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

Originally posted by PluPerfect
reply to post by bokonon2010

 

THAT is hilarious!!!

Some idiot, at one point, added the "Sunglasses Pocket" on the EVA suit, as a joke....and YOU fell for it!!!

It's too funny.....when boobs don't realize that they are being 'punked'!!!

I agree. This is NASA
from the official Apollo Operations Handbook Extravehicle Mobility Unit, pp 24,25,46.
and these are Ed Mitchell's Apollo 14 suite, 'flown'
Neil Armstrong's 'flown' suit with sunglasses pockets.

Originally posted by bokonon2010

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by bokonon2010

and they wont be blinded, it might take time to adjust from the brightness and darkness when walking between the sunlight and shadow but the moon surface willl hardly blind you.. i think a snow field has more intense light reflection than the moon does, although im not sure on that.

Figured that out, astronots could use their sunglasses outside LM:

How smart!

though Buzz sold his sunglasses:
www.spaceflownartifacts.com...

they have a visor as part of the helmut.. are you serious or are you just trolling??

This is the point - how they went home unnoticed if the hatch was closed?

ok.. you are trolling.. how in the world do you expect them to get back to earth with an OPEN HATCH??

reply to post by bokonon2010


YUP!!

I agree. This is NASA
from the official Apollo Operations Handbook Extravehicle Mobility Unit, pp 24,25,46.
and this is Ed Mitchell's Apollo 14 spacesuite, 'flown'

The thing that YOU have not (yet) figured out is this:

The Astronauts WORE those space suits often.....EVEN within the environment of a spacecraft.....and, NO HELMET REQUIRED!!!

But, with the helmet off, of course, they might have the occasion to need.....YOU guessed it!! Sunglasses!!

Get it, now??

OF COURSE, once in the EVA mode, and in a vacuum.....it is ridiculous to assume "sunglasses"......THAT is why the helmet had a sun visor.

This is similar to SCUBA (DO you SCUBA? I'm certified.....).....on the surface, one may want some sunglasses....but, of course, when UNDER the surface, one no longer needs sunglasses.

Get it, yet??

IF I owned expensive sunglasses, that I would use whilst on the boat, out to the dive point....then, I'd either leave them on the boat, with someone In trusted.....OR, secrete them in a pocket, on my person.....of course, leaving them BEHIND is far better, so they will not be subject to damage, during my dive.

Does THAT make sense, yet????

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by bokonon2010
how in the world do you expect them to get back to earth with an OPEN HATCH??

Originally posted by PluPerfect
reply to post by bokonon2010
IF I owned expensive sunglasses, that I would use whilst on the boat, out to the dive point....then, I'd either leave them on the boat, with someone In trusted.....

Indeed, it was not wise for them to leave the hatch opened and leave sunglasses inside,
as somebody could get in and take their sunglasses, flown flags and feces. So, what would astronots do?

Your anxiety is ever so palpable

reply to post by MrXYZ



Why would all of these people spend so much time and energy responding to me, reading what I write, and then attempting to counter the same, if it were all ever so meaningless ?

DJW001 called me a moron, and an idiot, and a what not, and then got upset when I refused to debate this same person that called me a moron, and an idiot, and a what not. Why would one want to spend the minutes of her/his precious life debating a complete moron ? Many posters seem to spend a great deal of time following me around here on ATS, trying their best to discredit somebody that has nothing to say.

All, ever so fascinating, no ? .

Of course from my side, spending a lot of time researching and posting on Apollo makes infinite sense. Those of us that do this work, we indeed are writing the true history of the American manned space effort, little by little to be sure, with lots of gaps and uncertainties to be sure, but light years ahead of the official story as regards accuracy, truth of content.

Why do you bother with me MrXYZ ? Why give me so much time in your day ?

Of course we know we have hit many nreves. The medical stuff has NASA scared to death, whether you know it or not.

As mentioned previously, in a very real sense, I am not posting for you, though I certainly welcome your challege if it is substantive and informed. But you claim to not really care about what I have to say, it being all so meaningless, not a single good point and so forth. Assuming you really do feel this way, then you are not my audience. Not that you may not be a great person, I suspect you are. But if you believe my writing to be nonsensical, you should know it is not written for you.

