Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001

What does being a USAF pilot have anything to do with it? Besides him being a paid stooge for NASA?

Military officers have training and discipline. They can wear their fingers to the bone without whining like a little girl... or Jarrah.

I think your confusing the Air Force with other the military branches.

Yes, I'm sure these folks in the Air Force are just cushy.



Yep. It's like a country club.

Second, the astronauts WERE WHINING about it. Or didnt the numerous comments about how much their fingers hurt using the gloves gave you a clue? Further, your whole comment on the matter has no scientific support; your tossing shots of patriotic pablum into the air.

Said the man who declared some guy a "NASA stooge" with no supporting evidence.

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by backinblack
It is odd though..
No man before or since Apollo has left Earths orbit..

Considering how quickly they managed it you'd think they would have continued..

It's not that odd really. With NASA's shrinking budget, the Apollo program was discontinued due to its high costs.

Let me then ask this question, do you know if Apollo 18, 19 or 20 was already paid for by the tax payers?

edit on 5-9-2011 by FoosM because: edit text

1. What does that have to do with anything?
2. "Already" compared to when?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

How am I busted?
To be clear, what exactly are you busting me on?

You were implying that Armstrong was describing his boot prints while he was still on the ladder, weren't you? In any event, since you can't see his face, how would you know he wasn't looking down?

No.
Please keep up with the conversation before making accusations.

You liar.

Originally posted by FoosM
Notice, he was still holding on to the ladder, and offering a description of the surface without skipping a beat. Did you see him bend down to check his feet?

I note that you avoided correcting DJ as to what you "actually" said. First you tried the false disingenuity gambit, then moved on to the flat denial.

Speaking of which.

By the way, Neil could have just given the public a clue to what was actually used for the ground in staging the landing. Powdered Charcoal. Where did Neil get this descriptor from? Was he an artist? Did he brush his teeth with it?

Or could an adult male possibly have had a barbecue at some point in his life? The world may never know.

reply to post by AliensAreDemons


You have quoted a lot of here say in arguing that there is no extraterrestrial life, because we cant get off our little rocky planet. So there are no aliens just demons which you will try to link to every topic you enter. Which might have the same opening that the alien community may try to use. I am in favour of alien life but I would not start stating so with out some proof other wise it becomes more like a religious statement than scientific reason, which is the difference between religion and extraterrestrial based topics. If i was the opposing side i would state they're probably more advanced than our race (which I'm not due to lack of evidence). I won't because most of the ufo community have lost there way and are basing there beliefs solely on, 'you will never know attitude' or 'you will just have to have faith'. Please people go back to why we are in this, to find the truth through what we can rely on, scientific facts with little room for faith. Or our cause gets lost to mindless people.the truth is out there about ufos,extraterrestrial life all conspiracies just stay grounded.

If a government will lie & obscure the truth to it's own people to "protect" them from invisible terrorists and external threats (see Colin Powell at the U.N.) then the government will also lie & obscure the truth to achieve the opposite effect - which would produce a euphoric effect - and increase the public faith in the government through *exceptional claims* of achievements. To wit, the Apollo Propaganda Project.

This is difficult for most people to understand: The Gulf of Tonkin resulted in >10 years of $Big Money$ for the military industrial complex. The 1960's space programs resulted in >10 years of $Big Money$ for the military industrial complex. The Cold War arsenals of nuclear weapons and missiles resulted in >40 years of $Big Money$ for the military industrial complex.

Take a look here. Mars rover Spirit lasted almost 6 years and produced a lot of science. Mars rover Opportunity is still going at 7 years old. Wiki quotes the total cost of 2 Mars rovers as US $820 Million + $120 Million for mission extensions! See, when MARS missions are successful they are e x t e n d e d, not cancelled (like Apollo) or intentionally crashed like we get next week with $Big Money$ GRAIL.

Take a look here.
US $375 Million dollar GRAIL mission (2 probes, 5 cameras on each ) will have a science mission of 90~days and then both probes will be intentionally crashed into the moon. Why does NASA crash so much crap on the moon? NASA $Big Money$ bureaucrats, part of the military industrial complex.

Who is really running the Moon Program? DoD? That's the spoiler for the movie Apollo 18 which, in my opinion, could be yet another propaganda disinformation campaign run by the $Big Money$ DoD.

