Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

What relevance does any of this stream of consciousness have to the moon landings? Alan Shepard was rich, therefore nobody went to the moon!

Is Richard Nixon still controlling the LRO two decades after his death? If not then how do you account for the fact that everything that should still be up there is, in fact, still up there?

You keep turning your back on the towering cliff face of evidence looming above you In favour of poking through the undergrowth looking for worms.

Are you referring to the 700+ boxes of Apollo telemetry tapes that were assembled into the National Archives on Accession #69A4099. Are you referring to the 700+ boxes of of Apollo telemetry tapes that were requested by Goddard but never made it to Goddard?

If you read my post you will see what I am referring to. Mountain upon mountain of evidence that is not lost. But once again you ignore all that and jump on the tiny fraction of evidence that has unfortunately been lost. It's not like NASA are trying to hide what happened — they explain it in detail on their own website.

Funny how you are the one saying TV evidence is useless, and yet you are the one complaining that the TV pictures are lost. Once again you are contradicting yourself.

reply to post by choos


Choos, Your ignorance of history is beyond redemption. Only 12 American white male US military test pilots walked on the "moon" between July 1969 and December 1972. Richard Nixon was the president.

The Apollo Defenders in this thread have been operating under the false assumption that Nixon & Hughes don't exist in the Apollo narratives... and we all know that is a losing strategy.

Nixon did not bumble his way through Watergate... that is your incorrect interpretation of history. Nixon skillfully executed a series of political maneuvers which resulted in his planned exit strategy, resignation.

Are you following me choos? The Democratic offices of Larry O'Brien at the Watergate complex was a honey pot. Larry O'Brien, a Democratic heavy hitter in the 1960's, was also a paid associate of Howard Hughes. I bet you didn't know that.

From the wiki,

In 1968, Vice President Hubert Humphrey appointed O'Brien to serve nationally as the director of his presidential campaign and by Howard Hughes to serve in Washington as his public-policy lobbyist.

Committed to the principle that political parties are fundamental to the American political process, O'Brien was elected in 1968 and 1970 by the DNC to serve nationally as its chairman. John H. Meier, a former business advisor to Hughes, collaborated with Hubert Humphrey and others to use Donald Nixon to feed misinformation to his brother, the President.

According to Meier, he told Donald that he was sure the Democrats would win the election since they had a lot of information on Richard Nixon’s illicit dealings with Howard Hughes that had never been released, and that O’Brien had the information [1] (O’Brien didn’t actually have any documents but Meier wanted Richard Nixon to think he did). Donald then called his brother and told him that Meier gave the Democrats all the Hughes information that could destroy him (Richard Nixon) and that O’Brien has it. Source en.wikipedia.org...'Brien

Choos, are you going to continue to deny the prima facie evidence that Nixon was intimately involved with Hughes, that Hughes played a significant role in the development of lasers, mobots, TV satellites, missile guidance control systems, etc?

Are you going to deny that Hughes was a test pilot, who was a genius film maker, who made movies in Hollywood during the Red Scare/anti-Communist/pro-fascist post-war years?

Are you going to deny that Alan Shepard peed his pants while waiting for his 15-minutes of up-down, barely touching space, and suddenly the guy is a millionaire due to his strategic investments in Florida and Texas real estate, two states intimately connected to the Apollo space program. At what point do you turn a blind eye to historical facts?

Is it a smart idea to put an old astronaut into space after he's been grounded for 7 years with an ear problem? An old astronaut who had a top secret ear operation? Do you realize that Shepard's ear doctor was a doctor who had also attended to Howard Hughes in Boston? Are you starting to understand how Apollo is connected to Hughes/Nixon?

Choos, you have clearly misunderstood Watergate and tried to sever the connection between Apollo and Richard Nixon. Your sad and incomplete Apollo history seems to start on July 16, 1969 and end on December 19, 1972.

History and conspiracy buffs will agree that the weekend of July 16, 1969 was a significant, not only for the Saturn missile, but for the death of young girl who worked for the Kennedy's.

