Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

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".

Rather, what the clever scientists have done, is to classify these most unusual rocks... KREEP rocks... into a special category, they have speculated wildly on the origins of KREEP rocks, and to an extent have kept this charade going for 44 years.

Obviously, NASA screens those scientists very carefully, and no scientist will ever get to look at a moon rock unless they sign statements affirming NASA's claim that these rocks are extraterrestrial and from the "moon".

The scientific community is running out of excuses for these Nixon KREEP rocks. 40 years is a long time to wait for a new sample return mission. Indeed, what NASA is doing, on orders from the President, is to establish Keep Out Zones on the Moon and "preserve and protect" language for the interests of the United States alone.

Linking Nixon's KREEP rocks with his CREEP=y committee to re-elect Nixon, it seems like a great conspiracy theory, to me. What is the harm in exploring that? What makes this more interesting, to me, is the ramping up the Werner von Braun asteroids threat, which is obviously taking place since the Chelyabinsk major event in early 2013. What's the harm in exploring a diverging, branching narrative that wasn't written for the screen by NASA?

SayonaraJupiter
Rather, what the clever scientists have done, is to classify these most unusual rocks... KREEP rocks... into a special category, they have speculated wildly on the origins of KREEP rocks, and to an extent have kept this charade going for 44 years.

Obviously, NASA screens those scientists very carefully, and no scientist will ever get to look at a moon rock unless they sign statements affirming NASA's claim that these rocks are extraterrestrial and from the "moon".

The scientific community is running out of excuses for these Nixon KREEP rocks. 40 years is a long time to wait for a new sample return mission. Indeed, what NASA is doing, on orders from the President, is to establish Keep Out Zones on the Moon and "preserve and protect" language for the interests of the United States alone.

Linking Nixon's KREEP rocks with his CREEP=y committee to re-elect Nixon, it seems like a great conspiracy theory, to me. What is the harm in exploring that? What makes this more interesting, to me, is the ramping up the Werner von Braun asteroids threat, which is obviously taking place since the Chelyabinsk major event in early 2013. What's the harm in exploring a diverging, branching narrative that wasn't written for the screen by NASA?

SayonaraJupitor....I've been reading this thread...and I've just gotta say, my hats off to you.

Why? Because where others simply insist on falling back to textbook answers and theories, you never lose ground, you constantly keep standing, and keep going at the points.

I'll be perfectly honest, I read what I could of your Nixon/Hughes/Apollo thread...the whole movie watching connection...I just couldn't mentally keep with you and where you were going. Perhaps a private U2U is in order for that.

Honestly, you could be 100% wrong in my opinion. I'm not a believer. But, in truth, neither are you. I feel that you simply "refuse" to believe the story we are all literally forcefed. I feel that you have solid points that if genuinely thought out, leave one wondering. Give one pause to think.

I find that the vast majority of people I know (like, oh, I don't know, 99.9999999999999999%) refuse to even think things through. Refuse to entertain possibilities other than the "official narrative". Where is the creativity in life then? Where is the spark necessary for the next "jump" ? What in the hell is so wrong with simply asking questions if not publicly, internally ???????


You, my dear Sir, formally and forever, ROCK!


- SN

SadistNocturne
SayonaraJupitor....I've been reading this thread...and I've just gotta say, my hats off to you.

Why? Because where others simply insist on falling back to textbook answers and theories, you never lose ground, you constantly keep standing, and keep going at the points...

Personally, I never fall back into textbook answers, nor do I believe we went to the moon "because NASA says so". I believe we went to the moon due to the critical thinking and an exploration of the evidence.

For example (just of example) would be the perfect parabolic path the dust takes when coming off the back wheels of the rover. If this was done in a studio, that dust would have hung in the air and dispersed a bit. It did not.

In addition, I have yet to see a bit of evidence from the moon hoax believers that can't be debunked. In fact, it has been my experience that Moon Hoax believers jump on supposed "evidence" without really understanding it -- such as the supposed non-parallel shadows, the faulty idea that the non-sunlit sides of the astronauts should have been pitch black, and the erroneous notion that the astronauts should have died because of the Van Allen Belts.

"Sayronora Jupiter" has not really raised any valid issues other than wild speculation and innuendo. He has nothing concrete. His idea of evidence is saying "Nixon was a crook who lied; Nixon was President during the Apollo landings; therefore Nixon lied about Apollo actually landing"

Soylent Green Is People

SadistNocturne
SayonaraJupitor....I've been reading this thread...and I've just gotta say, my hats off to you.

Why? Because where others simply insist on falling back to textbook answers and theories, you never lose ground, you constantly keep standing, and keep going at the points...

