Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Bybyots


But, I agree with SayonaraJupiter in that our not returning to the Moon and what it may signify seems to fly in the face of what really makes us human. It seems to me that whatever it is that truth has ion store for us it will include an explanation of why we haven't been back.

I would completely agree with you there -

"we choose to go to the moon and do the other things not because they are easy but because they are hard"

That is a human thing - exploring, seeing what's there, and it's that need to witness with our own eyes that I think is the important part of space exploration.

Such feats cost money, however. One of the biggest tasks facing any explorer is raising the cash to do it - no money = no go.

Simple analogy: I have been to SE Asia many times when the money was good. I learned a lot and it as a great experience. In these more financially restrictive times I have not been back. This does not mean I never went there, neither does it mean that I have done nothing worthwhile since. I had to make a decision with my limited resources and that decision could no longer include expensive jaunts to exotic locations.

I think it's a crying shame that we are currently stuck in LEO, but that does not mean we never went anywhere else and the technology that puts us there now is not much different to what took us to the moon then.

SayonaraJupiter

onebigmonkey

SayonaraJupiter
What role did Stanley Kubrick really play in Apollo?

None whatsoever.

Next.

But the photos don't lie.

A description of a photo's contents is a fact. An inference as to what that means with no basis in fact or evidence to support it is not a fact. Photos don't lie, but people do.

Stanley Kubrick had no involvement in the Apollo missions. None. Having astronauts visit you and buying a camera that NASA also used is not the same as being involved in the Apollo missions.

The Apollo photos don't lie, they show astronauts on the moon.

onebigmonkey

SayonaraJupiter

onebigmonkey

SayonaraJupiter
What role did Stanley Kubrick really play in Apollo?

None whatsoever.

Next.

But the photos don't lie.

A description of a photo's contents is a fact. An inference as to what that means with no basis in fact or evidence to support it is not a fact. Photos don't lie, but people do.

Stanley Kubrick had no involvement in the Apollo missions. None. Having astronauts visit you and buying a camera that NASA also used is not the same as being involved in the Apollo missions.

The Apollo photos don't lie, they show astronauts on the moon.

So, you agreed with me. The pictures don't lie, it's people that lie. That's why I asked who took the pictures of the dirty windows on Apollo 12 and somehow you have gotten away with not explaining it with verifiable sources.

People with ulterior motives. And the President of the United States of America at the time of Apollo "moon" landings is a liar, a provable liar, on tape and on live television;

Stanley Kubrick had no involvement in the Apollo missions. None. Having astronauts visit you and buying a camera that NASA also used is not the same as being involved in the Apollo missions.

Were Deke Slayton and George Mueller on official NASA business when they visited Kubrick in the UK, or, was it off the books? I'd like to know.



Stanley Kubrick admired "Hell's Angels" (1930) he had it in his top-10 list.

Arthur C. Clarke spent a lot of time on network TV during the Apollo years. Cronkite would ask Clarke about satellites and Clarke would tell a good story about satellites. Because he's an expert on geostationary orbit.



Hughes Aircraft built Syncom 1, 2 and 3 for geostationary orbit. 3 Syncoms February 14, 1963, July 26, 1963 and August 19, 1964. By the time Nixon rolls up to the White House in 1968, Hughes has already created his own version of a proto-Skynet... he had 30 satellites up. PLUS. Howard Hughes had the Mobots from 1959.

If you take a look at "The Race for Space" (1959) www.imdb.com...
en.wikipedia.org...:The_Race_for_Space_poster.jpg

Then take a look at what Mike Wallace said about that film many years later, pay attention to the parts about how the TV networks controlled all the content at that time.



FACT:

As of November 6, 2013, a total of 536 people from 38 countries have gone into space according to the FAI guideline (543 people have qualified when including the US Department of Defense classification). Of the 536, three people completed only a sub-orbital flight, 533 people reached Earth orbit, 24 traveled beyond low Earth orbit and 12 walked on the Moon. Source wiki en.wikipedia.org...

Those 24 people who travelled beyond were under the orders of Howard Hughes and Richard Nixon. Kennedy stated what the goal was. Johnson kept the ball rolling. Nixon comes back from the wilderness and it's wham bam thank you m'am.

The Apollo 8 mission Christmas bible readings happened on Howard Hughes official corporate birthday, December 24. That is a point of fact. Kubrick was involved in Apollo. The pictures do not lie.

