Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

not to present faked magazine covers without identifying that you have faked them.

Are you guys still sore over that? It's called an illustration, it was never presented as an authentic magazine cover, and it amounts to exactly what like you did with your colorful dots and colorful arrows in your pictures.... it's....
and illustration. Geezus.

Was your illustration from an official NASA website because thats what you required him to do. Why is it ok for you to create an illustration but you question it when someone else does? Odd dont you think sounds to me like you dont want to deal with the information because you cant deny the facts.

PS as to your magazine cover you like to claim Von Braun said this i challenge you to show me where because you know as well as i do it was a claim made after his death. And the person who said it had a vested interest in lying since she formed an organization to stop the weaponization of space. Oddly though she doesnt question the fact we went to the moon she just doesnt want it to turn into a battlefield.

choos

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

not to present faked magazine covers without identifying that you have faked them.

Are you guys still sore over that? It's called an illustration, it was never presented as an authentic magazine cover, and it amounts to exactly what like you did with your colorful dots and colorful arrows in your pictures.... it's....
and illustration. Geezus.

so why are you so sore over onebigmonkey's illustration??

is it that you cant refute it and have run out of things to say so you make little petty remarks??

choos, why did you have to bring this discussion down so low? "little petty remarks??"

You know already that Richard Nixon was a gambler.

Nixon went "all in" with Howard Hughes. Look at the timing. Hughes seclusion 1966, Nixon comeback 1968, Elvis comeback 1968, Apollo 8, Bible readings from outer space on Christmas Eve, which is Howard Hughes birthday, "moon" landing 1969. And you have to admit that Howard Hughes had a monopoly on successful soft-landing lunar robots with TV's for eyes from 1959 up until 1967. Only the entire Soviet Union put together could compete with the ingenuity of Howard Hughes. How's that for historical data? Don't forget who was president during the time of Apollo and don't underestimate the loyalty of those in Nixon's chain of command, who were without exception, fervent, dedicated, and rabid anti-communists.

reply to post by dragonridr

Was your illustration from an official NASA website

If you won't accept my illustration of the von Braun cover... then you should not accept any illustrations in this thread, no matter what. Are you willing to go that extreme to defend your precious little darling Apollo?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

If you won't accept my illustration of the von Braun cover... then you should not accept any illustrations in this thread, no matter what. Are you willing to go that extreme to defend your precious little darling Apollo?

Transfer, name calling and card stacking all in the space of two sentences! You seem literally to have written the book on propaganda. What do you expect to accomplish? Why bother attacking the historical record? If Orwell observed correctly that "he who controls the past controls the future," what future are you fighting so hard to create?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Strange, this is the first time I have seen you actually credited your own picture/outside information. Seems you are grasping at straws to make such an inuendo. Besides he did give the correct picture number using NASA's nomenclature:

onebigmonkey
OK, try and get your head around this one.

This is a picture from Apollo 12 AS12-50-7362:

As shown in the graphic below, both Moon pictures are identical!



Moon A is onebigmonkey's graphic which I superimposed upon your graphic, Moon B. I rotated A and cropped both pictures for easier comparison. This graphic shows they are the same photograph, so what is the conspiracy here.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Your funny he was showing you videos from Apollo and you try to change it by showing a picture taken from Apollo. I believe this would be transfer from your list. So i guess you admit you have no evidence at this point and conceded the debate?

OBmonkey posted an Apollo 12 image UPSIDE DOWN and hosted from imageshack. In a formal debate that action would result in a judgement of technical default in my favor. Was that the debate you were referring to?

Who cares if it was hosted on Imageshack, photobucket, TinyPic, or ATS image hosting? He simply wanted it to show up as an image in the post, and that is the correct way to do it. Hot-linking is not allowed by ATS' rules. I have used photobucket in the past before ATS included their own image hosting (I still use photobucket on rare occasions for older images I still have hosted there).

He even provided the actual NASA image source in his post ( he wrote "This is a picture from Apollo 12 AS12-50-7362").

Maybe he confused some people by turning it so North was up (the way most of us view the Earth in our heads), but that seems to be making a big deal about nothing.

SayonaraJupiter

OBmonkey posted an Apollo 12 image UPSIDE DOWN and hosted from imageshack. In a formal debate that action would result in a judgement of technical default in my favor.

No.

It wouldn't.

This is a not a formal debate - it's a web forum. If it were a formal debate you would have been laughed out of it a long time ago for refusing to address points made to you and for repeating discredited, exaggerated and irrelevant claims over and over again.

Just for even more clarification, I used the image on my own website to make the same point I made here, I had a copy to hand, which I used. I prefer not to link directly to my site for a number of reasons, not least to avoid accusations of generating traffic (which would actually be bad for me as I am on a limited data account). The image I had to hand was, for the purpose of my argument, the right way up. I identified the image so that anyone with any kind of gumption could find it for themselves. It is not my fault if the fact that it was upside down proved too much for you.

