Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

His book does not claim Apollo was a fraud, nor does it attempt to revise historical fact.

originally posted by: turbonium1

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.

based on 1950's technology and knowledge..

that is like saying that a report from the 1950's says it would be impossible to have a commercial jet flying 100 passenger at super sonic speeds.

ie. he is basing his figures on outdated technology and information.

p.s. why doesnt he quote some text from the 1500's ridiculing the possibility of human space travel??

James Webb resigned when they revised Apollo 8 from an LEO mission into a 'lunar orbit' mission.

A hoax of Apollo 8 would be on his watch, and if it were caught, he'd also take the biggest fall for it, as NASA's head honcho.

He was a lawyer before NASA, he'd have known all the risks, and obviously had wanted to play no part within this mass-scale criminal activity.

Look at how he got out - he refused to sign off on the revised Apollo 8 plans for a long time. When he finally did sign off on it, he then quickly resigned his position at NASA.... only.a few weeks before Apollo 8 was set to launch!

He got out before the hoaxed missions first began..

If he believed a genuine moon landing was within our reach, he'd certainly have stayed at NASA.

But he knew better, and resigned his post.


It was a significant point in Apollo's sad tale, indeed.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

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.

based on 1950's technology and knowledge..

that is like saying that a report from the 1950's says it would be impossible to have a commercial jet flying 100 passenger at super sonic speeds.

ie. he is basing his figures on outdated technology and information.

p.s. why doesnt he quote some text from the 1500's ridiculing the possibility of human space travel??

The calculations may be from the 1950's, but going from the miniscule fraction into almost 100% do-able, within only a few years period - is pure fantasy-land, for sure.

a reply to: turbonium1

None of this is true.

You can read about Webb's reasons behind his resignation in his own words:

www.lbjlib.utexas.edu...

and it is also discussed in Piers Bizony's book 'The Man Who Ran the Moon'.

Webb was a close political ally of LBJ, who had just announced his decision to withdraw from the presidential race that would see Nixon take office. Webb, and by extension NASA, would be a target for the new regime, which was widely seen as being Nixon's by default thanks to public opposition to LBJ's execution of the war in Vietnam.

Other versions (eg in Gerard DeGroot's "Dark side of the moon"), suggest LBJ was fed up of Webb complaining and threatening to resign about budget cuts and jumped on Webb's off the cuff suggestion that he might leave.

Either way, suggestions he resigned to avoid being tainted by a fake Apollo mission are a lie.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

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.

based on 1950's technology and knowledge..

that is like saying that a report from the 1950's says it would be impossible to have a commercial jet flying 100 passenger at super sonic speeds.

ie. he is basing his figures on outdated technology and information.

p.s. why doesnt he quote some text from the 1500's ridiculing the possibility of human space travel??

The calculations may be from the 1950's, but going from the miniscule fraction into almost 100% do-able, within only a few years period - is pure fantasy-land, for sure.

Source for your miniscule fraction please, and I don't mean Kaysing. Quoting random figures sourced from an idiot does not make them fact.

Disbelief is not proof. Armstrong himself was not 100% convinced of a successful mission. This does not mean that it was impossible or that it didn't happen.

originally posted by: turbonium1


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

And again I will ask you: where are the figures?

I have just skimmed through his (badly written woefully poorly researched) book and can find no such number. I can find vague references to probability where he completely abuses how calculating probability statistics works, but unless I missed it I can see no mention of that percentage or references to any named individual or organisation who have worked it out.

originally posted by: turbonium1

He was a lawyer before NASA, he'd have known all the risks, and obviously had wanted to play no part within this mass-scale criminal activity.

he sure was self-conscious of this given he kept his silence for more than 40 years..

basically what you are saying is that Apollo was genuine right up until October 7 1968 and in a little over two months they were able to hoax Apollo 8..

but more impressively, in a little over 9 months they faked Apollo 11.. 9 months..

The calculations may be from the 1950's, but going from the miniscule fraction into almost 100% do-able, within only a few years period - is pure fantasy-land, for sure.

because being funded with several billion had nothing to do with it.. you really dont understand how technology works do you?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
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.

It wasn't given to a geologist in the first place, nor was it ever intended to be. They gave it to a former PM!

The names of all NASA's Apollo 11 astronauts are noted with the fake moon rock.

