Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

originally posted by: Misinformation

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

That's your link? Nixon's photo near the word 'Space'?

a reply to: Misinformation
Hoagland?
You think Hoagland agrees with you?

A stunning validation of not only the ultimate reality of "the Apollo Program" itself (against all those who have claimed, against overwhelming evidence, that "it never really happened ...") -- but what the Apollo astronauts actually found ... all those years ago -- which NASA then inexplicably, but relentlessly, suppressed:

www.enterprisemission.com...

Even that Richard knows it happened.

a reply to: Phage
Hoagland? You think Hoagland agrees with you?
Even that Richard knows it happened.

without going into too much detail ,, I dont think you can fully judge Hoagland without looking at the positive qualities of Hoagland himself, he has a long tradition of existence & the community at large...

we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted apollo paradigms, whether sought or unsought,,,,

it is quintessential the propagandists simultaneously disseminate the parameters facilitating the function regarding apollo's fundamental flaws or particularly similar profound predications...

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

You wouldn't refuse to look at the evidence. You know it cannot be legit, right? Hiding from it would make no sense, then.

why is the accuser wasting his time with "evidence" that the astronaut knows is not legit??

you said so yourself, he knows the accuser is trying to present lies as facts.. the astronaut knows first hand that anything he says about the moon landing being false is a complete and utter fabrication by some uneducated troll..

so he is going to refuse looking at the "evidence" since there is no such thing..

lets say you took a plane for a holiday in Europe.. you know you went, but along comes 50 random people (people you dont know) who say that you are a liar since planes cant fly (thats their belief) .. now think that those 50 people truly believe what they are saying and persistently call you a liar for the next 40 years trying their best to prove that you never flew to europe.

eventually you are going to get annoyed by it and when that happens.. they will use your anger as proof you never went because reasons.

When have billions of people around the planet universally agreed on something?

Never.

So, if 50 people say I'm lying about flying to Europe, since they believe planes cannot fly, and they tried to prove I didn't fly to Europe, for the next 40 years...


I would be curious, and intrigued, about how they came to hold such beliefs.

I'd ask them why, to show proof, first of all.

I have proof, but they have none.

I would also prove they had falsely accused me of lying.


They don't stop accusing me of lying, for the next 40 years, still trying to prove their case.


I don't know why they hold to such a belief, since they have no proof for it, in the least.

I don't get angry, it's not my problem, and I can't change what people think!

a reply to: Misinformation

GIbberish. Don't mistake the ability to string lots of alliteration together for erudition and wisdom. It serves only to obfuscate meaning. Please post in English.

Hoagland lies about his credentials and makes stuff up for money.

The only thing he has correct is that Apollo went to the moon.

a reply to: turbonium1

And if they refused to listen to your evidence, misquoted you, claimed you had forged your tickets, visa stamps and holiday snaps, turned up at your house and demanded you swear on the bible?

Besides, your own reaction to such events is irrelevant. The astronauts' reactions are irrelevant. It is yet another attempt to divert discussion away from data by trying to interpret metadata.

Prove they didn't go to the moon.

originally posted by: Phage
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.

Edgar Mitchell made the first death threat, his son made the second death threat.

Both are heard in the clip, clearly.

Your side has not disputed this matter, so...

What is it you are claiming here, exactly?

a reply to: turbonium1

What is it you are claiming here, exactly?

That the Mitchells were pissed off at that annoying idiot Sibrel and wanted him gone from their property.
Was it really hard to make that out from my post?

originally posted by: turbonium1

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

they would be aware that there are alot of crazies and haters who will do anything they can to belittle the astronauts achievements yes.

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

you are a liar.. Mitchell did NOT have it running you clearly see Sibrel put it on the VCR..

why do you have to resort to lying all the time?? is it to try to twist the stories to fit your imagination??

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

anyone would get angry when their greatest achievement is being belittled.. if they dont then its not their greatest achievement that they are proud of.

you simply dont understand the mentality of these people and yet here you are pretending that you do..

i have asked you multiple times already and you continue to ignore it.. what is your greatest achievement in your life?? the single event that you are most proud of??

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.

yes he does.. he has crazy guy in his house, under false pretenses, calling him a liar when he knows for a fact that he walked on the moon.. a crazy guy who persistently pushes and prods for reaction..

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

to intimidate sibrel to get off his property..

by the way how long did it take Sibrel to leave the house between when Mitchell first asked and Sibrel leaves the property?? oh wait you dont know because it was cut, but it was atleast one and a half minutes.. of which Sibrel chose to stay and continue to argue instead of leave..

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

mitchell was not terrified.. he was pissed off by Sibrel persistant accusations.. its in the film, Sibrel persistently calls him a liar and persistently tries to force Mitchell to say it was faked..

would you like it if i went to your house and persistently called you a liar?? or would you offer me some dinner or maybe tea?? its amazing how disconnected you are from human emotions..

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Phage
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.

Edgar Mitchell made the first death threat, his son made the second death threat.

Both are heard in the clip, clearly.

No, they are not.

Your side has not disputed this matter, so...

Yes, I have, repeatedly - where specifically do they threaten to kill him? What words were used?

What is it you are claiming here, exactly?

That convicted criminal thug and serial liar Bart Sibrel was ordered off a property having gained access through false pretences and did not leave immediately. The property owners were well within their rights to use reasonable force to remove him. They were too reasonable.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

And if they refused to listen to your evidence, misquoted you, claimed you had forged your tickets, visa stamps and holiday snaps, turned up at your house and demanded you swear on the bible?

Besides, your own reaction to such events is irrelevant. The astronauts' reactions are irrelevant. It is yet another attempt to divert discussion away from data by trying to interpret metadata.

