Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: Misinformation
a reply to: onebigmonkey

the moon hoax theorists conclusions have been vindicated time & time again

No they haven't. That kind of hyperbole might sound good in your head but it's not true.

Not one claim by anyone claiming the Apollo landings were hoaxed stands up to scrutiny.

Not one.

,so I dont wish to assign any undue burden upon any particular individual,,,,but,,suffice it to say,,& I will paraphrase....

"No one knows exactly how abundant the meteorites that impact the Moon every day are, thats what we are trying learn "...

Paraphrasing is not the same as quoting. Who are you paraphrasing, in what context was the statement you are claiming to paraphrase supposedly made?

Saying 'we don't know exactly how abundant they are' is not the same as 'we know nothing about them or what happens when they hit'.

Google 'micro-meteorites'. Google 'lunar meteorites'. See how many hits you get. We have decades of research into meteorites that land on Earth, hit satellites and hit the moon. They knew enough about them to include micro-meteorite protection in the suits.

the propagandist can spin it however they want but its simply speculation

Your constant use of the word 'propagandist' is offensive. You are ascribing a motive that is not there to people just because they know more about the subject than you. You're embarrassing yourself every time you type it.

a reply to: onebigmonkey
You can't say 'there isn't any information on this

then why do you keep declaring it,,,I'm proceeding too assume its an effort upon the propagandists part to attempt too discredit moon hoax theory,,, since I'm certainly not aware of any moon hoax theorist who claimed that.

apparently, the propagandists & their associates are uncomfortable with the fact they have yet to produce the smoking gun that can confirm the validity of the apollo landings to the extent they now endeavor too eliminate the significance of the moon hoax theorists through resorting of claims of being offended , thus peddling their paradigm with impunity....

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: onebigmonkey
You can't say 'there isn't any information on this

then why do you keep declaring it,,,I'm proceeding too assume its an effort upon the propagandists part to attempt too discredit moon hoax theory,,, since I'm certainly not aware of any moon hoax theorist who claimed that.

apparently, the propagandists & their associates are uncomfortable with the fact they have yet to produce the smoking gun that can confirm the validity of the apollo landings to the extent they now endeavor too eliminate the significance of the moon hoax theorists through resorting of claims of being offended , thus peddling their paradigm with impunity....

Are you delusional? For one thing it is not anyone's duty to produce a smoking gun that Apollo did happen. Wherever you like it or not it is a historical fact and if you do not believe it then the duty is on you to provide evidence it did not. You can't, because it did, but you're welcome to try - and keep failing. People that research Apollo and provide information on it are not propagandists, a more accurate word would be historians perhaps.

For a start the following evidence supports the event:

- Moon rocks
- Video footage
- Photographs
- Data from instruments
- Radio transmissions confirmed as having been received from the moon during each mission by independent sources such as Amateur radio operators and radio telescopes around the world.
- Acceptance by foreign powers including Russia who were monitoring the event themselves
- Visual confirmation of the landing sites by lunar orbiters (including ones nothing to do with the US)
- Confirmation of the topography which was unknown at the time by lunar orbiters (including ones nothing to do with the US)
- Confirmation of the radiation environment by multiple space missions, including those nothing to do with the US.
- Placement of reflectors used by universities around the world for experiments
- Whatever else I've not thought of.

All people like you have are:

- A hatred for human achievement, specifically if it's by the US (which is irrelevant it is a human achievement.)
- Pseudo science
- Lies
- Ignorance

You have to rely on some people's lack of advanced knowledge, and sometimes even basic knowledge, just to convince them.
What a crap life, while some of us can enjoy human achievement and take part in it you're watching Jarrah White videos on YouTube not noticing his mistakes in even basic math.
You're a joke, and not a funny one either.

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: onebigmonkey
You can't say 'there isn't any information on this

then why do you keep declaring it,,,

Why are you replying to one post but quoting a different one?

