Neil Armstrong, Talk About Transparent, PooPoos Apollo Fraud , Then Proceeds to Go All Ballistic

First the guy says Apollo Fraud "never was a concern", then he proceeds to go all ballistically defensive and show this side by side lunar lander/Google Moon comparison video to defend the very thing that he just claimed to need no defense.

thebottomline.cpaaustralia.com.au...

And what's so convincing about that hokum Neil ? Are we supposed to believe just because Google moon has the same stuff, video images more or less, that makes your unpatriotic behavior acceptable, your bogus charade somehow believable ?

This whole idiotic interview is a set up for him to be defensive, a set up to show this pathetically lame video comparison.

Bit late for this type of heiny jive Neil. We've already done busted your sorry chops.....

Australian TV and Australian CPAs in bed with the PERPS and they don't even know it. Or do they ????.....

reply to post by decisively


Old people tend to be very straight forward and tire easily of bs, more so ex military, that's all I see here...




11 threads on Apollo being faked... Perhaps you should put together an apollo fake super thread of some kind?

reply to post by decisively


busted how exactly?

1.The likelihood of success was calculated to be so small that it is inconceivable the moon landings could have actually taken place.

During the mid-1960s the Apollo Support Department of the General Electric Company in Florida conducted extensive mission reliability studies for NASA. These studies were based on very elaborate reliability models of all of the systems. A reliability profile over the course of a mission was generated by computer simulation, and a large number of such simulations were carried out for different scenarios. Based on those studies, the probability of landing on the moon and returning safely to earth never dropped below 90%.

2.The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.

The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film.they were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts' activities on the surface of the Moon.

3.Some of the Apollo video shows the American flag fluttering. How can the flag flutter when there is no wind on the airless Moon?

It is readily apparent that all the video showing a fluttering flag is one in which an astronaut is grasping the flagpole. He is obviously twisting or jostling the pole, which is making the flag move. In fact, in some video the motion of the flag is unlike anything we would see on Earth. In an atmosphere the motion of the flag would quickly dampen out due to air resistance. In some of the Apollo video we see the twisting motion of the pole resulting in a violent flapping motion in the flag with little dampening effect. ripples and wrinkles in the flags are being perceived as wave motion. The flags were attached vertically at the pole and horizontally from a rod across the top. On some flights the astronauts did not fully extend the horizontal rod, so the flags had ripples in them. There is much video footage in which these rippled flags can be seen and, in all cases, they are motionless.

these are just a few ways I can debunk the moon landing conspiracy. perhaps he was angry because he went there and is being told it was fake.

reply to post by benrl

Multiple Apollo Fraud threads are appropriate and useful

I like to work with multiple threads. Say this topic, "well after the fact transparently and ever so contrived covering", is something that I do not post on for a while, and I have been active on another thread, say the "PERP LIST". And furthermore, say I come across something new and exciting as regards the topic of astronaut "well after the fact transparently and ever so contrived covering". I don't want in that case to start posting in the PERP LIST thread about the subject of astronaut well after the fact transparently and ever so contrived covering, so instead I post in the thread of that very same subject and so forth and so on.

Apollo is WAY TOO BROAD to work in a single thread. That really makes no sense.

Tonight I was posting some on the "Bart Sibrel is a PERP" thread . That doesn't belong here on the "well after the fact transparently and ever so contrived covering" thread, only unless I might want to use it as a bit of evidence to suggest/show/demonstrate some aspect of Apollo fraud generically.

reply to post by decisively





been there done that but with LRO pics in 2009 and no neil..

You are rehashing cliches, and their associated cliched "responses"

reply to post by LoonyConservative


Serious Apollo historians do not study the types of things you are making reference to.

See how these feel;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...







Much more difficult, in fact, impossible this sort of thing is, contradiction, to counter. Serious Apollo historians, demonstrators of the fraud, deal in contradictions, the elucidation of the narrative's internal incoherencies. As it is internally incoherent, it is necessarily untrue.

Armstrong does the silly Australian tv above referenced in a feeble effort to stave off the inevitable, full public awareness of Apollonian bogusness. He is well aware that large numbers of computer literate researchers with strong science backgrounds, people like myself, are fully aware not only of Apollo's fraud generically, but in addition, many details as regards the fraud's machinations, logistics.

reply to post by choos

So ??????

The very point in my bringing this up to begin with. I am sure many here are familiar with this bogus historical comparison, whether with or without Neil.

My smaller point is, of course the "Eagle's" landing film would coincide with an actual ground track of an orbiter or unmanned lander for that matter. . This only serves to prove that images of said track have been made, on more than one occasion, including back in the 1960s. It is hardly proof of manned landings.