Or to the contrary, Apollo 18 (the film) could be ONE SMALL STEP toward disclosure...

reply to post by FoosM

The video is fake. How could a metal object flutter? If that was the case, then the hammer should flutter as well. So no, the sequence does not have to take place in a vacuum. Although, there were vacuum chambers large enough to film that particular scene.

Oh dear, back to basics again. The speed at which an object falls through an atmosphere has nothing to do with what it's made out of; that's the point. It has to do with air resistance, which is a function of its cross section. Please perform the following experiment for yourself: tear a strip of aluminum foil roughly the size and shape of a leaf or feather. Release it and observe how it falls. Now pick it up and crumple it into a little ball and let it fall again. Observe the difference. The video can only have been made in a vacuum.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Do you get paid a bonus every time you use the phrase "Gulf of Tonkin?" Seriously, you keep bringing it up as though it were somehow relevant, even though its not.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Do you get paid a bonus every time you use the phrase "Gulf of Tonkin?" Seriously, you keep bringing it up as though it were somehow relevant, even though its not.

Its relevant to when the lie happened.
And who lied and the consequence of that lie.

reply to post by FoosM

Were you on the moon missions? What is it you are choosing to believe? It makes little sense to mock someone for believing what they have been told when your argument is only that you believe what you have been told.

But many people never believed that the government was telling the truth about the Gulf Of Tonkin incident, and the lie was completely exposed by the "Pentagon Papers" less than ten years later! Where are the "NASA Papers?"

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Do you get paid a bonus every time you use the phrase "Gulf of Tonkin?" Seriously, you keep bringing it up as though it were somehow relevant, even though its not.

Its relevant to when the lie happened.
And who lied and the consequence of that lie.

Ok, I'll start using Watergate as an example. Nixon wasn't a crook because he said so on TV, right?

Who was president when ALL Apollo's "landed" on the moon? Hint: January 20, 1969 – August 9, 1974

Apollo 11. July 1969. Nixon was president.
Apollo 12. November 1969. Nixon was president..
Apollo 14. January 1971. Nixon.
Apollo 15. July 1971. Nixon.
Apollo 16. April 1972. Nixon.
Apollo 17. December 1972. Nixon was president..

Nixon had the nickname "Tricky Dick" for a reason.

Originally a nickname used to refer to former U.S. President Richard Nixon. It was actually coined by Democratic politician Helen Gahagan Douglas during the 1950 U.S. Senate race in California because of Nixon's usage of dirty tricks to gain an advantage.

Nixon was also a staunch anti-communist. He served on the House Committee for UnAmerican Activities. Publicity surrounding the case of Alger Hiss thrust Richard M. Nixon into the public spotlight, helping him move from the U.S. House of Representatives to the U.S. Senate in 1950, and to the vice presidency of the United States in 1952.

His campaign committee in Whittier, under the direction of attorney Murray Chotiner, had sent 68,500 leaflets to registered Democrats in envelopes emblazoned with the words AS ONE DEMOCRAT TO ANOTHER! It was true that California's cross-filing laws allowed Nixon to run in the Democratic primary, but he had little hope of winning, and in any case he was not a Democrat. The campaign material failed to disclose his party affiliation, referring to him simply as Congressman Nixon, "The Man Who Broke the Hiss-Chambers Espionage Case."

Nixon: I still think we ought to take the North Vietnamese dikes out now. Will that drown people?
Kissinger: About two hundred thousand people.
Nixon: No, no, no, I'd rather use the nuclear bomb. Have you got that, Henry?
Kissinger: That, I think, would just be too much.
Nixon: The nuclear bomb, does that bother you?...I just want you to think big, Henry, for Christsakes.

Source www.nytimes.com...
Source en.wikipedia.org...
Source en.wikiquote.org...

He escalated the war on Viet Nam and bombed Cambodia. He opened talks with the Chinese communists because they were testing nukes and he felt threatened by that. I think we all need to take another look at Nixon. We can't underestimate him. Communism was his personal pet peeve. We can't underestimate his twisted psychology during that time frame of the late 60's early 70's.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4c7cf78f8c67.jpg[/atsimg]

He was the most dishonest individual I ever met in my life. President Nixon lied to his wife, his family, his friends, longtime colleagues in the US Congress, lifetime members of his own political party, the American people and the world.
Barry Goldwater in his memoirs, Goldwater (1988)

NASA is releasing new LRO photos of the Apollo sites tomorrow.
www.space.com...

