Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by turbonium1


So your just going to discount physics altogether because in your world it doesnt exist. In this instance this file has been picked apart by thousands of people with PHDs even use it for computer models yet you claim them all to be wrong so do the same thing i tell my students do the math show us its not /6th gravity if your right its worth millions. And ill personally burn my PHD. But see ou want to ignore the math and science stuff because you're biased by your beliefs. Yousaid something like shouldnt one queston everything? Well no not everything because then you are shown to be unable to reason. Heres a quote for you think about it.

Controversy equalizes fools and wise men -- and the fools know it.
--Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

I can and have independently verified the information, lots of it, in ways people didn't think of.

Did you take pictures with a Hasselblad 70mm from cis-lunar space to verify your 177MB pdf thesis? No?

Are you too scared to read my independent analyses of the information?

Well, I can guarantee you that I won't be reading it now!

I have also met two people who have walked on the moon and heard their personal testimony.

Congratulations! I am genuinely happy for ya.

Now, moving on.

Here is what I said,

No other man, woman or monkey has gone outside of low earth orbit, except those sent by Richard Nixon as president. That is a scientific and historical proof.

And your response was,

So Nixon's astronauts did go outside LEO. Progress. They did that on the way to the moon.

I always treat the manned Apollo missions as a "claims by NASA during the Richard Nixon presidency". Sometimes I don't always write it out the same way every time in every post that I make. Maybe you don't know exactly what my position is so you have to take my words and twist them all into a straw-man argument. I know what your argument is, btw.

I break it down further because it's bad to implicate all of NASA and all of the astronauts and all of the Nixon administration or all of the Howard Hughes organizations. But it's an easy mistake, we all do it, when we say "NASA this" or "NASA that".

Although, like the Apollo Defenders, I make certain generalizations in this thread -- it is simply for the sake of shortening my own responses! Do you straw man every argument before asking for clarification? That's what choos does btw, imho.

Yet there is the need for you to trot out the same tired arguments that "The Russians didn't, so no-one could". I argue the converse, the Russians didn't have the technical capability, or they would have.

Would you admit that the Apollo Defenders often take the stance of being "Russian Space Experts" who know the psychology of Russian Cold War politics from an insiders point of view? Well, most Apollo Defenders believe they know "all the answers" about why "Russia did this" or "Russia did that". The fact remains Russia never went outside of low earth orbit. Russia has never confirmed Apollo by duplicating the flights! Here you go. Russian superiority in LEO for 7 years.

1974 Soyuz 14 — Soyuz 15 — Soyuz 16
1975 Soyuz 17 — Soyuz 18a — Soyuz 18 — Apollo-Soyuz — Soyuz 19
1976 Soyuz 21 — Soyuz 22 — Soyuz 23
1977 Soyuz 24 — Soyuz 25 — Soyuz 26
1978 Soyuz 27 — Soyuz 28 — Soyuz 29 — Soyuz 30 — Soyuz 31
1979 Soyuz 32 — Soyuz 33
1980 Soyuz 35 — Soyuz 36 — Soyuz T-2 — Soyuz 37 — Soyuz 38 — Soyuz T-3
1981 Soyuz T-4 — Soyuz 39 — STS-1 — Soyuz 40 — STS-2

May we agree: CCCP had "X" reasons for not ever sending a single man, woman or monkey going outside LEO. Do you want to win that argument when you know it's impossible to prove, especially, in the face of Russian manned, operational superiority in LEO up to 1982? Could we just have a cease fire on Russia?

May we also agree: That when Apollo Defenders whip out the Russian Gambit argument that it as an argument from ignorance? Russian Gambit refers to that argument often made by A.D.'s about Russia's means, motives and opportunity in space technology during the Cold War.

It tells me that their political infighting and inability to agree on a methodology and to manufacturer high quality components cost them the glory.

Not only are you an expert in Apollo but an expert in Russian studies, too!! They should invite you on Mythbusters if you're so smart.

Yadayadayada boring. You know full well there are no keep out zones.

This one is definitely in my favor.

He is 'a' key man. A lot of his personal views as to how they should get there were rejected. Theykey personnel were the thousands of engineers and scientists and astronauts who made it possible.

Von Braun is THE key man because he sold the rocket program to JFK and JFK went to make that fancy speech at Rice University. SOLD! To the highest bidder: the Military Industrial Complex, of which, NASA plays the critical role, because it's ostensibly a "civilian agency".

