hazard. How do they explain Apollo then? They don't.

What about the Apollo radiation data? The experts completely ignore it.

How nice of them. A bit like parents who let their kids think Santa Claus is real by ignoring the basic facts which show he's a fake. And how else could presents magically appear underneath all those Christmas trees?!? .

edit on 1-6-2013 by turbonium1 because: typo

increases the hazard of an already hazardous mission.. did you forget that the mission itself regardless of radiation was inherently hazardous?? increasing the hazard of radiation exposure does not mean that the astronauts will definitely get sick for 12 days exposure.

NASA has published reports of the apollo astronauts radiation levels. no expert refutes these data because they understand that the levels are not deadly for anything less than a 12 day mission.

Originally posted by choos

but the fact is, the experts are saying that humans can survive beyond LEO for periods between 6-12days.. NASA are experts in this field.. and so are other scientists.. nobody has refuted this.. the aluminium could turn the radiation to a deadly level.. but heres the kick.. it will take a lot longer than 12 days of exposure to see its damage. and another kick, future manned missions beyond LEO will all take longer than 12 days. the reports understand this the scientists understand this. you appear to not.

You don't need any sources to back that up, just you saying so is good enough!!

But have a go at it anyway just for fun,...

reply to post by turbonium1


here from the report you posted earlier:

To establish a permanent human presence in space, one must design for the maximum environmental intensity.
pg.2
www.cs.odu.edu...

do you get it yet?? current shielding technology is inadequate for long term stays beyond LEO.

Originally posted by turbonium1
You don't need any sources to back that up, just you saying so is good enough!!

But have a go at it anyway just for fun,...

sorry?? you want sources that experts say that man can survive between 6-12 days beyond LEO??

here
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

I think if you looked down at your own shoelaces right now you would probably see that they have been tied together by Richard Nixon and Werner von Braun! It's pretty clear that your side doesn't care about the Nixon/Paperclip angle.

Unfortunately for you, what this does is, it puts you in the position of defending Nazi war criminals who designed manufactured your weapons of mass destruction.

And you continually justify the NASA/NAZI alliance as a valid response to the threat of Communism.

You are dancing on the graves of thousands of dead americans who fought in proxy wars against communism.

Of course you're not, but then neither are moon hoax debunkers defending nazis, and it's pretty pathetic that you are driven to pretend they are. If that's the kind of hyperbole you have to engage in to persuade yourself that you are making headway here then I think you should probably step back and reassess what you're trying to achieve.

As an aside, amusingly your logic on this small point is as intrinsically flawed as ever: why would America have to import enemy rocket scientists to fake a rocket programme?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Proposed recommendations that never amounted to anything, and even if so, could never be enforced?

No.

Well, in all fairness the keep out zones are "real" in the sense that they were requested in the name of historical preservation and given the mindset of people involved in space exploration they'll most likely be respected. But they're totally unenforceable and the perimeters are so small that even an unassisted human eye would be able to tell if anything was not the way it should be.