It's almost as if you are deliberately trying to make it sound like I'm saying something I'm not. What I asked you to do was provide evidence for your claim about a lack of knowledge about micrometeorites and the behaviour of the lunar surface under meteorite impact. I can produce a lot of references about them very quickly. Where is yours?

I'm proceeding too assume its an effort upon the propagandists part to attempt too discredit moon hoax theory,,, since I'm certainly not aware of any moon hoax theorist who claimed that.

For once you are correct. While I find your use of the word propagandist offensive and probably in breach of the T&Cs of this site, I am most definitely trying to discredit the moon hoax theory. The moon hoax theory is a lie. It is propagated either by liars and fraudsters who are only interested in your money or by people with a general lack of education and knowledge. The 'hoax' is not supported by one shred of credible evidence. Not one.

apparently, the propagandists & their associates are uncomfortable with the fact they have yet to produce the smoking gun that can confirm the validity of the apollo landings to the extent they now endeavor too eliminate the significance of the moon hoax theorists through resorting of claims of being offended , thus peddling their paradigm with impunity....

The more I read of your word salads the more convinced I am that you are actually a bot generating random words.

I have a whole website full of smoking guns. Go read it. Go prove any of it wrong. So far the best you have is "I don't like NASA".

Proponents of the moon hoax are insignificant in the grand scheme of things, nobody in their right minds cares about them. They know nothing about the Apollo program worth knowing. I am more than happy to spend my spare time pointing out how wrong their beliefs are, because when they do realise how dumb they've been they will not be able to claim nobody told them the truth.

a reply to: AgentSmith

You forgot to mention that the whole ridiculous moon hoax theory was started by Bill Kaysing.A man hired by the builders of the Saturn V rocket motors (the Rocketdyne company) as a technical writer,but left the company in 1963,6 years before the first moon landing.I seem to remember reading about some sort of dishonourable discharge from Rocketdyne (this is not mentioned on Wikipedia) prompting Bill to write and publish his book in 1976.He calculated that the chance of successfully landing men on the moon was just 0.0017%.This is an INCREDIBLY precise figure bearing in mind there had never been a manned moon landing before this to base this calculation on.
His ideas were taken up by the Flat Earth Society,which led to the claimed involvement of Disney,Hollywood,Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C Clarke.How can you possibly give any credence at all to a society who genuinely believe that the Earth really is flat? I'd much rather invite Hannibal Lecter to babysit and leave him a bottle of red wine than have to share my air with the Flat Earthers.
Oh and you forgot to mention that Bart Sibrel is a disrespectful bellend.

a reply to: Imagewerx

That is your personal narrative, you constructed your own narrative from what you read. There are many, many Apollo Reviewers who are re-constructing new narratives for Apollo. You seem to automatically forget that James Webb made similar statements with regard to the capability of the US space program compared to the USSR space program... oh yeah... it was in the papers. What does your narrative say about James Webb statements on Soviet capabilities?



James Webb quits NASA before Apollo 8. It's not a conspiracy theory ------> that is a fact.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Your quoting a man who had no idea about the Soviet progtam.He didn't know the soviets had four failed attempts to launch a lunar landing craft between 1969 and 1972, including a spectacular launch-pad explosion in July 1969. He was just unaware of the set backs. Not to mention the deaths of there leading rocket scientists. He didn't know they were developing to different launch vehicles at the same time. He didn't know there was no central organization but was ran by 6 different bureaus all with conflicting ideas. For example one was trying to set it up for military purposes this leads to problems as well.

So basically the Soviet space program was in turmoil so much so they wouldn't even let Uri Gregarin continue for fear of losing a national hero. So now you want to know why Amaricans won Kennedy set a goal it was ran by one agency and it had a single purpose Put a man on the moon. There was no arguments about which designs or which rockets or what they should do only had 1 purpose. In the end the soviets went with soyuz so you know that wasn't the best option for a lunar landing. But they wanted a heavy lift vehicle to launch the planned space station. Military needs won out in the end.