After Von Braun had made the sale to JFK, JFK had to turn around and sell it to the American congress on May 21, 1961 and again to the American public on September 12, 1962.

It's like multi-level marketing. en.wikipedia.org...

Ahh I was waiting to see how long Nixon would take to appear.

Nixon belongs in an Apollo thread equally along with Neil Armstrong or Pete Conrad, or Richard Underwood, or Farouk el-Baz, or Ed Nixon, or Howard Hughes, or James Webb, Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke, James Fletcher, George Low, Chris Kraft, George Mueller, Walter Dornberger, Arthur Rudolph, Buzz Aldrin, Deke Slayton, Alan Bean, Michael Collins, Alan Shepard, Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, Jim Irwin, Dave Scott, Charles Berry, Thomas O. Paine, Frank Shakespear..... and Robert Roderick. See?

"That depends, Henry, on who writes the history." - RN to HK, 8th August 1974

You said,

I really don't give a ****.

Amazing coincidence because that's exactly what I think about your 177MB pdf file.

seabhac-rua
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

 

Maybe I am.

I've debated and researched this subject in depth on here for the last couple of years or more and you always come up against people who simply want to believe the landings were faked. You can show them where there are errors in their arguments, you can show them data, you can debunk the pseudo-science behind their half baked theories and they will continually ignore and ignore and ignore what you are saying. This subject particularly usually attracts the kind of person to whom 'research' means watching a youtube video.

No moon hoax theories hold any water period.

edit on 26-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)

When it comes to the moon hoax crowd you arent doing it to change there mind you argue to prevent others in buying there BS. See anything can sound plausible when you only get one side of the story. Including secret alien bases on the moon and Nixon masterminding all this. He couldnt keep a secret to save his life its funny that the moon hoaxers picked Nixon the one american president who is least likely to be able to pull off the hoax. If his administration could keep a secret on this level then watergate would have been a breeze. Thats why certain people on here just show how little they understand history. Though i suspect some are not from the United States so US history is well not really taught to them. And then there is certain ones who purposefully abuse this lack of knowledge because they get a kick out of manipulating others.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


More Nixon and Von Braun huh? Well i hate to bust your bubble but Von Braun did no selling to the president a cosmonaut by the name of Yuri Gagarin did. Here the US defender of the free world was made to look stupid as communism showed how superior they were by having a man orbit the earth. JFK could not have this communism was winning on all fronts and well made his presidency look like a joke at first. It wasnt a coincidence the Russians were testing him the common view of him was a weak president. However giving him credit he rose to the occasion as they say sometimes great men are made by circumstances. As far as who truly sold the president on space i suggest you look at a man by the name of Dr Charles Stark Draper who was a director at MIT see they took over NASA 3 months after its creation.He built guidance systems and Von Braun was never able to perfect a guidance system he built a rocket based on the V2.The Germans built a rocket but there guidance system was point in a direction and wait for the rocket to run out of fuel. This is why the V2 was so ineffectual in world war 2 they were lucky to get it to land within 20 miles. See the big problem is during the cold war the Soviets had a much better land-based ICBMs than the US. The R-12 and R-14 missiles in Cuba could reach the entire lower 48 except for portions of the Pacific Northwest. With or without Von Braun rocket development was going to happen it had to and MIT led the charge so to speak. The contract with NASA called for the lab to develop a navigation, control, and guidance system that would be carried by both the Apollo command module and the lunar lander. (The command module entered lunar orbit and returned the astronauts to Earth; the lander detached from the orbiting command module and carried the astronauts to the moon’s surface.) In both cases, navigation meant determining the craft’s current position and guidance meant keeping the craft on its trajectory through space and making any course corrections.Control meant maintaining the right velocity and “attitude”–ensuring that the command module’s nose was pointing in the right direction, or that the lander’s feet were square with the lunar surface. By this point building a rocket was the least of the problems its easy to build a really big rocket hard to control it.

reply to post by dragonridr

As far as who truly sold the president on space i suggest you look at a man by the name of Dr Charles Stark Draper who was a director at MIT see they took over NASA 3 months after its creation.

You said "they took over NASA".

Who took over NASA? Draper? MIT?

I don't see Draper's name in the list of NASA administrators or deputy administrators.
en.wikipedia.org...