You seem much keener to address where a NASA picture was hosted rather than the point I made about the NASA picture, which was that it shows a view of Earth that was only possible from cislunar space, not from Earth orbit.

You seem more interested in complaining about the quality of newspaper images showing images of Earth captured from live TV than in what those images show: weather patterns that are 100% correct at the time of broadcast.

Why is that?

SayonaraJupiter

choos, why did you have to bring this discussion down so low? "little petty remarks??"

you complain about people being sore but you yourself are getting so sore over a picture that was rotated..

so why the attempt to dismiss the entire post because an illustration was rotated?? do I have the right to dismiss your posts because of your edited illustrations?

(notice what i done here?? ignored your entire post apart from what i want?? feel familiar? answer, its what you do alot)

METAThe Apollo Defenders in this thread need to back off the Astronaut hero worshipping, tone down the NASA orthodoxy and resist the urge to interject opinions that are beliefs, when only facts are necessary in this thread..

METAThe Apollo Defenders wrongly expected PPK, turbo, myself and the other Apollo skeptics, to carry the total burden of Kaysing, Sibrel, Renee, Hoagland, Percy, Jarrah White, et al. That will never happen!! Get over it!! It becomes a straw man very quickly, it's very hard to deal with in the context of a "thread" like this, but it still happens, and it should not be happening.

METAThe Apollo Defenders are using ad hominem attacks whenever they use the term "hoax believer". When I see the Apollo Defenders using the term "hoax believer" I automatically discount everything that the Defender has to say. I really frown on those Apollo Defenders who are still using the term "hoax believer" especially in this thread, because I think this thread is important to the disclosure of what really happened on the "moon" during Richard Nixon's first term.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


You know, you havent answered my thread yet...
probably because you CANT...

HomerinNC
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

You know, you havent answered my thread yet...
probably because you CANT...

If your question is a straw man argument then you can be sure that I WON'T answer it!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


How is it straw man? I asked you to show 100% proof evidence the landings were hoaxed
you cant do it, so your theory is false

HomerinNC
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

How is it straw man? I asked you to show 100% proof evidence the landings were hoaxed
you cant do it, so your theory is false

The problem, as I see it, is that YOU expected ME to do prove something that I never claimed. In the first place, I never claimed that I offered 100% proof that the landings were hoaxed. So why should I entertain you with this boring challenge? I do not defend claims that I did not make. Your straw man argument is reason the main reason why Apollo Defenders are so tedious to deal with. I don't take you seriously, Homer. Not when you resort to b_S- 100% proof cop out arguments. I'd suggest you to go back and study Nixon, Hughes and NASA.

Why do you attribute to me every motive that rightfully belongs to someone else??? That's called transfer. It's propaganda.

reply to post by Gibborium

As shown in the graphic below, both Moon pictures are identical!

They are not identical. Anyone can see that there are obvious color differences between A and B.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Again incorrect I asked you to show how your theory that the landings are faked. I can give but loads of proof it did happen, from artifacts to eyewitness accounts.
You don't even have ONE statement by a former NASA worker that states the landings were faked.
You have nothing but theories and opinions I have fact and evidence on my side. End of story
Furthermore, I never said I worshipped our astronauts, but I respect them as explorers.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Gibborium

 

As shown in the graphic below, both Moon pictures are identical!

They are not identical. Anyone can see that there are obvious color differences between A and B.

notice how you are concentrating on such a petty point in order to ignore all the points raised since you have no rebuttals..

what would that be?? transfer??

HomerinNC
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Again incorrect I asked you to show how your theory that the landings are faked. I can give but loads of proof it did happen, from artifacts to eyewitness accounts.
You don't even have ONE statement by a former NASA worker that states the landings were faked.
You have nothing but theories and opinions I have fact and evidence on my side. End of story
Furthermore, I never said I worshipped our astronauts, but I respect them as explorers.

Homer, there are only 12 men who can attest to getting their boots dirty on the "moon". There were only 12 men who can make that claim. I call them the "Dirty Dozen".

choos

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Gibborium

 

As shown in the graphic below, both Moon pictures are identical!

They are not identical. Anyone can see that there are obvious color differences between A and B.

notice how you are concentrating on such a petty point in order to ignore all the points raised since you have no rebuttals..

what would that be?? transfer??

edit on 24-10-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

I am totally bored with your commentary, choos. I won't be responding to you any further in this thread. I made a reply to Gibborium, and so you had to interject your useless comments. I'll wait for Gibborium to reply.

SayonaraJupiter

Homer, there are only 12 men who can attest to getting their boots dirty on the "moon". There were only 12 men who can make that claim. I call them the "Dirty Dozen".

"dirty dozen" so whats that?? name calling on your techniques of propaganda??

SayonaraJupiter
I am totally bored with your commentary, choos. I won't be responding to you any further in this thread.

so its true.. you have no answer and rely on ignorance..