Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: turbonium1

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...

There is indeed a joke, a bad one - the constant baseless claims, lies and lack of knowledge from the hoax camp.

An additional test flight of Zond’s manned capabilities, it proved the spacecraft could keep animals alive on a round trip mission. Zond 5 had a rag-tag crew of sorts. Crammed inside were turtles (properly steppe tortoises), wine flies, meal worms, plants, seeds, bacteria, and other living matter. There was also a human analogue on board. In the pilot’s seat sat a 5 foot 7 inch, 155 pound dummy filled with radiation detectors.

The 11,850 pound Zond 5 launched from Tyuratam on Sept. 14, 1968. Fifty-six minutes after launch, the spacecraft’s Block D stage fired and started it on its translunar journey. The coast took three-days. Zond 5 took high quality photographs of the Earth from more than 55,000 miles away before reaching the moon on Sept. 18. It flew around the farside coming within 7,363 miles of the surface before starting its return to Earth.

Like most early flights of a new spacecraft, Zond 5’s mission had some hiccups. On the way to the Moon, contamination on the optical surface of the stellar attitude control system rendered it useless; the spacecraft switched to backup sensors. Before reentering the Earth’s atmosphere on Sept. 21, the gyroscopic stabilizing platform went offline and an attitude control sensor failed. But without a self-destruct command the spacecraft hurtled unfettered towards the Earth. Unable to make a guided reentry, the passengers aboard Zond 5 pulled upwards of 20 Gs as the spacecraft fell on a ballistic path to a backup splashdown area in the Indian Ocean.

Even off target, help was nearby. Soviet recovery forces a little more than 62 miles away found the spacecraft the next day and recovered its passengers. Everyone on board was fine. The turtles had lost about 10 percent of their body weight, but they were active and hadn’t lost their appetites. The flight was survivable, and a manned followup mission was clearly in Zonds future.

But NASA was already a step ahead of the Soviets. On August 12, the space agency had decided that Apollo 8 would go to the Moon in December. It would fly with just a Command Module since the Lunar Module was behind schedule but Apollo couldn’t sit around and wait. Besides, the agency needed deep space and lunar orbital experience. Zond 5 just added an external pressure to NASA internal drive to get to the moon by the end of the year.

The Zond that pushed Apollo to the Moon

originally posted by: turbonium1

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

with enough rocket power and fuel.. yes especially if its only for a maximum of 14 days.. its your own ignorance and lack of knowledge that makes you believe otherwise.. or that you like to troll.

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

Apollo 7 verified that the saturn V and the command service module worked as intended..

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...

it wasnt the first to go into the VAB.. Gemini missions went into it.. and why do you ignore all probes that went through while taking readings???

what it so different about orbiting the moon as opposed to orbiting earth??

all of your "points" have been demonstrated by previous flights.

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,

i bet when you go to work or whatever you do outside of your home and you run into this along your path:


you would think "oh no, a gate is blocking my path.. looks like i cant reach my destination, i better go home"

which we are STILL trying to understand today.

no we are trying to understand how and why the sun affects the VAB.. which is unknown..

There are also SPE's,

name one major SPE that occured in the direction of the moon during an Apollo mission.

GCR radiation,

not a concern for Apollo short duration missions as proven by your own articles:

The most constraining exposure limit is that for the BFO for which the 50 cSv/yr is not achieved until ≈30 g/cm2
www.cs.odu.edu...

are you able to explain to me what this sentence literally means??

micrometeorites,

what about them?? they had protection against them.

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...

you mean apart from the countless probes they sent into deep space that would study the environment beyond the VAB?? know what they found?? it wasnt much different from LEO..

originally posted by: turbonium1

It doesn't mean the calculation was valid, as we have no way to verify it. But it is a point of interest, nonetheless.

so you dont know if its valid or not.. but you still want to use it??

apart from already knowing that it is invalid.. like i said before, if it was calculated in the 50's, why dont you start using articles from the 1500's that say the likelyhood of landing man on the moon was impossible???

in the 50's they struggled to get man into LEO.. thats the level of technology they are basing their calculations on..

so if you think its a point of interest then you should probably take text's from the 1500 to support your claims also.

a reply to: turbonium1

You said it yourself: you don't know if the calculation was valid and you have no way of verifying it, but you were more than happy to throw it in as some sort of proof Apollo didn't happen.