Bybyots
I believe that we have been to the Moon, I also believe that any time that we attribute engineering feats that we don't have the firepower to understand to anyone other than ourselves we are insulting the human race in the worst possible way.

But, I agree with SayonaraJupiter in that our not returning to the Moon and what it may signify seems to fly in the face of what really makes us human. It seems to me that whatever it is that truth has ion store for us it will include an explanation of why we haven't been back.

I respect your opinion, too. The Moon Landings are a special case in history. December 19, 1972 is a day that will live in infamy. It's the last time any human beings were outside of low earth orbit, Richard Nixon cancelled Apollo 18, 19 and 20. He commenced the bombardment of North Viet Nam in December of 1972, at a cost of $4 billion dollars, lost B-52 bombers and American lives. ($4 billion would be enough to cover Apollo 18, 19 and 20). Nixon invested in the space shuttle which condemned NASA to low earth orbit for 40+ years.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


The Apollo 8 mission Christmas bible readings happened on Howard Hughes official corporate birthday, December 24. That is a point of fact.

You know what December 24 also is? Christmas Eve. That is a point of fact. Funny day to have Christmas bible readings isn't it?

You keep stating "facts" like Nixon being president during the landings as if (a) they are relevant and (b) you are the only person to have noticed! Nobody is denying that fact, it just doesn't matter one jot.

Apollo was already in full swing, and unless you are suggesting that Nixon cancelled the whole existing program and managed to construct a fake from scratch within a few months of winning the election then his presidency is utterly irrelevant.

Apollo would have happened with or without Nixon. If he hadn't been president then it might have continued as originally planned instead of being cancelled early. That is all.

SayonaraJupiter

So, you agreed with me. The pictures don't lie, it's people that lie. That's why I asked who took the pictures of the dirty windows on Apollo 12 and somehow you have gotten away with not explaining it with verifiable sources.

People with ulterior motives. And the President of the United States of America at the time of Apollo "moon" landings is a liar, a provable liar, on tape and on live television;

speaking of which..

who took this photo??



any guarantee that it was not a hoaxer using cardboard cutouts to start a conspiracy to involve staneley kubrick??

reply to post by Rob48

managed to construct a fake from scratch within a few months of winning the election then his presidency is utterly irrelevant.

Apollo would have happened with or without Nixon. If he hadn't been president then it might have continued as originally planned instead of being cancelled early. That is all.

I never said Nixon constructed "a fake from scratch within a few months of winning the election". Do you like strawman arguments? Because I will guarantee that your straw man's won't stand up to any scrutiny.

That's typical of Apollo Defenders... straw man straw man straw man. Bluff bluff bluff.

SayonaraJupiter

I never said Nixon constructed "a fake from scratch within a few months of winning the election". Do you like strawman arguments? Because I will guarantee that your straw man's won't stand up to any scrutiny.

That's typical of Apollo Defenders... straw man straw man straw man. Bluff bluff bluff.

you have hinted that Nixon being president is the common theme..

did you just admit that it doesnt matter if Nixon was president????

reply to post by choos

who took this photo??

Images taken on earth are not controversial. Apollo 12 Images taken on the moon are controversial because you don't know who took them. You wanna mix up earth pictures with Apollo pictures, because you are a hoaxer.

No, choos. You can answer who took the Apollo 12 photos of the dirty windows. No BS this time.

choos

SayonaraJupiter

I never said Nixon constructed "a fake from scratch within a few months of winning the election". Do you like strawman arguments? Because I will guarantee that your straw man's won't stand up to any scrutiny.

That's typical of Apollo Defenders... straw man straw man straw man. Bluff bluff bluff.

you have hinted that Nixon being president is the common theme..

did you just admit that it doesnt matter if Nixon was president????

Do you really think you are smarter than Nixon and Hughes? Answer: you are not.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Why does it matter which crew member took the photos of the fouled windows? What importance are you attaching to these photos? We know it was one of three people. How many possibilities are there for the identity of the photographer of Kubrick on Earth?

I never said Nixon constructed "a fake from scratch within a few months of winning the election".

