Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


You again didnt do your homework they had no way to handle the exposed reel in space so they were told to return the camera with them. When he got back turned over the camera they removed the film and he claims they were going to toss the camera. And he said as a incentive NASA had been known to give them away. He claims he asked and was given permission to keep it my theory is he simply pinched it thinking no one would miss it and well he was right. Since it took them 40 yrs. There probably was a sort of agreement like im sure stuff went out the door and for the most part NASA his bosses were ok with it but obviously NASA wasnt.

But there was no jeopardizing the mission since the camera was supposed to return with the mission. Trust me An astronaut isnt going to violate a direct order to pinch a camera he could go and buy.

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

the Wohlgemuth industrial espionage incident in the early Apollo program,

In which Wohlgemuth brought knowledge to ILC that would be beneficial in creating real space suits. Are you sure you want to go there, Sayanara?

Sure, why not? It's always good to explore the Apollo history! We should talk about the Wohlgemuth hearings. Let's start here: gozips.uakron.edu...

There is no doubt that Wohlgemuth was one of a few top executives and developers in this field of operation with the Goodrich Company...

It further appears that Wohlgemuth, while employed by Goodrich, was in technical charge of practically all research in space suits, and as a result had detailed knowledge of the scientific and engineering principles involved in the production of space suits for use in space flight.

Evidence further establishes the fact that Goodrich's former employee, Wohlgemuth, is in possession of many of these secrets;

He explained that he had been contacted "by an employment agency regarding this new job," and that he subsequently visited International Latex, where he was then offered an "increase in salary and a better position." It was then said to Wohlgemuth that in leaving Goodrich "he was taking with him a body of information which did not belong to him or to any individual, but did belong to the company, and that there was a matter of company loyalty and ethics involved." Wohlgemuth replied that "loyalty and ethics had their price; insofar as he was concerned, International Latex was paying the price."

There is no evidence before this court that Goodrich trade secrets have been revealed by Wohlgemuth; however, the circumstances surrounding his employment by Latex, and his own attitude as revealed by statements to fellow Goodrich employees, are sufficient to satisfy this court that a substantial threat of disclosure exists.

Once again, we come full circle. D-i-s-c-l-o-s-u-r-e.

FYI only.
There was already an ATS thread dedicated for space suits.
Moon Landing Hoax - The Space Suit
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

It further appears that Wohlgemuth, while employed by Goodrich, was in technical charge of practically all research in space suits, and as a result had detailed knowledge of the scientific and engineering principles involved in the production of space suits for use in space flight.

He explained that he had been contacted "by an employment agency regarding this new job," and that he subsequently visited International Latex, where he was then offered an "increase in salary and a better position."

Why would ILC try to recruit an expert of manufacturing space suits if they were only going to make fake space suits?

reply to post by DJW001

Why would ILC try to recruit an expert of manufacturing space suits if they were only going to make fake space suits?

Are you suggesting that ILC Dover manufactured fake space suits under the direction of Donald Wohlgemuth and Meshulam Riklis for the fake Apollo space program?

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by DJW001

 

Why would ILC try to recruit an expert of manufacturing space suits if they were only going to make fake space suits?

Are you suggesting that ILC Dover manufactured fake space suits under the direction of Donald Wohlgemuth and Meshulam Riklis for the fake Apollo space program?

Pretty much the opposite.

The disclosure you highlighted previously is quite evidently of trade secrets, nothing else.

All tnis smacks of avoiding answering quextions, questions like how did they manage to get accurate reprezentations of Earth's weather into live tv broadcasts from cislunar spsce and the moon's surface, or how Apollo astronauts managed to take accurate photos of small rocks and craters that were not photographed before and were not photographed again until the LRO began working, or how photographs of Earth and moon taken in cislunar space show features entirely consistent with being taken in cislunar space and not Earth orbit?