Dragon, could you please go into a little more detail about Draper and how he was involved in the rocket sales program?

SayonaraJupiter

Did you take pictures with a Hasselblad 70mm from cis-lunar space to verify your 177MB pdf thesis? No?

As usual you take what's on the page and re-arrange the words to make it say what you think it should say. You are well aware what I meant: I have looked at all of the data available on my own. These not only include Hasselblad images, but Nikon 35mm images, UV telescope images, satellite images, photographs in newspapers and magazines, TV and film footage. I do not work for NASA. I am independent of them. I am under no mandate from NASA to write what they say, my work is independent of them. Where sources other than NASA exist, I have used them. If you know of any Soviet weather satellite images taken during Apollo then feel free to send them and they will be used.

Well, I can guarantee you that I won't be reading it now!

I'd actually stick with the web version over the pdf one, the latter is out of date as it is a pain to edit.

I had absolutely no belief whatsoever that you would look at that document, or the other parts of my website, because it contains overwhelming proof that Apollo astronauts landed on the moon and science deniers never like to see anything that confronts their opinions head on. Hypocritically, they demand that people who support Apollo look at every piece of crap they find and demand an answer. Look at both sides of the discussion if you want an informed debate.

Defenders often take the stance of being "Russian Space Experts" who know the psychology of Russian Cold War politics from an insiders point of view? Well, most Apollo Defenders believe they know "all the answers" about why "Russia did this" or "Russia did that". The fact remains Russia never went outside of low earth orbit. Russia has never confirmed Apollo by duplicating the flights! Here you go. Russian superiority in LEO for 7 years.

1974 Soyuz 14 — Soyuz 15 — Soyuz 16
1975 Soyuz 17 — Soyuz 18a — Soyuz 18 — Apollo-Soyuz — Soyuz 19
1976 Soyuz 21 — Soyuz 22 — Soyuz 23
1977 Soyuz 24 — Soyuz 25 — Soyuz 26
1978 Soyuz 27 — Soyuz 28 — Soyuz 29 — Soyuz 30 — Soyuz 31
1979 Soyuz 32 — Soyuz 33
1980 Soyuz 35 — Soyuz 36 — Soyuz T-2 — Soyuz 37 — Soyuz 38 — Soyuz T-3
1981 Soyuz T-4 — Soyuz 39 — STS-1 — Soyuz 40 — STS-2

May we agree: CCCP had "X" reasons for not ever sending a single man, woman or monkey going outside LEO. Do you want to win that argument when you know it's impossible to prove, especially, in the face of Russian manned, operational superiority in LEO up to 1982? Could we just have a cease fire on Russia?

And of course the US were doing nothing over that period. You kind of forgot all about Skylab there (Alan Bean was on that too), all the development work for the shuttle, and the joint missions that a couple of those Soyuz were used for. There were also a lot of unmanned probes launched. The US did not stop working in space in 1972, and a Soviet presence does not mean the same as 'superiority' - several Soyuz missions suffered technical problems.

May we also agree: That when Apollo Defenders whip out the Russian Gambit argument that it as an argument from ignorance? Russian Gambit refers to that argument often made by A.D.'s about Russia's means, motives and opportunity in space technology during the Cold War.

And what is it called every time some science denier says "The Russians didn't go therefore we couldn't"?

Not only are you an expert in Apollo but an expert in Russian studies, too!! They should invite you on Mythbusters if you're so smart.

See above - you are also claiming insider knowledge of the Soviet system and that it is more accurate than my understanding. I have read a lot of the material surrounding the space race and the cold war. Clearly you have not.

This one is definitely in my favor.

Funny you don't post links, just pictures of links people can't follow easily so they can check it out for themselves. The document has been linked to in this thread. Its intent is clearly outlined. They ask that people and probes do not go within a specified distance of Apollo 11 and 17, or overfly them below a certain height. This has been explained to you before several times. It is also unenforcable, it has no basis in international law and other countries are entitled to ignore it as they see fit. Photographing Apollo 11 from outside the 'exclusion zone' would be just as much proof that it is there as photographing it from close-up.

Von Braun is THE key man because he sold the rocket program to JFK and JFK went to make that fancy speech at Rice University. SOLD! To the highest bidder: the Military Industrial Complex, of which, NASA plays the critical role, because it's ostensibly a "civilian agency".