Neil Armstrong on the other hand, is my audience. Believe it or not, he actually hears about what we write in these pages. He is aprised of public progress as regards his fraudulent Apollo 11 Mission and the fraudulent Apollo Missions in general. Ditto for Kranz, Aaron and the other PERPS. They are VERY interested in my writing, believe you me.

I am saying this with the utmost sincerity, if you find my writing nonsensical, irrelevant, you should spend your time doing something else apart from posting that you find my writing nonsensical and irrelevant. I mention this as you are actually helping to make our case . All parties do, those that call me silly and then spend day and night blasting away at our "alternative Apollo narrative" . You make our case for us. Your anxiety is ever so palpable.

reply to post by bokonon2010


you know they were in zero g right?? what more convenient place to put your sunglasses in a sleeve pocket to ensure it doesnt float around the cabin? are you for real about this??

reply to post by decisively


why dont you get serious than? why dont you start a class action lawsuit against NASA or any kind of lawsuit for that matter? why dont you do something REAL instead of whining on forums that no one from NASA is going to take seriously.

you said you emailed Neil.. when was that? which email address did you send it to? a generic email or a personal one?

also this rant, you always do this when you get backed into a corner and dont know what to do, in what looks like an attempt to dissuade people from speaking against you.. you done it to DJW, you done it to me, and now mrXYZ?? (who has not said that much to begin with)

are we really this scary to your arguments (especially mrXYZ's comments given he hasnt said that much)?? (see how this works?) who is next i wonder?

reply to post by bokonon2010


Could YOU please review what you typed, and then posted....and PLEASE explain where it makes any sense??"

Indeed, it was not wise for them to leave the hatch opened and leave sunglasses inside,
as somebody could get in and take their sunglasses, flown flags and feces. So, what would astronots do?

For the SIX landings, when going EVA.....the LM interior WAS opened to vacuum...and, thus, the hatch remain open.....is this difficult to understand?

Naturally, and this is so easy to understand (for most people), the LM Ascent stage was re-pressurized AFTER all EVA activities were ended.....the "entry/exit" hatch (which opened INWARD) was closed, prior to leaving the surface of the Moon, in order to launch and the rendezvous with the CSM, in Lunar Orbit......how difficult is this to comprehend???

Much as with a modern airliner.....when the interior is pressurized, the doors CANNOT be opened, because of the internal pressure. IF you wish to return to Earth, after a Lunar EVA, you very, very, very much want to get BACK inside the only vehicle (the LM Ascent stage) that will do that, for you!!!

Again.....the facts of Apollo, and the concepts that surround the program are "not" difficult to comprehend.

(NOT "difficult" to comprehend for most people, that is.....)....

Originally posted by bokonon2010

Originally posted by bokonon2010

Originally posted by sputniksteve
reply to post by decisively

 

Honestly I didn't read your last 3 posts filled with chemistry and numbers because it would mean nothing to me.

None of it answers the question of "Why would they travel 238,900 just to pick up contaminated rocks?"

Indeed, by Occam's razor, the conjecture of such travel is nonsense.

Apollo 14 crewmen show off lunar rocks during meeting with newsmen -- NASA Photo ID: S71-20373

Originally posted by PluPerfect
reply to post by bokonon2010

 

THAT is a great photo!!

.....a photo like that simply cements the REALITY of Apollo.....so, thanks!!!

Did you notice the obfuscated water machine? It appears they were checking if enough atmospheric water absorbed by the moon rocks.
NASA were growing the moon trees and secretly sold moon wood to the Dutch:
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

What if someone really were to get sick, if this thing were real, wouldn't you need a way to immediately contact the ground ?

Before even considering the Borman illness per se Soylent Green Is People, does it make any sense to you at all that an Apollo craft, in this case the Apollo 8 CM, would not have a private direct channel to Mission Control ?

As the story is conventionally told, Borman did not want everybody knowing he was sick for one thing. The CM to MOCR channel was "public", so Anders and Lovell wound up getting word to ground that Borman was sick by way of putting a taped message in a more or less back line, a sort of message box that was only periodically checked.

You send guys to the moon and you don't have a PRIVATE/confidential line through which they can communicate immediately anytime, anywhere, for whatever reason, with the ground ? Recall, the Apollo 8 Technical Crew Debriefing was a classified document. You are dealing with this, that, and the other thing, stuff perhaps of a highly sensitive and classified nature, and there is no way to immediately and privately communicate with Houston ? What if somebodty REALLY DID GET SICK ?

