Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I've done quite a bit of my own research into the subject, and have come away with the conclusion that the official narrative is correct. That being said, I've also read your Nixon's Apollo thread (several times, in fact), and found it to be a well-written, well-researched, entertaining thread, and it raised quite a few questions for me, initially. I have enormous respect for the time, effort, and dedication you've put into your research, but I must, however, respectfully disagree with your conclusions.

a reply to: DJW001
Why not quote everything he said?

there is really no need too,,, there is an overwhelming consensus among reasonable individuals that the chain of custody of apollo artifacts has been broken, concordantly compromising the ability to verify their authenticity ...

originally posted by: Misinformation

there is really no need too,,, there is an overwhelming consensus among reasonable individuals that the chain of custody of apollo artifacts has been broken, concordantly compromising the ability to verify their authenticity ...

chain of custody broken??

so going from the mission to the astronaut involved with the mission is a broken chain of custody??

i guess when you say "reasonable individuals" you mean your fellow imaginary troll friends?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

You, uh....You just ignore whatever doesn't fit your narrative, don't you?

I am not constructing a new narrative for you because the new narrative already exists. All I am doing is suggesting that you improve your personal historical narrative by accepting some facts that don't originate from NASA or ALSJ or ASU sources.

Those sources (.gov sources) were the ones you insisted people adhere to when posting evidence as part of your own attempt to control the narrative. I'd suggest you actually look at the ALSJ and ASU material and learn things from it.

In order to understand Apollo you need to place Apollo in context of the Nixon administration. Apollo Defenders are eternally bound by the executive authority of the 37th President.

I'm not bound by any authority based in the IS. I place Apollo firmly in the context of the president that started it, and the scientific and engineering methods used to achieve it.

The best book on the subject is the recently published "After Apollo?" by an established pro-NASA author John M. Logsdon.

Half way through the book Logsdon drops the Apollo narrative and goes into the Shuttle narrative leaving work to be done for Apollo Reviewers.

That would be because the book is called 'After Apollo', not 'During Apollo'.

You are taking the translated words of a Soviet official and spinning it to death. He does not say Apollo did not go to the moon, and the focus of the article is not the Apollo missions. The focus of the article is to snipe at the US and the fact that US law enforcement is poking its nose into FIFA's corrupt practices and Russia's links to it.

Any other interpretation of this news story, including your attempt yet again to crowbar Nixon into it, is false.

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I've done quite a bit of my own research into the subject, and have come away with the conclusion that the official narrative is correct. That being said, I've also read your Nixon's Apollo thread (several times, in fact), and found it to be a well-written, well-researched, entertaining thread, and it raised quite a few questions for me, initially. I have enormous respect for the time, effort, and dedication you've put into your research, but I must, however, respectfully disagree with your conclusions.

You are excellent and I thank you for that. Thank you again for not sprinkling your posts with ad hominem attacks. So... have you read the new book by Logsdon?

When I was reading it there is point where Logsdon just loses the scent for Apollo and gets distracted by the big decision regarding the shuttle. I said to myself while reading it, "Come on Logsdon, you are really going to skip most of A15, A16 and A17??" And he did. But that is to be expected because Logsdon is one of the government "owned" historians. His book is still valuable because it shows the lengths that Nixon would go to 1. cancel the hoax program 2. bluff the Russians on the Moon landings and 3. later bring the Russians in on the hoax during the 1972 visit to Moscow and 4. invest in low earth orbit for 40+ years.

Logsdon says Nixon's space legacy was 40+ years of low earth orbit and we are still within Nixon's Apollo, because if you read enough of what Henry Kissinger wrote about credibility, well, Apollo was a great example of credibility, which came at a time when America desperately needed it. Nixon was a gambler and this was the biggest gamble of his life.

Logsdon's book will show you how Nixon stacked the deck by rearranging his executive bureaucracy into the form of a fascist dictatorship, NASA would have their budget "ratchet down" to the point that they can't launch a man out of earth orbit 40 years later. One good thing about the Logsdon book is that he really emphasized the 40 years thing. This is a real thing in the "official" narrative... a space legacy that goes directly back to Richard Nixon's decisions during his first term.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Any other interpretation of this news story, including your attempt yet again to crowbar Nixon into it, is false.

I don't have to crowbar Nixon into the Apollo narrative dude. Logsdon has done a fine job of that! Does it pain you to accept the facts of a new, better, more accurate narrative?

a reply to: onebigmonkey

I place Apollo firmly in the context of the president that started it,

Kennedy's Apollo?

Could you please elaborate on that?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

No, I haven't read Logsdon's book, and honestly, I probably won't get to it for quite awhile, though I will add it to my list lol. I don't think it's going to change my belief on the matter, but I'm always down for a good read.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

needs no elaboration .

PS - what did nixon ACTUALLY do to contribute to the apollo program ?

hint - read the above question carefully - and actually answer it

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency.