Well seeing as you found it on wikipedia let's look at that claim shall we. I still couldn't find it in the actual book - I have just skimmed through it again, but here's what the wikipedia links that you think validate his claim say:

Link number 1:

Bill Kaysing worked as a technical writer for Rocketdyne, a company involved in the Apollo program. During this time, Kaysing claims, NASA carried out a feasibility study which found they had only a 0.0017 per cent chance of landing a man on the moon and returning him to earth

So not a direct quote, and no link in that quote to any actual source.

Link number 2:

Bill Kaysing has claimed that the chance of a successful landing on the moon was calculated to be 0.0017% (1 in 60,000). The source of this information appears to be a report prepared by the Rocketdyne company in the late 1950s. This assessment was, of course, based on understanding and technology existing at the time of the report. As tremendous resources were poured into the problem over the next decade, the reliability studies improved dramatically.

Kaysing "claims" and the source "appears to be" are not definitive sources, neither do they give any indication of how the number was calculated. If the suggested source is correct (and we only have Kaysing's word that such a report exists, because that's who claimed it was a Rocketdyne report) then it pre-dates Kennedy's deadline speech by some time, never mind any technological developments achieved through the development of Mercury, Gemini and Apollo long after Kaysing stopped having any involvement with Rocketdyne.

But wait, here's something else from that second link:

During the mid-1960s the Apollo Support Department of the General Electric Company in Florida conducted extensive mission reliability studies for NASA. These studies were based on very elaborate reliability models of all of the systems. A reliability profile over the course of a mission was generated by computer simulation, and a large number of such simulations were carried out for different scenarios. Based on those studies, the probability of landing on the moon and returning safely to earth never dropped below 90%.

So while one study pre-dating Apollo allegedly puts the chances of success as very low, others conducted during Apollo's development put it much higher (higher even that Neil Armstrong did).

If you know anything about probability, which clearly you don't, you would know that a very low probability of success is not the same as impossible. What Apollo mission planners, scientists and engineers was to take out as many of the elements that could reduce the probability of success. Every mission had technical problems, they worked out how to get round them by planning ahead and building in failsafes and contingencies, and by testing complex procedures.

Bill Kaysing was a liar not because he managed to pull a small percentage out of nowhere, but because he claimed we didn't go to the moon. Even if the actual source of that figure turns up, he is still a liar.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
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?

Your argument is - Nobody at NASA ever claimed it was a genuine moon rock. And NASA didn't give it to the former Dutch PM, but NASA gave a genuine lunar sample to the Dutch Government.

It isn't relevant whether or not NASA gave a genuine lunar sample to the Dutch Government. If the sample was genuine, it could have been obtained by unmanned craft, or from Antarctica, or elsewhere on Earth. It doesn't excuse the fake moon rock being given out. They are entirely separate events, as well.

If NASA did present the fake rock, instead of the US Ambassador, you'd still say 'NASA didn't claim it was a genuine moon rock'.

It doesn't matter if NASA or the US Ambassador presented the fake rock, or that NASA didn't say it was a genuine moon rock. The two parties (the US Ambassador and the former Dutch PM) wholly believed it WAS a genuine moon rock, that NASA's Apollo 11 astronauts had procured directly from the lunar surface.

The US Ambassador got the fake from the State Department, before he presented it to the ex-PM.

I don't know how/if NASA was involved in the fraud. However, the fake was given during Apollo 11's visit, and the 'plaque' listed the names of all three Apollo 11 astronauts. This would indicate NASA is 'in' on the fraud, at least would have known about it. Another point - the fake is supposed to look like a moon rock, so who would know better than NASA what a fake rock should look like?

