Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Only Nixon can do that.

I dunno -- You'd think a guy like that would do a better job covering up a simple hotel room break-in.

Your immediate first thought was for Watergate.That is what you were meant to think about when someone talks about Richard Nixon. Maybe you have been programmed to think that way.

You did not mention about the CIA murder of Salvador Allende in Chile, 9-11-1973.
You did not think about the escalation of murder in SE Asia or the $4 billion he spent carpet bombing N. Vietnam on Christmas 1972... just shortly after the last Apollo splashdown.

You did not think about the money that Nixon was getting from Hughes or the astronaut parties sponsored by Hughes #2 man Iron Bob Maheu. You did not think about the private astronaut party held at Richard Nixon's house in 1979.

You did not refer to Richard Nixon's very high esteem in the "military industrial complex party" back to October 1957 when Sputnik startled the world and he was telling us to 'stop crying, build more missiles!'

Did you forget that Nixon was just a heart beat away from the presidency when Ike had his stroke November 25, 1957?

Did you forget that Richard Nixon was in Dallas on November 22, 1963. He flew out that morning. I'm sure he didn't have anything to do with the murder of JFK. The Pepsi convention was just a coincidence. yeah. right.

You went straight to Watergate, like most people do, which tells me (e.g. a poker tell) about your views of Richard Nixon. I can see that you have misunderestimated Richard Nixon, like most people do. Nixon is a poker player. He is bluffing you with the Watergate thing. Watergate was his escape plan... like Hitler had an escape plan.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Only Nixon can do that.

I dunno -- You'd think a guy like that would do a better job covering up a simple hotel room break-in.

Your immediate first thought was for Watergate.That is what you were meant to think about when someone talks about Richard Nixon. Maybe you have been programmed to think that way.

You did not mention about the CIA murder of Salvador Allende in Chile, 9-11-1973.
You did not think about the escalation of murder in SE Asia or the $4 billion he spent carpet bombing N. Vietnam on Christmas 1972... just shortly after the last Apollo splashdown.

You did not think about the money that Nixon was getting from Hughes or the astronaut parties sponsored by Hughes #2 man Iron Bob Maheu. You did not think about the private astronaut party held at Richard Nixon's house in 1979.

You did not refer to Richard Nixon's very high esteem in the "military industrial complex party" back to October 1957 when Sputnik startled the world and he was telling us to 'stop crying, build more missiles!'

Did you forget that Nixon was just a heart beat away from the presidency when Ike had his stroke November 25, 1957?

Did you forget that Richard Nixon was in Dallas on November 22, 1963. He flew out that morning. I'm sure he didn't have anything to do with the murder of JFK. The Pepsi convention was just a coincidence. yeah. right.

You went straight to Watergate, like most people do, which tells me (e.g. a poker tell) about your views of Richard Nixon. I can see that you have misunderestimated Richard Nixon, like most people do. Nixon is a poker player. He is bluffing you with the Watergate thing. Watergate was his escape plan... like Hitler had an escape plan.

Wow throw together Nixons history as proof he was a bad man and thus make the insinuation since he was bad that he must be lying on apollo nicely played. Well not really but i dont mind trying to float your ego i figure with positive reinforcement maybe youll look at life in a more realistic manner. So keep up the hard work and dont forget the doctors are trying to help you they werent sent by Nixon.

The first planes were steadily improved over the decades.

In one leap, we stepped from a 1 hour flight, to a plane that flew around the world non-stop.

We've only built planes that fly about 1 hour, since that time.

It's been over 40 years now, so we're trying to build another plane that can fly around the world non-stop.

But we can't build such a plane anymore.

It is due to our severe lack of the required technologies.


Right! That makes perfect sense!

a reply to: turbonium1

Oooh ooh! I see what you're doing here: it's an analogy!!

It's a bad one.

Apollo accomplished nothing in one giant leap, it accomplished it via the extensive training and ground breaking work of Mercury and Gemini and the unmanned Apollo missions. People who have no understanding of the Apollo programme usually trot out at some point that they just went without doing anything to prepare. This is nonsense, because they got the hang of launching things, getting into orbit and staying there rendez-vous, passing from one craft to another, spacewalks, docking and undocking, re-entry, all over years of preparation.

The LM was tested in earth orbit to make sure it did what it was supposed to do before it went to the moon. it was tested in lunar orbit before it ever landed.

Here's a thought, why don't you specifically tell us which part of launching, earth orbit, trans-lunar injection, landing, lunar orbital rendez-vous, trans-earth injection and re-entry are impossible. Ideally, you should tell us exactly why they are impossible. NASA have kindly supplied all the equations to prove it is possible, now provide yours.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

That's a very KGB kind of question. I'm sorry comrade. My memory is growing dim. I don't know. I can't answer that question.

how could you not know??

in this post you claimed that the government during 68-72 including howard hughes were very paranoid ANTI-COMMUNISTS

that would mean the soviets would definitely NOT be part of the NASA's lunar landing hoax according to your theory.

a simple no would have sufficed.. funny though how you dont even know whether the soviets are part of the hoax or not and yet you can make claims that they are and claims that they arent, all at the same time..

relax ,calm down... It may be a bit distrubing,,but the evidence is starting to mount up that Nixon & Hughes were involved & you can no longer deny it....