After Von Braun had made the sale to JFK, JFK had to turn around and sell it to the American congress on May 21, 1961 and again to the American public on September 12, 1962.

It's like multi-level marketing. en.wikipedia.org...

Which doesn't address my point. A lot of his preferred methods were not used because other experts had better ideas. If the process of awarding contracts to people who can do the job is new to you, maybe you should look into that.

Nixon belongs in an Apollo thread equally along with Neil Armstrong or Pete Conrad, or Richard Underwood, or Farouk el-Baz, or Ed Nixon, or Howard Hughes, or James Webb, Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke, James Fletcher, George Low, Chris Kraft, George Mueller, Walter Dornberger, Arthur Rudolph, Buzz Aldrin, Deke Slayton, Alan Bean, Michael Collins, Alan Shepard, Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, Jim Irwin, Dave Scott, Charles Berry, Thomas O. Paine, Frank Shakespear..... and Robert Roderick. See?

Nixon is your personal obsession. He is the person responsible for cutting NASA's budget and killing the Apollo program. That is the context for his involvement, not some over-arching super-criminal supervising the fraud. You need to make up your mind as to whether he is some sort of drunken idiot or a criminal mastermind as that seems to change depending on which lie your promoting.

"That depends, Henry, on who writes the history." - RN to HK, 8th August 1974

Amazing coincidence because that's exactly what I think about your 177MB pdf file.

And Nixon didn't get to write the history did he?

My website, such as it is, contains a lot of research that proves Apollo happened as documented. If you want to ignore it that's fine, but don't pretend there isn't evidence out there that proves you wrong. Read it, don't read it, I care not, but don't claim the proof you insist on doesn't exist.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

And Nixon didn't get to write the history did he?

Nixon did attempt to re-write history many times. RN was a prolific author after his resignation. If you would read the first 20 pages of "The Real War" (1980) you might understand how Nixon's worldview could be described as absolutely insane.

By Richard Nixon
The Challenges We Face: Edited and Compiled from the Speeches and Papers of Richard M. Nixon (1960) ISBN 0-7581-8739-4
Six Crises, Doubleday (1962) ISBN 0-385-00125-8. Written following Nixon's 1960 presidential defeat to John F. Kennedy, this memoir includes the six major professional crises of Nixon's life to that point, including—in addition to the campaign against Kennedy—the Alger Hiss trial, the Checkers speech, and the Kitchen Debate with Kruschev.
"The Second Office", The World Book Encyclopedia Year Book 1964, Field Enterprises Educational Corporation, 1964, ASIN B000K6CGVU.
RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon Simon & Schuster (Reprint, 1978) ISBN 0-671-70741-8
The Real War. Sidgwich Jackson (1980) ISBN 0-283-98650-6. Written as a cri de coeur against what RN saw as serious threats to U.S. security from Soviet expansionism in the late 1970s
Leaders. Random House (1982) ISBN 0-446-51249-4. A character study of various leaders that RN came to know during his career.
Real Peace. Sidgwick & Jackson Ltd (1984) ISBN 0-283-99076-7
No More Vietnams Arbor House Publishing (1987) ISBN 0-87795-668-5
1999: Victory Without War Simon & Schuster (1988) ISBN 0-671-62712-0
In the Arena: A Memoir of Victory, Defeat, and Renewal Simon & Schuster (1990) ISBN 0-671-72318-9. A more personal memoir than RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon, shows RN's reflections on life, politics and personal philosophy
Seize The Moment: America's Challenge In A One-Superpower World Simon & Schuster (1992) ISBN 0-671-74343-0
Beyond Peace. Random House (1994) ISBN 0-679-43323-6. Completed two weeks before his death and published posthumously

The Same Richard Nixon was the president who sent those Apollo missions to the moon in 1979 Nixon held a special party in San Clemente for the astronauts. But some of the astronauts didn't go. Very interesting history. Don't you think?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


it's funny that John Glenn, Alan Shepard and Neil Armstrong did not want to attend the Nixon party in 1979.

The First American to orbit, First American in space (15-minutes of fame) and First American on the Moon........ stayed away from Nixon's 1979 San Clemente party. That's real history. That's real facts.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

it's funny that John Glenn, Alan Shepard and Neil Armstrong did not want to attend the Nixon party in 1979.

The First American to orbit, First American in space (15-minutes of fame) and First American on the Moon........ stayed away from Nixon's 1979 San Clemente party. That's real history. That's real facts.

