Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

originally posted by: Masterjaden

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

And if you read your history books you would know that Eisenhower had a very pragmatic view of any US space program: it had to have a point and it had to be worth the money.

He viewed a lunar mission as a costly and questionable stunt.

Kennedy chose to go to the moon, not Eisenhower, or Nixon.

Data vs metadata again. Prove they didn't go.

God just pulled me up to heaven for tea and crumpets with him and Jesus....

Prove, I didn't go...

drrr.....

Jaden

When onebigmonkey says "prove they didn't go", what he's asking is to disprove the mounds of evidence indicating that they DID go.

If you have the same level of evidence of you tea with God and Jesus that exists for the Apollo Moon missions, then it probably would be virtually impossible to prove that you didn't have tea in Heaven. So please provide that same level of evidence, then we'll talk.

originally posted by: Masterjaden

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

And if you read your history books you would know that Eisenhower had a very pragmatic view of any US space program: it had to have a point and it had to be worth the money.

He viewed a lunar mission as a costly and questionable stunt.

Kennedy chose to go to the moon, not Eisenhower, or Nixon.

Data vs metadata again. Prove they didn't go.

God just pulled me up to heaven for tea and crumpets with him and Jesus....

Prove, I didn't go...

drrr.....

Jaden

Post a selfie with the big guy or it didn't happen

I just dropped by guys...to give you all medals...for persistence on this issue. Debunkers and HOAX proponents alike. I'm amazed at the amount of will needed to come here...day after day...and never move an inch in either direction

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The "pro-landing" material is on the table, and it is extraordinary.

I don't see that coming from the anti-landing camp, just a lot of theory, speculation and empty assertions.

The only theory that seems logical is the popular astronauts were held back as trump cards, and unknown astronauts were actually sent...insuring a "success" one way or another, as far as the public end of things.

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: Masterjaden

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

And if you read your history books you would know that Eisenhower had a very pragmatic view of any US space program: it had to have a point and it had to be worth the money.

He viewed a lunar mission as a costly and questionable stunt.

Kennedy chose to go to the moon, not Eisenhower, or Nixon.

Data vs metadata again. Prove they didn't go.

God just pulled me up to heaven for tea and crumpets with him and Jesus....

Prove, I didn't go...

drrr.....

Jaden

Post a selfie with the big guy or it didn't happen

You know he doesn't show on film. But I bet Nixon is involved in it somewhere probably arranged the meeting.

originally posted by: marioonthefly
I just dropped by guys...to give you all medals...for persistence on this issue. Debunkers and HOAX proponents alike. I'm amazed at the amount of will needed to come here...day after day...and never move an inch in either direction

LOL Mario! We have a lot of fun in this thread The Apollo Reviewer Community is always looking for new vectors of thought. What are your thoughts on the Russian Glass Ceiling at 475km?

Moon landings are great subject matter because throughout the 1960's NASA narratives we can associate JFK's space goals (actually, they were high-stakes poker plays) with Nixon's space goals (he learned to play poker at an early age) and this dichotomy of history is what brings this thread together into a sort of limited community, sometimes it is not friendly, sometimes it is a battleground, but as you pointed out day after day... never moves an inch in either direction... but I think their are some significant annotations missing from the NASA gift shop narrative.

The Apollo Reviewers are delivering a better, more accurate and detailed narrative than the debunkers... e.g. NASA/JPL/ALSJ/FoxNews/Mythbusters/JREF/Cronkite "official" mainstream narratives.

The Apollo Reviewers have brought you the Paperclip/Nazi/OSS/CIA/NASA/Hughes/Webb/Nixon/Kubrick narratives and many more alternative narratives that greatly expand our understanding of the event in it's proper historical context.

The Apollo Defenders had a great chance to mute the discussion but they failed with Mythbusters Episode 104. That was WAY BACK in 2008. Phil Plait and Jay Windley were both advisors to that show. What we don't know is if they were "paid advisors".

mythbustersresults.com...

