How Do 400,000 Smart People Get Fooled And Never Doubt Apollo And Never See It For A Big Phony Fake

reply to post by roadgravel


Russians landed LRRRs without dudes, did it with "robots", unmanned craft.

reply to post by samkent


There is some subtext going on with regard to my mentioning Rene and Kaysing.

Soft landing an unmanned craft is plenty easier than landing dudes. Just ask the Russians. The Russians were first with an ICBM, earth satellite, multimen craft, first woman in space, first hard landing on the moon FIRST SOFT LANDING ON THE MOON.

Planting an LRRR on the lunar surface is a trivial feat when compared with landing a dude, for example a Neil Armstrong.

Look samkent, what were our goals ? Ruskie surveillance, reconnaissance, ICBM targeting/tracking/performance, Dyna-Soar development, MOL development, measuring various and sundry "constants" (earth's gravitational strength, how that varies over the earth's surface, making Coriolis effect determinations).

It's all about BOMBS senkent BOMBS and what pray tell does landing dudes on the moon have to do with targeting Moscow and vaporizing the Bolshoi ? Nothing, well almost nothing. Pretending to put dudes on the moon helps you in your GENUINE EFFORTS to take out Sviatoslov Richter.

Them pianists and dancers be dangerous ya' know ... Are ya' catching on yet ?

reply to post by decisively

It's all about BOMBS senkent BOMBS and what pray tell does landing dudes on the moon have to do with targeting Moscow and vaporizing the Bolshoi ? Nothing, well almost nothing. Pretending to put dudes on the moon helps you in your GENUINE EFFORTS to take out Sviatoslov Richter.

Them pianists and dancers be dangerous ya' know ... Are ya' catching on yet ?

No. Please explain.

reply to post by DJW001


You can aim an ICBM better with an LRRR on the moon. That simple. Gives you a good/best in those days number four the strength of the earth's gravitational field.

reply to post by decisively

You can aim an ICBM better with an LRRR on the moon. That simple. Gives you a good/best in those days number four the strength of the earth's gravitational field.

Please elaborate. What advantages are there to using an observation post on the distant Moon to determine the Coriolus Effect when observatories based on Earth can provide more detailed data? What advantages would there be to trying to map the Earth's local gravitational variations from the distant Moon over more direct observations made by satellites in near Earth orbit? And what does a Laser Ranging experiment have to do with Earth's gravity? It can measure the Earth-Moon distance very precisely, but how would that help you aim an ICBM?

reply to post by DJW001


ICBMs require many things for their targeting, including in so many words, a sense of the earth's overall gravitational field strength and how that strength varies locally, from point to point over the surface.

Measuring the DISTANCE to the moon was the best way to obtain the overall strength figure. I would suggest one might also employ LRRR earth/moon distance measurements to investigate local variations in field strength as well. This is important ICBM targeting wise, if one is trying to hit Moscow as opposed to Peking, local field strength variability. But that aside, the issue with earth-moon distances yielding the best field strength is not a point in dispute and the LRRR method was the most accurate means to obtain this.

I imagine they used the LRRR for Coriolis effect calculations as well, though certainly earth orbiting satellites would have been useful in terms of measuring local field strength and rotation for the Coriolis concerns as well.

In terms of getting a figure for overall strength, a low orbiting, earth orbiting artificial satellite, can't eliminate local effects, distance to the moon measurement by way of an LRRR approach doesn't have this problem. You are 240,000 miles away and so any local variation in strength is washed away by virtue of that virgin patch of vacuum.

reply to post by decisively

Measuring the DISTANCE to the moon was the best way to obtain the overall strength figure. I would suggest one might also employ LRRR earth/moon distance measurements to investigate local variations in field strength as well. This is important ICBM targeting wise, if one is trying to hit Moscow as opposed to Peking, local field strength variability. But that aside, the issue with earth-moon distances yielding the best field strength is not a point in dispute and the LRRR method was the most accurate means to obtain this.

Okay, please explain how this works. How do you use the precise distance to the Moon to measure the Earth's overall gravitational field?

I imagine they used the LRRR for Coriolis effect calculations as well, though certainly earth orbiting satellites would have been useful in terms of measuring local field strength and rotation for the Coriolis concerns as well.