These are all things I've asked you about and all you've managed so far are sidesteps and irrelevant diversions. How about answering other people's questions instead of yor own?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Are you suggesting that ILC Dover manufactured fake space suits under the direction of Donald Wohlgemuth and Meshulam Riklis for the fake Apollo space program?

No, I am asking you why ILC would need Wohlgemuth's technical expertise if the space suits didn't need to be real. Well? Are you going to answer, or are you going to post another fake magazine cover?

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Are you suggesting that ILC Dover manufactured fake space suits under the direction of Donald Wohlgemuth and Meshulam Riklis for the fake Apollo space program?

No, I am asking you why ILC would need Wohlgemuth's technical expertise if the space suits didn't need to be real. Well? Are you going to answer, or are you going to post another fake magazine cover?

Actually DJ, since you are the only poster (in this thread) who is insisting that the space suits were fake and didn't need to be real... I think that it should be your responsibility to answer your own poorly constructed straw man questions.

This must be the fourth time (in this thread) that someone has accused me of posting a "fake" magazine cover. Hmmmm.
A careful reading of this thread would show that I never represented this magazine cover as anything more than an illustration.

October 4, 1957 was a Friday and you know what happened on that day. (Sputnik 1)
November 3, 1957 was a Sunday and you know what happened then, too. (Sputnik 2)
November 18, 1957 was a Monday when the original Life magazine cover was published.

And since you requested it, here it is again, the illustrated Life magazine from November 18, 1957, with Nazi Werner von Braun on the cover, which I have annotated with the von Braun list of existential threats....



the list of threats, as you know, is from the Carol Rosin videotape at the Disclosure Conference and the video that has been on youtube for 7 years now.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


And you've proven that he actually did say that right? Because he said it to more than one person right?

onebigmonkey
or how photographs of Earth and moon taken in cislunar space show features entirely consistent with being taken in cislunar space and not Earth orbit?

The problem with your argument is that Apollo 12 magazine Q (with 140 color images) doesn't have any humans in the entire roll!


Every single one of the images on Apollo 12 magazine Q could have been captured by robotic commands.
www.lpi.usra.edu...

These are all things I've asked you about and all you've managed so far are sidesteps and irrelevant diversions. How about answering other people's questions instead of yor own?

Oh, I always expect some twisted argument from the Hoax Believers, but Defenders?? Can you prove Apollo 12 magazine Q was shot by a human in cis-lunar space? Can you name the astronaut who snapped the AS12-50-7362? And what window did the astronaut use to capture 7362?

And what about all those dirty windows? Does make it more difficult to capture good images when perhaps as many as 4 out of 5 windows are fouled up like this?

It's not me sidestepping which has bothered you.. it's that your argument for image 7362 is no good and I have avoided stepping into it

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Actually DJ, since you are the only poster (in this thread) who is insisting that the space suits were fake and didn't need to be real... I think that it should be your responsibility to answer your own poorly constructed straw man questions.

Have you suddenly become a complete idiot? NAME CALLING I am not even implying that the space suits aren't real. I am asking you why they would need real space suits if they were not intending to go into space. It is you who are creating the strawman. Don't you think everyone who reads this thread BANDWAGON can see this? Do you not mind that even people on your own side of the "debate" know that you are a liar? NAME CALLING + TRANSFER

It's clear that you lost this one DJW001.

reply to post by DJW001

Have you suddenly become a complete idiot? I am not even implying that the space suits aren't real. I am asking you why they would need real space suits if they were not intending to go into space.

come on DJ..

doesn't take that much reasoning to figure out, this IS a conspiracy site after all and the conspiracy IS, at which we've been discussing for .. how long now on ATS?, ...

to deceive the American people and the world that we've landed on the moon, because (1) to ensure that USA was superior to the USSR at the time, (2) creates jobs thru tax payers $$$$$...

and so the reason to make real suits and a full scale mock up of the entire thing .......pretty obvious,

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

It's clear that you lost this one DJW001.

