Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

a reply to: webstra

'Credible sources' like New York Times don't lie ALL the time. That would be very stupid...

So, it's only when they say something that seems to support your position that they are being accurate?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: webstra

'Credible sources' like New York Times don't lie ALL the time. That would be very stupid...

So, it's only when they say something that seems to support your position that they are being accurate?

No...they will lie when it is necessary.

a reply to: webstra
And it's you who decides which is a lie and which is a fact.
Isn't that what I said?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: webstra
And it's you who decides which is a lie and which is a fact.
Isn't that what I said?

Is that the best answer you got ?

It's not about me phage...it's about them, 45 years ago.

a reply to: webstra

Is that the best answer you got ?

It wasn't my answer. It was your answer about how the Times lies about some things but not others. You think your interpretation of what the Times said about Middendorf is accurate and you think they lied about the landings.

It's not about me phage...it's about them, 45 years ago.

I know. What about them? 45 years ago (closer to 46, actually).

I thought maybe they "scratched" the Luna 15 mission but according to NASA they didn't?

sservi.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: choos

faking Apollo will require ATLEAST 27 people.. the more people involved the more likelyhood of the secret being exposed.

What happened to your 400,000 fallacy? You know, the fallacy that Apollo Defenders used to say that the 400,000 individuals working on the Apollo moon landing program had to be in on a hoax?

Now you are down to 27 people? LOLOLOLOLOL.

27 people? What's the breakdown there? Twenty four astronauts, Richard Nixon, Stanley Kubrick and the guy who brought the coffee?

webstra : It's not about me phage...it's about them, 45 years ago.

phage :I know. What about them? 45 years ago (closer to 46, actually).

They fooled us ;-)

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: choos

faking Apollo will require ATLEAST 27 people.. the more people involved the more likelyhood of the secret being exposed.

What happened to your 400,000 fallacy? You know, the fallacy that Apollo Defenders used to say that the 400,000 individuals working on the Apollo moon landing program had to be in on a hoax?

Now you are down to 27 people? LOLOLOLOLOL.

27 people? What's the breakdown there? Twenty four astronauts, Richard Nixon, Stanley Kubrick and the guy who brought the coffee?

I think it's a bit more than 27. But do you think that 400.000 is a real number ?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter
The Middendorf story is starting to turn a little darker don't you think?

yes, but dont think the propagandists want to hear that narrative though .... I'd hinted at it a few pages back with the video I'd posted but I didnt go into much detail for trepidation that metabolic efficiency could take a turn for the worst...

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: choos

faking Apollo will require ATLEAST 27 people.. the more people involved the more likelyhood of the secret being exposed.

What happened to your 400,000 fallacy? You know, the fallacy that Apollo Defenders used to say that the 400,000 individuals working on the Apollo moon landing program had to be in on a hoax?

Now you are down to 27 people? LOLOLOLOLOL.

27 people? What's the breakdown there? Twenty four astronauts, Richard Nixon, Stanley Kubrick and the guy who brought the coffee?

I think it's a bit more than 27. But do you think that 400.000 is a real number ?

are you denying that 400,000 people were not involved in the Apollo program?

100,000 workers on the Manhattan Project, so 400,000 on Apollo seems plausible.

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: choos

faking Apollo will require ATLEAST 27 people.. the more people involved the more likelyhood of the secret being exposed.

What happened to your 400,000 fallacy? You know, the fallacy that Apollo Defenders used to say that the 400,000 individuals working on the Apollo moon landing program had to be in on a hoax?

Now you are down to 27 people? LOLOLOLOLOL.

27 people? What's the breakdown there? Twenty four astronauts, Richard Nixon, Stanley Kubrick and the guy who brought the coffee?

I think it's a bit more than 27. But do you think that 400.000 is a real number ?