The fake rock was supposed to fool the US Ambassador, and the former Dutch PM, as being a genuine Apollo moon rock. They WERE fooled into thinking it was real. The US Ambassador recently admitted he had no reason to think it not being a real rock. There is no getting around it - . You can say NASA wasn't giving it out, and that NASA didn't claim it was genuine - the fact is that the US Government, most certainly the US State Dep't, wanted to fool people into thinking it was a genuine Apollo moon rock.

Why would the US Gov't go to all the trouble of wanting to find something that looks like a 'moon rock'? Why would the US Gov't put a piece of petrified wood under glass, put a plaque below it, state that this chunk of wood is to commemorate the Apollo 11 visit, and even include the names of all 3 Apollo 11 astronauts?

The US Gov't would have no reason to fool people with a fake rock. This could have been excused if they stated on the plaque it was NOT a genuine moon rock. Since, supposedly, NASA does not allow genuine moon rocks to be given out, that would have worked for an excuse, even if it wasn't true.

But the fake was INTENDED to fool these people, and the only reason they would try to deliberately fool people is because they never went to the moon.

No other reason they'd ever do this.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

the stat 0.0017 sounds about right to little old me...

But...to be fair...I find the stats a bit too dry to reflect actual real world events.

Being hit by lightning is extremely unlikely statisticaly speaking...yet somebody gets hit almost daily.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

You said it yourself: you don't know if the calculation was valid and you have no way of verifying it, but you were more than happy to throw it in as some sort of proof Apollo didn't happen.

No, I only wanted to correct you that Kaysing did not claim he had calculated it. I never said it was proof of anything, and that's why I said the calculation can't be verified as genuine. If it were genuine, then certainly we could not have gone from almost no chance, to 100% possible, within just a few years time.

We cannot prove if the figure IS genuine, so it's a moot point anyway.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Bill Kaysing was a liar not because he managed to pull a small percentage out of nowhere, but because he claimed we didn't go to the moon. Even if the actual source of that figure turns up, he is still a liar.

Really? You think everyone who believes we didn't go to the moon is a liar?

At least, you think that makes Kaysing a liar, right?

He believed that we didn't go to the moon. He based that on evidence he presented in his book.

As you obviously have no idea why this does not make him a liar, I hope you can learn a little more about the subject of lying, and what is not lying.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
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?

Your argument is - Nobody at NASA ever claimed it was a genuine moon rock. And NASA didn't give it to the former Dutch PM, but NASA gave a genuine lunar sample to the Dutch Government.

Got it in one, because that's what actually happened.

It isn't relevant whether or not NASA gave a genuine lunar sample to the Dutch Government. If the sample was genuine, it could have been obtained by unmanned craft, or from Antarctica, or elsewhere on Earth. It doesn't excuse the fake moon rock being given out. They are entirely separate events, as well.

Two things there. Firstly, there is ample evidence in TV, 16mm and photographs that show that Apollo 11 was exactly where it was claimed to be, not to mention the LRRR that lasers show is exactly where Apollo 11 claimed to be. At least you are conceding that they came from the moon. Apollo 11 also brought back many more times the amount of rock that came back by the unmanned Soviet probe.

Secondly, if you are going to make some sort of claim that the rocks are from Antarctica, because they have recovered lunar meteorites there, then you need to do a tiny bit of research to work out when they were identified as being lunar in origin and how that identification was carried out.

If NASA did present the fake rock, instead of the US Ambassador, you'd still say 'NASA didn't claim it was a genuine moon rock'.

But they didn't, did they? Please try not to put words in my mouth to cover something you've completely made up.

It doesn't matter if NASA or the US Ambassador presented the fake rock,

It is not a fake rock, it is a genuine piece of fossilised tree.

or that NASA didn't say it was a genuine moon rock.

But it does matter, because that it was people like you have been claiming for years.

The two parties (the US Ambassador and the former Dutch PM) wholly believed it WAS a genuine moon rock, that NASA's Apollo 11 astronauts had procured directly from the lunar surface.

No, you don't actually know that that is what he believed. My personal take on it is that it is Chinese whispers and that it ended up being described as moon rock by museum staff thanks to a misunderstanding.

