Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Rob48

 

So the logical conclusion from this is

a) Nixon attended a launch at the cape or
b) No rocket was launched it was in a studio and Nixon wasn't there

I'm not denying any of the Saturn launches Rob48. I was responding to DJW when he claimed that 'moon hoax believers' (which I am not one) claimed that all the Saturn launches were done in a studio (which I do not claim).

I have no problem selecting option "a".

That is not at all what I said, now is it?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Just to clarify, the post you are replying to there wasn't by me, it was by onebigmonkey.

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Nixon attended the Apollo 12 launch on November 14, 1969 from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida, therefore, the Apollo 12 launch was not filmed in a studio. Touché.

You have made the claim that if one cannot identify which astronaut took a given photograph, it is evidence that the photograph was faked. Using your own standard of evidence, I have challenged you to prove Richard Nixon was not faked by identifying the photographer who took any given photograph of him. You have failed to do this, therefore you cannot prove that Richard Nixon existed, making his alleged presence at the launch of Apollo 12 moot. Isn't it about time one of you cracked and admitted you've just been trolling for the past three years?

3 guys (Apollo 12) flew to the "moon" with all those cameras, Conrad and crew didn't take any candids during the mission. It's a red flag for Apollo 12 and Apollo 12 only. When I am making argument about Apollo 12's lack of candid pictures it is not logical for you to extend my argument to apply to every other Apollo mission.

Do you know how many cameras Apollo 12 took with and brought back? No? That's another red flag for Apollo 12.

Two out of five windows in the Apollo 12 command module were fouled.


When you look at the Apollo 12 70mm catalogs you won't find any identifiable astronauts in any of those images. My theory is that those images which were made inside the command module were made by remote control cameras using Howard Hughes Mobot technology (not the heavy 1959 Mobots, but lighter more flexible designs from 1969).

Apollo 12 images on the surface of the "moon" were sound stage trick photography using image plates gathered on a previous mission by remote control cameras.

When images and audio are merged together to create a film (Like Howard Hughes did with Hell's Angels) the results can be quite amazing and deceiving. It's easy to forget you are watching a Hollywood movie called Nixon's Apollo.

SayonaraJupiter


3 guys (Apollo 12) flew to the "moon" with all those cameras, Conrad and crew didn't take any candids during the mission. It's a red flag for Apollo 12 and Apollo 12 only. When I am making argument about Apollo 12's lack of candid pictures it is not logical for you to extend my argument to apply to every other Apollo mission.

But they did take lots of video footage of themselves and made TV broadcasts from space, which has been pointed out to you on many many occasions.

Do you know how many cameras Apollo 12 took with and brought back?

Yes.

Two out of five windows in the Apollo 12 command module were fouled.

3 out of five weren't. None of the LM windows were fouled.

When you look at the Apollo 12 70mm catalogs you won't find any identifiable astronauts in any of those images.

But you can see astronauts in the images. Some reflected in windows in the CM, some in suits. Your insistence on identification is just a shield for the lack of support for whatever vague and insubstantial argument you are making.

My theory is that those images which were made inside the command module were made by remote control cameras using Howard Hughes Mobot technology (not the heavy 1959 Mobots, but lighter more flexible designs from 1969).

An argument for which you have no support. No such device capable of the task existed. You could not have put a machine capable of moving a camera on an arm to each of the windows and take photographs from a variety of angles and camera settings. It would also have been in the way of the people who were in there taking videos and making TV broadcasts. There would also not have been room for all the rocks that they brought back in the LM, which would also have needed its own robot because photographs of Earth were taken from it that exactly match what should have been visible in terms of the position of the terminator, subsolar point and land masses, and the weather patterns on show.

Apollo 12 images on the surface of the "moon" were sound stage trick photography using image plates gathered on a previous mission by remote control cameras.

Which mission? Where were these images sent back? Who processed them? Who made the sound stage? Who manned it? Where are they? You have absolutely no evidence for this, but there is ample evidence of astronauts actually on the moon and returning with samples, photographs and a chunk of a probe that went there earlier.