Likewise, history buffs will acknowledge that Nixon cancelled Apollo, and on the final splashdown in December of 1972, Nixon spent $4 billion dollars carpet bombing North Viet Nam over the Christmas holiday, see Operation Linebacker II.

Operation Linebacker II was a US Seventh Air Force and US Navy Task Force 77 aerial bombing campaign, conducted against targets in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) during the final period of US involvement in the Vietnam War. The operation was conducted from 18–29 December 1972, leading to several of informal names such as "The December Raids" and "The Christmas Bombings"

"For All Mankind" was a false promise. The "moon" landings were for American propaganda only. "Peace" was not a consideration, "science" was not a consideration, the only consideration was beating the Reds. More specifically, the real consideration was convincing the world to believe that the USA beat Russia to the moon.

In fact, Nixon's propaganda beat the Reds so badly that Russia never considered to try a manned mission to the moon. Many ill-informed historical observers believe that this means capitalism beat communism. But this is only true from a propaganda perspective. Nixon's presidency overlaps the Apollo "moon" landings so there is no possible way for Apollo Defenders to effectively deny Nixon's involvement with the Apollo propaganda victories.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos

 

Choos, Your ignorance of history is beyond redemption. Only 12 American white male US military test pilots walked on the "moon" between July 1969 and December 1972. Richard Nixon was the president.

The Apollo Defenders in this thread have been operating under the false assumption that Nixon & Hughes don't exist in the Apollo narratives... and we all know that is a losing strategy.

so you are suggesting that Nixon being president is the key here right??

so that means the hoax only matters when Nixon IS president..

which means Nixon had to have made up the hoax from scratch within a few months of winning the election..

Choos, you have clearly misunderstood Watergate and tried to sever the connection between Apollo and Richard Nixon.

not really.. im not trying to sever the connection, im just trying to work out what kind of man you imagine Nixon to be.. because on one hand he can hide the greatest hoax in the history of mankind even though hundreds of thousands of individuals were involved in, making Nixon a GOD..

and on the other hand, Nixon was not able to hide the watergate scandal, showing him to be a bumbling fool..

so which one is he??

reply to post by Rob48

What relevance does any of this stream of consciousness have to the moon landings? Alan Shepard was rich, therefore nobody went to the moon!

I presented some information about Alan Shepard being rich. I did not "therefore" as you say, make a conclusion, that "nobody went to the moon." That's flawed logic. Maybe you need to go see a logic doctor.

reply to post by choos

not really.. im not trying to sever the connection, im just trying to work out what kind of man you imagine Nixon to be.. because on one hand he can hide the greatest hoax in the history of mankind even though hundreds of thousands of individuals were involved in, making Nixon a GOD..

Nixon was VP under Ike. When Ike left us with his wisdom he warned us about the military industrial complex. He was warning us about Nixon & Hughes.

There you go again with the glittering generalities hundreds of thousands. Please give up on the 400,000 fallacy because you know only 12 men walked on the "moon".

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


So only 12 men built each stage, assembled each rocket, moved them to the launch pad, launched them and handled every aspect of the mission? Amazing!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Please give up on the 400,000 fallacy because you know only 12 men walked on the "moon".

That's right, and they did it all by themselves, at the instigation of Nixon.

Oh no, wait, that's not right. They did it as the culmination of a project that took over a decade and, yes, hundreds of thousands of people.

You keep saying that "Apollo Defenders" (nifty name, by the way — do I get a badge?) are ignoring or haven't noticed that Nixon was president. That is nonsense. Everybody knows who was president. You keeping on mentioning it doesn't make it more relevant.

I notice you have completely given up on producing any actual evidence related to the moon landings, or trying to present anything to support your hoax theory. You just keep repeating the same tired old nonsense over and over and over again.

Yes, NIXON WAS PRESIDENT. We know. We have always known. But Nixon could not alter the laws of physics, and unless he could then men must have walked on the moon during his presidency. There is no other explanation that is possible. Not with today's technology, not with 1960s technology. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, repeatedly.

SayonaraJupiter

Nixon was VP under Ike. When Ike left us with his wisdom he warned us about the military industrial complex. He was warning us about Nixon & Hughes.

