Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Just to point out that:

Assuming it happened, ordering Kissinger to see Hughes on July 16th is not the same as actually seeing Hughes on July 16, or indeed the same actually seeing him.

Ordering Kissinger to go see Hughes is not the same as "Apollo was faked".

If the book 'Citizen Hughes' is a factual and accurate record of events, then Nixon and Kissinger watched the launch of Apollo 11 actually happen.

KREEP is an acronym for Potassium, Rare Earth Elements & Phosphorous - it defines a specific rock type found on the moon in lunar samples. Thinking that this acronym is aimed at Nixon is a) nonsense, b) ignores the fact that it pretty much identifies the rock as coming from the moon and c) nonsense.

SayonaraJupiter
Here is what I said

SayonaraJupiter
Richard Nixon ordered Henry Kissinger to go see Howard Hughes in Las Vegas on the same day Apollo 11 lifted off.

Here is what I proved

Michael Drosnin, "Citizen Hughes", 1985, pp 312-313,

But the president had forgotten about Hughes. He had asked someone to read the ABM memo -- Henry Kissinger. On July 16, 1969, the same day that the Apollo 11 astronauts blasted off for man's first walk on the moon, Nixon huddled with his national security adviser.

That morning in the Oval Office, just before they shared the historic moment watching the launch together on television, the president told Kissinger to go see Hughes.

Kissinger returned to his White House basement office angry and incredulous. He told his deputy, Alexander Haig, that Nixon had just ordered him to give the billionaire a private, top secret briefing, not only on the ABM but also on the general strategic threat, on the balance of nuclear power -- and, as a final outrage, to solicit Hughes' own views on defense policy."

Source Michael Drosnin, "Citizen Hughes", 1985, pp 312-313

Therefore, I was right, I am still right and I will always be right about July 16, 1969. And you will be wrong, still wrong and you will always be wrong.

No your not right first citizen cane is written by a man who claims he got 10000 documents from Howard Hughes break in they were never released however. Most of the stuff he had was office memos from Hughes. See Hughes became such a recluse no one saw him he didnt come out of his bungalow and no one went in. As far as your meeting on ABM it didnt occur Hughes declined the meeting. This was in the book Age of secrets this was based off notes given to John Meier the man that received those notes from Hughes. The Key issue for Hughes was nuclear testing this guy was a true germ Phoebe.He thought radiation fromthe testing would destroy las Vegas this is also the same man that didnt want to ship water from California to Vegas for fear it was polluted. He kept his feces in jars in a closet by the time this all occurs he has gone over the deep end. This is why he was so dangerous he had lots of money and insane. Even meier commented he was unable to make decisions and often time irrational. Yet this is the man you think planned a conspiracy i suggest you look into him better might help to actually read the book you quote as well. Though the book is based on notes by a mad man you see the descent into madness.He eventually just starts making thing up phony business deals and companies that dont exist anywhere but in his mind.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

If the book 'Citizen Hughes' is a factual and accurate record of events, then Nixon and Kissinger watched the launch of Apollo 11 actually happen.

Frank Borman was also in there. They saw it on the TV set. Borman had just returned from Moscow trip where he visited highly restricted Soviet space facilities and high ranking Soviet diplomats.

Ordering Kissinger to go see Hughes is not the same as "Apollo was faked".

I totally agree with you.

KREEP is an acronym

That is the standard, copy & paste, definition of KREEP. I agree with that. I've got no quarrel with the definition

reply to post by dragonridr

No your not right first citizen cane

Great Post! Gave you a star!

onebigmonkey
Just to point out that:

KREEP is an acronym for Potassium, Rare Earth Elements & Phosphorous - it defines a specific rock type found on the moon in lunar samples. Thinking that this acronym is aimed at Nixon is a) nonsense, b) ignores the fact that it pretty much identifies the rock as coming from the moon and c) nonsense.

Just for the record here is another thing to say about KREEP.