We haven't even gotten to Borman's actual illness yet and already, just testing the fraudulent vaccum here, it is already nuts implausible, obviously not real.

reply to post by choos


What corner did I get backed into ?

reply to post by choos

It'll go

This is not the ONLY thing I/we do with regard to pushing for Apollo truth. It is one of many things we do/have planned. It is very important, I think so anyway, to try and work through problems in forums like this. One finds the strengths and weaknesses of various positions/views in relatively short order. Great for hitting on new stuff as well from a forum vantage. I see this as almost essential.

Posting is useful in terms of exposing oneself to the ideas of other like minded citizens. Because I am "bogus Apollo medical problem" oriented, it is good for me to see other styles of attack on Apollo.


The other guys and one gal that I work with, we not infrequently chat about how we all see this now as a life long commitment. We are all serious. Perhaps one day we will see Neil in court, who knows. Takes time.

Books, movies, ATS forum thereads, podcasts and so forth, lots to work on. It will take some time to shove this bad boy over the phony lunar cliff, but it'll go.

reply to post by decisively


it seems that every time someone comes up with solid arguments against you or poking the gaping hole in your argument you tend to resort back to that tactic.

i dont believe you are serious at all.. you have made zero effort to bring it to the attention of real NASA personnel..

where is the email you sent Armstrong? why haven't you started a lawsuit against NASA? if you truly believe what you are saying you wouldnt be here arguing to people that do NOT matter. yet here you are.. ATS of all places...

feels more like you are stroking your ego/trolling to me.

decisively, you still haven't answered a really basic question..

When you first arrived at ATS, you were talking like this:

of course i cannot deny that it upsets me a little but then as others can imagine i am used to this and because i am so capable in special ways i often am vindicated which is one of my favorite words for obvious reasons it is just like when we were little boys and some people would tease us and then timmy would sit down at the piano and play Rachmaninoff perfectly by memory when he was only 10 years old and everyone would sit there dumb and quiet we would all be vindicated timmy would vindicate us all i loved that
..[and then ]
..NEIL ARMSTRONG IS A FAKE CLOWN CHARLATAN THAT SELLS CRHYSLERS
..IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH WHAT I THINK OF YOUR PANTY WAIST HERO
..BART SIBREL BEING AN INSIDER AND ALDRIN'S BED BUDDY
..we could sue lovell for that and take away all his wife's money for having her hideous beehive hairdos done
..i think we should cut off the cash flow to lovell's skanky wife
..lovell's and aldrin's gals are skanks beyond hope
..their boys got microscopic sized boogers for gonads
..maybe we can collect all of the itsy bitsy booger gonads of the fony apollo astronauts and put 'em on display
..BOOGER GONADS, armstrong, he is a first rate pathetic clown, sad sad sad clown
..HAVE I MADE MYSELF CLEAR ENOUGH

Can you explain WHY you used those words? (they can be found HERE and HERE)

And can you also tell us how you think it will go down, when you finally get serious and have your day in court... and the opposing lawyer reads that out in court?

reply to post by decisively

Why would all of these people spend so much time and energy responding to me, reading what I write, and then attempting to counter the same, if it were all ever so meaningless ?

Because I don't like to see people being dumbed down by stupid posts that don't present any objective evidence?

Of course from my side, spending a lot of time researching and posting on Apollo makes infinite sense. Those of us that do this work, we indeed are writing the true history of the American manned space effort, little by little to be sure, with lots of gaps and uncertainties to be sure, but light years ahead of the official story as regards accuracy, truth of content.

Nothing you posted supports your claims in the first place...so calling your claims "the truth" is incredibly ironic.

Of course we know we have hit many nreves. The medical stuff has NASA scared to death, whether you know it or not.

Only in your little fantasy world.

As mentioned previously, in a very real sense, I am not posting for you, though I certainly welcome your challege if it is substantive and informed. But you claim to not really care about what I have to say, it being all so meaningless, not a single good point and so forth. Assuming you really do feel this way, then you are not my audience.

So in the end, you're here to preach and don't want anyone pointing out that all your claims have no foundation in reality?

Neil Armstrong on the other hand, is my audience. Believe it or not, he actually hears about what we write in these pages. He is aprised of public progress as regards his fraudulent Apollo 11 Mission and the fraudulent Apollo Missions in general. Ditto for Kranz, Aaron and the other PERPS. They are VERY interested in my writing, believe you me.