Personally, I never fall back into textbook answers, nor do I believe we went to the moon "because NASA says so". I believe we went to the moon due to the critical thinking and an exploration of the evidence.

For example (just of example) would be the perfect parabolic path the dust takes when coming off the back wheels of the rover. If this was done in a studio, that dust would have hung in the air and dispersed a bit. It did not.

In addition, I have yet to see a bit of evidence from the moon hoax believers that can't be debunked. In fact, it has been my experience that Moon Hoax believers jump on supposed "evidence" without really understanding it -- such as the supposed non-parallel shadows, the faulty idea that the non-sunlit sides of the astronauts should have been pitch black, and the erroneous notion that the astronauts should have died because of the Van Allen Belts.

"Sayronora Jupiter" has not really raised any valid issues other than wild speculation and innuendo. He has nothing concrete. His idea of evidence is saying "Nixon was a crook who lied; Nixon was President during the Apollo landings; therefore Nixon lied about Apollo actually landing"

edit on 9/28/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

ME THINKS SOMEONE MIGHT BE A WITTLE BIT JEAWOUS!!!!

just a little? huh ? come on, it's just you and me...talk to me babe...just open up to the truth...



- SN

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


This is NASA's own film. This is a screen cap from that film. The film we are seeing is significant because of several things. Look at the quality of the image that is projected on the wall in front of the man seating at the console.

Is this front screen projection or rear screen projection?

Just three words people....

GROUP

THINK

KILLS

just three little words. let them absorb.



-SN

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

This is NASA's own film. This is a screen cap from that film. The film we are seeing is significant because of several things. Look at the quality of the image that is projected on the wall in front of the man seating at the console.

Is this front screen projection or rear screen projection?

Can you tell me what the difference would be ? I mean, technology before it's date, or what ?

- SN

reply to post by SadistNocturne


The projected image up on the screen looks like it's in color. The image up on the screen should be a black & white TV image, kinoscoped, of Apollo 11. Anyway thanks for reading the material. I literally started doing this by asking one simple question : where was Richard Nixon when the Apollo 11 launched? It just started steam-rolling from there!!

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by SadistNocturne

 

The projected image up on the screen looks like it's in color. The image up on the screen should be a black & white TV image, kinoscoped, of Apollo 11. Anyway thanks for reading the material. I literally started doing this by asking one simple question : where was Richard Nixon when the Apollo 11 launched? It just started steam-rolling from there!!

Thank you for spelling that out, yes...I absolutely agree, it does look like color. The horizontal view of the background (under the LM) looks like has a khaki/yellowish tint to it...and yet right in the dead center of that but slightly above is the light coming through between the stairs and the astronaut..and the "blinding white" light looks as if it has a bluish tint to it...

B&W doesn't have (or at least SHOULDN'T have) yellow and bluish tints.

Ok, now to totally date myself (in a strange, sort of, negative way , if this was in B&W, when was color the norm? What year was this event (ok, I'm going to google..brb...ok, I am an idiot..I'm 44, I was only BORN in 1969....yeah, I'm pretty clueless...too much computer programming on my part I guess ...so it was 1969...would houston control not have had color by that time ?


Thanks!


- SN

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by SadistNocturne

 

The projected image up on the screen looks like it's in color. The image up on the screen should be a black & white TV image, kinoscoped, of Apollo 11. Anyway thanks for reading the material. I literally started doing this by asking one simple question : where was Richard Nixon when the Apollo 11 launched? It just started steam-rolling from there!!

It's a picture of a TV screen taken 30 feet away from that TV screen, for god's sake. Don't you think it is possible (perhaps even likely) that a color picture of a black and white TV screen may show a little tinting?

It could easily be a function of the film used in the color photograph. That's because color images are not necessarily "perfect" representations of what was really there. Color film uses different chemical emulsions to "simulate" the actual color of the object being photographed. Greyscales reproduced in color film will often have some bluish tint to it.

You are truly grasping at straws now. We all saw that footage, and it is in black and white. Why would mission control show a version of it (for all of the world to see as we watch mission control) that looks mostly black and white, but has color tinting?

SayonaraJupiterAnyway thanks for reading the material. I literally started doing this by asking one simple question : where was Richard Nixon when the Apollo 11 launched? It just started steam-rolling from there!!

And btw, that's the thing. You simply asked a question.

We're told that there are NO "stupid" questions...just don't go near the holy cows.

How is it possible to *be alive* and NOT question just about everything? Our science wouldn't exist if it weren't for people questioning the very reason of things.

But not the "holy cows"

And that list grows every damned day.