It's not name calling if it's true. You intentionally distorted my question in order to evade answering it. Your credibility has dropped so low that even Komodo can see that you are afraid to answer it. You liar.

reply to post by Komodo

and so the reason to make real suits and a full scale mock up of the entire thing .......pretty obvious,

So if they created working rockets, spacecraft and spacesuits to "fool" people, why didn't they simply go to the Moon?

Please note that AS12-50-7369 was taken "shortly after TLI". This also must mean that image AS12-50-7362, the image that OBMonkey is relying on, must also have been taken "shortly after TLI".

So far, OBMonkey has not admitted what window was used to snap image 7362. Nor have any of the Apollo Defenders stipulated which astronaut allegedly snapped 7362.

View of fouled hatch window with streaks that go away from the Command Service Module CSM cone apex. Image was taken shortly after Translunar Injection TLI during the Apollo 12 mission. Original film magazine was labeled Q, film type was S0-368 Ektachrome MS, color reversal, 80mm lens. The approximate photo scale is 1:15,000,000. Source archive.org...

SayonaraJupiter

onebigmonkey
or how photographs of Earth and moon taken in cislunar space show features entirely consistent with being taken in cislunar space and not Earth orbit?

The problem with your argument is that Apollo 12 magazine Q (with 140 color images) doesn't have any humans in the entire roll!

Irrelevant! If there were humans on the roll you would claim that the images were "inserted later."

Every single one of the images on Apollo 12 magazine Q could have been captured by robotic commands.
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Really? Are you familiar with the state of robotics in the 1960's? Can you prove that they had the technology to do what you claim they did?

These are all things I've asked you about and all you've managed so far are sidesteps and irrelevant diversions. How about answering other people's questions instead of yor own?

Oh, I always expect some twisted argument from the Hoax Believers, but Defenders?? Can you prove Apollo 12 magazine Q was shot by a human in cis-lunar space? Can you name the astronaut who snapped the AS12-50-7362? And what window did the astronaut use to capture 7362?

Isn't this what you yourself would call "name calling" and "bandwagon? And if we were to e-mail the astronauts and find out who took which photo, would you accept that evidence?

And what about all those dirty windows? Does make it more difficult to capture good images when perhaps as many as 4 out of 5 windows are fouled up like this?

In microgravity, things tend to float about. The dirty windows are evidence that the photos were taken in the cabin of a spacecraft.

It's not me sidestepping which has bothered you.. it's that your argument for image 7362 is no good and I have avoided stepping into it

Once again: are you being stupid, or just lying?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

So far, OBMonkey has not admitted what window was used to snap image 7362. Nor have any of the Apollo Defenders stipulated which astronaut allegedly snapped 7362.

Completely irrelevant. You lie worse than your hero, Dick Nixon.

Can anyone explain why the unnamed Apollo 12 astronaut would snap the dirty window in image 7370 and then turned his camera upside down! to take the second image of the same dirty window again?

Can anyone explain why there is not one single image of Conrad, Bean or Gordon in Apollo 12, Magazine Q? www.lpi.usra.edu...

Perhaps they were not in this command module snapping pictures? Perhaps it was a robotic arm with a camera attachement?

Maybe it was one of the Howard Hughes' mobots?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Can anyone explain why the unnamed Apollo 12 astronaut would snap the dirty window in image 7370 and then turned his camera upside down! to take the second image of the same dirty window again?

Because in microgravity, the camera could rotate on its own if he let go of it.

Can anyone explain why there is not one single image of Conrad, Bean or Gordon in Apollo 12, Magazine Q? www.lpi.usra.edu...

Can you explain why there should be?

Perhaps they were not in this command module snapping pictures? Perhaps it was a robotic arm with a camera attachement?

Can you explain why a robot would turn a camera upside down between the two photos?

Maybe it was one of the Howard Hughes' mobots?

Impossible, according to your own article, they were as big as a forklift!