So please tell us what the heck your theory is! You accuse people of building straw men but you don't say what your theory is, other than "Nixon was a crook => Apollo was a fake". If Nixon didn't construct a fake Apollo program after becoming president then what did he do? And what became of the genuine program that had been running for a decade already? What did they do with all the genuine technology that was already proven capable of performing as it should? Did they chuck it out? When? Why? Which was the first fake mission? How does that dovetail with the genuine Apollo program, given that each mission was built upon the work of the previous one?

Either provide us with some detailed argument of how, where, when and why the missions were faked, or stop polluting this thread with your Nixon/Hughes fan club ramblings. Give us FACTS, give us EVIDENCE, give us DATES, give us LOCATIONS, give us NAMES.

Rob48
And what became of the genuine program that had been running for a decade already? What did they do with all the genuine technology that was already proven capable of performing as it should? Did they chuck it out? When? Why? Which was the first fake mission? How does that dovetail with the genuine Apollo program, given that each mission was built upon the work of the previous one?

...and let's not forget that the Saturn rockets complete with Apollo Command Modules continued to operate for several years after Nixon stopped being interesting to build Skylab, and the Apollo-Soyuz link-up, all using procedures and equipment tried and tested during Apollo and using 3 actual Apollo astronauts and several Apollo trained astronauts as crew.

This is the problem with historical revisionists - they try and take things in isolation instead of in their proper context, hoping that no-one will notice.

SayonaraJupiter

Do you really think you are smarter than Nixon and Hughes? Answer: you are not.

hmmm?? when did i ever say/suggest that??

but for some reason you seem to think you are smarter than them..
you seem to believe that you are the only single person in the entire world to see through their act..

so whats up with that?? you cant be that arrogant right?? right?????

but to recap, on one hand you say man only landed on the moon because Nixon was president.. and on the other hand you suggest Nixon never created the fake missions from scratch within a few months..

so what is it?? does it matter whether Nixon was president or not??

SayonaraJupiter

Images taken on earth are not controversial. Apollo 12 Images taken on the moon are controversial because you don't know who took them. You wanna mix up earth pictures with Apollo pictures, because you are a hoaxer.

No, choos. You can answer who took the Apollo 12 photos of the dirty windows. No BS this time.

but it is controversial (atleast for you)..

it has NASA personnel AND Stanley Kubrick.. we want to know if its real or a fake photo, perhaps this photo was never real, perhaps it was created by hoaxers to begin the stanley kubrick faked the apollo missions??? we want to know..
i know you want to peddle this picture as genuine but i want proof of such, because you are a hoaxer, who knows, perhaps you made this image yourself with photoshop which is why you dont want to answer the question.

so can you answer who took the photo of NASA personnel and stanley kubrick together?? No BS this time.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos

 

Hi SJ I know with the picture above you are trying to make it seem like the picture of the Earth cant look like that if the window is dirty SORRY but like a lot of hoaxer claims it's due to a lack of understanding /effort to find out or both.

Just prove a point that any photographer worth his salt could prove here below are 2 images taken by me a few mins ago!

Dirty Window



I made a mark on the window and set out to photograph it so the mark would show.

Now if I move closer to the window and focus on the house and not the dirty mark.



So NOW do you see it or NOT whichever way you want to look at it.

reply to post by wmd_2008

Not to mention the fact that there were five windows on the module and only two of them are shown as being dirty in those photographs (the two consecutive pics 7370 and 7371 are clearly of the same window). Nowhere is it claimed that the clear photos/videos were taken through those same windows.

If you look at frame 7375, for instance, you will see that not all the windows were fouled.



www.lpi.usra.edu...

In fact if you look at the original Apollo 12 photo index you will see that only two windows were indeed fouled:



From PDF at apollo.sese.asu.edu...



And if you look at frame 7407, for instance, you can see the moon through the window, with the window frame also in shot. But of course the hoaxers don't mention that, or any of the other 50+ images showing the lunar surface in great detail from this magazine alone...

reply to post by Rob48

Why does it matter which crew member took the photos of the fouled windows? What importance are you attaching to these photos? We know it was one of three people.

If you don't have the facts and sources there is not any need to counter question why I am asking these questions. Just answer it yes or no. Apollo Defenders often argue that Apollo was the best documented science and engineering feat in the history of mankind. I'm calling your bluff and rightly so.

If Nixon didn't construct a fake Apollo program after becoming president then what did he do?

Again, you have made up a theory to argue against - which is a straw man, the Apollo Dog strategy.