The fake rock was presented during NASA's Apollo 11 visit to the Netherlands, by the US Ambassador to the Netherlands.

We don't know what agency got the fake rock, or the exact chain of custody. The US Ambassador got it from the State Dep't.

The problem is - it was assumed to be a genuine Apollo moon rock, since the US Ambassador would never have presented it as a chunk of wood, and he had no reason to think it was not a genuine moon rock, as he said.

A fake rock is evidence of Apollo's deception, being caught red-handed.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: turbonium1


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

And again I will ask you: where are the figures?

I have just skimmed through his (badly written woefully poorly researched) book and can find no such number. I can find vague references to probability where he completely abuses how calculating probability statistics works, but unless I missed it I can see no mention of that percentage or references to any named individual or organisation who have worked it out.

He said it in an interview, assumed it was also noted in his book.

originally posted by: turbonium1
We don't know what agency got the fake rock, or the exact chain of custody. The US Ambassador got it from the State Dep't.
...
A fake rock is evidence of Apollo's deception, being caught red-handed.

Your last statement is contradicted by your first statement.

I'm not sure if NASA had anything to do with it. They only told the museum it was "possible" that the Netherlands had a moon rock, they never confirmed it. The museum should have investigated beyond just the "possible" statement if they wanted to confirm it was a moon rock.

Furthermore, they have a real moon rock in the Netherlands, which you failed to mention:

Apollo moon rocks lost in space? No, lost on Earth

In fact, the Netherlands is one of the few countries where the location of both the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 gift rocks is known. Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand are others — though none has rocks from both missions on permanent public display and some have been kept in storage for decades.

The Amsterdam case appears to be not fraud but the result of poor vetting by the Rijksmuseum.

Spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder said the museum checked with NASA after receiving the rock in 1992 from the estate of the late Prime Minister Willem Drees. NASA told the museum, without seeing it, that it was "possible" it was a moon rock.

But it weighed a whopping 89 grams (3.1 ounces). In addition, its gold-colored cardboard plaque does not describe it as a moon rock.

The U.S. ambassador gave Drees the rock during an Oct. 9, 1969 visit by the Apollo 11 astronauts to the Netherlands. Drees's grandson, also named Willem, told the AP his grandfather had been out of office for more than a decade and was nearly deaf and blind in 1969, though his mind was still sharp.

"My guess is that he did not hear well what was said," said the grandson. "He may have formed his own idea about what it was."

Here's the plaque, which doesn't identify it as a moon rock:

Petrified wood rock
It is an interesting story, but you're misrepresenting NASA's involvement.

originally posted by: turbonium1

The problem is - it was assumed to be a genuine Apollo moon rock, since the US Ambassador would never have presented it as a chunk of wood, and he had no reason to think it was not a genuine moon rock, as he said.

A fake rock is evidence of Apollo's deception, being caught red-handed.

the problem is that no moon rock would be, and never was, given to an 83 year old former PM..

the real moonstone was gifted to Queen Juliana.. not some former PM..

originally posted by: choos
he sure was self-conscious of this given he kept his silence for more than 40 years..

basically what you are saying is that Apollo was genuine right up until October 7 1968 and in a little over two months they were able to hoax Apollo 8..

but more impressively, in a little over 9 months they faked Apollo 11.. 9 months..

Far more impressive to buy their story it worked that way for REAL missions, to get a clue on the real problem!

At the time, man has never gone past LEO. The next mission, Apollo 8, planned as LEO, too.

Within six months, it is revised. It will now go beyond LEO - this has never been done before. But that's no problem, we'll keep on going to the moon, and orbit it, then go back to Earth.

Simple, just revise it to go to the moon, instead of LEO!!.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos
he sure was self-conscious of this given he kept his silence for more than 40 years..

basically what you are saying is that Apollo was genuine right up until October 7 1968 and in a little over two months they were able to hoax Apollo 8..

but more impressively, in a little over 9 months they faked Apollo 11.. 9 months..

Far more impressive to buy their story it worked that way for REAL missions, to get a clue on the real problem!

At the time, man has never gone past LEO. The next mission, Apollo 8, planned as LEO, too.

Within six months, it is revised. It will now go beyond LEO - this has never been done before. But that's no problem, we'll keep on going to the moon, and orbit it, then go back to Earth.