The propagandist are the ones pushing "Russians are coming" agenda to scare people ,cause their upset the truth is finally exposed ....

Richard Nixons presidential campaign chairman James Baker was appointed Trustee of Howard Hughes surviving fortune & was meeting with the Bin Ladens on morning of 911.....

coincidence....I think not...

originally posted by: Misinformation
relax ,calm down... It may be a bit distrubing,,but the evidence is starting to mount up

No it isn't

that Nixon & Hughes were involved

No they weren't

& you can no longer deny it....

Yes I can. Making stuff up and shouting it from a soap box does't make it tru..

The propagandist are the ones pushing "Russians are coming" agenda to scare people ,cause their upset the truth is finally exposed ....

Remind us again who started the "why did the Russians not emulate Apollo 8" thread.

Richard Nixons presidential campaign chairman James Baker was appointed Trustee of Howard Hughes surviving fortune

This is made up. He was made a trustee of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, along with a bunch of other people.

& was meeting with the Bin Ladens on morning of 911.....

This is made up. Baker, amongst the US politicians, were at a meeting in a hotel along with a bunch of people - including one of Bin Laden's brothers.

coincidence....I think not...

Transfer? Strawman? Propaganda? I think so.

OP you do know that if you look close you can see stars in the backround of some of the shots,but for th emost part the reflective dust on the moon itself drowns out the stars at times.

Also there is a laser target on the moon you can actually hit from earth someone had to place that there too or it wouldnt be accurate and reflect back with any accuracy.

nearly 257 pages and still going. sighhhhh.

a reply to: turbonium1

Did you ever hear of Little Joe? And, no I am not talking about little Joe Cartwright. This Little Joe . . . Click Pic for larger picture.

Little Joe was an unmanned United States solid-fueled booster rocket used for eight launches from 1959–1960 from Wallops Island, Virginia to test the launch escape system and heat shield for Project Mercury capsules, as well as the name given to the test program using the booster. The first rocket designed solely for manned spacecraft qualifications, Little Joe was also one of the pioneer operational launch vehicles using the rocket cluster principle. Wikipedia

Here a some more links that I quickly found that describe the progression of rocketry and space flight.

Timeline of rocket and missile technology A quick synopses of very early history to present day. 11th Century to present day.

orbital launch systems Here is a list of orbital launch systems from Argentina through United States. Link points directly to U.S.A.

Rocket And here is a very good link to the history of rocketry.

So as you can see, it was not just one giant leap. There was definitely a progression in learning, testing, and advancement in rocketry that reached an ultimate pinnacle of landing man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth. Then came more learning, testing, and advancement in space flight that will hopefully result in Man landing on Mars, and/or establishing his presence on the Moon or another planet.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Not only that, but rocket/propulsion technology and space habitability technology has also grown steadily since Apollo days.

turbonium1 --
Rocket engines today are much more efficient than rockets from the 1960s. The general physical make-up of a spacesuits is similar, but the technology has certainly not stagnated. The materials used for spacecraft design are more advanced than the Apollo era. Even the space shuttle (which began design about the same time of the final Apollo mission) had its avionics updated during its 30-year program life. The space shuttle as designed in the 1970s that was first flown in 1980 did not have the advanced avionics it had by the end of the program.

It's not that we CAN'T get back to the moon -- it's that we choose not to, because we don't have a good enough reason to do so. You can argue that "because exploring is whet we do" is a good enough reason, and in some ways I agree with that. However, just because I think that is a good enough reason, that doesn't mean that the people who decide on NASA budget's think its a good enough reason.

originally posted by: yuppa

Also there is a laser target on the moon you can actually hit from earth someone had to place that there too or it wouldnt be accurate and reflect back with any accuracy.

nearly 257 pages and still going. sighhhhh.

Lasers were developed and patented by Hughes Aircraft. In later years, Frank Borman was an investor in a company that owned laser patents. The Apollo LRRR scam is a mirror that was placed by unmanned robots using tv cameras for eyes. And Howard Hughes also has that covered with the Mobot and the Surveyor. The Surveyor could also hop and an LRV could be designed to drive by remote control, to make it looks like astronauts were at the Apollo landing sites, as is claimed by the digital CGI enhanced LRO pictures.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: yuppa

Also there is a laser target on the moon you can actually hit from earth someone had to place that there too or it wouldnt be accurate and reflect back with any accuracy.

nearly 257 pages and still going. sighhhhh.