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Ok, I'll start using Watergate as an example. Nixon wasn't a crook because he said so on TV, right?

Who was president when ALL Apollo's "landed" on the moon? Hint: January 20, 1969 – August 9, 1974

Apollo 11. July 1969. Nixon was president.
Apollo 12. November 1969. Nixon was president..
Apollo 14. January 1971. Nixon.
Apollo 15. July 1971. Nixon.
Apollo 16. April 1972. Nixon.
Apollo 17. December 1972. Nixon was president..

Nixon had the nickname "Tricky Dick" for a reason.

And you think this is evidence that the moon landings were faked? How does that work - is it that everything Nixon said was a lie??

Because if so then I guess the vietnam war was a fake too? we know that can be mashed up in a studio......

Sure Nixon lied about stuff - but unless you are going to say that he lied about EVERYTHING (and I'm not seriously suggesting that you do) then you also have to admit that he told the truth about some stuff too.

So then you ahve to sort out the lies from the truth - and to do that you have to look at the actual evidence for and against the event - for which his tenure as president is completely irrelevant.

Originally posted by FoosM
Let me then ask this question, do you know if Apollo 18, 19 or 20 was already paid for by the tax payers?

They were, yes. After Apollo 17, there was the Apollo Applications Program which used some of the left over hardware. One of the Saturn V's was used to launch Skylab. Other completed or mostly completed hardware went to various museums. You can read about the surplus equipment here: Canceled Apollo missions

Originally posted by FoosM
Armstrong could not possibly have done this if he was in the shadow side of the LM.

So what? It's not pitch black in the shadow. He would still be able to see the ground in the shadowed side.

Where did Neil get this descriptor from? Was he an artist? Did he brush his teeth with it?

Now you're just being ridiculous. Does it really matter where he got this descriptor from?

Originally posted by FoosM
Although, there were vacuum chambers large enough to film that particular scene.

You do understand that the Apollo missions weren't filmed in small 1 to 2 minute scenes, like you see on youtube. The video can go for hours uncut at times, with the astronauts moving all over the place. The largest vacuum chamber would still be too small to fake the Apollo missions, plus it doesn't solve the 1/6th gravity that you'd have on the Moon. How did they fake the 1/6th gravity? I keep asking this, but it always gets conveniently ignored. (I wonder why...).

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Ok, I'll start using Watergate as an example. Nixon wasn't a crook because he said so on TV, right?

And Apollo is a hoax because Jarrah White said so on YouTube, right?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Ok, I'll start using Watergate as an example. Nixon wasn't a crook because he said so on TV, right?

And Apollo is a hoax because Jarrah White said so on YouTube, right?

Nixon's prepared speech from July 18, 1 9 6 9, written by William Safire, titled "IN EVENT OF MOON DISASTER" reads, in part,

"These brave men, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, know that there is no hope for their recovery."
Source www.thesmokinggun.com...

What about Michael Collins then?

Nixon's pre-written speech has a few problems with it. It assumes that Armstrong and Aldrin were alive but they "know that there is no hope for their recovery."

Out of all the possible ways a moon mission could go wrong Safire/Nixon predicted a very specific scenario that reveals that Armstrong and Aldrin were trapped, alive, on the moon, with no way home. >> Why bother to write a speech at all? In the event of a real moon disaster it would take less than 5 minutes for a press secretary to whip up a genuine statement.

Nixon had an ulterior motive for typing up that speech with the very specific scenario.

William Safire isn't he a well respected writer? If Safire wrote this for Nixon and doesn't give mention to Collins then perhaps this speech wasn't a speech at all... but a threat to the life of Armstrong and Aldrin should they screw up and let the secret out. There is also the 2nd memo which leaves the astronaut names blank
Source www.thesmokinggun.com...

which makes the 2nd memo more suitable as a warning to every subsequent Apollo mission.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Were you on the moon missions? What is it you are choosing to believe? It makes little sense to mock someone for believing what they have been told when your argument is only that you believe what you have been told.