My larger point is that the tv show/interview is an obvious set up, a staged event to try and dupe people into making such an erroneous connection. "Look, they really were there !!!!! It's just like Google Moon !!! "

AND !!! furthermore, they go ahead with this silly staged DEFENSE right after Armstrong, in so many words, makes his hollow claim that such defense is not necessary.

So what ? Of course it should be this way. Are we to expect they would show us the beach ground track from a hang glider flying over land's end south of San Francisco ??????

Old people aren't protected from going senile just because they used to be an astronaut.

reply to post by decisively


so?? so its not using google images and its using the LRO photos

And what's so convincing about that hokum Neil ? Are we supposed to believe just because Google moon has the same stuff, video images more or less

so you didnt want to believe google images SO LRO? and it highlights craters to show just how similar apollo 11 landing video footage is to photos of the descent path from the LRO.

how did they magic up the footage from the apollo descent to match up to images obtained 40 years later? or you going to brush this aside like you do all other facts?

reply to post by Bodhi7


Not only did he "go senile", but this dude exercised way poor judgement in his youth as well.

reply to post by choos


I believe I have indicated only 1000 times, perhaps a bit of an exaggeration, but not much, that in my view, equipment was landed at Tranquility Base by unmanned means. I would suggest the older film is indeed footage of that landing, or a fly over in preparation for it.

reply to post by decisively


youtu.be...

is that a robot astronaut?

It is not astronaut, I beleive the correct term is "ain'tstronaut, The mystery of the contingency collection out of the tv field of view resolved.

reply to post by choos


Recall how Armstrong did not collect his "contingency sample" as he was instructed to right there at the get go, right there in the field of view. Why is that ?



Were he to have done so, "the rocks" collected from right there would be expected to have chemical evidence on them of rocket fuel exposure. He moves away, directly countermanding his orders, perhaps that is why a civilian was selected as first man, and in so doing, no one can say, "look, I see where you collected your rocks, but there is no chemical evidence for rocket fuel exposure on these rocks and so you are a fraud".





At least as far as the phony contingency collection, we now know at least some of the rest of the story.

reply to post by decisively

Multiple Apollo Fraud threads are appropriate and useful

But not nearly as useful as a moderated debate would be:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am proposing to the Mods that until such time that you prove the strength of your convictions by debating me, all of your threads be closed.

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by choos

 

I believe I have indicated only 1000 times, perhaps a bit of an exaggeration, but not much, that in my view, equipment was landed at Tranquility Base by unmanned means. I would suggest the older film is indeed footage of that landing, or a fly over in preparation for it.

edit on 27-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling

If "they" could land equipment on the moon after a flyover, distribute the equipment around so it looks like people had moved it - complete with tracks of rovers which stop at certain points and then continue - why don't you think people went along? Neil Armstrong, who you can't seem to call by name, went to the moon with Buzz Aldrin, walked around on it, made tracks, and left equipment. It seems stupid to have to actually write that just so another point of view can enter your headspace and bounce around in there.

reply to post by decisively

Serious Apollo historians do not study the types of things you are making reference to.

No, apparently "serious Apollo historians" study poo-poo and enjoy watching people get punched in the face in slo-mo. If you are afraid to debate me, at least have the courtesy to say no.

reply to post by decisively


It's posts like yours that make it really hard for rational people to take moon hoaxers serious.

reply to post by decisively


Hey dude, you look like a little scared guy when you ignore someone's public challenge for a debate.

Let's see it happen, mate.

Stand up for what you believe in!

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by decisively

 

Hey dude, you look like a little scared guy when you ignore someone's public challenge for a debate.

Let's see it happen, mate.

Stand up for what you believe in!

Why enter a serious debate if you can just start yet another rant thread? If Neil was younger, I'd guess he stole the OP's gf or somehow accidently drove over his puppy.

I rarely get involved in the moon landings threads because I know too little about them, bar the "facts" and main points that have been banded around regularly.

I am undecided is what I am trying to say.

When I try to imagine how it was done, given the technology available, I marvel at the bravery, and stupidity of attempting it. It so very nearly went wrong on several occasions if you are a firm believer.

I bring this into perspective when I consider the computer, which by all intents and purposes had the ability to make or break the whole mission. It had no USB conection, but apparently a handy port to shove your pen into!

Take a look at the spec of the on board computer:

downloadsquad.switched.com...

Also, as detailed by wiki:

en.wikipedia.org...

So my thoughts are summarised by the fact you had to be raving mad to park your arse on a huge firework, with the computer back up equivalent to a ZX Spectrum! (even I could program those, but I wouldn't want it to guide me)

Does that make sense, or am I sparking tripe?