The most unusual type of rock found at the Apollo 12 landing site is known as KREEP. This is an acronym for rocks that are rich in the elements potassium (denoted as K by chemists), rare earth elements (REE), and phosphorus (P). Only one sample of KREEP was returned by Apollo 12, but many additional samples were collected on Apollo 14 and Apollo 15. KREEP is believed to have formed early in the history of the Moon during the solidification of the Moon's molten stage, known as the magma ocean.-NASA

The most unusual type of rock... KREEP

choos

show the part where it says "What they used to believe about the VA Belts was completely untrue." show us where the completely untrue part is?? even in the quote you have quoted show us where the completely untrue part is??

are you having trouble with the part where they say it is well behaved and changed slowly and now its changes fast and is unpredictable? so the fact that they new it changes means that what they used to believe about the VA Belts is NOT COMPLETELY UNTRUE. they knew it changes.

“For years we thought the Van Allen belts were pretty well behaved and changed slowly.."

"..however, we realized how quickly and unpredictably the radiation belts change"

The belief that they were "pretty well behaved" was completely untrue. The belief that they "changed slowly" was completely untrue.

So it's a completely different view of the VA Belts from their previous view.

choos

many satellites have gone into and through the VA belts.. at least alot more than the apollo manned lunar missions.. do you deny this?? then how come it took until 1997 for them to realise this??

Why do you think?

choos

are you suggesting that its an extremely common phenomenon with no valid evidence to support that claim??

I don't know how common it is. That's one of the reasons for the probes - to find out how common it is.

choos

are you serious?? where are your sources saying that it happens commonly enough to hinder the apollo manned lunar missions??

See above.

choos

well your article doesnt mention any others.. so you dont know how common it is.. if it happens twice per month thats a small chance of interrupting with apollo lunar missions.. remember twice per month and only lasting 12 hours..

edit on 22-9-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

Again, we don't know how common it is - not so far, anyway.

They don't say if it's a rare event, or if it's a common event.

What would suggest it is a rare/uncommon event? Nothing.

Indeed, everything suggests it is just the opposite.

If it's a rare event, or it's thought to be rare, they would look at it as a unique phenomenon within that environment. This environment was 'understood' - as "pretty well behaved" and "slow to change".

A rare phenomenon would be an exception to the standard account, but that's all.

They didn't say it's an exception to the norm - they essentially said it IS the norm. In other words, a specific aspect of that environment, which occur at times.

They don't say how often, and they don't know how often - not yet. That's why they have probes in the Belts - to find out.

Of course, they even said that's one reason for the probes, but it's a reminder for your benefit..

SayonaraJupiter

onebigmonkey
Just to point out that:

KREEP is an acronym for Potassium, Rare Earth Elements & Phosphorous - it defines a specific rock type found on the moon in lunar samples. Thinking that this acronym is aimed at Nixon is a) nonsense, b) ignores the fact that it pretty much identifies the rock as coming from the moon and c) nonsense.

Just for the record here is another thing to say about KREEP.

The most unusual type of rock found at the Apollo 12 landing site is known as KREEP. This is an acronym for rocks that are rich in the elements potassium (denoted as K by chemists), rare earth elements (REE), and phosphorus (P). Only one sample of KREEP was returned by Apollo 12, but many additional samples were collected on Apollo 14 and Apollo 15. KREEP is believed to have formed early in the history of the Moon during the solidification of the Moon's molten stage, known as the magma ocean.-NASA

The most unusual type of rock... KREEP

So unusual Apollo missions brought samples home to look at it - samples that match with lunar meteorites (and no, the Apollo samples are not lunar meteorites), for example

oro.open.ac.uk...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

oh, and Apollo 11 found some as well

levee.wustl.edu...

Lunar rock, collected from the moon, by astronauts.

onebigmonkey

No. The movements you have chosen to link to appear slow, because they are being careful and moving in a bulky suit.

And to perform each 'careful' movement with the exact same slow-motion 'illusion' effect is quite remarkable, I'd say!