The Apollo defenders keep claiming there's 'proof' of the moon landings.

They include the video footage as proof.

In the clip attached below, we see an alleged astronaut repeatedly kicking a large rock in a pointless attempt to make it roll.

Why would supposedly highly trained astronauts take such a stupid risk? One small rupture and they're dead.

They are allegedly 380,000 km's from earth, and one of the two member crew is taking life threatening risks.



In case the video doesn't play here's the direct link
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: ppk55

Because if you bothered to research for less than a minute you'd find it wasn't very risky at all.

As can be expected, the boots that he and fellow astronaut Edwin ‘Buzz’ Aldrin wore that day had to meet the most stringent safety and performance specifications. These consisted of two main parts – an inner ‘pressure boot’ with a flexible sole which was worn by the crew during their time in space, and a galosh that was strapped on over the inner boot prior to walking on the Moon.

www.satra.co.uk...

Even if the outer boot was holed there was another boot inside that would have held pressure.

originally posted by: ppk55
Why would supposedly highly trained astronauts take such a stupid risk? One small rupture and they're dead.

They are allegedly 380,000 km's from earth, and one of the two member crew is taking life threatening risks.

This fact alone should wake up the people after almost 50 years of sleeping and dreaming.

a reply to: webstra

Only an IDIOT would think that could be a reason look at ALL the previous risk takers we have had in the past , people who dared to travel across the seas although they were told they would fall over the edge , explorers test pilots etc.

If you and ppk were the Wright brothers you would have never flown your plane talk about clutching at straws.

Better watch you dont break a nail typing

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

The Apollo Reviewers have brought you the Paperclip/Nazi/OSS/CIA/NASA/Hughes/Webb/Nixon/Kubrick narratives and many more alternative narratives that greatly expand our understanding of the event in it's proper historical context.

How does concocting multiple conflicting narratives expand understanding? Aren't you just deliberately sowing confusion and misunderstanding with your "review process?"

originally posted by: ppk55
Why would a supposedly highly trained alleged astronaut take such a stupid risk by repeatedly kicking a large rock in a pointless attempt to make it roll.

a reply to: Zaphod58
if you bothered to research for less than a minute you'd find it wasn't very risky at all.

cognizant individuals are possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the essential constituent that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that the astronauts weren't entirely sober or undeniably do or do not know what the hazards inherent in consumption of stupefying intoxicates shouldn’t probably be,if that indeed wasn't intrinsic too what degree they aren't ....

a reply to: Misinformation

Your random word salad doesn't change the fact that the boots had two separate layers to them, which would have safely allowed the outer boot to be punctured.

originally posted by: Misinformation

originally posted by: ppk55
Why would a supposedly highly trained alleged astronaut take such a stupid risk by repeatedly kicking a large rock in a pointless attempt to make it roll.

a reply to: Zaphod58
if you bothered to research for less than a minute you'd find it wasn't very risky at all.

cognizant individuals are possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the essential constituent that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that the astronauts weren't entirely sober or undeniably do or do not know what the hazards inherent in consumption of stupefying intoxicates shouldn’t probably be,if that indeed wasn't intrinsic too what degree they aren't ....

Their behavior indeed sugests they where under the influence of most probably alcohol, indeed.

But let´s be honist, who would not grab to the bottle when you realize you are part of this dispicable scam in the making at that time.

a reply to: webstra

It's called "space madness," and it was a serious concern that was not, for obvious reasons, discussed publicly at the time. The J-series missions took a psychological toll due to extensive time spent in an alien environment.

a reply to: webstra

OF YOU Were Going To Make ME Ride On A RUSSIA Rocket ID Want To Be DrunK too. They have a tendency to blow up and create cool patterns in the sky.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

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

He doesn't need to say it to the person directly, and many threats don't.