When images and audio are merged together to create a film (Like Howard Hughes did with Hell's Angels) the results can be quite amazing and deceiving. It's easy to forget you are watching a Hollywood movie called Nixon's Apollo.

They can, except when the special effects don't hang together and you can see the join, neither of which is the case with Apollo. When you have an unhealthy obsession with someone it's easy to forget that no-one else gives a rat's ass about it and it can cloud your judgement.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

But they did take lots of video footage of themselves and made TV broadcasts from space, which has been pointed out to you on many many occasions.

Sorry, the Apollo 12 70mm catalog is exclusive to itself, although, I understand why you would like to deflect to the 16mm films and Tv transmissions, because my argument still stands :



This is a funny picture anyway. Conrad just spent 10 days in space and 30 days on lock-down in the MQF. What does he do when he gets out of quarantine, he goes over to the lab and handles the moon rocks, contaminating them, what a strange science program!!

They went all the way on the moon and back keeping those moon rocks in vacuum chamber boxes, security controlled quarantined facilities, tax payers paid for those elaborate laboratories and Conrad says "I wanna picture of me breathing all over these moon rocks! Wow. "

But you can see astronauts in the images. Some reflected in windows in the CM, some in suits. Your insistence on identification is just a shield for the lack of support for whatever vague and insubstantial argument you are making.

Reflections of astronauts in windows is your standard of evidence? I see Elvis or maybe an Alien, or maybe a Mobot arm disguised by the astronaut's suit. What do you see?

DJW001

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Rob48

 

So the logical conclusion from this is

a) Nixon attended a launch at the cape or
b) No rocket was launched it was in a studio and Nixon wasn't there

I'm not denying any of the Saturn launches Rob48. I was responding to DJW when he claimed that 'moon hoax believers' (which I am not one) claimed that all the Saturn launches were done in a studio (which I do not claim).

I have no problem selecting option "a".

That is not at all what I said, now is it?

Your counter arguments are absurd. Even Jarrah White believes the Saturn launches were real.

Nobody in their right mind would think to say that the Saturn launches were made in a studio. Can you name one person who says that? I don't think you can. Therefore, your absurd straw man argument is worthless to your strategy.

What kind of bluff are you playing here DJW? Where is all this absurdity coming from?

You have made the claim that if one cannot identify which astronaut took a given photograph, it is evidence that the photograph was faked. Using your own standard of evidence, I have challenged you to prove Richard Nixon was not faked by identifying the photographer who took any given photograph of him. You have failed to do this, therefore you cannot prove that Richard Nixon existed, making his alleged presence at the launch of Apollo 12 moot. Isn't it about time one of you cracked and admitted you've just been trolling for the past three years?

Have I really been trolling for three whole years? I didn't make that claim, you made that claim for me! That's called a straw man, dude. It would be wise for you and your colleagues to back off.. you tried to derail the thread with absurdity.

Now, let's talk about some Nazi's. Because we have 200+ pages here and there has been little discussion of NASA's Skeletons in the Closet.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

But they did take lots of video footage of themselves and made TV broadcasts from space, which has been pointed out to you on many many occasions.

Sorry, the Apollo 12 70mm catalog is exclusive to itself, although, I understand why you would like to deflect to the 16mm films and Tv transmissions, because my argument still stands :

This is a funny picture anyway. Conrad just spent 10 days in space and 30 days on lock-down in the MQF. What does he do when he gets out of quarantine, he goes over to the lab and handles the moon rocks, contaminating them, what a strange science program!!

They went all the way on the moon and back keeping those moon rocks in vacuum chamber boxes, security controlled quarantined facilities, tax payers paid for those elaborate laboratories and Conrad says "I wanna picture of me breathing all over these moon rocks! Wow. "

But you can see astronauts in the images. Some reflected in windows in the CM, some in suits. Your insistence on identification is just a shield for the lack of support for whatever vague and insubstantial argument you are making.

Reflections of astronauts in windows is your standard of evidence? I see Elvis or maybe an Alien, or maybe a Mobot arm disguised by the astronaut's suit. What do you see?