The illusion is clear - put the Apollo 11 footage to 2x speed. It was slowed to 50% normal speed. The other Apollo missions were slowed to 66.66% normal speed.

Of course, it's just all a coincidence that Apollo 11 is exactly 1/2 normal speed, and the other missions were exactly 2/3 normal speed. I guess they were being 'more careful' on Apollo 11, and they were just a bit less careful on all the other missions, although identically careful on each of them!

If you speed up genuine movement, it will look much like those old silent movies. We cannot move about so it appears to be at 1/2 speed, or 2/3 speed, to look like perfectly natural, normal activity when sped up.

Apollo's special effects did the impossible.

turbonium1
“For years we thought the Van Allen belts were pretty well behaved and changed slowly.."

"..however, we realized how quickly and unpredictably the radiation belts change"

The belief that they were "pretty well behaved" was completely untrue. The belief that they "changed slowly" was completely untrue.

So it's a completely different view of the VA Belts from their previous view.

so change slowly and changed quickly is completely untrue?? even though it still changes??

Why do you think?

im thinking that its not as common as you want it to be.. nor will it be as debilitating as you want it to be..

I don't know how common it is. That's one of the reasons for the probes - to find out how common it is.

so you are hoping that it is very common at least common enough to have occured during one of the launches which would only pass through the belts at most 4 times per year.. and each passing will only be for a an hour or two.. lets see 4 passes lasting only an hour or two over a period of 365 days..

you want this phenomenon to be so common as to interrupt an apollo mission? a phenomenon that lasts about 12 hours at a time..

Again, we don't know how common it is - not so far, anyway.

They don't say if it's a rare event, or if it's a common event.

What would suggest it is a rare/uncommon event? Nothing.

you seem to want to believe it is extremely common because apparently the apollo launches should have been affected by this right?? but there were only at most 2 apollo missions per year.. each mission needing to pass through the VA belts twice, and each pass only lasting about an hour or two..

and the chances of that occuring at the same time as this phenomenon will mean this phenomenon will need to be very frequent.

Indeed, everything suggests it is just the opposite.

If it's a rare event, or it's thought to be rare, they would look at it as a unique phenomenon within that environment. This environment was 'understood' - as "pretty well behaved" and "slow to change".

A rare phenomenon would be an exception to the standard account, but that's all.

They didn't say it's an exception to the norm - they essentially said it IS the norm. In other words, a specific aspect of that environment, which occur at times.

They don't say how often, and they don't know how often - not yet. That's why they have probes in the Belts - to find out.

Of course, they even said that's one reason for the probes, but it's a reminder for your benefit..

so then why are you of the belief that it will be common enough to have disrupted an apollo mission? ill say it again.. there were at most about 2 apollo missions per year.. each mission having to pass through the va belts twice per mission each lasting about an hour or so..

in one year there is about 8760 hours.. lets assume passing through the VA belts takes 2 hours.. so 4 hours per mission.. thats 8 hours out of 8760 possible hours for them to have encountered this phenomenon.. o how common will this phenomenon need to be to have occured during an apollo mission passing through the VA belt?

reply to post by turbonium1


why are you of the belief that they should walk faster on the moon than on earth?

have you got any science at all to back up that claim?? i dont even think there is any pseudoscience that can back up that claim.

Moduli

Okay, allow me to state the obvious here.

If I throw something, ignoring air resistance, the path it follows is a parabola.
en.wikipedia.org...
There are two quantities that we can consider. The total distance traveled d, and the total time taken to travel it t. Let's assume the angle it travels in is 45 degrees, because somehow I doubt you can deal with sin, cos, and tan.

d = v^2/g
t = sqrt(2) v / g

Okay, so let's say they slow footage down to try to make it look like the strength of gravity, g is smaller. Gravity on the moon is .16 times Earth's, so let's replace each g with 1.6gEarth and see what happens.

Note that v is a fixed, known number. E.g., the trajectory that dust takes when it's thrown up by the rover's wheels has a known starting velocity because we know how wheels spin.

d = v^2/(.16 gEarth)
t = sqrt(2) v / (.16 gEarth)

Note, 1/.16 = 6.25.

