Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by FoosM

As with other Apollo missions providing TV coverage from the spacecraft, informal visits with the astronauts were highly scripted, using cue cards. Second moon walker Edwin Aldrin suggested the United States Information Agency scripted Apollo Eight's Bible reading and Neil Armstrong's first words from the lunar surface. Whether Armstrong said "That's one small step for man," or "a man", as he intended (with the article "a" lost to static), has never been resolved. The blurry black and white images of Armstrong jumping onto the lunar surface and the short surface explorations by Armstrong and Aldrin are widely regarded as television's first, and perhaps greatest, example of unifying a massive worldwide audience in common wonder and hope.

United States Information Agency scripted Apollo

United States Information Agency scripted Apollo

highly scripted

www.museum.tv...

Ladies and Gentlemen, FoosM's quote-mining at work.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Im sure any country or newspaper that wrote articles dismissing the moon landings as fake, was probably put under pressure by the US.

Please provide some evidence for this opinion. Most countries weren't exactly bending over backwards to please the USA in those days.

Such as, off the top of my head, the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. I hear they didn't like the US much.

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Im sure any country or newspaper that wrote articles dismissing the moon landings as fake, was probably put under pressure by the US.

Please provide some evidence for this opinion. Most countries weren't exactly bending over backwards to please the USA in those days.

Such as, off the top of my head, the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics. I hear they didn't like the US much.

Why didn't the USSR like USA? Did they ever fight a war head to head?

Do you see how your combined comments above falls far, far short of any credible analysis?

reply to post by bansheegirl


Logic is nice however we cannot overlook the spontaneous insights granted to the human mind in existenz, in praxis.

Nixon born a Sun Capricorn. But his Chinese astrological sign is :

[color=Cyan]

WATER RAT

Source www.astrotheme.com...

He rejected the Quaker tenet of pacifism [enlisted in Navy, prosecuted Vietnam War as president]. He ignored the Quaker ban on swearing oaths on taking office as vice president and president. This from an astrological interpretation of RMN. Source starcats.com...

Not only does history vilify this man, astrology does, too! :lol

:

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Whatever you say, good fellow! It wasn't ME who destroyed the telemetry data of mankind's "greatest " achievement... You see there are different levels of evasion... destroying evidence by incompetence is one.

All of Shakespeare's original manuscripts were eventually used to wrap buns or start fires. What's your point?

Did you say Shakespeare? I've got a Shakespear for you DJ. You will # your pants. My apologies to your dry cleaners. Nixon's Presidential Diary from July 17th 1969:
files.abovetopsecret.com...

Come SJ, what do you got for us? Westinghouse, Shakespeare, CBS, Golf of Tonkin, Noel, you are about to tie it all up right? Right?

I'm still digging. I'm was looking at reasons to explain why Nixon wouldn't show up for the Apollo 11 launch.



Nixon's Eyes Wide Shut

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


You are actually claiming that the cold war never happened? It was all faked then? You have any proof or are you just typing random things hoping noone notices???

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

You are actually claiming that the cold war never happened? It was all faked then? You have any proof or are you just typing random things hoping noone notices???

Well it was a great excuse to spend taxpayers money and they did,
by the truck load.

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

You are actually claiming that the cold war never happened? It was all faked then? You have any proof or are you just typing random things hoping noone notices???

Well it was a great excuse to spend taxpayers money and they did,
by the truck load.

The Military Industrial Complex strikes again!

..the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project ... set out to determine the comprehensive costs of America's nuclear weapons program from 1940 to 1996, including the cost of research and development, production, deployment, delivery systems, infrastructure, storage and cleanup.

It took four years of sifting through government records, many of them previously classified, and doing rigorous analysis to come up with the bottom line: $5.5 trillion dollars. If future cleanup, stockpiling and dismantlement is included, that rises to $5.8 trillion. Even with the Cold War over, the United States is spending $35 billion a year—14 percent of the defense budget, or $96 million a day—on nuclear efforts of which about $25 billion goes for operation and maintenance of the nuclear arsenal. The rest is spent on cleanup, arms control verification, and ballistic missile defense research. Source www.brookings.edu...

That's a lot of money for the Military Industrial Complex. Notice, that's a "T". Trilions.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

You are actually claiming that the cold war never happened? It was all faked then? You have any proof or are you just typing random things hoping noone notices???

I didn't make a claim. I asked 2 questions:
Why didn't the USSR like USA? Did they ever fight a war head to head?

And you avoided both questions.

Let's put NASA into perspective.

The last mission in the U.S. biosatellite program was Biosatellite III, launched on June 28, 1969. The intent had been to fly a pigtailed monkey in Earth-orbit for 30 days. However, after only 8.8 days in orbit, the mission was terminated-lis.arc.nasa.gov...

Surgeries were performed on the flight and control animals to implant the sensors described earlier. Other preflight surgical procedures included tail amputation, incisor tooth extraction, testicular biopsy, and anal suturing.

This is how NASA does science. They tortured a monkey and a few weeks later Apollo 11 lands on the Moon.

Here is a ton of pictures linking Walter Cronkite, CBS Evening News anchor, with the Apollo TV operations at Honeysuckle Creek, correction Goldstone, a mere 12 days before the big show.

www.honeysucklecreek.net...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7f50ce5f299a.jpg[/atsimg]

Don't forget good buddy Frank Shakespeare.