But many people never believed that the government was telling the truth about the Gulf Of Tonkin incident, and the lie was completely exposed by the "Pentagon Papers" less than ten years later! Where are the "NASA Papers?"

Where are the telemetry tapes?

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Ok, I'll start using Watergate as an example. Nixon wasn't a crook because he said so on TV, right?

Who was president when ALL Apollo's "landed" on the moon? Hint: January 20, 1969 – August 9, 1974

Apollo 11. July 1969. Nixon was president.
Apollo 12. November 1969. Nixon was president..
Apollo 14. January 1971. Nixon.
Apollo 15. July 1971. Nixon.
Apollo 16. April 1972. Nixon.
Apollo 17. December 1972. Nixon was president..

Nixon had the nickname "Tricky Dick" for a reason.

And you think this is evidence that the moon landings were faked? How does that work - is it that everything Nixon said was a lie??

Because if so then I guess the vietnam war was a fake too? we know that can be mashed up in a studio......

Sure Nixon lied about stuff - but unless you are going to say that he lied about EVERYTHING (and I'm not seriously suggesting that you do) then you also have to admit that he told the truth about some stuff too.

So then you ahve to sort out the lies from the truth - and to do that you have to look at the actual evidence for and against the event - for which his tenure as president is completely irrelevant.

edit on 5-9-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

You have conflated my original statement to the point of ridicule, for the stars, I'm sure. What I said was:

"I think we all need to take another look at Nixon. We can't underestimate him. Communism was his personal pet peeve. We can't underestimate his twisted psychology during that time frame of the late 60's early 70's."

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter


William Safire isn't he a well respected writer? If Safire wrote this for Nixon and doesn't give mention to Collins then perhaps this speech wasn't a speech at all... but a threat to the life of Armstrong and Aldrin should they screw up and let the secret out. There is also the 2nd memo which leaves the astronaut names blank
Source www.thesmokinggun.com...

which makes the 2nd memo more suitable as a warning to every subsequent Apollo mission.

Excellent analysis!

In jurisprudence, duress or coercion refers to a situation whereby a person performs an act as a result of violence, threat or other pressure against the person.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by FoosM
Let me then ask this question, do you know if Apollo 18, 19 or 20 was already paid for by the tax payers?

They were, yes.

Well then, the issue of not going to the moon was not about money, was it?
Sounds more like the moon hoax did its job, and NASA realized they were falling behind the Soviets
in long term LEO missions and wanted to place their focus there.

Originally posted by jra

You do understand that the Apollo missions weren't filmed in small 1 to 2 minute scenes, like you see on youtube. The video can go for hours uncut at times, with the astronauts moving all over the place. The largest vacuum chamber would still be too small to fake the Apollo missions, plus it doesn't solve the 1/6th gravity that you'd have on the Moon. How did they fake the 1/6th gravity? I keep asking this, but it always gets conveniently ignored. (I wonder why...).

I dont see how the 1/6th has been ignored.
We have covered it plenty of times.

And I do realize the videos are longer than a minute or two. But you do realize that for the most part
the camera is stationary. I've said this earlier. You all should be wise to TV trickery by now. For example, the camera does not track DAVE when he supposedly finds a falcon feather in his pocket. For all we know a stagehand could have handed him the feather off screen.

Also in the video I posted, if you watch the ground, it appears the footprints of the astronauts are being artificially made. Yes, I said it. Artificially.

reply to post by FoosM


I can't understand those who still debate weather the moon has an atmosphere or not. I think there has been enough evidence collected to firmly attest to the moon having an atmosphere. That being the case, there is a debate about gravity of the moon.

One would say that if there is an atmosphere then the gravitational calculations as 1/6th of earth simply do not work because those calculations would say there can not be an atmosphere, however..... The fact that our Earth based orbital satellites, probes that are "sling shotted" around the moon to venture deeper into the solar system operate as expected with existing math that describes the moon at 1/6th Earth gravity operate in pre defined normalcy is somewhat disturbing.

This would indicate that there is another factor we don't know or not being told about and believe me when I say there may be a very good reason behind that. It is hard to argue the fact that there IS an atmosphere on the moon and it is equally hard to argue the fact that the people putting space missions together know exactly what the gravity on the moon is. Catch 22 of undeniable facts = frustration when all information is not disclosed to the observer.