The US Ambassador got the fake from the State Department, before he presented it to the ex-PM.

Not a fake rock, just not a moon rock.

I don't know how/if NASA was involved in the fraud.

No, you don't, but despite that you are still calling it a fraud, even though you have absolutely no evidence that anyone ever intended to carry out a deception. No evidence at all.

However, the fake was given during Apollo 11's visit, and the 'plaque' listed the names of all three Apollo 11 astronauts. This would indicate NASA is 'in' on the fraud, at least would have known about it.

No, the plaque is quite clear about what it indicates, everything else is out of your mind.

Another point - the fake is supposed to look like a moon rock, so who would know better than NASA what a fake rock should look like? The fake rock was supposed to fool the US Ambassador, and the former Dutch PM, as being a genuine Apollo moon rock.

No it wasn't, because no-one ever claimed it was a moon rock. No-one. Not one. Ever.

They WERE fooled into thinking it was real. The US Ambassador recently admitted he had no reason to think it not being a real rock.

'Admitted'? Very biased form of words there. Please give us the exact quote so we can see his confession.

There is no getting around it - . You can say NASA wasn't giving it out, and that NASA didn't claim it was genuine - the fact is that the US Government, most certainly the US State Dep't, wanted to fool people into thinking it was a genuine Apollo moon rock.

No. No-one ever claimed it was a lunar sample, you are making up what people's motives were with no evidence.

Why would the US Gov't go to all the trouble of wanting to find something that looks like a 'moon rock'?

It looks nothing like a moon rock.

Why would the US Gov't put a piece of petrified wood under glass, put a plaque below it, state that this chunk of wood is to commemorate the Apollo 11 visit, and even include the names of all 3 Apollo 11 astronauts?

To commemorate the goodwill visit of Apollo 11.

The US Gov't would have no reason to fool people with a fake rock.

Precisely.

This could have been excused if they stated on the plaque it was NOT a genuine moon rock. Since, supposedly, NASA does not allow genuine moon rocks to be given out, that would have worked for an excuse, even if it wasn't true.

NASA do give lunar samples out for scientists to study, and they give any small samples to a couple of hundred countries during the goodwill tour.

But the fake was INTENDED to fool these people, and the only reason they would try to deliberately fool people is because they never went to the moon.

No other reason they'd ever do this.

Again, you're making things up - you have no evidence for people's motives, you have no evidence that it was intended to be seen as a lunar sample.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

You said it yourself: you don't know if the calculation was valid and you have no way of verifying it, but you were more than happy to throw it in as some sort of proof Apollo didn't happen.

No, I only wanted to correct you that Kaysing did not claim he had calculated it. I never said it was proof of anything, and that's why I said the calculation can't be verified as genuine. If it were genuine, then certainly we could not have gone from almost no chance, to 100% possible, within just a few years time.

We cannot prove if the figure IS genuine, so it's a moot point anyway.

Exactly, so I would stop relying on it - the only source for it is Kaysing, and until we have an actual source it's just a made up number.

Really? You think everyone who believes we didn't go to the moon is a liar?

No, I think people who think we didn't go to the moon are either liars or stupid. Kaysing may well have been both.

At least, you think that makes Kaysing a liar, right?

He believed that we didn't go to the moon. He based that on evidence he presented in his book.

His evidence is made up nonsense - he plucks 'facts' out of thin air with no support for them whatsoever.

As you obviously have no idea why this does not make him a liar, I hope you can learn a little more about the subject of lying, and what is not lying.

I've read his book, have you?

He makes claims in it that are not true. What does that make him?

a reply to: turbonium1

such a long rant of completely made up story telling.. boy you sure look silly over such a non issue..

"Nixon didn't request the construction of the Apollo 11 gift displays - containing the lunar material and flags that flew to the moon - until November 1969, after the Goodwill tour had ended."

originally posted by: choos
it wasnt the first to go into the VAB.. Gemini missions went into it.. and why do you ignore all probes that went through while taking readings???

No. I said it was the first manned mission to go entirely through the Van Allen Belts. Read my actual sentences before you go on making up false statements about what you 'think' I've said.