So, the second equation tells us:
t = 6.25 sqrt(2) v / gEarth = 6.25 tEarth
So you'd have to make things take 6.25 longer than on Earth to make them look like they're on the Moon.

What about the first equation?
d = v^2/(.16 gEarth) = 6.25 v^2/gEarth
So we'd also have to make distances change by a factor of 6.25.

To get the whole trajectory to look right, you'd need to not only slow down time, but change distances.

What does that mean? Well, the actual shape of the trajectories is different for different accelerations! Not just the times change. To change a trajectory with Earth's gravity to look like it came from the Moon, you'd have to not only slow down the film, but distort it.

Note that there are many instances (again, as when the lunar rover kicks up dust) where we can see the whole trajectory at once. And it matches the one you'd get from the Moon's gravity.

It is therefore not possible to simulate lower gravity by slowing down footage.

Considering they likely did not get twin astronauts who differ in length by a factor of 6.25 in the horizontal direction from their partners (not to mention considering the disorienting effect this would have if the angle of the camera ever moved...) I would say that it is not very likely that this was achieved through any special effects of any kind.

The dust...

In 1/6 g, and no atmosphere, the dust would behave very differently than it does on Earth. But Apollo's dust behaved exactly the way it behaves on Earth, which means it was not on the moon, it was faked.

The dust would fly much, much higher on the moon than it would on Earth, in 1/6g, and with no atmospheric resistance.
Do you see that in Apollo clips? Not at all, it's the same height it would be on Earth.

Another flaw is how it settles back down - the same as it would on Earth. The dust would take far longer time to settle to the lunar surface than it would take on Earth. Not Apollo dust, though.

And more problems, beyond that...

choos

so change slowly and changed quickly is completely untrue?? even though it still changes??

You seem quite impressed that they said it "changes", considering the fact EVERYTHING "changes", it's a good bet the VA Belts would "change" as well!

Not that you're grasping at straws, or anything...

choos

im thinking that its not as common as you want it to be.. nor will it be as debilitating as you want it to be..

so you are hoping that it is very common at least common enough to have occured during one of the launches which would only pass through the belts at most 4 times per year.. and each passing will only be for a an hour or two.. lets see 4 passes lasting only an hour or two over a period of 365 days..

you want this phenomenon to be so common as to interrupt an apollo mission? a phenomenon that lasts about 12 hours at a time..


you seem to want to believe it is extremely common because apparently the apollo launches should have been affected by this right?? but there were only at most 2 apollo missions per year.. each mission needing to pass through the VA belts twice, and each pass only lasting about an hour or two..

and the chances of that occuring at the same time as this phenomenon will mean this phenomenon will need to be very frequent.

so then why are you of the belief that it will be common enough to have disrupted an apollo mission? ill say it again.. there were at most about 2 apollo missions per year.. each mission having to pass through the va belts twice per mission each lasting about an hour or so..

in one year there is about 8760 hours.. lets assume passing through the VA belts takes 2 hours.. so 4 hours per mission.. thats 8 hours out of 8760 possible hours for them to have encountered this phenomenon.. o how common will this phenomenon need to be to have occured during an apollo mission passing through the VA belt?

We know it exists. And it wasn't known to exist during Apollo.

It is obviously an important matter, since it radically changed their fundamental viewpoint of the VAB's behavior.

Apollo is truly grasping at straws, and nothing more.

The VAB is becoming a massive nail in Apollo's coffin.

And it's going to get even worse, seems to me.

We have Van Allen himself standing by his original findings to his death. You want the fake data, needed for your Apollo story.

We see VAB probes change our prior beliefs about its behavior, which requires more excuses for your Apollo story.

So it's not a common event, etc.

turbonium1
The dust...

In 1/6 g, and no atmosphere, the dust would behave very differently than it does on Earth. But Apollo's dust behaved exactly the way it behaves on Earth, which means it was not on the moon, it was faked.