Simple, just revise it to go to the moon, instead of LEO!!.

That would only be true if Apollo 7 failed..

Did Apollo 7 fail???

a reply to: turbonium1

A massive number of assumptions on your part.

It was not given by NASA to the Dutch Government. The actual lunar sample was.

Youhave no evidence that anyone ever claimed it was lunar rock at all, certainly no-one from NASA did. A simple misunderstanding is being presented as your proof of what, exactly?

a reply to: turbonium1

So again, your source please so that we can determine his source and method of calculation. So far we have a baseless claim hinging on a vaguely remembered interview by a liar.

a reply to: turbonium1

They changed the mission plan because they believed, wrongly, that the USSR was about to beat them there.

They took photographs of Earth from lunar orbit, and features of the lunar surface from lunar orbit, that are vindicated by other evidence.

Where is your evidence that they didn't make the Apollo 8 flight?

a reply to: turbonium1

Answering one lie with another lie really doesn't help the cause. Please provide even a shred of evidence that NASA was even remotely involved in the procurement of this piece of petrified wood. It was a gift from one friend to another, it wasn't some big public event. For all we know the two of them had some inside joke about trees on the moon and it was just a gag.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos
he sure was self-conscious of this given he kept his silence for more than 40 years..

basically what you are saying is that Apollo was genuine right up until October 7 1968 and in a little over two months they were able to hoax Apollo 8..

but more impressively, in a little over 9 months they faked Apollo 11.. 9 months..

Far more impressive to buy their story it worked that way for REAL missions, to get a clue on the real problem!

At the time, man has never gone past LEO. The next mission, Apollo 8, planned as LEO, too.

Within six months, it is revised. It will now go beyond LEO - this has never been done before. But that's no problem, we'll keep on going to the moon, and orbit it, then go back to Earth.

Simple, just revise it to go to the moon, instead of LEO!!.

That would only be true if Apollo 7 failed..

You seem to think flying manned missions in LEO means we can fly manned missions to the moon, no problem...

Apollo 7 was successful, but it was still just an LEO mission...


Apollo 8 (supposedly) was the first manned mission to go beyond LEO, the first manned mission to go entirely through the Van Allen Belts, the first manned mission to reach the moon, the first manned mission to orbit the moon (10 times), and the first manned mission to fly from the moon, back through the VA Belts again, and safely return to Earth. All done without a hitch, just two months after Apollo 7 was in LEO...

We had never even sent a SINGLE LIFE FORM beyond LEO, let alone go through the entire VA Belts, out to the moon, and back to Earth. The VAB alone is an area of hazardous radiation, which we are STILL trying to understand today. There are also SPE's, GCR radiation, micrometeorites, and so on, within the deep space environment.
The LEO environment is closer, and much more understood, and much safer, than the very hazardous, unknown environments of VAB/deep space, yet we sent MANY life forms into LEO before we ever sent humans there.

nothing to worry about, folks!

What a joke...

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

So again, your source please so that we can determine his source and method of calculation. So far we have a baseless claim hinging on a vaguely remembered interview by a liar.

It seems Kaysing did mention the calculations in his book, after all...

The first book about the subject, We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle,[8] was written in 1974,[9] two years after the Apollo Moon flights had ended, and self-published in 1976, by Bill Kaysing (1922–2005), a senior technical writer hired in 1956 by Rocketdyne, the company which built the F-1 engines used on the Saturn V rocket,[10][11] despite having no knowledge of rockets or technical writing.[12] He served as head of the technical publications unit at the company's Propulsion Field Laboratory until 1963. Kaysing's book made many allegations, and effectively began discussion of the Moon landings being faked.[13][14] The book claims that the chance of a successful manned landing on the Moon was calculated to be 0.0017%, and that despite close monitoring by the USSR, it would have been easier for NASA to fake the Moon landings than to really go there.[15][16]

en.wikipedia.org...

As usual, you prefer personal attacks on someone without even trying to verify their claims beforehand.

Not that it matters to me what you think about Kaysing, but calling people liars while showing no proof to back it up is total BS.

Anyway, as I said, the calculation was not made by Kaysing, he said others had calculated it while he worked at Rocketdyne. It doesn't mean the calculation was valid, as we have no way to verify it. But it is a point of interest, nonetheless.