Did you just cut and paste this again weve seen it like 12 times. Come on anything new we allready shot this down several times and you know hes not contaminating anything. Sice they brought back more than 2 rocks. When the rocks arrived in the sealed boxes they were placed into the vacuum system known as the F-201. A technician working in spacesuit vacuum gloves manipulated the samples. The samples were observed and photographed in vacuum. Pieces of sample for examination or analysis were passed into cabinet where they sat in a nitrogen atmosphere before moving on to the lab. What we see in the photo is of course the lab samples.Here an idea try proving we didnt go to the moon oh wait you cant can you.In fact you yourself made the claim you cant prove it didnt you? All you can do is is try to sidetrack people by lying by saying the moon rocks were contaminated. All i say is man your arguments are weak need to step up your game if you want to move into the majors.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


This so reminds me of you see if they built the massive rocket to go to the moon than theres no need to fake it, We call this a logic failure here this viseo for you.

SayonaraJupiter

DJW001

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Rob48

 

So the logical conclusion from this is

a) Nixon attended a launch at the cape or
b) No rocket was launched it was in a studio and Nixon wasn't there

I'm not denying any of the Saturn launches Rob48. I was responding to DJW when he claimed that 'moon hoax believers' (which I am not one) claimed that all the Saturn launches were done in a studio (which I do not claim).

I have no problem selecting option "a".

That is not at all what I said, now is it?

Your counter arguments are absurd. Even Jarrah White believes the Saturn launches were real.

Nobody in their right mind would think to say that the Saturn launches were made in a studio. Can you name one person who says that? I don't think you can. Therefore, your absurd straw man argument is worthless to your strategy.

What kind of bluff are you playing here DJW? Where is all this absurdity coming from?

You have made the claim that if one cannot identify which astronaut took a given photograph, it is evidence that the photograph was faked. Using your own standard of evidence, I have challenged you to prove Richard Nixon was not faked by identifying the photographer who took any given photograph of him. You have failed to do this, therefore you cannot prove that Richard Nixon existed, making his alleged presence at the launch of Apollo 12 moot. Isn't it about time one of you cracked and admitted you've just been trolling for the past three years?

Have I really been trolling for three whole years? I didn't make that claim, you made that claim for me! That's called a straw man, dude. It would be wise for you and your colleagues to back off.. you tried to derail the thread with absurdity.

Now, let's talk about some Nazi's. Because we have 200+ pages here and there has been little discussion of NASA's Skeletons in the Closet.

So you accept that the Saturn V launches were real, you accept that the service module was real, you accept that it went to the moon, you accept that photographs and video were taken from it, and you accept that lunar rock samples were returned to Earth?

I gotta ask, why wouldn't they just have thrown some men in there too? Looks like they did everything else!

dragonridr All i say is man your arguments are weak need to step up your game if you want to move into the majors.

Dragon, It's 2014. No humans or monkeys have been outside low earth orbit since 1972.... that's 42 years since Nixon was in office.

Let's keep the Nixon-Apollo missions in perspective shall we?

The only agency that ever claimed to penetrate the earth radiation belts or circumnavigate the moon was under the control of Richard Nixon from Jan 20.1969-Aug 9. 1974. That includes Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 because Nixon was using his influence prior to the election of November 5, 1968. History has concluded that Nixon was a traitor when he influenced/interfered with peace negotiations, via his pawn, Anna Chennault.

Every time you try to absolve Nixon from any involvement with Apollo I will sink the Nixonian fangs into NASA, again and again. When Nixon appointed James Fletcher, a former Hughes man and a Mormon, to NASA administrator should be a hint to you that you have underestimated RN and HH.

I'd appreciate if you don't attack me but address the argument. You have underestimated RN and HH, thus you have misinterpreted the historical narrative of Apollo, 1968-1972.

This graphic image supports my thesis. It shows the proper historical perspective of the Apollo missions within the context of historical manned space flight. As you can see the illustration is self explanatory.