Do you even know what the Coriolus effect is? The Earth does not have local variations in its rotation; it is essentially a solid sphere with uniform rotation. The exact speed varies directly in proportion to the latitude, of course, but has been measured with great precision from Earth. As usual, you're talking nonsense.

In terms of getting a figure for overall strength, a low orbiting, earth orbiting artificial satellite, can't eliminate local effects, distance to the moon measurement by way of an LRRR approach doesn't have this problem. You are 240,000 miles away and so any local variation in strength is washed away by virtue of that virgin patch of vacuum.

But it is the local variations in the Earth's mass that are the most important in terms of pin-point accuracy. Even so, just how accurate does one need to be when targeting a thermonuclear warhead? If you can lob it within ten kilometers of the target, you'll probably destroy it. Certainly you don't believe that ridiculous Cold War propaganda that the US could target MIRVs to within a few meters?

FRAUD In The FIRING ROOM, Paying Attention To Dials And Not Common Sense

I just posted these two videos;










on MY APOLLO PERPETRATORS LIST THREAD. The empasis in the context of the posts over there on Skunk Works had to do with how the videos helped to demonstrate a clear Tom Stafford self contradiction. In the second video, 4 minutes and 20 second in , Tom Stafford says he was looking at his consiole and so never saw the lightning that allegedly hit Apollo 12. 35 years later, he made a claim in his book, WE HAVE CAPTURE, that directly contradicted the "didn't see the lightning claim of 1969 because I was looking down at my console". In the 2004 book, Stafford says something else entirely. He claimed just after the rocket lifeted off, he looked up and BAM !!!!! down came two big bolts of lightning that hit the pad. Completely contradicts himself and actually, the analysis of this one event, indeed proves all of Apollo to be fraudulent.

In the APOLLO PERPETRATORS LIST THREAD, I was/am primarily concerned with the audio aspect of these videos which are tapes of the Apollo 12 Post Launch Press Conference. Some nice "rare" footage under the audio is presented in these videos with the insanely valuble sound track running over the top. Not done by me by the way. Pat Nixon, Spiro Agnew, von Braun, great stuff. Check it out .

Here in this thread, I'd like to draw our attention to the visual. As the story is told by way of this Post Launch Press Conference presentation, not a one of these people in the FIRING ROOM saw this Apollo 12 lightning, not a single soul. As it turns out, one may learn from outside reading/study, that is, study independent of this video, that James McDivitt who was in the FIRING ROOM actually claimed to see the lightning. McDivitt's claim aside, the point I am about to make stands regardless, and stands well.

How is it that the guys most responsible for watching not only the rocket go up , but watching the pad as well, it is their JOB for God's sake, how is it that not a one, not a highly trained single soul, with the exception of McDivitt, sees the "lightning", and yet casually observing reporters, bystanders of various and sundry types, only a few now mind you, esentially all of the 500,000 people there did NOT see lightning, but back to the point, still a few reporter types, quote-unquote "observer" types, indeed saw lighting WHEN THE PROFESSIONAL FIRING ROOM OBSERVERS DID NOT, NOT A ONE , NOT A SOUL, except McDivitt ?

This whole bogus scenario underscores how authoritarian suggestion, blinded even highly trained technicians/scientists/engineers to the scam's right under their nose reality. None of these people in the Firing Room saw lightning, none, but did they question the bogus NASA tale when it was finally spun, that the flash/lightning was there all along ? NO......

Smart people are not stupid, but they sure are gullible.

Another point, you've got these guys all keyed up , looking at monitors, fancy equipment everywhere. Simple common sense observation is discounted in such environments, though it should be valued all the more to simply keep touch with reality. This environment, the FIRING ROOM ENVIRONMENT, is one in which if it ain't recorded on a machine, if a needle don't jump, if a computer don't bite, then the event is not meaningful. These guys are simply not paying attention, in a sense, due to the equipment clutter. The equipment literally clutters the rooms, and figuratively clutters their heads, their minds.