Either provide us with some detailed argument of how, where, when and why the missions were faked, or stop polluting this thread with your Nixon/Hughes fan club ramblings. Give us FACTS, give us EVIDENCE, give us DATES, give us LOCATIONS, give us NAMES.

That is what I want from Apollo Defenders : FACTS, EVIDENCE, DATES, LOCATIONS, and NAMES of who took the cis-lunar Apollo 12 pictures on the 70mm catalog. Yes or no? Either you have the cards or you don't. Nixon has the cards to win, do you?


Historically, the military industrial complex (including the civilian CIA agency NASA) was in long relationship with Hughes Aircraft as a defense contractor. NASA brought back the TV camera from Surveyor 3 specifically for Hughes and promptly sent it right back to Hughes Aircraft, who built it.

Remember, at this point (December 1969) there have only been 2 "moon" landings. The third and next Apollo "moon" mission would be highly rated Tv mini-series, Apollo 13, aka "The Marooned Plot", aka "Houston, We've got a problem."


Here are the FACTS, EVIDENCE, DATES, LOCATIONS and NAMES of three Apollo astronauts who spent the night in the Nixon White House watching the Hollywood film "Marooned" which won an Academy Award for special effects and starring one of Nixon's favorites, Gregory Peck. It's a 134minute film. 2 hours of space excitement. What an interesting choice for the evening... a film about astronauts becoming marooned in space.

After coming back from the "moon" this must have been a huge buzz kill for Conrad, Gordon (with their wives) and Bean to sit there and watch it with Nixon.

choos

SayonaraJupiter

Images taken on earth are not controversial. Apollo 12 Images taken on the moon are controversial because you don't know who took them. You wanna mix up earth pictures with Apollo pictures, because you are a hoaxer.

No, choos. You can answer who took the Apollo 12 photos of the dirty windows. No BS this time.

but it is controversial (atleast for you)..

it has NASA personnel AND Stanley Kubrick.. we want to know if its real or a fake photo, perhaps this photo was never real, perhaps it was created by hoaxers to begin the stanley kubrick faked the apollo missions??? we want to know..
i know you want to peddle this picture as genuine but i want proof of such, because you are a hoaxer, who knows, perhaps you made this image yourself with photoshop which is why you dont want to answer the question.

so can you answer who took the photo of NASA personnel and stanley kubrick together?? No BS this time.

Choos, you are the only one on this thread who is disputing the NASA/Kubrick images.

Once again I find that Apollo Defenders are unable to defend their own Apollo 12 70mm photos. Rules of evidence 101: Where is your offer of proof?

reply to post by Rob48

And if you look at frame 7407, for instance, you can see the moon through the window, with the window frame also in shot. But of course the hoaxers don't mention that, or any of the other 50+ images showing the lunar surface in great detail from this magazine alone...

I don't see anybody in the Apollo 12 capsule. Where are the people?

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Rob48

 

And if you look at frame 7407, for instance, you can see the moon through the window, with the window frame also in shot. But of course the hoaxers don't mention that, or any of the other 50+ images showing the lunar surface in great detail from this magazine alone...

I don't see anybody in the Apollo 12 capsule. Where are the people?

Inside the capsule of course! Look at the images - do you notice anything or are you TOTALLY unobservant? All the images on this magazine were taken out of the windows so how do you expect the astronauts to show up in them, other than coincidentally in reflection, like this (frame 7373)




Do you know what the image targets for Magazine Q were? Do you, in fact, know anything?


Choos, you are the only one on this thread who is disputing the NASA/Kubrick images.

You are the only one with a problem with the 70mm photos! And choos is only disputing it as a rhetorical argument to show how specious your argument is. Why do we have to show you who pressed the shutter but you don't?

Once again I find that Apollo Defenders are unable to defend their own Apollo 12 70mm photos. Rules of evidence 101: Where is your offer of proof?

Defend them from what? They are what they are: images taken out of the window during TLI and lunar orbit. They show the Earth, they show the S-IVB and they show the moon. Who is disputing that? And if you think they are fake, show us why and show us how they were faked.

The fact that the very best argument you can come up with is that it wasn't recorded which of the three people in the module pressed the shutter for each photo just shows everybody here how pathetic your position is. It's like quibbling over the composition of one grain of sand to deny the existence of the Sahara desert.