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,

originally posted by: choos
i bet when you go to work or whatever you do outside of your home and you run into this along your path:

you would think "oh no, a gate is blocking my path.. looks like i cant reach my destination, i better go home"

No, but I would think you would come up with an actual reply to the fact no life forms were ever sent beyond LEO before humans (supposedly) did. This falls a tad short, although no worse than most of your previous desperate attempts at supporting your case.

originally posted by: turbonium1

No. I said it was the first manned mission to go entirely through the Van Allen Belts. Read my actual sentences before you go on making up false statements about what you 'think' I've said.

they had multiple probes go through the VAB to measure the VAB also.. what would be the purpose of them??

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,

NASA have sent numerous probes beyond the VAB to study the space environment.. why do they need to waste time and spend more money on finding answers that were already known??

you are correct, the VAB is an area of hazadous radiation.. but that doesnt make it impossible to get past..

No, but I would think you would come up with an actual reply to the fact no life forms were ever sent beyond LEO before humans (supposedly) did. This falls a tad short, although no worse than most of your previous desperate attempts at supporting your case.

it is a reply..
apparently the VAB which are donut shaped is impossible to traverse.. just like this fence:



so if you cannot tell me how to pass this "obstacle" then im afraid there is nothing i can do to help you understand.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

No, the plaque is quite clear about what it indicates, everything else is out of your mind.

The plaque indicates it is to commemorate the Apollo 11 visit, so what would be the object which the plaque states is to commemorate Apollo 11's visit, in YOUR mind?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
No it wasn't, because no-one ever claimed it was a moon rock. No-one. Not one. Ever.

They never claimed it was NOT a moon rock, which is what they WOULD have said, if it wasn't meant to dupe them.


'

originally posted by: onebigmonkeyAdmitted'? Very biased form of words there. Please give us the exact quote so we can see his confession.

"I do remember that Drees was very interested in the little piece of stone. But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that," Mr Middendorf said.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

He states that he does not know anything about it not being a real moon rock. When he presented the gift, he knew nothing of it being a fake. Ergo, he believed it was REAL when he presented it to the ex-PM///

Follow the simple logic here?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
It looks nothing like a moon rock.

Who cares what you, or I, think about it? The fake moon rock fooled them, that's the point here.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
To commemorate the goodwill visit of Apollo 11.

Yes, indeed - to commemorate Apollo 11 as a fake, I'd say a chunk of petrified wood was the perfect gift!!

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Again, you're making things up - you have no evidence for people's motives, you have no evidence that it was intended to be seen as a lunar sample.

Right, it was intended to be seen as a piece of petrified wood from Earth, since it was presented to commemorate Apollo 11's visit. We all know Apollo 11 astronauts are best known for chopping down 'Moon Trees' with axes, and collecting chunks of wood they brought back to Earth!!

It all makes perfect sense, now!


Seriously though - if you think it was NOT intended to be seen as a genuine moon rock, please tell me what else it could POSSIBLY be intended to be seen as?

I can't wait to hear about it...

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
No, I think people who think we didn't go to the moon are either liars or stupid. Kaysing may well have been both.

As I think the same of most people who think we DID go to the moon. But I would not think of going around accusing people of such things without evidence to support it. To accuse people without any proof would be even MORE stupid, and a BIGGER lie, don't you agree?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
His evidence is made up nonsense - he plucks 'facts' out of thin air with no support for them whatsoever.

I think his evidence is totally valid, solid support for the moon landing hoax. Not at all made up. He thought it was solid evidence, which would explain why he cited it in his book.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
He makes claims in it that are not true. What does that make him?

You might think his claims are not true, that is your opinion. I disagree with you.

He believed the moon landings were hoaxed, and believed the evidence he cited was absolute proof it was a hoax.

He is not a liar for believing it was a hoax, or believing he had evidence to prove it was a hoax.

Now, what would that make someone who ignores all of those facts, and keeps on falsely accusing him of being a liar?

originally posted by: turbonium1

As I think the same of most people who think we DID go to the moon. But I would not think of going around accusing people of such things without evidence to support it. To accuse people without any proof would be even MORE stupid, and a BIGGER lie, don't you agree?