9/11
The Moon Landing
Pearl Harbor
Mass Shootings (ad nauseum and their connection to the CIA / MK Ultra)
UFO's
Aliens
Organized Religion
Faith
God
Our Gov'ts real intentions towards us, the governed...

And the list continues...

Dare to speak any of those words in something other than the "accepted" way....and, well you're a conspiracy theorist. You have stock interests in Reynolds Wrap. You're a frakking loon.

In my book, you're simply alive, breathing, analyzing data, and not relying on the words of others simply because you're told to do so by "Group Think".

But, it's easier to wrap yourself in the will of "group think"...to be one of them...to accept their reality and to never question...let alone....believe that our Gov't couldn't possibly be capable of doing such evil and horrible things against us.

Go back to sleep.




- SN

Soylent Green Is People
You are truly grasping at straws now.

No, you seem to be desperate. It seems to be as though you feel that anything other than your accepted version of reality threatens you. Threatens what you so desperately hold on to. Cling to.

I did not say I felt that because I saw color in a picture of a B&W tv screen that I "believed" there was a moon landing hoax.

All I said, was that it was rather odd that I saw color tinting in a supposed B&W tv screen.

You know, there are pharmaceuticals that can help you with your feelings of being threatened and persecution. I believe you might do well to look under General Anxiety Disorder or Social Anxiety Disorder. Google "Social Anxiety" and you'll find all the help you so clearly need.

Don't let time slip by. Get that help you need. Get it now. The Gov't and Big Pharma appreciate your help.

Soylent Green Is People
We all saw that footage, and it is in black and white. Why would mission control show a version of it (for all of the world to see as we watch mission control) that looks mostly black and white, but has color tinting?

Actually, you know what? I was born on August 2nd of that year. So no, I did *not* personally see the footage broadcast on TV. Did you personally see it ? Did you really?

I lived within three miles of the Pentagon on 9/11. I drove past the Pentagon on 9/12. I saw it with my own eyes. Did you?

Are you 100% certain that what you believe you saw...was.....what you saw ?

I see life as viewing much of the same over, and over, and over...but always from a slightly different angle. Each different angle shows you something you clearly could not have perceived from the beginning. What we cling to fervently one day as truth, well, the next day you might as well wipe your own bottom with for what it's worth. Pain sets in where discovery starts. It hurts to realize you were wrong. That what you based your beliefs off of was wrong. To admit that you yourself was wrong. To admit that someone or something you *trusted*, well, lied to you.

I'm not trying to be philosophical or preachy, it's simply what I've realized over the years. This is an approach to life I have embraced and accepted.

I'm not interested in furthering this communication with you. You're obviously dead set in your way of thinking and "being". Malleability is not a quality you possess. You feel the need to be right, the need to win.

I wish you the best. Please, don't respond to this post.

Godspeed.




- SN

SadistNocturne

Soylent Green Is People
You are truly grasping at straws now.

No, you seem to be desperate. It seems to be as though you feel that anything other than your accepted version of reality threatens you. Threatens what you so desperately hold on to. Cling to.

Yeah. But I accept the Moon landing as reality for a reason. That reason is simply that the evidence FOR a real Moon landing far (far) outweighs the evidence that the moon landings were faked. My belief in the Moon landings is not blind belief.

Again, as I said before, it's not as if I believe the Moon landings were real only because NASA says they were real. I believe it because I have seen the evidence for and against, I have weighed that evidence, and I find a whole lot more credibility in the evidence that we really went to the Moon.

I mean, if this post by Sayonora Jupiter claiming that an old color picture of a black and white TV screen projection looks to have blue tinting is the among the better evidence that the Moon landing was a hoax, then it is little wonder that I don't have much faith in the hoax theory.

Actually, you know what? I was born on August 2nd of that year. So no, I did *not* personally see the footage broadcast on TV. Did you personally see it ? Did you really?

I do remember it, but I was very young, and I cannot tell you what I personally saw on my TV when they showed that screen from mission control.

However, I have seen that footage before, and it is in black and white. Do you think it is more likely that an old color print film image showing an image of a black-and-white TV screen from 30+ feet away may have a bluish tint in the color film emulsion...OR do you think it is more likely that mission control made the mistake of airing a huge projection of a TV image that was supposed to be black and white, but it was really color -- or at least it had one color -- blue?

I suppose mission control could have been lying about everything, and made the mistake of airing a color version (a color version that looked black-and-white, except for a little blue and sepia tinting) of footage that was supposed to be only in black-and-white, but that would just be some wild speculation that is devoid of any real evidence...

...but that begs the question: if they had color footage, then that begs the question why would they have only released the black-and-white footage to the public since then? Why not just put the color version in the public historical record?