Yes, I am sure Armstrong has nothing better to do but read your 11 nonsense threads

You should deflate that ego of yours a bit

reply to post by decisively

This is not the ONLY thing I/we do with regard to pushing for Apollo truth. It is one of many things we do/have planned. It is very important, I think so anyway, to try and work through problems in forums like this. One finds the strengths and weaknesses of various positions/views in relatively short order. Great for hitting on new stuff as well from a forum vantage. I see this as almost essential.

And what better way to prove your point than a moderated debate on the Debate Forum? If you really want to get the truth out, you would swallow your pride and accept my challenge. Note how the few people who have supported you on your threads have deserted you since you declined the debate. They know now that you do not believe in your own theories. It is clear that you are not only a fraud, but a coward.

reply to post by decisively

You send guys to the moon and you don't have a PRIVATE/confidential line through which they can communicate immediately anytime, anywhere, for whatever reason, with the ground ?

So now NASA's transparency is evidence of fraud?

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

What if someone really were to get sick, if this thing were real, wouldn't you need a way to immediately contact the ground ?

 

Before even considering the Borman illness per se Soylent Green Is People, does it make any sense to you at all that an Apollo craft, in this case the Apollo 8 CM, would not have a private direct channel to Mission Control ?

As the story is conventionally told, Borman did not want everybody knowing he was sick for one thing. The CM to MOCR channel was "public", so Anders and Lovell wound up getting word to ground that Borman was sick by way of putting a taped message in a more or less back line, a sort of message box that was only periodically checked.

You send guys to the moon and you don't have a PRIVATE/confidential line through which they can communicate immediately anytime, anywhere, for whatever reason, with the ground ? Recall, the Apollo 8 Technical Crew Debriefing was a classified document. You are dealing with this, that, and the other thing, stuff perhaps of a highly sensitive and classified nature, and there is no way to immediately and privately communicate with Houston ? What if somebodty REALLY DID GET SICK ?

We haven't even gotten to Borman's actual illness yet and already, just testing the fraudulent vaccum here, it is already nuts implausible, obviously not real.

Spot on you did nail them on this one broseph. Their lack of a private channel to communicate problems of health back to command is obviously proof positive that there was never any Apollo mission what so ever.

I know you are a busy guy, 64 threads going on at the same time all with the same perps working together to try and shut you down from telling us the truth but if you have a second to clear up one point for me.

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by syrinx high priest

 

The fact they left the most incredible camera in the world on the moon so they could bring back 3 more pounds of rocks proves Apollo Inauthenticity.

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

NASA vomit

 

This one fact is extremely incriminating, and indeed, borders on proof of Apollo's fraudulence in and of itself. The vomit peddlers have a little wiggle room, but not much. A flat out unbelievable pile of NASA PUKE is this flat out not credible LIE.

edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: spacing

edit on 30-5-2012 by decisively because: added "?"

Again I am not trying to nit pick you here but I am really confused on which one this is. At first it is proof then it is borderline proof. You use the same leaps in logic to "prove" all your other points similar to this one but I haven't seen you actually contradict yourself like this before so I am just wondering if it was a mistake in wording or if you in fact changed your mind about whether or not this is proof or borderline proof?

And as for why people that call you a moron and shake their head at your claims all the while spending our precious time discussing these things with you, I can only try and give an explanation but it will probably not be sufficient and it only applies to my opinion on the matter unless someone else wants to agree with me.

It is irritating to watch someone talk in absolutes when from our perspective the only thing absolutely going on is elementary school logic being applied to serious subject matter with a stuborness unparalleled in my ATS viewing career. There really is no logical explanation as to why I am typing this right now, I know for 100% certain it will not be really understood or considered but I am doing it anyway. The passion you feel for the subject and the determination you have to get this information out to the knuckle head public is matched by the determination for me to tell you, you are wrong. Simply for the sake of doing it because I have nothing else interesting to read on here the last couple days.

Like I said I doubt that is sufficient for you, and I don't feel it is sufficient for me but I don't know how else to say it. The truth is I feel as pathetic discussing the topic with you as I feel you are for trying to convince anyone of what you say. That sounds really rude and I apologize for that but I just want to be honest.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by decisively

 

You send guys to the moon and you don't have a PRIVATE/confidential line through which they can communicate immediately anytime, anywhere, for whatever reason, with the ground ?