Not funny at all Nixon threw parties on each of the astronauts returns. Nixon didnt pass up a chance to drink and party. The astronauts got smaert to it and stopped attending unless NASA told them they had to which usually meant they just completed there mission.Here is a party that Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin Jr and Michael Collins went to. As they say they dont there time.

articles.chicagotribune.com...

Now as for MIT taking over NASA it was the top school in and alot of its graduates went straight to NASA. As far as why MIT was so important is simple look into what Kennedys science advisor was wanting. He thought manned missions were a waste of time and money. Having been an alum at MIT NASA used other Professors at MIT to counter his arguments Such as we dont have the technology to guide the craft. Kennedy knew we coild make rockets been doing it at redstone for decades.However he did have to talk about the guidance problems the hard part of getting to the moon isnt the rocket its the computers and guidance system. If Dr Charles Stark Draper had said we cant do it there would be no apollo program luckily he didnt and said yeah we can build a computer system for guidance.

See your problem with history is you hae a narrow view alot went on apparently you are unaware of because you focus on only what you think proves your point like the astronaut party.But it never occurs to you to wonder why or see if they indeed attended other parties because if you look at the information you post critically it falls apart anf you know this. This is why you use your pictures hoping people wont actually question you. And we are still waiting to see that Von Braun prophecy when and where did he say it? See another example how you believe what you want without checking the facts.

dragonridr

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

it's funny that John Glenn, Alan Shepard and Neil Armstrong did not want to attend the Nixon party in 1979.

The First American to orbit, First American in space (15-minutes of fame) and First American on the Moon........ stayed away from Nixon's 1979 San Clemente party. That's real history. That's real facts.

Not funny at all Nixon threw parties on each of the astronauts returns. Nixon didnt pass up a chance to drink and party. The astronauts got smaert to it and stopped attending unless NASA told them they had to which usually meant they just completed there mission.Here is a party that Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin Jr and Michael Collins went to. As they say they dont there time.

NASA would have been in no position to order any of those three to attend a party by anyone - they had all left NASA long before 1979.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

it's funny that John Glenn, Alan Shepard and Neil Armstrong did not want to attend the Nixon party in 1979.

The First American to orbit, First American in space (15-minutes of fame) and First American on the Moon........ stayed away from Nixon's 1979 San Clemente party. That's real history. That's real facts.

I'm not sure about Alan Shepard, but John Glenn would have been a democratic Senator in 1979, so there would be political reasons for him to not attend a Nixon party. Neil Armstrong was an extremely private man, and not at all the "partying type".

reply to post by onebigmonkey


I know and no one liked Nixon even as president. And the only time the astronauts ever went to a Nixon party was when forced to as public relations simple fact. Not to mention the political ramifications of attending a Nixon party.

dragonridr
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

I know and no one liked Nixon even as president.

Actually, Nixon won by a landslide in 1972. I guess you forgot to check your history books. It's obvious that Nixon had popularity in 1972 and that means the American people liked Nixon. It also means that you are dead wrong.

And the only time the astronauts ever went to a Nixon party was when forced to as public relations simple fact.

Ooops. I guess you are full of crap yet again. Neil Armstrong visited San Clemente for the 5th anniversary of the "moon" landings... Nixon hadn't resigned yet but he would resign in less than a month. Neil was still making public appearances in 7/19/74 and playing the Nixon's Apollo poker game.

Armstrong announced shortly after the Apollo 11 flight that he did not plan to fly in space again.[102] He was appointed Deputy Associate Administrator for aeronautics for the Office of Advanced Research and Technology, Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), but served in this position for only a year, and resigned from it and NASA as a whole in 1971

Not to mention the political ramifications of attending a Nixon party.

15 Apollo astronauts attended Nixon's party in San Clemente. Are you going to deny that?



What about the ramifications of Nixon attending an astronaut party in Las Vegas?

Nixon cancelled his Las Vegas invitations because he didn't want to appear at the Dunes Resort Hotel, with the Apollo astronauts, 10 years after the moon landings, the whole show was on TV. That's why Nixon invited the astronauts to a private gathering at his "Western White House", his ill gotten 26-acre complex in San Clemente.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


it seems now that this has become a RIchard Nixon thread and not the "disclosure of the moon landing hoax" thread i thought i was in..