Shakespeare was president of CBS Television in New York from 1950 to 1969 when he was appointed by President Richard Nixon as director of the United States Information Agency.

And who was met with Nixon on July 17 in the afternoon ... Frank Shakespeare.

The Show Must Go On!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Why didn't the USSR like USA? Did they ever fight a war head to head?

No, they were forced to fight "proxy wars" in Viet Nam, Cambodia, Angola, El Salvador, Afghanistan and various places around the globe. They couldn't confront one another directly due to the fear of escalation to nuclear warfare. For someone so versed on the period, I marvel that you have never heard of the evil Dr. Kissinger's doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Do you see how your combined comments above falls far, far short of any credible analysis?

Please tell me this was intended as a joke.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Nixon born a Sun Capricorn. But his Chinese astrological sign is :

WATER RAT

So... when you are unable to use logic to prove your case, you resort to blind superstition in the hopes it will convince the feeble minded. It reminds me of the way Dr. Goebbels used the "prophesies" of Nostradamus to convince the German people that Hitler was destined to rule the world.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

I'm still digging. I'm was looking at reasons to explain why Nixon wouldn't show up for the Apollo 11 launch.

No, you are posting large, random posts to move the thread ahead, thus burying the following posts:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Completely off topic! We know they spent tons on defense. What does that have to do with landing on the Moon?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

And you avoided both questions.

No, you're the one avoiding the questions here. Do you believe the Cold War never happened? Are you denying there was ever a war in Viet Nam? Afghanistan? Well, answer the question.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

This is how NASA does science. They tortured a monkey and a few weeks later Apollo 11 lands on the Moon.

And the Moon Hoax propagandists claim that NASA didn't torture enough monkeys before sending men to the Moon. Or at least a turtle or two. That is how HB's do propaganda.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Here is a ton of pictures linking Walter Cronkite, CBS Evening News anchor, with the Apollo TV operations at Honeysuckle Creek, correction Goldstone, a mere 12 days before the big show.

Yes, it certainly is suspicious that a reporter would be covering the biggest story in history, and that two men who had spent their entire lives in journalism would ever meet.

Originally posted by 000063
reply to post by FoosM

 

I'm sorry, I don't see how race is relevant. Unless, of course, you were trying some juvenile trick to paint me as a racist.

So what made the lady's age relevant?

Originally posted by bansheegirl
Observer such-and-such forms an opinion based on various other items of evidence that they have been exposed to, Based on that exposure, and on the practices of their verbal community ( i.e how other people have reacted to that evidence or their perception of it ) they form a position towards the issue. In the case of people not believing a moon landing happened there may be a perceived mis-match between the evidence and what they either logically expect to find there, or what their intuition tells them should be. ... Then later when new evidence is presented this initially formed opinion, and the multitudes of additional information accrete to it over time. [sic]"

Originally posted by 000063
In other words people thought it was real because they were told it was real.

In other words Apollo really happened and some people experienced the moon landing coverage and were convinced, and continued to experience it as a historical fact, espoused at every turn in schools and media as one of the greatest achievements of humanity. In the face of this a few people saying it was bunk would seem ridiculous and unfounded. Every bit of evidence seen by these people supported the story they had been told, and to top it off lunar rock specimens provided incontrovertable proof of the truth of Apollo.

In other words Apollo really happened and some people found the reality of Apollo unconvincing. Perhaps it did not seem enough-like an otherworldy vista, or the astronauts seemed to carefree about bouncing around, or they imagined starfields and saw none. They became attuned to dissenting voices that pointed out inconsistencies and were maybe put off and further made suspicious by replies to these inconsistencies that were unconvincing ( because not every report debunking the bunk would do so well or even accurately ). The seeds of doubt having been cast, every piece of evidence was thereafter critically examined for flaws, and even rocks were considered fakable or findable in Antarctica. Misunderstandings often happened based on truly complicated principles being over-simplified or poorly communicated to the masses.

In other words Apollo never quite happened and some people stumbled on cracks in the story and fumbled around and found anomalies and things that were "wrong" that in fact were actually done right but were falsely clung to as signs of a conspiracy. And they fumbled around some more and found smoking guns that were actually just smoke and easily debunked. And the wisest even saw that NASA had invested enormous effort in landing men on the moon, with sincere efforts all around to achieve an actual moon landing. Technology was developed, in-depth simulations formulated to guide the work, and most everyone involved most certainly felt that "This time we're going to do it." More fumbling and the growing suspicion that there was some problem that derailed all this effort ..., something not ready, radiation belts more intense than anticipated, or a third agenda better served by taking what had been developed, bringing in a small group sworn to secrecy to augment the existing progress with enough facade to make the enterprise seem real, and going that last mile to the moon by way of a temporary "patch". Fool-proof except small stupid things tripped it up. Collaborators read an expert report saying the sky was pitch black, and figured that was the truth of it ( i.e. no stars ),.. so stars were down-played in the official account, not realizing the original expert report had meant ( but not explicitly stated ) that stars would be visible but the ground against which they'd be seen would be what was pitch black, or prop location markers were accidentlaly left visible or whatever ... insert improbable, human fallacy of your choice and take it as the clue that these people found that kept them searching for the real truth behind it all.