Lasers were developed and patented by Hughes Aircraft. In later years, Frank Borman was an investor in a company that owned laser patents. The Apollo LRRR scam is a mirror that was placed by unmanned robots using tv cameras for eyes. And Howard Hughes also has that covered with the Mobot and the Surveyor. The Surveyor could also hop and an LRV could be designed to drive by remote control, to make it looks like astronauts were at the Apollo landing sites, as is claimed by the digital CGI enhanced LRO pictures.

why would they need digitally CGI enhanced LRO photos when everything was setup on the lunar landscape by your mobots??

Here is your mobot SJ:



Here's a later version



Please find it for us in the LRO images, it's plenty big enough. The LRRR locations and locations of all the other hardware are well known, so it shouldn't be too hard. Oh, and a different spacecraft to the one everyone saw launch from the Cape as those wouldn't fit in to an Apollo set up. Don't let the fact that if you can launch a rocket carrying this equipment to the surface, operate it, get it to collect samples and set up equipment and then return back to Earth stop you from arguing that sending a person to do the same is somehow not possible.

Are the LRO images altered to make sure all the rocks and craters are in the right place when compared with the Apollo images (you know, the ones with astronauts in them), or did Apollo just get lucky? Are you going to argue that your magic mobot and its bank of supporting equipment has been edited out and everything else edited in, right down to the last pebble. Let me see if I can guess how that argument will turn out...

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Danger Will Robinson!
Danger!

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: yuppa

Also there is a laser target on the moon you can actually hit from earth someone had to place that there too or it wouldnt be accurate and reflect back with any accuracy.

nearly 257 pages and still going. sighhhhh.

Lasers were developed and patented by Hughes Aircraft. In later years, Frank Borman was an investor in a company that owned laser patents. The Apollo LRRR scam is a mirror that was placed by unmanned robots using tv cameras for eyes. And Howard Hughes also has that covered with the Mobot and the Surveyor. The Surveyor could also hop and an LRV could be designed to drive by remote control, to make it looks like astronauts were at the Apollo landing sites, as is claimed by the digital CGI enhanced LRO pictures.

And all of this would be easier than sending real men to the moon because...?

a reply to: Rob48
And all of this would be easier than sending real men to the moon because...?

yes,,,they would of dragged Hughes back before the committee investigation & start too ask more questions in a heartbeat..if congress would of found out about TPTB not being able to go too the Moon for unknown reasons & wasting all the money ,heads would of rolled ,,, they had no choice but to hoax it at that point...

originally posted by: Misinformation

yes,,,they would of dragged Hughes back before the committee investigation & start too ask more questions in a heartbeat..if congress would of found out about TPTB not being able to go too the Moon for unknown reasons & wasting all the money ,heads would of rolled ,,,

"Would of" [sic]... "if"...

Always hypothetical, isn't it? The point is, they didn't find out they weren't able to go to the moon, as proven by the fact that they did go. Six times.

As I said in another thread, the Apollo missions must be the most widely scrutinised journeys ever undertaken by human beings. Every aspect has been examined by countless people. Hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of pages have been written about the minutest details of the missions, by experts all around the world. And not one person has found a single shred of evidence that they didn't go.

Funny that, isn't it?

a reply to: onebigmonkey
Please find it for us in the LRO images, it's plenty big enough.

do you seriously expect us to believe that your going except photos from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter as proof of anything artificial....

for the sake of debate,, lets both say that the Apollo program never exsist & there was no record of Man ever being on the Moon...then I show you a photo from LRO and say "heres proof Man has been on the Moon" .....Your most likely response is thats just a rock,,its just a trick of light & shadow ,,it doesnt prove anything....

So,,in other words... if LRO photos dont meet the standard of proof that something other than the apollo missions is artificial on the Moon...then it should not be used as a standard of proof for apollo either...

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: onebigmonkey
Please find it for us in the LRO images, it's plenty big enough.

do you seriously expect us to believe that your going except photos from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter as proof of anything artificial....

for the sake of debate,, lets both say that the Apollo program never exsist & there was no record of Man ever being on the Moon...then I show you a photo from LRO and say "heres proof Man has been on the Moon" .....Your most likely response is thats just a rock,,its just a trick of light & shadow ,,it doesnt prove anything....

So,,in other words... if LRO photos dont meet the standard of proof that something other than the apollo missions is artificial on the Moon...then it should not be used as a standard of proof for apollo either...

Well five years ago the LRO hadn't even imaged the Apollo sites, and there was still all the other proof: it's hardly a clincher, is it? Did any person with any credibility doubt the moon landings five years ago just because we didn't have LRO images? No.

Do you actually have any idea how much evidence there is for the landings? It's not just a few photos and some rock.

Have a read of this:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

That's 193 pages, and that's just the preliminary science report for just the first moon landing. That's a tiny tiny fraction of the evidence.

Read it and you might start to see how ridiculous your arguments are.

originally posted by: Misinformation
yes,,,they would of dragged Hughes back before the committee investigation & start too ask more questions in a heartbeat..if congress would of found out about TPTB not being able to go too the Moon for unknown reasons & wasting all the money ,heads would of rolled ,,, they had no choice but to hoax it at that point...

why wouldnt they have been able to go to the moon?? please explain..