The dust would fly much, much higher on the moon than it would on Earth, in 1/6g, and with no atmospheric resistance.
Do you see that in Apollo clips? Not at all, it's the same height it would be on Earth.

Another flaw is how it settles back down - the same as it would on Earth. The dust would take far longer time to settle to the lunar surface than it would take on Earth. Not Apollo dust, though.

And more problems, beyond that...

And it has been demonstrated many times elsewhere that the dust behaves exactly as it should do on the moon in a low gravity no atmosphere environment. The dust rises much further from (for example) rover wheels than it would on Earth and arcs in a way totally consistent with the lunar environment. It also settles back down in a way consistent with that environment: on Earth the dust would be suspended for much longer because it would meet resistance form the atmosphere and would billow to form clouds. No such dust clouds occur on the moon.

Try looking at the landing and launch videos of the lunar module taken from inside. On landing the engine stops and the dust stops immediately. On launch the dust is blasted sideways for some distance but does not billow into clouds as it would on Earth.

turbonium1

We know it exists. And it wasn't known to exist during Apollo.

It is obviously an important matter, since it radically changed their fundamental viewpoint of the VAB's behavior.

Apollo is truly grasping at straws, and nothing more.

The VAB is becoming a massive nail in Apollo's coffin.

And it's going to get even worse, seems to me.

We have Van Allen himself standing by his original findings to his death. You want the fake data, needed for your Apollo story.

We see VAB probes change our prior beliefs about its behavior, which requires more excuses for your Apollo story.

So it's not a common event, etc.

edit on 28-9-2013 by turbonium1 because: added point

The VAB were known to exist during Apollo and were researched by the USSR as well as the USA. Apollo trajectories were designed to minimise time spent in them. You have nothing that disproves that.

turbonium1

You seem quite impressed that they said it "changes", considering the fact EVERYTHING "changes", it's a good bet the VA Belts would "change" as well!

Not that you're grasping at straws, or anything...

actually i was pointing out that you are grasping at straws.. they went from changing slowly to rapidly so that means it is completely untrue.. your words not mine.

We know it exists. And it wasn't known to exist during Apollo.

It is obviously an important matter, since it radically changed their fundamental viewpoint of the VAB's behavior.

Apollo is truly grasping at straws, and nothing more.

The VAB is becoming a massive nail in Apollo's coffin.

And it's going to get even worse, seems to me.

We have Van Allen himself standing by his original findings to his death. You want the fake data, needed for your Apollo story.

We see VAB probes change our prior beliefs about its behavior, which requires more excuses for your Apollo story.

So it's not a common event, etc.

you are the one assuming it is a very common event.. think about it 8 hrs out of 8760 possible hours that the phenomenon had to affect.. and here you are saying im grasping at straws???

OOPS!

reply to post by onebigmonkey


All good points made by you, OBMonkey. But your final conclusion still doesn't add up.

Lunar rock, collected from the moon, by astronauts.

You must factor in the audit reports that internal NASA audits of moon rocks, were the cause of "extreme disagreements."

Moon rocks aren't worth anything when they are locked into an acrylic sphere and given away as presidential gifts. Has any of the Nixon Gift Moon Rocks ever been extracted from the container and examined by an open team of scientific investigators? No?

Well your hopes for defending Nixon's KREEP rocks keep getting dashed. As a matter of fact... the more you try to protect Nixon's Holy Relics the less they are credible.

The only way to save the Holy Relics is to open them up and start releasing them. Catch-22.

Do you support the immediate release of NASA's lunar Apollo material to the general scientific public in a very liberal and open way and in such quantities that universities and laboratories around the world can safely confirm NASA's claims?

What needs to be done is to surrender those moon rocks, in toto, and intact, pound by pound, as necessary.

The days of scraping off a tiny aliquot of moon dust for a few milligrams of sample material are over. The reality of Nixon's moon rocks can observed in the "extreme disagreements" in moon rocks audits. NASA's moon rock inventories are not credible, Nor are the Nixon KREEP rocks which make up a large portion of those samples.

turbonium1
The dust...