SadistNocturne --

To add one more thing to my post above, I should ask you what specific piece(s) of evidence makes YOU believe the Moon landings were a hoax (assuming that is your belief)?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

You are truly grasping at straws now. We all saw that footage, and it is in black and white. Why would mission control show a version of it (for all of the world to see as we watch mission control) that looks mostly black and white, but has color tinting?

I just want to analyze the picture. Who is the astronaut coming down the ladder in the projection screen, on the wall, being projected? At the same time we must imagine that there is a cameraman, with a movie camera, in mission control, filming the same events. It looks to me that the astronaut coming down the ladder has some amazing detail. More amazing than was ever shown on TV.

Take a Look down on the console. 2 TV's . The picture on those small TV's are what the people at home were more likely to see... then look back up at the amazing detail on that projection screen.

Are you going say that the projection screen was dirty with the cigar and cigarette smoke? I might buy that

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

You are truly grasping at straws now. We all saw that footage, and it is in black and white. Why would mission control show a version of it (for all of the world to see as we watch mission control) that looks mostly black and white, but has color tinting?

I just want to analyze the picture. Who is the astronaut coming down the ladder in the projection screen, on the wall, being projected? At the same time we must imagine that there is a cameraman, with a movie camera, in mission control, filming the same events. It looks to me that the astronaut coming down the ladder has some amazing detail. More amazing than was ever shown on TV.

Take a Look down on the console. 2 TV's . The picture on those small TV's are what the people at home were more likely to see... then look back up at the amazing detail on that projection screen.

Are you going say that the projection screen was dirty with the cigar and cigarette smoke? I might buy that

I think you may want to look again i think you were imagining things ill make it easy for you. Here watch the video from houston. If you want to see a color video of him descending the ladder ill find it for you they did have a motion picture camera mounted as well much better quality.But im sure someone with your vast research capabilities should be able to find it.

The camera taken to the lunar surface by Apollo 11 was not capable of colour, although colour cameras were used in the CSM for TV broadcasts (the ones that show Hurricane Bernice for example).

The image on the screen in Mission Control is not in colour, and neither are the images on the screens in front of the Mission Control staff.

There is no need to 'imagine' anything because everything is well documented. Everything you need to know is in here, and there is an interesting response to a question about the console screens here, and a good article about the entire control room here. There is also this NASA report on data terminals here.

As another indication, here is a photo taken during a TV broadcast from Apollo 8. Apollo 8 did take colour 16mm film but did not have colour broadcasting capability. The image is of Earth.

Soylent Green Is People

For example (just of example) would be the perfect parabolic path the dust takes when coming off the back wheels of the rover. If this was done in a studio, that dust would have hung in the air and dispersed a bit. It did not.

edit on 9/28/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

As for dust not forming clouds on the moon, you better look at the LDEX mission - its main purpose is to measure how much dust lingers above the lunar surface. And compare the height of the dust, which is no higher than it is on Earth. It should be much, much higher than anything on Earth.

turbonium1

Soylent Green Is People

For example (just of example) would be the perfect parabolic path the dust takes when coming off the back wheels of the rover. If this was done in a studio, that dust would have hung in the air and dispersed a bit. It did not.

edit on 9/28/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

As for dust not forming clouds on the moon, you better look at the LDEX mission - its main purpose is to measure how much dust lingers above the lunar surface. And compare the height of the dust, which is no higher than it is on Earth. It should be much, much higher than anything on Earth.

edit on 29-9-2013 by turbonium1 because: typo

When the LDEX starts collecting data then we'll be in a position to discuss its results in relation to Apollo. As it is still en route and has no data, there is not much to discuss.

Your contention that dust heights should be much higher than on Earth is unsupported. You also seem to assume that every particle suspended by eg rover wheels and astronaut feet is a small speck of dust, which is not true.

Dust on Earth is suspended in air and can be found tens of thousands of feet up in the atmosphere. The lunar atmosphere is negligible, would not support large amounts of dust that, and would not create a billowing dust cloud.

Not one billowing dust cloud has ever been observed on the moon, even when an ascent module rocket is fired at a dusty surface:

choos

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.

Yes, it's not grasping at straws to say it changes, just like everything else does.

And who cares how it changes, right?

Wow...

choos

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???

About 99.99% of the time, the VAB environment changes slowly. About 0.01% of the time, the VAB environment changes quickly.

They used to believe the VAB envronment changes slowly, but they now know it changes quickly.



How about the Earth environment? We used to believe it was a slow, calm environment. We then saw a rare phenomenon, called a 'hurricane'.

So ...'We used to believe the Earth was a slow, calme environment. But we later found out it is a fierce, treacherous environment.'

That's not grasping at straws, is it?