There you go again with the glittering generalities hundreds of thousands. Please give up on the 400,000 fallacy because you know only 12 men walked on the "moon".

granted i dont know much about us presidency since im not american.. but correct me if im wrong but Nixon was not VP from 61 to 69

theres a very large hole in your theory..

and shall i take it you are now suggesting that it DOESNT matter whether Nixon was US president or not??

also with the 400,000 its a fact that you need to live with, stop trying to disconnect it with your narrative because its there and always will be..

too many people are involved with the apollo program to hide it..

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

I presented some information about Alan Shepard being rich. I did not "therefore" as you say, make a conclusion, that "nobody went to the moon." That's flawed logic. Maybe you need to go see a logic doctor.

What is your reasoning, then? You have never explained yourself. If Shepard being rich is not relevant to your argument, why did you bring it up? If Werner von Braun's association with the Nazis is not relevant, why keep bringing it up? If Walt Disney's conservatism is not relevant, why keep bringing it up? If Richard Nixon's taste in movies is not relevant why keep bringing it up? You are the one who needs to visit the Logic doctor, I'm afraid.

Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

So only 12 men built each stage, assembled each rocket, moved them to the launch pad, launched them and handled every aspect of the mission? Amazing!

Let's get it straight. The "400,000 fallacy", in an Apollo Debate, refers to the commonly deployed strategy of Apollo Defenders who use techniques of propaganda to build absurd straw man arguments against anyone who does not 100% believe in the official Apollo narratives.

There are numerous examples in this thread. I am the only who ever points it out. In reality, "400,000" did NOT go to the moon, therefore, the "400,000" are NOT eyewitnesses to the event.

This is what would happen in a court when you bring your first "witness" from the "400,000".
Me: "Did you walk on the moon?"
400,000: "I did not."
Me: "No further questions your Honor"

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


And then you'd get torn apart (even if you didn't get laughed out of court). Even though they didn't walk on the moon, at least some of them are expert witnesses about the systems and how they were used.

I'm still waiting to hear you give ANY proof that the moon landing was hoaxed. "Richard Nixon was President!" doesn't cut it.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

This is why the only witnesses they bring into, say, a murder trial, are people who were inside the room where the murder took place, of course?

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

I presented some information about Alan Shepard being rich. I did not "therefore" as you say, make a conclusion, that "nobody went to the moon." That's flawed logic. Maybe you need to go see a logic doctor.

What is your reasoning, then? You have never explained yourself. If Shepard being rich is not relevant to your argument, why did you bring it up? If Werner von Braun's association with the Nazis is not relevant, why keep bringing it up? If Walt Disney's conservatism is not relevant, why keep bringing it up? If Richard Nixon's taste in movies is not relevant why keep bringing it up? You are the one who needs to visit the Logic doctor, I'm afraid.

You keep saying that these things are "not relevant" because you don't like it when the Apollo conversation exceeds the boundaries of the official NASA narratives.

There are two perspectives on Apollo. Yours is the official NASA version, all wrapped up in colorful packaging and a bow, heroic test pilots, pretty pictures, volcano rocks, etc. My version is the Cold War version, the win-at-any-cost version, the Nixon version, the Frank Shakespeare version, the l a b y r i n t h version. My version and your version can co-exist... but you don't want any other version but the one that best confirms your beliefs.

SayonaraJupiter

There are two perspectives on Apollo. Yours is the official NASA version, all wrapped up in colorful packaging and a bow, heroic test pilots, pretty pictures, volcano rocks, etc. My version is the Cold War version, the win-at-any-cost version, the Nixon version, the Frank Shakespeare version, the l a b y r i n t h version. My version and your version can co-exist... but you don't want any other version but the one that best confirms your beliefs.

edit on 4/16/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: tags

It's not a case of "versions" and "beliefs". It's about what actually happened. We know that the Apollo program was politically motivated - that is no secret. But it was still done scientifically. That's the only way to accomplish something like that. You don't just ask Howard and Dicky to knock something up between movie parties.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

You keep saying that these things are "not relevant" because you don't like it when the Apollo conversation exceeds the boundaries of the official NASA narratives.