In 1/6 g, and no atmosphere, the dust would behave very differently than it does on Earth. But Apollo's dust behaved exactly the way it behaves on Earth, which means it was not on the moon, it was faked.

The dust would fly much, much higher on the moon than it would on Earth, in 1/6g, and with no atmospheric resistance.
Do you see that in Apollo clips? Not at all, it's the same height it would be on Earth.

Another flaw is how it settles back down - the same as it would on Earth. The dust would take far longer time to settle to the lunar surface than it would take on Earth. Not Apollo dust, though.

And more problems, beyond that...

Serious question--do you really believe that millions of physicists and engineers, the kind of people who would understand in great detail how this should look, over the course of forty years have all missed this? And you and other conspiracy people are the only ones to have noticed it?

You really think that it's more likely that all of the physicists and engineers of the world have failed at basic physics, than that you have?

reply to post by turbonium1

This graphic illustrates the positions of the Van Allen Belts. The newly discovered 3rd ring is shown in red. It's position, as indicated in this graphic, would have had minimal impact on the Apollo missions since they were purposely plotted to avoid most of the Van Allen Belts in the Trans Lunar Injection burn.


According to the article "Formation of Unusual Ring of Radiation Around Earth Explained" this occurrence has only been observed once and it lasted 4 weeks.

In February of this year, a team of scientists reported the surprising discovery of a previously unknown third radiation ring -- a narrow one that briefly appeared between the inner and outer rings in September 2012 and persisted for a month.

It is not yet determined how often this occurs and to what degree, but 30 days out of 365 is only 8.2%. Not a very frequent occurrence so far.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

All good points made by you, OBMonkey. But your final conclusion still doesn't add up.

Lunar rock, collected from the moon, by astronauts.

You must factor in the audit reports that internal NASA audits of moon rocks, were the cause of "extreme disagreements."

No, I must not. You must stop trying to crowbar in a disagreement between administrative departments about what happened to a small proportion of the rocks lent out to other institutions outside NASA. There is no disagreement by anyone with the slightest understanding of the subject about the origins of those rocks.

Moon rocks aren't worth anything when they are locked into an acrylic sphere and given away as presidential gifts. Has any of the Nixon Gift Moon Rocks ever been extracted from the container and examined by an open team of scientific investigators? No?

Proving what? If the tiny pieces of lunar rock given to foreign governments are still intact in their containers then it does nothing to prove your argument. If they ever have been opened, no-one has ever said "these are not lunar rocks". The rocks not given out as goodwill gifts are still available for analysis, as a search of the literature shows readily.

Well your hopes for defending Nixon's KREEP rocks keep getting dashed. As a matter of fact... the more you try to protect Nixon's Holy Relics the less they are credible.

This is nothing but pointless hyperbole. My arguments have not been dashed and you have provided no evidence to support yours.

Do you support the immediate release of NASA's lunar Apollo material to the general scientific public in a very liberal and open way and in such quantities that universities and laboratories around the world can safely confirm NASA's claims?

What needs to be done is to surrender those moon rocks, in toto, and intact, pound by pound, as necessary.

The days of scraping off a tiny aliquot of moon dust for a few milligrams of sample material are over. The reality of Nixon's moon rocks can observed in the "extreme disagreements" in moon rocks audits. NASA's moon rock inventories are not credible, Nor are the Nixon KREEP rocks which make up a large portion of those samples.

Empty rhetoric, and I'm sure it sounded great in front of the bedroom mirror but it means absolutely nothing. Anyone can request a lunar sample. Get yourself a basic understanding of geology and come up with a research proposal that means something and you can have a sample. This is what the many people who publish, year on year, articles analysing lunar samples have done. Not one single soil scientist, or geologist, or chemist, or whatever discipline has ever examined a lunar sample has ever said "these are not from the moon". Only people with absolutely no understanding of the subject claim that.