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

reply to post by Phage


Have you seen people walk on water for real? Have you seen strange orbs at night? Have you seen strange flashes appear over your head on multiple occassions? Have you felt motion sickness after debating internet trolls for too long?

Maybe heard of people getting into weird accidents? Lost any time lately? Seen strange nightmares? Having a sick feeling and then finding out something evil happened?...........

What about getting chipped and traced? Seen too many sixes lately?

Go ahead and tell me this is fake. I dare you!!!!!!!!!

Then debunk this.......

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Well that is all very off topic. Yes, I saw Chris Angel walk on water. Saw him levitate too.
I feel fine. Haven't seen a whole lot of sixes, no more than threes or twos or fours or fives or...

The whole Apollo moon landing hoax idea is a combination of conspiracy theories about never going to the moon.

I highly doubt that production technology in 1968 was of high enough quality in 1969 to be able to convince the public, after all, the original STAR TREK series was state of the art tech at the time and the sets and models are hardly convincing.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Well that is all very off topic. Yes, I saw Chris Angel walk on water. Saw him levitate too.
I feel fine. Haven't seen a whole lot of sixes, no more than threes or twos or fours or fives or...

edit on 6/8/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Sorry for my off topic rants but mysterious forces are at work here on earth. What the bible talks of demons and angels are extra-terrestrial forces at work here on earth, on the hollow moon, mars, saturn, the exploded 6th planet which compromises the asteroid belt, etc.

Not to mention all the sci fi movies the last 30 years, how we got computers from the greys and reptillian aliens in exchange for abductions and mind control experiments, our stolen gold, etc. Mind boggling stuff man but hey we went to the moon for three years just for the heck of it. Yep...keep believing that nonsense and I feel 40 years older than what I should.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


they sure dogged us with that exchange than.. i mean we give them gold and let them experiment on us and we get computers like the IBM PC XT

you would have thought they'd at least give us something decent, given their technology.

Originally posted by LoonyConservative
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.

Damn.
This seemed promising as all heck and everything up until here.
You do not know much about how cameras actually work, do you?

Oh well.

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by LoonyConservative
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.

Damn.
This seemed promising as all heck and everything up until here.
You do not know much about how cameras actually work, do you?

Oh well.

I'm not quite sure what your issue is with LoonyConservative's explanation for why stars could not be seen in the Apollo surface photos.

In general, his explanation is correct -- The exposure settings used to take the Apollo surface images were set to take images of brightly-lit objects. Those exposure settings are not the proper ones for photographing the dim light of stars. Therefore, stars could not be seen in the images of the bright surface.

If you take a camera that has its exposure settings set to take pictures in daylight, and you took a picture of the sky on a very starry night, you would not see any stars in the photo.

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

they sure dogged us with that exchange than.. i mean we give them gold and let them experiment on us and we get computers like the IBM PC XT

you would have thought they'd at least give us something decent, given their technology.

I guess we should be pleased we got something rather than nothing. Those that have the upper hand get to make the most demands so I think the same would be true when confronted with aliens. Still if I see a demon alien and have a gun with me, you can bet your last penny I will shoot first and ask any questions later.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I have no problem with the explanation. What I have a problem with is the question. And if that simple of a question is even at the beginning of the debate it is already a lost cause is all.

I guess I replied to the wrong person? Is the same person asking and answering their own questions?
It was late and I don't feel like reading it over so there you go. So who made the first statement then?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Why does Neil Armstrong walk off screen ????

Hello there EarthCitizen07,

By all means, you are welcome as far as I am concerned to post whatever here, though to be honest, I do not understand why you want to bring up this stuff here, in this thread.

At any rate, just so that you are clear, this thread is about our trying to understand, "Why it was that Neil Armstrong "snuck off stage" so that he was not filmed with the tv camera collecting the contingency rock sample ?" A corollary question is, "Why did Armstrong take photos instead of collect the contingency specimens first, as he was most clearly instructed to do? "

Answer these, and we have yet further proof of if you will, evidence for, Apollo's inauthenticity.

It's a great topic EarthCitizen07, any ideas as regards these questions ????????

reply to post by decisively


from memory.. that camera was a fixed camera on one of the leg supports that was tied with the opening of the hatch.. they have not setup the remote controlled TV camera yet i dont believe, so they are not able to swivel the camera.

and posted by DJW001 a few pages back:
vimeo.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

the 16mm film catches him collecting the samples and it matches up quite well with the tv footage.

reply to post by babybunnies


Many people, for example young men and women now in their 20s that did not have occasion to see Neil's moonwalk televised in "real-time", they do not find the what were then "televised" images so convincing.



The ONLY reason one bites here is because authority suggests, better still, INSISTS, that it is real. One's gestalt, were one to be able to experience this video outside that context of authority's suggestive presentation, would be nothing less than , "PHONY!!!", striking one as amusing, silly, very unconvincing, fun nevertheless, just like the old Outer Limits shows.