So in the end you made a useless point it's not a conspiracy just lack of information by a guy at NASA on the Soviet space program. Are you realy surprised the hid their program from Amaricans??

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

My narrative was about what started the hoax theory,hence no mention of James Webb.I see he claims that Russia was ahead of America for building heavy lift rockets,so how is it that all four of the N1 rockets launched ended up as fiery infernos and all the Saturn V launches were successful,as witnessed by 100s of 1000s of spectators?

How is this proof of a later conspiracy when he left NASA because astronauts were dieing as I read it?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: Imagewerx

That is your personal narrative, you constructed your own narrative from what you read.

As do you. You have been making stuff up for years based on what you have read. Making stuff up does not make it fact.

There are many, many Apollo Reviewers who are re-constructing new narratives for Apollo.

By 'reviewer' you mean 'revisionist'. There are very few people who challenge Apollo's narrative. No-one who understands science and engineering does.

Writing new interpretations of Apollo does not make them fact, nor does it invalidate the reams of evidence proving men landed on the moon.

You seem to automatically forget that James Webb made similar statements with regard to the capability of the US space program compared to the USSR space program... oh yeah... it was in the papers. What does your narrative say about James Webb statements on Soviet capabilities?

James Webb quits NASA before Apollo 8. It's not a conspiracy theory ------> that is a fact.

And you are conveniently skipping over his statement that he believes they will meet Kennedy's deadline, and that he was not in post when Apollo 8 made tne first human circumlunar journey.

I am not to claim anything on this thread. But, in 20 years it will be what, almost 60 years since usans made it to the Moon?
How silly, with each decade pass, this landing jazz going to sound? Will it make it to 'ancient civilization' thread?

With last people who have witnessed TV feed and 'participated' gone, there will be left only believe. The whole Apollo project was a hoax. Why are usans never got back?

DO.

originally posted by: darkorange
I am not to claim anything on this thread...

The whole Apollo project was a hoax.

thats a great way to not claim anything..

With last people who have witnessed TV feed and 'participated' gone, there will be left only believe.

as opposed to the hoax believers that have been on the "only believe" since 1970's..

originally posted by: DJW001

It's called "context." A statement can only be properly understood when it is taken together with other statements on the same matter. Liars take statements out of context to create false impressions. You consistently take statements out of context. Deliberately.

You don't support any of your claims with evidence, but you have the gall to accuse ME of creating false impressions?!?

That's a joke!

originally posted by: DJW001
Yes, I am calling you a liar. Here is my challenge: if you genuinely believe that Apollo was a hoax, debate me in the debate forum. Loser will leave ATS for good. Deal?

You want to debate me on the Apollo hoax? just say when....

As for the "loser" of our debate, who will "leave ATS for good".... are you serious??

What would identify the "loser" and the "winner" of said debate, as you see it?

A vote of forum members is nothing more than a popularity contest, totally biased, pre-set in the belief of moon landings, as being 100% genuine.


No, you are not trying to debate the hoax, you're only trying to con those of us who support the hoax to ...."leave ATS for good"!


The whole point of this thread is to debate/discuss the Apollo hoax...

If you don't want to debate this issue, then the real question is - why don't YOU leave it for good??

a reply to: dragonridr

Your quoting a man who had no idea about the Soviet progtam.He didn't know the soviets had four failed attempts to launch a lunar landing craft between 1969 and 1972, including a spectacular launch-pad explosion in July 1969. He was just unaware of the set backs.

Why was James Webb so poorly informed?

a reply to: onebigmonkey

By 'reviewer' you mean 'revisionist'.

John. M. Logsdon just wrote a 356-page book about Nixon's role in the Apollo program. Is he a 'reviewer' or a 'revisionist'?

www.palgrave.com...

