Simple Irrationalities Are The Best Way To Show The World Apollo Was Fake

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


also that he spent 3 months in a neck brace, and than starting in february he has recovered suffciently to spend 8 hours every month til july to sit in a centrifuge.

8 hrs every month to condition them. you would think that if he wasnt better that somewhere along the line of those tests he would have complained right?? every month each astronaut back-up as well had to sit in the centrifuge 2 times for 4 hours each so roughly every fortnight.

tell me he couldnt have taken the g's now.

I like the way NASA said they had built 3 Lunar Rovers, one for Apollo 15, one for 16 and one for 17, then when it was pointed out to them that they had a Lunar Rover on display, they said " Oh yes, we built that one to serve as spares for the others ". So was it 3, 4, or in reality only the one which never left the Earth in the first place.

Why did they call it after the god Apollo ?

Could it have anything to do with him allegedly being able to be in one place, but appear to be in another place to other people, being able to be in two places at once, could be handy if you were pulling off a crime, like faking a Moon Landing which the public have paid good money to fund.

I wonder if there was any truth in the rumour that the camera was pointed away from a squirrel which was belting around the set, leading to comments like " look at that sucker go " and " Dum, dum, dum " and the camera being pointed directly into the spotlight.

reply to post by Qwenn

I like the way NASA said they had built 3 Lunar Rovers, one for Apollo 15, one for 16 and one for 17, then when it was pointed out to them that they had a Lunar Rover on display, they said " Oh yes, we built that one to serve as spares for the others ". So was it 3, 4, or in reality only the one which never left the Earth in the first place

Where do they say that?

I have no idea where, it was something which I have read over the years, Boeing changed the story as well, from 3 to 4 and stated that they were built at the same time, although NASA have since said that the Apollo 17 Lunar Rover was a big leap forward, allowing much more reliability. It supposedly allowed about a 35% increase in distance, 30% driving time, 70 plus % traverse, also about a claimed 6 hours extra drive time, even though they were claimed to have had an actual travel time of 4 hours and 26 mins in total.

You've got me wondering now, I did some digging around and found out a little more, although it does not fully back up what I said, it does show that we have been told some very different stories over the years. This site says near the bottom " 1 was built to act as spares AFTER the cancellation of the Apollo programme " if the first 3 were already abandoned on the Moon, how were they going to use the spare one for spares ?

It also says that there were 8 prototypes made of different sizes and abilities for testing purposes, here is the website:

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...



The link does not go directly to the required page, you need to follow it, then find " The apollo lunar rover vehicle " page.

reply to post by Qwenn

I have no idea where, it was something which I have read over the years, Boeing changed the story as well, from 3 to 4 and stated that they were built at the same time, although NASA have since said that the Apollo 17 Lunar Rover was a big leap forward, allowing much more reliability. It supposedly allowed about a 35% increase in distance, 30% driving time, 70 plus % traverse, also about a claimed 6 hours extra drive time, even though they were claimed to have had an actual travel time of 4 hours and 26 mins in total.

Since you have no idea where you read it, I submit that you are mis-remembering. It is your memory that keeps changing the story, not Boeing.

reply to post by Qwenn


i think you are misreading.. it was built for apollo 18, however after apollo 18 was cancelled due to budget cuts, it was than designated for spare parts.

and yes, there were 8 non-flight models for testing purposes.

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by Qwenn

 

i think you are misreading.. it was built for apollo 18, however after apollo 18 was cancelled due to budget cuts, it was than designated for spare parts.

and yes, there were 8 non-flight models for testing purposes.

edit on 8-5-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)

No not misquoting, it is you that have put your own spin on their words, they say " one for Apollo 15, one for 16, and one for 17, the fourth one was used for spares after the cancellation of the Apollo programme " NASA knew at the time that 17 would be the last one, so why the extra one, or was there as I said before, only one !

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Qwenn

 

I have no idea where, it was something which I have read over the years, Boeing changed the story as well, from 3 to 4 and stated that they were built at the same time, although NASA have since said that the Apollo 17 Lunar Rover was a big leap forward, allowing much more reliability. It supposedly allowed about a 35% increase in distance, 30% driving time, 70 plus % traverse, also about a claimed 6 hours extra drive time, even though they were claimed to have had an actual travel time of 4 hours and 26 mins in total.

Since you have no idea where you read it, I submit that you are mis-remembering. It is your memory that keeps changing the story, not Boeing.