But what is a "real" number? I've asked that several times with no answer from the hoax believers here. How many people would have been in on it and who would they have been? For example, there was just discussion about the Honeysuckle Creek station with the implication that something was amiss with the television transmission. Listen to some of that interview with Nafzger that was offered as evidence. He talks about the major involvement of RCA personnel in getting the system online and then making emergency repairs. He also talks about Australians who were working on the project. If something wasn't right with what happened there look how many people from all over would have been involved. In just this one relatively small aspect of the project.

a reply to: DelMarvel

If something wasn't right with what happened there look how many people from all over would have been involved. In just this one relatively small aspect of the project.

Only one random "Australian" workman working in the OTC building on the same weekend when Richard Nafzger says the building was locked for the weekend. This "workman" just decided on his own to go and switch the leads on the equipment. The equipment just happened to "explode".

The expensive SSTV equipment was destroyed and had to be replaced by RCA just three weeks before the Apollo 11 launch. That's where the story gets a little fuzzy.

Richard Nafzger's job is to produce the portion of the Apollo television show that deals crucially with the conversion of Apollo 11 SSTV signals to normal commercial broadcast signals. He holds a valuable position to be in if he were called to be an active participant in the Apollo 11 lunar landing TV hoax, either through direct order from the President or a pay off from Howard Hughes.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

are you insinuating that the random "australian" workman was richard nafzger himself???

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: DelMarvel

If something wasn't right with what happened there look how many people from all over would have been involved. In just this one relatively small aspect of the project.

Only one random "Australian" workman working in the OTC building on the same weekend when Richard Nafzger says the building was locked for the weekend. This "workman" just decided on his own to go and switch the leads on the equipment. The equipment just happened to "explode".

I have it on good authority that the workman's name is known. Sometimes people act on their own authority to do something they think needs to be done. Australia and the US had different wiring and electric current standards. Mistakes happen.

The expensive SSTV equipment was destroyed and had to be replaced by RCA just three weeks before the Apollo 11 launch. That's where the story gets a little fuzzy.

There you go with your imaginary three weeks again...

Richard Nafzger's job is to produce the portion of the Apollo television show that deals crucially with the conversion of Apollo 11 SSTV signals to normal commercial broadcast signals. He holds a valuable position to be in if he were called to be an active participant in the Apollo 11 lunar landing TV hoax

And he did indeed ensure that the SSTV signal made it the world's TV screens. Some undercover agent he is...

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter
The Middendorf story is starting to turn a little darker don't you think?

yes, but dont think the propagandists want to hear that narrative though .... I'd hinted at it a few pages back with the video I'd posted but I didnt go into much detail for trepidation that metabolic efficiency could take a turn for the worst...

Middendorf's career after his stint in Holland has nothing to do with this story.

If you think there is more to add that will help clarify the issue, then I suggest you add it otherwise we are left to conclude that you are just demanding attention by trolling.

And funny how SJ thought this story was an unnecessary distraction until he decided he could extract some juice from his favourite lemon about it.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

There you go with your imaginary three weeks again...

Let's take a straw poll in the thread and see which argument has more merit

onebigmonkey proposes the SSTV equipment explosion at the Sydney OTC building was... three months before Apollo 11... based on Richard Nafzger's 2013 oral history transcript at nasa.gov
www.jsc.nasa.gov...

SayonaraJupiter proposes the SSTV equipment explosion at the Sydney OTC building was... three weeks before Apollo 11... based on Richard Nafzger's 2010 audio interview at honeysucklecreek.net
www.honeysucklecreek.net...

a reply to: [post=19356365]onebigmonkey


referring to an ellipsoidal yellow fruit can be hazardous to your health,, you know that...

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

And funny how SJ thought this story was an unnecessary distraction until he decided he could extract some juice from his favourite lemon about it.

True, I thought the DFMR was a distraction until you guys produced about 15-20 really good pages of discussion on it. I am saying both sides did a really good job of digging into the Dutch Fake Moon Rock scandal.

But now we know that Middendorf was CIA and that all we need to plant the red flag.