Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

originally posted by: turbonium1
I feel sorry for the Apollo astronauts, actually.

Before Apollo, they (mostly) had a very good life, and though they all faced risks, it was simply a part of the job..

They were doomed, forever after, by being chosen to become the 'heroic' Apollo astronauts..

They weren't chosen, they applied.

A fate nobody would ever choose, if they ever had a choice.

They did have a choice, they applied.

To die or not, was/is the only choice.

Nope, they chose to go to the moon, because it looked like fun. No-one died on the moon.

Look at their reactions to any hoax questions - intense fear, and stress, by the very real chance of exposure.

The main reaction is 'How do I get away from this babbling idiot?".

How many astronauts have you met?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Nope, you failed at understanding the metaphor again. The whole point of exploration of space, about which Armstrong was speaking, involves making discoveries about the unknown. Armstrong is not dropping hints about secrets, he is using emotive language to inspire future astronauts.

It was indeed structured that specific way, to inspire future astronauts. Not in the way you think it is, though


Before that comment, he said.... "We leave you much that is undone."

What does "undone" mean?

A goal they failed to reached, so they leave much 'undone'.

'Undone' means something failed to get done, like an achievement or goal is not reached.


He left us several clues here, after all.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Before that comment, he said.... "We leave you much that is undone."

What does "undone" mean?

A goal they failed to reached, so they leave much 'undone'.

'Undone' means something failed to get done, like an achievement or goal is not reached.

He left us several clues here, after all.

or maybe he meant further human space exploration such as landing man on mars or an asteroid or even leaving the solar system..

but ofcourse you can only believe he meant landing man on the moon.. since once that is finished all space exploration is complete.

a reply to: turbonium1

Again obsessing over metadata vs data. You are not discussing what is there, you discussing what you think is there, or what you would like to be there. Just as with the stupid Dutch rock you are looking at words that were spoken and inferring words that were not. You are deciding what Armstrong means and constructing a fantasy from it.

Evidence is not an option here.

If you have evidence that Armstrong and his fellow Apollo astronauts did not walk on the moon, please post it. If you have any kind of evidence that the rocks, experimental data, photographs,TV and 16mm video are not correct please post it. Otherwise all you are doing is making stuff up.

a reply to: turbonium1

'Undone' means something failed to get done, like an achievement or goal is not reached.

such as :

permanant habitable base on the moon

manned flight to mars

those sort of undone goal ????????????????

originally posted by: DJW001

You are hallucinating. All I've ever seen has been pity for the questioners ignorance or righteous anger for the charlatan's attempt to demean the astronaut's bravery and accomplishments. People who try to make themselves look big by demeaning others make me sick.

Like astronauts try to make themselves look big by demeaning anyone who dares question their delusions of godhood!

Anyone is entitled to their opinion, like believing the moon landings were hoaxed.

If someone doubts the Apollo story, it should be taken by Apollo astronauts as an opinion which is not true, if they did land on the moon.

The astronauts are well aware of some people believing it was hoaxed. It is not a surprise to the astronauts, if someone says it was hoaxed, during an interview.

They were caught off guard, as anyone else would have been, of course.

Why would they even care a spiffle what he believes or does not believe happened? That's the real question here...


Let's say I was claiming to the world I have really walked on the moon, just like the astronauts claim.

If I did walk on the moon, I don't care if anyone tells me that I didn't. As I know I did, they are simply mistaken.
And then, I'd want to explain it to them, so they can understand it. If they don't agree, at least I tried to show them. No big deal.

But if I didn't walk on the moon, and claim I did, that would make me a liar. And if anyone said it was a hoax, and said they had proof of a hoax, then I would be very nervous, and scared, which are the very same reactions of the Apollo astronauts.

Anger is not a 'righteous' reaction to someone who says I didn't land on the moon. Not if I did land on the moon, at least. He is wrong, and I know it. And if he wants me to prove I did, then I would love to prove it to him, so he will know it is the truth.

Anger is a reaction by someone who is not telling the truth. Their anger is caused by an intensified fear, to defend themselves with, against their accuser.

Anger can also show up with a person who suddenly begins using foul language, while he never spoke it beforehand.

The worst example was a loony-tune Apollo astronaut who made death threats to Bart Sibrel, for merely claiming that it was a hoax.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: turbonium1

'Undone' means something failed to get done, like an achievement or goal is not reached.

such as :

permanant habitable base on the moon

manned flight to mars

those sort of undone goal ????????????????

Those are ideas we hope to plan for in a distant future, and to eventually be 'done'.