So now NASA's transparency is evidence of fraud?

Yeah -- I love this new angle:
The lack of NASA being secret about their communications is somehow proof that it was a hoax. So, as ATS member 'decisively' seems to assert, if NASA did more things in secret, it would be more believable to him that they went to the moon.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if we find out someday that there was a secure channel by which the Apollo astronauts could communicate with mission control. I wouldn't be shocked to find that out.

However, while ATS member 'decisively' somehow views the openess of the communications as proof of a hoax, I suppose if it is found that they DID have secret communications, some other hoax believers may see that secrecy as evidence of a hoax.

I have a feeling that whatever the facts are about Apollo, some hoax believer or another would twist those facts to fit their preconceived notion of a hoax. That idea of "spinning" the facts so they fit your preconceived point-of-view rather than changing your point-of-view to fit the facts is the definition of being closed-minded.

reply to post by choos
.....

Let's see you come up with ONE.....

Who has come up with a substantive counter to my points regarding;

1) The FIDO H. David Reed/Apollo 11 Mission Report Contradiction, a contradiction that in and of itself demonstrates Apollo 11's fraudulence.

2) The twin lies of Tom Stafford and ain'tstronaut sidekick James McDivitt. Tom Stafford's saying in the context of the Apollo 12 post flight news/press conference that he did not see lightning, as a matter of fact, in that conference, the audio of which I shall be posting , it was claimed that NO ONE, NOT A SINGLE PERSON IN THE FIRING ROOM SAW LIGHTNING, yet Stafford wrote in his book WE HAVE CAPTURE that he looked up from his console and saw two bolts of lightning come down and "BAM !!!", hit the pad. McDivitt, also stationed in the Firing Room at launch time claimed to have seen lighting as well. Twin les, those of Stafford and McDivitt, twin lies to match the twin imaginary lightning bolts everyone INCLUDING STAFFORD HIMSELF, DENIED SEEING AT THE TIME OF THE APOLLO 12 POST LAUNCH NEWS CONFERENCE. (For those who have not actually heard this one, fasten your seat belts. The fall out is nothing less than sensational. We pick up no less an Apollo Program Fraud dark luminary than PAO Jack King and weclome him to the Pantheon of those dwelling in this unholy and disgrace ridden realm.

3) Borman making the very not credible claim/LYING his jive heiny off with regard to his story about trying to make himself sick(vomiting, diarrhea) in cislunar space by INTENTIONALLY taking Seconal a second time. This Borman WROTE HIMSELF.

4) USAF General Samuel Philips, Head of the Apollo Manned Missions, and by NO COINCIDENCE, just prior head of the US Minuteman Program, writing/LYING in the May 1969 National Geographic that vaccination, in so many words, guaranteed INFLUENZA immunity. This particular lie of Phillips, in and of itself, proving Apollo 8's inauthenticity, and so along with that critical lynchpin of a fraudulent event, all of Apollo inauthenticity

5) Alan Shepard's bogus Meniere's Disease cure/LIE in which 7-8 months after William House's shunt surgery, NASA physicians were able to "show'/demonstrate the following well confirmed as fraudulent facts;

a) that vertigo generated by the pathophysiology of a Meniere's Disease based process in Shepard's operative ear would not recur, EVER
b) that vertigo generated by a Meniere's Disease based pathophysiologic process developing in Shepard's previously unaffected ear would NEVER OCCUR
c) that an established 40 dB hearing loss was erased by the William House surgery and Shepard post surgery was then in possession of normal hearing

6) Slayton's/NASA medical's LIE LIE LIE LIE that Shepard's a-fib disappeared in the context of Slayton's vitamin program and proof of said cure by virtue of a Mayo Clinic cath/coronary angiogram, a proceedure which all physicians know does not in any way demonstrate the underlying etiology accounting for the pathoelectrophysiology in most cases of a-fib, a clean cath leaving docs right where they started from, with the exception of then knowing only that coronary artery disease was not to blame, something in Slayton's case they would have surmised without the cath anyway.

I could go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, but shan't.

Care to point out choos where I was substantively countered regarding each of these well established points, every one a point no longer in dispute, every one a poiont that now is part of Apollo's accurate and TRUE HISTORY.

You can go ahead and link posts of others here, don't have to be yours. Let's see you come up with ONE.....