This is one of the reasons that it is important the Apollo fraud be exposed. Not that men and women holding positions of authority will not continue to play games with our collective mind, but it will give them pause, slow them down a bit.

There cannot be absolute victory here, but that day, when it comes, when the collective perception of Apollo turns from "achievement" to "charade" will be marked by a marvelous sense of freedom of spirit, one in which reality, truth, is not dictated, but simply lays simply and quietly and beautifully before our eyes.

reply to post by decisively


Do you know that there were lunar missions going on for 3 years? I believe from 69 to 71.

And the russians beat us there but they never landed.

Are you hinting that ALL of the missions were faked? To prove what exactly?

I find it much more credible that they went and are not allowed to disclose anything meaningful

And the reason for my previous off-topic posting was to highlight aliens visiting earth and controlling it...........just in case you STILL do NOT get it!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Apollo is very much NOT "Fraudulent" in the sense in which you seem to be using the term, as a cover for the American weaponization of space, Apollo was VERY REAL

It is important to understand that Apollo, and indeed all of the American manned space effort, was not/is not fraudulent in the sense that it is all play acting, and as such, had as its root goal the "fooling" of the world community into thinking we were smarter/more capable than the Ruskies.

Mercury/Gemini/Apollo are/were simply covers for American efforts to weaponize space. The 1963 partial test ban treaty had been signed, the 1967 outer space treaty of which both we and the Russians were signatories forbade and forbids ANY weapons in space, and this treaty featured language explicitly prohibiting the placement of weapons on the lunar surface, using the moon as a military platform. Additionally, there would be insanely strong public and congressional opposition to the weaponization of space for more than obvious reasons.

Apollo and the other manned programs provided a cover, a pretense, and under this cover/pretense we placed military hardware in earth orbit, in libration points and on the moon itself. This hardware sought to, and succeeded in, increasing our surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities. Hardware was also placed in space under the guise of Apollo that was, and probably is still in some capacity, utilized in those systems that provide for the precise targeting/tracking and high level performance of ICBMs and SLBMs. The USAF Military Space Programs; Dyna-Soar, manned hypersonic reconn/bomber and MOL/military space lab, these were ostensibly cancelled and then simply realized in their "legitimate" incarnations, SKYLAB and the SPACE SHUTTLE. Apollo and US manned space programs provided the cover necessary to carry this out.

Ever wonder how it is EXACTLY that they could park an ICBM/SLBM in Khrushchev's bathtub ? Answer; Apollo.......

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by decisively


Seriously doubt that possibility cause reagen used the star wars initiative and got away with it in plain site. Besides the american government probably has its own flying saucer program run out of area 51 and other countries may have similar programs. Those flying triangles are speculated to be tr-3b and absolutely man made.

The ban on space weapons is as meaningful as the ban of mineral exploration in antartica. Pretty much meaningless imo. I think you are jumping to the wrong conclusions but hey I have no right to stop you, just that you are aggrivating the problem more than it needs to and making the astronauts to be make believe jokers, which is despicable.

reply to post by decisively

Many people, for example young men and women now in their 20s that did not have occasion to see Neil's moonwalk televised in "real-time", they do not find the what were then "televised" images so convincing.

And these same 20 year old zombies believe that Tupac Shakur's appearance at Coachella was really a hologram. They also think Star Wars is "realistic."

The ONLY reason one bites here is because authority suggests, better still, INSISTS, that it is real.

Define "authority." It doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does, you know.

This is one of the reasons that it is important the Apollo fraud be exposed. Not that men and women holding positions of authority will not continue to play games with our collective mind, but it will give them pause, slow them down a bit.

See what I mean? You are using "authority" in a different sense here. Look the word up, kid.

There cannot be absolute victory here, but that day, when it comes, when the collective perception of Apollo turns from "achievement" to "charade" will be marked by a marvelous sense of freedom of spirit, one in which reality, truth, is not dictated, but simply lays simply and quietly and beautifully before our eyes.

You dream of a world where any loser can feel superior to everyone who does something exceptional. Your "liberation" is the freedom to embrace delusion.

Originally posted by habitforming
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

I have no problem with the explanation. What I have a problem with is the question. And if that simple of a question is even at the beginning of the debate it is already a lost cause is all.

I guess I replied to the wrong person? Is the same person asking and answering their own questions?
It was late and I don't feel like reading it over so there you go. So who made the first statement then?

Ah. So you were responding to the question and not the answer.
It was just hard to tell to whom you were responding.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

As regards the issue of "STARS", what Apollo Historians object to is the INCONSISTENCIES in the tellings of when stars could and could not be seen….