A death threat is a threat, often made anonymously, by one person or a group of people to kill another person or groups of people. These threats are often designed to intimidate victims in order to manipulate their behavior, and thus a death threat can be a form of coercion. For example, a death threat could be used to dissuade a public figure from pursuing a criminal investigation or an advocacy campaign.

In many jurisdictions, death threats are a criminal offense. Death threats are often covered by coercion statutes.

....
Here is an example of an actual death threat, from the book Wordcrime by John Olsson. This is a genuine example from a criminal case, provided by the Forensic Linguistics Institute, which analyzes all kinds of text, including traditional letters, ransoms, hate mail, various texts via mobile phones; SMS devices, etc., for authorship:

Boris: I am one of the 4 employees still in the office. I have withheld my identity because I have realised that nothing is a secret any more, the author of the anonymous doc is now a public information. I write as a matter of genuine concern. We in the office are convinced that there is a real threat at your life, some mysterious people are looking for you (different people at different times). They are not genuine people. The cops are also looking for you, they say they want to return you to court, they look like there is more than meets the eye or more that we know of. regards

en.wikipedia.org...


As you see from this example, a death threat can be made by someone by saying others want to kill him/her.


Suppose you were walking alone, and turned into an alley. You come face to face with two thugs, John and Nick..

John says 'Hey, Nicko, want me to crush his skull in with a pipe iron?'

Nick says 'Wanna cut his throat from ear to ear, Johnny?'


By your argument, they are not making death threats to you...because they are not saying it to you....


You get my point now, yes?

Mitchell did make a death threat to Sibrel, clearly.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

The Apollo Reviewers have brought you the Paperclip/Nazi/OSS/CIA/NASA/Hughes/Webb/Nixon/Kubrick narratives and many more alternative narratives that greatly expand our understanding of the event in it's proper historical context.

How does concocting multiple conflicting narratives expand understanding? Aren't you just deliberately sowing confusion and misunderstanding with your "review process?"

I guess you won't understand it (the review process) until you read Logsdon's new book -- he just re-wrote the Apollo narrative with Nixon as the antagonist. Am I the only one in this thread with a copy the new Logsdon book??

The Apollo Defenders need to acknowledge that this book exists and the summary of the book is that Richard Nixon's space legacy was to cancel Apollo, cancel Saturn V, invested in low earth orbit shuttles.

Paine, Mueller and von Braun (Agnew too!) were shut out because they wanted to go to Mars in the 1980's.
Fletcher comes along and sells the low earth orbit shuttles to Nixon.

The shuttles are a 40+ cover up for Nixon's Apollo.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
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.

Mitchell kicks Sibrel in the butt, and makes a death threat on Sibrel...

If you're happy to take such words and actions at face value, then he never went to the moon.


As for the video, Mitchell has it in the VCR, at that time.

Why would Sibrel sneak this video into Mitchell's VCR in the first place? It makes no sense, it has nothing to gain, even if he could do it.

Anyway, Mitchell confirms he has such videos 'given to him' all the time.

Why does Mitchell have one of these videos in the VCR, is the question here...

You think Mitchell isn't familiar with the video in his VCR, because he says so. But it makes no sense he would not know the video in his VCR. It is ridiculous, actually!

Mitchell knows about the hoax claims, and had a video on the hoax in his VCR.

He knows there are people who support the hoax claims, obviously.

Since Mitchell knows about the hoax claims, watches videos supporting the hoax claims, then raising the hoax claims in person would be no different. He knows about the hoax claims, and those who support the hoax claims, while watching videos of the hoax claims doesn't bother him in the least.

Anger is not from raising the hoax issue, period.

a reply to: turbonium1

And when Mitchell tried to sell his Apollo camera at auction NASA stepped in deprive him of his booty. That was way way back in 2011. www.space.com...

Less than a month after the suit was filed, in a seemingly unrelated move, NASA released guidelines for protecting and preserving the Apollo hardware on the moon, including the crash sites of its lunar modules.