I am glad that you are an expert on my mind, as an old timer, my mind is perhaps a bit shady as to where I have found out certain information, however I remember what I have learned, I come from an age when we did not have to litter our lives with thumbnails and bookmarks, printouts, and photographs ( or it didn.t happen ). I lived through the whole Apollo adventure and remember it well, first-hand, not through Wikki or history books, if I knew that I would have to provide links to every new thing I find out or learn, I would have carried a notebook around with me, I have never owned a camera, or mobile phone, so by your reasoning, my past life does not exist because I can provide no photographic proof.

Still you either believe NASA without reservation, or you feel compelled for some reason to repeat their " facts " as your own.

reply to post by Qwenn



you might be right but NASA wanted the first one delivered on 1st april 1971, and apollo 18 and 19 was cancelled on 2nd september 1970.

it can still be used for spare parts if one of the others had malfunctioning parts though.

apollo 15: July 26, 1971
apollo 16: April 16, 1972
apollo 17: December 7, 1972

Boeing began building the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) at the Kent, Wash., facility in 1969, and the first vehicle was delivered just 17 months after the contract was signed.

www.boeing.com...

i cant be certain if all four were built prior to cancellation..

oh wait there it is:

Following three months of proposal evaluation and negotiations, Boeing was selected as the Apollo LRV prime contractor on 28 October 1969.

so first one should be delivered on march 1971. now they should be built in tandem..

got any idea when the planned apollo 18 launch date is?? i cant find it.

Wow ! you manage to get your posts starred just seconds after you post them, you are either BRILLIANT, or you have more than one account, or perhaps NASA defenders get an automatic star !

Either way, there is no point in arguing with you, you can put togeather complex posts with such speed and ease, which either support your opinions or send a discussion round in circles, I wish I could find information as quickly as you, I would have no problem in finding out the information to back up my statements, however, the main point in this forum is to allow people to give opinions and share details, so even if it is not ok by you, I will continue to do it.

You have a point to prove in stating that everything which NASA says is TRUE, well that is not a safe stance to take as they don't seem able to tell the truth, on anything !

reply to post by Qwenn


i have more than one account?? no wonder you believe in the moon landing hoax, you dont research anything.

and you also have the habit of believing everything from NASA is a lie. but you fail to realise how complex faking the moon landing would be, and how complex a fake saturn rocket would have been and how complex it would be to launch it into orbit..

you dont research you dont understand engineering at all. so you dont understand how they were able to get to the moon and the problems the had to overcome nor how, because you dont understand you have to deny it.

reply to post by Qwenn


Qwenn, I too remember it well first hand, though I was relatively young. I was a wide eyed boy when Apollo 8 allegedly went 'round the moon. Did you believe it then ? If so, when and how did you change your mind as regards Apollo Inauthenticity. If you always were a person who did not buy in, how so ? What was it about everything that lead you to see the truth. Thank you !

reply to post by decisively


Now, you think that Apollo 8 was "faked", too!?!



I see the word in the thread title......based on the root 'irrational'......seems to apply more and more.

(eta)...it occurred to me.....many who still foolishly continue in this "Hoax" mindset, despite all of the evidence (tons and tons of it) to the contrary, seem to think that their "armchair research" serves them better than the hundreds of thousands of actual experts and scientists in the World.

Reminds me of a phenomenon I've encountered, before.....the "armchair airline pilot". This is a person with no practical flying experience whatsoever, save for what he/she has read about online or in books and magazines.

Yet, these types insist that they "know" more than real pilots.

reply to post by choos


I beg to differ. I it is rather obvious that it is relatively easy to fake "moon landings".

Allow me to elaborate. Deke Slayton had an atrial fibrillation problem that of course would be viewed by any competent physician as an absolute contraindication to flying on a genuine "space mission". Yet Slayton need only say that he took vitamins in large quantities and this, so cured his fibrillation difficulties. He was in normal sinus rhythm for ever more.

Please show this to your friends , acquaintances who are physicians and ask them if such a tale in any real or imagined space-time could be true.

Apollo, Apollo as fraudulent American manned landing missions, is rather easy to fake. A perpetrator like Slayton need only have said whatever preposterous thing that came to his mind, or came to the mind of his handlers.

We on this side are not gullible. We cannot be bluffed into buying in. The fraud is crystal clear. Those of us that look, see the truth. Apollo was fraudulent and not credible in any sense whatsoever.