The star photography issue is very much a non issue. It is one of those topics that was/is intentionally pressed to distract and confuse the rank and file curious. People that don't really have the time and energy to study Apollo, but are a bit curious about "Hoax" claims, are intentionally exposed to a hearty helping of these silly subjects; flag waving in a vacuum, invisible exhaust, shadow problems, where are the stars ??? in the photos problem.

The casually curious wind up thinking this is what Apollo research is all about, a bunch of nonsense. A very potent tool, powerful strategy for the official story side. In essence, official story insiders, the PERPS of today, the keepers of the smelly stanky fraudulent fire, attempt to "control" the terms of the Apollo debate. You never see a doctor on television, someone like myself or a friend here in my medical center that does Apollo, lay it out there for the public, tell people how it is that we know with absolute certainty Apollo is fraudulent based on our simply taking a look at what the official story claims as regards the alleged astronaut medical problems; Shepard's Meniere's Disease, Slayton's bogus atrial fibrillation Vitamin cure, Borman's stinking up cislunar space with his phony diarrhea ( see my recent short academic essay, "WAS FRANK BORMAN AN ALIEN WITH ACID FOR DIARRHEA AND PUKE ? ", www.abovetopsecret.com...).
You don't see a guy like SayonaraJupiter on television speaking, or read his searing critiques of the bogus Apollo narrative in any mainstream rag/publication. Every serious Apollo historian knows Apollo to be fake. It is impossible to study the narrative without coming to that conclusion, too many irrationalities, inconsistencies, internal incoherencies. "Apollo" is a long winded narrative, 10 plus internally incoherent, and so, NECESSARILY UNTRUE.

Of course there are no stars in the photos. No serious Apollo historian argues that ridiculous point, and modern PERPS, the keepers of the stinky stanky fire, know that, but they would have you believe that is what we think to discredit us.

What Apollo historians object to is not the Apollo missions' photographic results regarding the absence of stars, but rather the INCONSISTENT STORIES the PERPS tell about seeing stars. We know very well that were one to try and take photos under said circumstances the stars' images would not be seen. Our problem has to do with INCONSISTENT AND THEREFORE NECESSARILY UNTRUE CLAIMS AS REGARDS STAR VISIBILITY. We all know that Neil Armstrong claimed he and Aldrin never saw stars from the surface of the moon. He made that statement for us clearly, made it twice; once at the 08/12/1969 Houston post Apollo 11 Press Conference, and once in the storied 1970 Patrick Moore 1970 BBC interview.

There is a statement however in Alan Shepard's and Deke Slayton's book MOONSHOT claiming that stars were easily seen by moonwalkers. Here is the relevant quote from that book by Slayton, Shepard, and coauthor, NASA sycophant and astronaut rump magnet, Jay Barbree;

“Where were the stars?” the myth believers then asked.The cameras that NASA sent to the moon had to use short-exposure times to take pictures of the bright lunar surface and the moonwalkers’ white spacesuits. Stars’ images, easily seen by the moonwalkers, were too faint and underexposed to be seen as they are in photographs taken from space shuttles and the International Space Station."

Note above, in the book MOONSHOT, we find this very clear statement that star images were EASILY SEEN BY MOONWALKERS, an explicit and very direct CONTRADICTION to Armstrong's once famous and now infamous claim.

It is important to keep in mind that this contradiction is pervasive throughout the bogus Apollo narrative. IT HAS MANY TELLINGS. Stars were said to have been seen, and then under the very same circumstances, denied. Telling the wildly risky LIE that star images were NOT easily seen was essential to the "fraud's logic" for many reasons. If one can see stars, one can see the McDonald Observatory argon laser for example, and to see the laser, or to claim one definitely saw it, was a one way ticket to being busted big time, found out.

Those on my side of the Apollo debate, and specifically, those educated, those scientifically literate, NEVER CLAIMED, NOT EVER, THAT STARS SHOULD BE SEEN IN THOSE PHOTOS. To be sure, well intentioned, scientifically illiterate "researchers" have made such claims. But certainly, these well meaning souls cannot be faulted for their misunderstanding, and those of their ranks so capable, acknowledged their mistake, accepted the correction, and hopefully moved on. But for the most part, THIS NONSENSE ABOUT THE STARS' ABSENCE FROM THE PHOTOS COMES FROM THE OFFICIAL STORY SIDE. Those posing as genuine Apollo historians, posing as members of my community, those conventionally referred to as "shills", not to mention those non posers, honest believers of the official story that press this point from their official story side, not understanding that in fact, we are way ahead you, thank you very much, we've studied this and then some, these are the people responsible for the "no stars in the photos nonsense".

One of our roles as scientifically literate Apollo historians is to expose this sort of "false point" thing as the rubbish that it is. Indeed its importance is paramount, and as such, it is the topic of an upcoming dedicated thread.

Originally posted by Vitruvian

They are all - everyone of them scabfaced liars -------------traitors every damn one of them.......

edit on 8-6-2012 by Vitruvian because: (no reason given)

Amen to that brother.....