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: Conspiracytruths

I noticed you brought up the "dutch moon rock" so are you just an outright liar like your average hoaxer or just plain ignorant to reality? NASA had nothing to do with a Dutch art museum mislabelling a piece of petrified wood as a moon rock.

NASA had the fake 'moon rock' in America.

NASA flew the fake 'moon rock' over to Europe.

NASA gave the fake 'moon rock' to the US Ambassador to the Netherlands.

The US Ambassador presented the fake 'moon rock' to the former Dutch PM.

The fake 'moon rock' was to commemorate the visit of Apollo 11's crew, to the Netherlands. During their "Goodwill Tour".


Of course, we know that the fake 'moon rock' turned out to be just a little chunk of petrified wood....clearly, it is the ideal gift to commemorate Apollo 11's moon landing...a perfectly fitting tribute to the hoax..

A genuine moon landing does NOT fit, whatsoever.


Why would NASA obtain a piece of petrified wood, in the first place?

It could only be used to represent a 'genuine Apollo 11 moon rock'. How else do you think it could be taken to commemorate the Apollo 11 visit? Not a chance. That's all it can be taken as, nothing else makes sense.

This piece of petrified wood was deliberately sought out, and presented during Apollo 11's Goodwill Tour, and was clearly stated, as a gift, to commemorate the Apollo 11's astronauts' visit to the Netherlands.

You think because NASA didn't note 'Genuine Apollo Moon Rock' on it, they never passed off as if it were genuine!


Nonsense.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: dragonridr

Your quoting a man who had no idea about the Soviet progtam.He didn't know the soviets had four failed attempts to launch a lunar landing craft between 1969 and 1972, including a spectacular launch-pad explosion in July 1969. He was just unaware of the set backs.

Why was James Webb so poorly informed?

Because this news didn't escape to the western world until MUCH MUCH later.Unlike the Americans who honour their dead by erecting monuments etc (the Astronaut Hall Of Fame amongst others),the Russians deal with these catastrophes by 'losing' all personal records of the people who died and pretending they never happened.

originally posted by: Imagewerx
a reply to: AgentSmith

You forgot to mention that the whole ridiculous moon hoax theory was started by Bill Kaysing.A man hired by the builders of the Saturn V rocket motors (the Rocketdyne company) as a technical writer,but left the company in 1963,6 years before the first moon landing.I seem to remember reading about some sort of dishonourable discharge from Rocketdyne (this is not mentioned on Wikipedia) prompting Bill to write and publish his book in 1976.He calculated that the chance of successfully landing men on the moon was just 0.0017%.This is an INCREDIBLY precise figure bearing in mind there had never been a manned moon landing before this to base this calculation on.
His ideas were taken up by the Flat Earth Society,which led to the claimed involvement of Disney,Hollywood,Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C Clarke.How can you possibly give any credence at all to a society who genuinely believe that the Earth really is flat? I'd much rather invite Hannibal Lecter to babysit and leave him a bottle of red wine than have to share my air with the Flat Earthers.
Oh and you forgot to mention that Bart Sibrel is a disrespectful bellend.

Kaysing didn't calculate the figure, others did so. Kaysing merely noted their figure, in his book, later on.

There are many who do such calculations - for man landing on Mars, etc. It's a very common practise, in many fields of science, in fact.

Kaysing had nothing to do with any Flat Earth Societies, btw.

a reply to: turbonium1

NASA did not give him the fossil, the US Ambassador did.

NASA never claimed it was moon rock, neither did the US Ambassador.

It took a geologist second to realise the Rijksmuseum's mistake.

I have the complete conference proceedings of 3 lunar science symposia that deal entirely with lunar samples analysed by geologists, all of whom are happy that the samples they analysed came from the moon.

It's a nonsense non-story.

originally posted by: turbonium1

There are many who do such calculations - for man landing on Mars, etc. It's a very common practise, in many fields of science, in fact.

It is not common practice in science to make numbers up out of thin air and pass them on as fact.