Undone is something tried to be done was not. Unfinished, in other words.

a reply to: turbonium1

The worst example was a loony-tune Apollo astronaut who made death threats to Bart Sibrel, for merely claiming that it was a hoax.

as there is a vid of this incident - its not a good idea to lie about it - it just makes you look a bigger idiot

originally posted by: turbonium1

Anger is not a 'righteous' reaction to someone who says I didn't land on the moon. Not if I did land on the moon, at least. He is wrong, and I know it. And if he wants me to prove I did, then I would love to prove it to him, so he will know it is the truth.

Anger is a reaction by someone who is not telling the truth. Their anger is caused by an intensified fear, to defend themselves with, against their accuser.

thats because you have no pride in the acknowledgement of being one of the few men to have landed on the moon..

what do you take pride in the most?? or do you simply not understand how test pilots from that era have a large ego and pride? perhaps you simply dont understand how pride works??

also, you are not a psychologist, stop acting like one.

a reply to: turbonium1

"The other thing about it is, this conspiracy theory, is [that] the truth needs no defense. I don't have to respond to that. I stepped on the surface of the Moon, and I don't really need to defend that, because I know it happened, I know I did."

Gene Cernan, Oral history.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: turbonium1

The worst example was a loony-tune Apollo astronaut who made death threats to Bart Sibrel, for merely claiming that it was a hoax.

as there is a vid of this incident - its not a good idea to lie about it - it just makes you look a bigger idiot

That has been the MO of may of the people who push the moon hoax. They make up false information that has no corroborating evidence, and then state that false information as if it were a known fact.

Just like much of the other details surrounding the alleged Moon Hoax, if they keep repeating unsubstantiated claims such as "Aldrin made death threats against Bart Sibrel" enough, then there are some people who might start believing those false claims. It's a common tactic for spreading falsehoods.

It's not that clear but what does Ed Mitchel saying here ?

Ed Mitchel threatning to get his gun ?

a reply to: webstra

Did he get a gun and shoot them?

Pity you didn't link to the bit just before that where he says quite clearly "we did go to the moon", and then tells him that he came into his house under false pretenses and calls him an a$$hole and kicks his backside.

I like Ed Mitchell more and more.

Convicted criminal Bart Sibrel, the man who entered Neil Armstrong's house and terrorised his wife. What an example for the hoaxers he is.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: webstra

Did he get a gun and shoot them?

No, he threatned with it..isn't that what i wrote ?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: webstra

Did he get a gun and shoot them?

Pity you didn't link to the bit just before that where he says quite clearly "we did go to the moon", and then tells him that he came into his house under false pretenses and calls him an a$$hole and kicks his backside.

I like Ed Mitchell more and more.

Convicted criminal Bart Sibrel, the man who entered Neil Armstrong's house and terrorised his wife. What an example for the hoaxers he is.

Do you find it normal to thread with à gun when somebody does not believe your fancy ridiculous fairytales ?

And here is another one....i find it really worrying :

Mittchell´s son : Want to call the CIA and have them waxed ?

originally posted by: webstra

Do you find it normal to thread with à gun when somebody does not believe your fancy ridiculous fairytales ?

if you enter someones property under false pretenses, do you expect to do what you like with no consequences??
if the owners asked you to leave you would feel no obligation to leave even though you are there under false pretenses?

so you think trespassing is ok??

a reply to: choos
he entered the property under false pretenses

what false pretenses ... he entered too do an interview about the apollo moon missions ... typical propagandists want too have their narrative & eat it too ----

a reply to: Misinformation

`

what false pretenses ... he entered too do an interview about the apollo moon missions ... typical propagandists want too have their narrative & eat it too ---

Was he a Japanese documentary maker? He couldn't help lying even if he didn't need to!

a reply to: DJW001
Was he a Japanese documentary maker?

his films have been translated into many languages ...Ergo, concordantly, certain individual propagandists have vested interests in flaunting their racism to minipulate the public, so when the hoax is disclosed it becomes discredited from further accumulated consumption ...

a reply to: webstra

So he didn't actually get a gun and shoot anyone? It wasn't just something to encourage an unwanted guest to GTFO then?

Here's how bad at lying convicted criminal Bart Sibrel is. After he is ordered to leave (and the reason he gets threatened and gets his ass kicked is because he doesn't do it) you get some text on the screen saying that the camera had been "accidentally left on". When Mitchell makes his statement convicted criminal thug Sibrel says quite clearly that he has a video camera running".

So which is it? Did he deliberately leave the camera running in the hope that he would get some more footage without the consent of the participants (who had clearly got annoyed at being called liars) or didn't he?

It's really very simple, Sibrel lied to get in to Mitchell's house, he called him a liar and called his friends liars. Anyone who did that in my house would get the same, and any normal person would react in the same way.