In the last 24 hours we have seen facilities now being created for the greatest and most complex exploration in man's history. We have felt the ground shake and the air shattered by the testing of a Saturn C-1 booster rocket, many times as powerful as the Atlas which launched John Glenn, generating power equivalent to 10,000 automobiles with their accelerators on the floor. We have seen the site where the F-1 rocket engines, each one as powerful as all eight engines of the Saturn combined, will be clustered together to make the advanced Saturn missile, assembled in a new building to be built at Cape Canaveral as tall as a 48 story structure, as wide as a city block, and as long as two lengths of this field.

Within these last 19 months at least 45 satellites have circled the earth. Some 40 of them were "made in the United States of America" and they were far more sophisticated and supplied far more knowledge to the people of the world than those of the Soviet Union.

The Mariner spacecraft now on its way to Venus is the most intricate instrument in the history of space science. The accuracy of that shot is comparable to firing a missile from Cape Canaveral and dropping it in this stadium between the the 40-yard lines.

Transit satellites are helping our ships at sea to steer a safer course. Tiros satellites have given us unprecedented warnings of hurricanes and storms, and will do the same for forest fires and icebergs.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1

threaten to kill him

I know it's pointless asking, but where does an astronaut threaten to kill anyone?

I've already posted a link to the clip, if you want to review it.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

You are quoting a small excerpt of the Kennedy speech at Rice University. I think that all of us who are serious about Apollo research should just sit back and watch the entire thing on youtube. It's less than 20 minutes. A truly epic speech given in Houston, Texas... ToolCo Headquarters.

Tonights Show on Coast to Coast AM - Moon Landing Conspiracy

Russian investigation into the US moon landings ....

Former space science museum curator and former NASA consultant, Richard C. Hoagland, reacts to the news that a Russian official wants to investigate whether the US moon landings really happened. Followed by Open Lines.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

relevance ????

PS - still waiting for your opinion on nixons contribution to the apollo porogram

originally posted by: choos

they can be disputed and question but dont be surprised if you get an angry response.

what it looks like is you are belittling their achievements.. purely because you cannot comprehend what they have achieved so much so that you feel the need to belittle their achievements down to your level.


anger would be my first emotion, how i show it depends on the situation..

im definitely not going to be happy letting some jealous kid belittle my greatest achievements which i worked my ass off for.


to have some jealous kid who doesnt understand basic physics try and belittle my achievements, my emotions would be anger.. but like i said above, depending on the situation the reaction to that anger would differ.

The astronauts were aware of some people claiming it was a hoax, first of all...

In fact, Mitchell even had a video of the hoax argument in his VCR at the time (the Fox TV special, iirc).

You think Mitchell gets angry at seeing his greatest achievements belittled in person, but enjoys watching it in a 'video' format?.

Anyway, the point is - Mitchell does not have any reason to turn into a spewing maniac over an opinion, of a fool, and a liar....as you claim Sibrel to be.

Mitchell's death threat could only serve one purpose - to intimidate Sibrel, that there are serious consequences he should consider.

Mitchell was terrified, and so desperate, that he actually made a death threat.

a reply to: turbonium1

Mitchell's death threat could only serve one purpose

To help get him the hell off of his property?

Mitchell was terrified, and so desperate, that he actually made a death threat.

Which Mitchell? Edgar made no death threat. His son was pretty pissed off though.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

It is indeed, and there are several paragraphs afterwards that would also have suited my intention.

Apollo was Kennedy's vision, and not just Apollo but the other things, the other things being the entire space programme of satellite reconnaissance and unmanned probes.

Nixon rode on his coat-tails, nothing more.

originally posted by: Misinformation
Tonights Show on Coast to Coast AM - Moon Landing Conspiracy

Russian investigation into the US moon landings ....

Former space science museum curator and former NASA consultant, Richard C. Hoagland, reacts to the news that a Russian official wants to investigate whether the US moon landings really happened. Followed by Open Lines.

Hoagland was never a NASA consultant. He has managed to inveigle himself into alternative media sources using that title because they consult him about NASA, about which he has a very small amount of knowledge and a lot of made up BS.

The Russian official is not wanting to investigate whether the landings actually happened. He specifically states the opposite of that.

a reply to: ignorant_ape
still waiting for nixons contribution to the apollo porogram

originally posted by: turbonium1

In fact, Mitchell even had a video of the hoax argument in his VCR at the time (the Fox TV special, iirc).

You think Mitchell gets angry at seeing his greatest achievements belittled in person, but enjoys watching it in a 'video' format?.

If you actually watch the clip, Mitchell barely recognises which video it is because he has 'hundreds of them' that people send him. Sibrel knows exactly which video it is, and it wouldn't surprise me if he had put it in the VCR himself.

Mitchell also clearly says that hoax believes are 'totally misguided' because "we did exactly what we said we did".

So if you're happy to take everything Mitchell says and does at face value, then he went to the moon.