Except you just did. I have produced mountains of evidence from my own research that completely vindicates Apollo. I have proof we went to the moon. Kaysing, and you, and all the other people who claim it was hoaxed, have absolutely no proof whatsoever.

I think his evidence is totally valid, solid support for the moon landing hoax. Not at all made up. He thought it was solid evidence, which would explain why he cited it in his book.

What, so all you need to do us write something down and it must be true?

He 'cites' nothing in his book, and he wrote it to make money. He has a lot of sly inferences, vague assumptions, poor understanding and made up nonsense. he references nothing apart from the occasional newspaper article. Go ahead and find anything in his book that provides solid evidence of a fake, starting with that made up percentage.

You might think his claims are not true, that is your opinion. I disagree with you.

I don't think they aren't true, I know it. I know it thanks to the research I have done into the subject. You disagree with me because you don't understand the subject.

He believed the moon landings were hoaxed, and believed the evidence he cited was absolute proof it was a hoax.

I doubt it, I think he believed it was a good way to make a fast buck.

He is not a liar for believing it was a hoax, or believing he had evidence to prove it was a hoax.

He's a liar because he wrote a book full of lies, starting with the title.

Now, what would that make someone who ignores all of those facts, and keeps on falsely accusing him of being a liar?

Find a fact in his book that stands up to scrutiny.

originally posted by: turbonium1

You might think his claims are not true, that is your opinion. I disagree with you.

shall we put that to the test then???

theres an interview with bill kaysing by some Nardwuar this is a little part of it:

"N: So apparently they faked the moon landing. If the moon landing was faked, how come they didn't include stars in their studio, apparently in the Nevada desert where they were faking the moon landing?

BK: They could not fake the stars and maps because there are too many astronomy buffs, and I've talked to a lot of them. They would have measured the angularity between stars and the position of the stars behind, let's say, the Earth. No way, even with the most advanced computers, could they have created star pictures that would have been, let's say, acceptable to the astronomy buffs. So at MIT, where the simulation took place, the planning for it took place, they simply decided to stonewall it and not include any pictures of stars at all."

do you agree with his claim?? that it would be impossible to fake the stars which is why they removed it completely??

originally posted by: turbonium1

You might think his claims are not true, that is your opinion. I disagree with you.

He believed the moon landings were hoaxed,

apparently that wasnt the only thing he believed:

N - How 'bout any actual atmosphere, like John Glenn in space, Yuri Gargarin - were they actually in space?
BK - I doubt it.

N - So the Soviet Union faked that Yuri Gargarin was in space, and that dog that died, Laika, really didn't die?
BK - Mmm...I don't think he was up there. See, there was a fellow by the name of Lloyd Mallin in the early '70s who wrote a very detailed book saying that all - well, nearly all - possibly all of the Soviet space exploits were faked, and he proved it with photographs and technical data and so forth. I still have a copy of that book.
nardwuar.com...

he even believes NASA and the soviets couldnt even get man to LEO..

a reply to: choos

He makes several claims in that interview that are just plain wrong.

digilander.libero.it...

You can start with the claim that Gus Grissom hung a lemon in the capsule on the day died. This isn't true, he hung it in the simulator several days before the fire.

He claims the Apollo 1 crew were burned to death, when they were in fact asphyxiated by toxic smoke.

He misquotes Grissom on communications problems.

He claims astronauts never mentioned how magnificent the views of the stars were, which (along with the claim that they didn't take photographs of stars) is a complete fabrication.

a reply to: choos
apparently that wasnt the only thing he believed:

How 'bout any actual atmosphere, like John Glenn in space, Yuri Gargarin - were they actually in space?

Only the propagandist deal in Absolutes ....

originally posted by: Misinformation

Only the propagandist deal in Absolutes ....

what exactly is your point troll???

Yuri gagarin reached 327km.. you saying that Yuri Gararin was not the first person in space as well, like Bill Kaysing?