Dozens and dozens and dozens of Apollo FIRING ROOM workers seen in these videos here, and only a handful are perpetrators. Talk about a lack of awareness. But of course this is powerful stuff, and I would think were I there as a front line Apollo worker, I'd sure as shoot get sucked right in, gullible as all get out, gullible as anyone, watching my needles, buying in to this idea that there was lightning even if I saw it NOT and so forth.

reply to post by decisively


So mr decisively, you are:

A medical Doctor..
A navigation expert
You have a degree in mathematics from Berkley
You are a Missile technician
A professional writer
......gee....a regular polymath

And how many websites have you been banned from?

reply to post by mrwiffler

Terrifying Really

A bit of all.

I represent, by that I mean I articulate, the views of a handful of capable investigators. Anything I write about, is a topic about which we hold a consensus view. That said, this voice, my voice, is unique, uniquely mine. Were another of my group to be tapped as the designated writer, which may occur at some point, the feel of our presentation will change despite constancy of topic and method/Apollo study orientation(narrative analysis as we like to say).

My friends ASKED me to do this. Collectively, we view forum posting as a good thing; self respect wise, Patriotism wise, meting out justice indirectly wise, learning "new angles" wise, but it hardly makes sense for all of us to be doing this, doing forum writing in a more or less dedicated fashion. Correctly or no, I am viewed by my peers as the most capable.

I cannot say more other than collectively we are an extraordinarily talented group, as should be obvious I would imagine. Though with all of the name calling that goes on here, I believe this point may be missed unfortunately. .

Our novel approach to Apollo, medical narrative analysis, is groundbreaking and has resulted in the demonstration of Apollo fraudulence with unmitigated metaphysical certitude. Were NASA to send a half dozen flight surgeons to actually debate us in some formal sense, we would devour the lot of them in but a flash. This of course is inevitable at some point, a medical show down, a medical lunar high noon.

The longer NASA waits, the greater the embarrassment, and the less time any of the astronauts have to find some small moments of peace before they die. So much is at stake. Terrifying really.

reply to post by decisively


You are a delusional moron.

reply to post by decisively

I represent, by that I mean I articulate, the views of a handful of capable investigators. Anything I write about, is a topic about which we hold a consensus view. That said, this voice, my voice, is unique, uniquely mine. Were another of my group to be tapped as the designated writer, which may occur at some point, the feel of our presentation will change despite constancy of topic and method/Apollo study orientation(narrative analysis as we like to say).

Then hurry up and designate one who isn''t too cowardly to debate. Shame on you, putting your foolish pride above your patriotism and sense of justice.

Hello? Hello? Is there anyone out there?

Here, let me help you spam this video:



Note the bags under Shepard's eyes; it might help you determine the etiology of Shepard's "meniére's syndrome."

If we weren't ripped off so bad, I'd be laughin' my rump off.......................How Do 400,000 Smart People Get Fooled And Never Doubt Apollo And Never See It For A Big Phony Fake ?

ANSWER; The PERPS Ditch The Evidence

Get a load of this. The quote needs HARDLY needs an explanation.

From Don E. Wilhelms TO A ROCKY MOON, A GEOLOGIST'S HISTORY OF LUNAR EXPLORATION, University of Arizona Press, 1993, page 336. Here's the great geologist himself;

"NASA built the greatest rockets and spacecraft in history and then scrapped them. NASA could not get Americans to the moon today or 5 years from today. It gathered immense amounts of data and then literally threw them in the dumpster. (footnote 2)"

And footnote 2 reads;

The reference to the dumpster is not a figure of speech. After Apollo 17, Fran Waranius, Librarian of the Lunar and Planetary Institute (then LSI), happened to see JSC's large collection of Lunar Orbiter and Apollo photographs, maps, and mission documents being thrown out. She and visiting scientist RonGreeley literally pulled them out of the dumpster, andand they became the nucleus ofthe institute's collectionin the data centerknown as McGetciun Hall.

So 'course, were this real, such nonsense, throwing this stuff away would not be going on. Think of the stuff that was tossed, even if some yo=yo do gooders happened by to rescue this garbage. Obviously, this stuff is very much viewed as NOT VALUBLE, EXCEPT IN THE SENSE OF ITS BEING TERRIBLY INCRIMINATING.

reply to post by decisively


It's not NASA's fault that the government cut their funding. As for throwing things away? Have you ever heard of microfiche? (No, an eighteen year old wouldn't, would he?)