SayonaraJupiter

Have I really been trolling for three whole years?

yes you have..

apparently you claim you wanted candid photos as proof astronauts were on board apollo 12.. yet you acknowledged apollo 11 and 13 has candid photos, which inevitably proves astronauts were onboard those missions for you.. which effectively proves man landed on the moon for you..

given that you already accept the knowledge that man has landed on the moon, you continue trolling these forums saying that it was super advanced transforming bipedal/tracked mobots designed and built by howard hughes and richard nixon themselves that was sent to the moon because richard nixon likes to watch movies.

reply to post by dragonridr

This so reminds me of you see if they built the massive rocket to go to the moon than theres no need to fake it, We call this a logic failure here this viseo for you.

I never denied the Saturn launches and I am sick of that dumb video I have seen it so many times, always posted by Apollo Defenders, if you wanna argue with youtube videos here is one for you...

reply to post by choos


A perfect example of DEFENDER LOGIC:

apparently you claim you wanted candid photos as proof astronauts were on board apollo 12.. yet you acknowledged apollo 11 and 13 has candid photos,

Do you know the difference between 11, 12, and 13 choos? I'll answer that for you. You can't use material from A11 or A13 to prove A12. Stop trying to mix them all up together. That strategy is called transfer

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos

 

A perfect example of DEFENDER LOGIC:

apparently you claim you wanted candid photos as proof astronauts were on board apollo 12.. yet you acknowledged apollo 11 and 13 has candid photos,

Do you know the difference between 11, 12, and 13 choos? I'll answer that for you. You can't use material from A11 or A13 to prove A12. Stop trying to mix them all up together. That strategy is called transfer

im not trying to mix them all up..

im just pointing out the discontinuity of your own argument and the double standards.. you are picking and choosing what you want and what you dont want depending on if it suits you.. basically you are trolling.

so why is it that candid photos for apollo 11 to prove apollo 11 is not good enough, but candid photos for apollo 12 to prove apollo 12 is only acceptable, and yet candid photos from apollo 13 to prove apollo 13 is not good enough??

trolling much?

reply to post by Rob48

So you accept that the Saturn V launches were real, you accept that the service module was real, you accept that it went to the moon,

Rob48, you have to be smarter than this! It's funny how your Apollo Defender logic works. SJ says X, so Y*Z = fake moon landing hoax believer!?

"you accept, you accept, you accept" is not a quality response.

There is a fatal flaw in your argument. You, like every Apollo Defender, tries to create a straw man argument against his opponent. It is a fatal flaw. Don't pretend that this is not a straw man argument that you have presented here. It is.

"My opponent believes X so he must also believe Y and Z."

Is this your argument? I think that your argument is fatally flawed. Please rethink your Apollo Defender strategy from here on out.

Rob48, this is not personal. I get this from every Apollo Defender. Every Apollo Defender wants to tell me what I think and tell me why my thinking is wrong. It's true!

Don't you see how that is counter-productive to the arguments that we have in Apollo threads about facts and interpretations?

Whatever happened to facts and interpretations?

It's a real waste of time to tell SayonaraJupiter what he thinks. If you think about that for long enough you will agree that it is a fatal flaw in your overall strategy. So don't waste your time.

I'll admit, I don't have a smoking gun. There is no single piece of evidence that I can pull out to say "Holy Shoot! They faked it!".

That's not what I am doing. What I am doing for the last 3 years is collecting Red Flags and I have collected so many Red Flags that it became obvious to me that that there are some serious issues with the popular historical narratives for the Apollo moon landing missions.

The Keep-Out Zones should be a Red Flags because it shows that NASA has Suspicious Minds with regard to the Apollo landing sites.

reply to post by choos

so why is it that candid photos for apollo 11 to prove apollo 11 is not good enough, but candid photos for apollo 12 to prove apollo 12 is only acceptable, and yet candid photos from apollo 13 to prove apollo 13 is not good enough??

Because I take each mission on the merits and I don't mix up the missions.

Don't mix up Apollo 12 with Apollo 11 or Apollo 13. That's all I'm saying.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


I'm not telling you what you believe, I am just repeating back what you told us you believe!