Just ask you own doctor. He or she shall tell you in a flash.......A-fib cured with vitamins ? It is pathetic beyond these stars, stars of our sad and cheated world......

reply to post by decisively


firstly.. im no doctor doc, and the only friend of mine who is close to a physician is a paramedic, he's in aus and its nearly 4am so he is sleeping or working not sure.. either way he is too busy to be bothering with mundane conspiracy theories, im only doing this for fun because my life is a bit more mundane to begin with.

secondly.. if he were to make lifestyle changes eat healthy exercise regularly and have a positive outlook, would the irregular heartbeat subside?

thirdly since im no doc, im more inclined to believe a doctor saying someone is fit to fly than some guy who reads a lot of biographies.

reply to post by choos


Ah, but our resident ill-informed so-called "Apollo expert" mentioned Astronaut Deke Slayton. Indeed, not sure how his known medical condition "proves" that Apollo was "fake", since Deke was never allowed to fly into space....due, again, to that same medical.

Like I said earlier..."armchair experts" usually show their lack of expertise, when they attempt to make claims that are easily disputed, and proven wrong.

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by Qwenn

 

i have more than one account?? no wonder you believe in the moon landing hoax, you dont research anything.

and you also have the habit of believing everything from NASA is a lie. but you fail to realise how complex faking the moon landing would be, and how complex a fake saturn rocket would have been and how complex it would be to launch it into orbit..

you dont research you dont understand engineering at all. so you dont understand how they were able to get to the moon and the problems the had to overcome nor how, because you dont understand you have to deny it.

I don't know how you can claim that I don't understand engineering, that I don't research and that I don't understand.

I beg to differ, as I have said before on here, I have invested about £3,000 in Apollo research materials over the years, including blueprints, Mission Logs and transcripts, Lem blueprints and specs, over 60 hours of un-edited EVA footage ( including a great deal of dialogue which is not on any official release ) Books, 7 mamouth boxsets ( 1 for each mission - 30 discs ) etc. I didn't buy them out of pure curiosity, or to sit on the shelf unused. The more you learn about the whole thing and about the people involved, the more you realise how much of an embarrasment this all is.

reply to post by choos


Atrial-fibrillation is a relatively serious conduction system disease. Google it and read a bit. If you are genuinely interested, I can add a bit here and there for you.

Typically, older people are so affected. Slayton would have been VERY young to have developed intermittent a-fib on the base of intrinsic conduction system disease. It is not unheard of , but quite unusual.

The fundamental concern in a general sense is that when one "goes into" atrial-fibrillation, especially in the setting of this occurring in a young person, but it is typical in the elderly as well, one's heart beats VERY fast. Fast and irregular heart beating translates into not pumping so well, and people so affected get dizzy, short of breath, their lungs may "fill with water". One typically is not be able to perform in any meaningful active capacity. The person in fibrillation would typically be more or less exercise intolerant. Lot's of other considerations as well, many many many. It would be without question an absolute contraindication to flying a rocket ship. Sort of silly even thinking about it.

The kind of a-fib Slayton was described as having is "intrinsic" with respect to Slayton's conduction system. This, in contradistinction to a-fib due to an excess of thyroid hormone, or dehydration, or low potassium, or several dozen other extrinsic possibilities, some of course more likely than others. In cases such as with low potassium or dehydration, both very common in the elderly, it would on the other hand be very unusual for such to occur in a young man like Slayton. Regardless, what was described in Slayton's case, intermittent(once a month) and recurrent and outside of the context of low potassium, or dehydration, or a thyroid problem, would be viewed as a problem intrinsic to the heart itself.

reply to post by Qwenn


With that wealth of information, then it makes any stance of "they faked it" rather hard to swallow. (Oh, and "LEM" was an original, early designation considered for the Lunar Module....it was dropped in favor of "LM" long before the first LM was launched).

And, you mention all of the unedited EVA footages? (Many, not you surely, but many are unaware or do not know how or when to differentiate between the film, and video versions of that footage).

So....despite the live radio tracking, that occurred as the missions were underway (back then), the modern LRO camera photos, and all the rest in-between (did I mention about 840 pounds of Lunar samples returned??).....when a person mentions "unedited" footage, well....that particularly blows out of the water any claims of an alleged "hoax" --- once a person begins to understand the way actual fictional motion pictures (and even factual documentaries) are made. They are hardly "unedited". Just the opposite, actually.

But then I am not talking about documentary footage, but of actual footage with timeline stamps, which were not produced for actual release, they originate from America and include much, much, more than any footage, which has been included on any official release. Including quite a few mentions by the astronauts about Earth and locations on it, looks like whistle blowing to me, especially as the groundcrew go into a panic to try to stop them talking about things, especially Apollo 17. They came from a guy who was, allegedly, not supposed to still have them, they were supposed to be collected from him, but never were. The official releases are significant because of the missing parts, many of which are on these recordings.