And you keep refusing to explain why you think they ARE relevant!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

This is what would happen in a court when you bring your first "witness" from the "400,000".
Me: "Did you walk on the moon?"
400,000: "I did not."
Me: "No further questions your Honor"

How childish. Here is how it would actually go:

Prosecutor: Are you a certified engineer?

First of 400,000 similar witnesses: I received a Masters in Engineering from CalTech and a PhD in Aeronautical Engineering from MIT. I have worked in the field for fifteen years.

Prosecutor: Did you or did you not help design the J-2 engines allegedly used in the Saturn V.

First of 400,000 similar witnesses: I did help design the J-2 engines actually used in the Saturn V launch vehicle.

Prosecutor: Do you actually expect us to believe that those engines were sufficient to power a vehicle to the Moon?

First of 400,000 similar witnesses: No, sir. I have documentation of our calculations, designs and data from and film of the testing of the engines, as well as the actual launches witnessed live by millions. I can, however, give you my professional assurance that all of the calculations and data are correct, as verified by the launches witnessed live by millions.

And so forth, times 400,000. That is why there is no such thing as "The 400,000 Fallacy." If you assert that multiple witnesses of an event are not acceptable as evidence, you cannot prove that the Second World War ever happened! What's more, we have discussed all this countless times before. Please stop, people are beginning to wonder if you have Alzheimer's or something.

SayonaraJupiter

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

I presented some information about Alan Shepard being rich. I did not "therefore" as you say, make a conclusion, that "nobody went to the moon." That's flawed logic. Maybe you need to go see a logic doctor.

What is your reasoning, then? You have never explained yourself. If Shepard being rich is not relevant to your argument, why did you bring it up? If Werner von Braun's association with the Nazis is not relevant, why keep bringing it up? If Walt Disney's conservatism is not relevant, why keep bringing it up? If Richard Nixon's taste in movies is not relevant why keep bringing it up? You are the one who needs to visit the Logic doctor, I'm afraid.

You keep saying that these things are "not relevant" because you don't like it when the Apollo conversation exceeds the boundaries of the official NASA narratives.

There are two perspectives on Apollo. Yours is the official NASA version, all wrapped up in colorful packaging and a bow, heroic test pilots, pretty pictures, volcano rocks, etc. My version is the Cold War version, the win-at-any-cost version, the Nixon version, the Frank Shakespeare version, the l a b y r i n t h version. My version and your version can co-exist... but you don't want any other version but the one that best confirms your beliefs.

edit on 4/16/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: tags

Still battling wind mills i see. Why dont you help us figure out how its relevant.I have an idea why not answer a question for a change lets try this one what does sheppard having money to do with the apollo program im sure lots of people had money. So explain the relevance of your statement unless of course there was no point other than to derail the topic maybe?

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

You keep saying that these things are "not relevant" because you don't like it when the Apollo conversation exceeds the boundaries of the official NASA narratives.

And you keep refusing to explain why you think they ARE relevant!

Here is your relevancy test. I mentioned a few pages back that I would be using the Federal Rules for Evidence.
www.law.cornell.edu...

RULE 401. TEST FOR RELEVANT EVIDENCE

Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

SayonaraJupiter

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

You keep saying that these things are "not relevant" because you don't like it when the Apollo conversation exceeds the boundaries of the official NASA narratives.

And you keep refusing to explain why you think they ARE relevant!

Here is your relevancy test. I mentioned a few pages back that I would be using the Federal Rules for Evidence.
www.law.cornell.edu...

RULE 401. TEST FOR RELEVANT EVIDENCE

Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

edit on 4/17/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: i think these rules should be used, they are fair rules, and they apply to both sides of the debate

so just to put it back into perspective..

how does Shepard being rich make it more probable that the moon landing was a hoax than if you did not bring it up??

and since shepard was rich, how does that determine or indicate how NASA faked the landings??

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


So you have one evidentiary standard for people that believe that Apollo went to the moon, and another for you. You claim what movies Nixon watched were relevant, while engineers that worked on the rockets aren't. That's a hell of a double standard you have there.