Let's find the quotes. All verbatim, posted by you:

I'm not denying any of the Saturn launches Rob48.

So you accept that the Saturn rockets were genuine and behaved as claimed. Strike 1.

My theory is that those images which were made inside the command module were made by remote control cameras using Howard Hughes Mobot technology

So you accept that the command module was real. Strike 2.

Apollo 12 images on the surface of the "moon" were sound stage trick photography using image plates gathered on a previous mission by remote control cameras.

So you accept that NASA did, in fact, send a craft to the surface of the moon. Strike 3. Your ridiculous theory is OUT.

Nixon Nixon Nixon. Read the timeline of the Apollo program and you will see that the manned landings were simply the culmination of more than a decade of HARD WORK, much of it conducted while Nixon was in the political wilderness in the early 1960s. Or do you expect us to believe that while JFK was pledging to go to the moon, it was Tricky Dicky pulling the strings? And I notice the airy way you wave away the inconvenient problem of Apollo missions before he won the election because obviously the main candidate of the opposition party has such MASSIVE influence.


Don't mix up Apollo 12 with Apollo 11 or Apollo 13. That's all I'm saying.

But you are the one using supposed flaws in the photos from ONE mission to cast doubt on the WHOLE program. Why is it ok for you to do it but not for anyone else? I don't quite understand your story anyway, and I'm not sure you do. Just what is fake and what is real?

The trouble with hoax theorists (well one of many!) is that none of them agree on the details of the hoax: there are as many versions as there are believers, in fact more, given the way they keep changing their story.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


You have been shown what NASA actually said about those zones before and it's NOT what you claim, so I will as you again what would you consider as proof only you, because it's obvious there is plenty of proof!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008


The only "Keepout Zones" are around the A11 and A17 landing sites, as those are the most historically important. If NASA didn't impose such restrictions then what would the HBs be saying? "If these sites are genuine then why are they letting people trample all over them?" A classic case of "You can't win"

The less historically important landing sites can be accessed pretty much as close as you like, as long as you "look but don't touch":

However, for the Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 16 sites, more access should be provided to individual components and artifacts, NASA added, allowing for future robotic missions to get within touching distance of Apollo hardware – as much as they won’t be allowed physical contact.

www.nasaspaceflight.com...

SayonaraJupiter


Sorry, the Apollo 12 70mm catalog is exclusive to itself, although, I understand why you would like to deflect to the 16mm films and Tv transmissions, because my argument still stands :

And I entirely understand why you don't want to look at the other images from the CSM because they kind of blow your nonsense that there was no-one there out of the water. It also shows that there was no room in there for your imaginary mobots. I am more than happy with the 70mm catalogue, because they show photographs of lunar surface details that probes hadn't photographed before, yet still show up in LRO images. They also show images of Earth that show what they should show at the time they were taken. They show astronauts at work, one of whom, I remind you, I have met and heard describe first hand his experiences on the moon. Oh and don't wheel our your stupid jpeg with the pointy finger, because you have yet to learn the difference between testimonial and testimony.

This is a funny picture anyway. Conrad just spent 10 days in space and 30 days on lock-down in the MQF. What does he do when he gets out of quarantine, he goes over to the lab and handles the moon rocks, contaminating them, what a strange science program!!

They went all the way on the moon and back keeping those moon rocks in vacuum chamber boxes, security controlled quarantined facilities, tax payers paid for those elaborate laboratories and Conrad says "I wanna picture of me breathing all over these moon rocks! Wow. "

Well gee, you don't think the rocks also spent 30 days in quarantine? Notice his gloves? Go away and do some research on the Lunar Materials Receiving Laboratory and see how they handled the rocks and samples. The quarantine wasn't to protect the samples from us, it was to protect us from the samples.

Reflections of astronauts in windows is your standard of evidence? I see Elvis or maybe an Alien, or maybe a Mobot arm disguised by the astronaut's suit. What do you see?

You see Nazis in the bathroom, just below the stairs. You see what you choose to see. Except what's in front of your nose.