Their reactions are very relevant, as I see it.

Suppose John went to the bank, and withdrew $5000.00 from his account. Then, Frank went to the same bank, moments after John had left. Frank held up the bank, at gunpoint, and he made off with $5 grand in stolen loot.

Frank had a great disguise, which made him very confident that he couldn't possibly be identified in the crime. He had to lie about where he was at the time, should he be questioned on it.

John knew he was not involved in the bank robbery, and had nothing to hide about his story, if he is questioned on it.

The investigation leads to John and Frank being questioned, as cameras identified them in the vicinity of the bank around the time it was robbed.


The investigators will be able to suss out whether John and/or Frank may be trying to hide something, as well..

The investigators tell John there is solid evidence to show he robbed the bank.

The investigators tell Frank there is solid evidence showing he robbed the bank.

Same bluff to both of them, but with very different reactions.



John, as an honest man, wants to see what sort of evidence is unjustly presented for a crime, when he was not involved in any way. John wants them to realize he has nothing to lie about, they have no evidence he did it..

Frank reacts very differently. He doesn't want to hear about finding evidence of his crime. He wants to run for the hills, rather than see evidence of his crime.

Compare the reactions of the astronauts, then you'll know...

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Yes, I have, repeatedly - where specifically do they threaten to kill him? What words were used?

Edgar Mitchell says 'Want me to get a gun and shoot 'em, Adam, before they get out of the office......?'

How would you take this, now?

Mitchell's son says 'Want to call the CIA, and have 'em whacked?'

What do you think?

a reply to: choos
Mitchell has a good reason to turn into a spewing maniac ,,, Sibrel is a crazy guy in his house ....

well atleast he didnt crap on the rugs ...

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

That convicted criminal thug and serial liar Bart Sibrel was ordered off a property having gained access through false pretences and did not leave immediately. The property owners were well within their rights to use reasonable force to remove him. They were too reasonable.

If you think it's too reasonable to suggest murdering them before they can get away, like it is in a bizarro-world, it makes perfect sense.

a reply to: turbonium1

Is there a response in the affirmative to either of those questions?

So he doesn't actually say "I'm going to kill you?", "You're dead"? That kind of thing?

a reply to: turbonium1

This is absolute nonsense - you are now not only applying your own imaginary reactions to a scenario to which you have never been subjected, you are now making up imaginary events for fictional characters and deciding that their imaginary fictional responses are somehow indicative of how someone you have never met and whose personality you do not know would react.

Prove they didn't go to the moon.

a reply to: Misinformation

Even more tenuous and pointless than your previous post.

Mitchell's dog's behaviour proves what?

originally posted by: turbonium1

The investigators tell John there is solid evidence to show he robbed the bank.

The investigators tell Frank there is solid evidence showing he robbed the bank.

Same bluff to both of them, but with very different reactions.

telling john that they have strong evidence to show he robbed the bank is just that.. a saying..

what Sibrel is doing is trying to force all the astronauts to confess, and he is persistently calling them liars and other foul names..

have you added this to your scenario?? no why not??

you have consistently ignored the effect of continuous pestering of the astronauts.. after mitchell tells Sibrel to leave why does he stay for more than one and a half minutes trying to further provoke mitchell??

The rocket boosters don't factor into Neil Armstrong's voice because they were using microphones designed in the mid 1960's, not exactly the type of sensitive microphone systems that we have today.

Take the technology of the time into account.

The Moon Landing Hoax issue for me is one of the biggest fake conspiracies out there.

Focus on the real conspiracies, right here on Earth. There are PLENTY to find, you just have to go look.

If you're focusing on conspiracies projected by the mainstream (like Alex Jones, Jesse Ventura etc), you're likely falling for fake conspiracies and completely ignoring real ones.

I'll get you started on a couple you've probably never heard of. Research keywords "DAVID KELLY IRAQ" and your mind will be blown by one of the biggest cover ups very few people are aware of or even discuss.

How about that mysterious half sized space shuttle that NASA ADMIT they have in orbit, but no one ever seems to discuss, despite NASA admitting that it's up to something "top secret".

How about the MASSIVE cover up of artifacts that don't fit the accepted human time line that's going on in the archaeology world? Rarely discussed on conspiracy sites.

How about the globalization of corporations, that seems to be continuing almost unabated despite clear anti monopoly laws?

How about International banks colluding with each other to manipulate stock markets and currencies? Why have so many bankers in high powered positions been found dead in mysterious circumstances lately?

Do some research into Dominique Strauss Kahn, and why he was railroaded with ridiculous sex charges right when he was trying to rally European banks NOT to lend more money to Greece back in 2008? He was the lone wolf on the IMF who said Greece couldn't afford the loans, and was conveniently in jail on (later found completely unfounded) sex crime charges when they took the vote that needed to be unanimous.

How about Gerrymandering of political districts to ensure the right candidate is elected?

And in regards to the NWO, ignore what the mainstream media and mainstream conspiracy theorists talk about, they're a distraction from the truth. TRUE conspiracies NEVER get discussed in the mainstream. If you really want to see who's running things behind the scenes, look at the 1% of the 1% (the 0.01%) of Americans, and find out who you've never heard of. Those are likely the true puppet masters. The likes of Sheldon Adelson and Koch Brothers are the well-managed public distraction from what's really going on in private.

True conspiracy theorists find their OWN conspiracy theories, and only really pay scant attention to the ones in mainstream conspiracy discussions.

a reply to: babybunnies

The X-37 isn't NASA, it's Air Force, which is why it's doing classified missions.