Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

This would permit the LM to accommodate a crew of three with the capability for a 14-day quiescent (inactive) lunar stay time, in addition to 3 days (active) operational time.

So, when Bellcomm were planning these missions 40 years ago, it looks like ANY extended plan missions, beyond the normal 12 days, they needed to have the extra shielding. What we know today is that this extra shielding has been in development for 40+ years.

If those extended mission plans were really viable they would need to design and test the shields on the lunar surface... which they never did do.

Also, for the extended stay missions, they planned to sit under a tent for 14 days and only be active for 3 days?? I did not realize the radiation threat on the moon was that bad.

Anyway, sitting in a tent for 2 weeks would look really boring on TV. No wonder Nixon got 18-19-20 and Mars beyond cancelled!! After 15, Nixon wanted to cancel 16 & 17, too, but he was persuaded against that.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

This would permit the LM to accommodate a crew of three with the capability for a 14-day quiescent (inactive) lunar stay time, in addition to 3 days (active) operational time.

So, when Bellcomm were planning these missions 40 years ago, it looks like ANY extended plan missions, beyond the normal 12 days, they needed to have the extra shielding. What we know today is that this extra shielding has been in development for 40+ years.

If those extended mission plans were really viable they would need to design and test the shields on the lunar surface... which they never did do.

Also, for the extended stay missions, they planned to sit under a tent for 14 days and only be active for 3 days?? I did not realize the radiation threat on the moon was that bad.

Anyway, sitting in a tent for 2 weeks would look really boring on TV. No wonder Nixon got 18-19-20 and Mars beyond cancelled!! After 15, Nixon wanted to cancel 16 & 17, too, but he was persuaded against that.

You might have missed a key point in the previous quote. The bit where it says 'Cancelled 1968'.

What exactly did Nixon have to do with that decision?

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

So what? You seriously believe that Richard Nixon somehow came up with the plan to fake every Apollo mission, and pulled it off in that short an amount of time, and not one single person has been willing to talk about it? Richard Nixon must have been an incredible genius, to have thought of everything.

Nixon's not an incredible genius, say like an Einstein or Teller or Tesla. He's a criminal genius which is why he wrote so many books after his presidency but none of them ever mention more than a few lines about Apollo.

For example, (I don't have all my Nixon books handy, but) in The Real War (1980) if you looked at the index, the following terms 'Apollo' or 'NASA' , are not mentioned at all in Nixon's book. However, there is one entry found under 'space program' on page 314, here it is,

America recently celebrated the tenth anniversary of man's first walk on the moon. That adventure captured the human imagination as few events in history have, but the venture that now beckons is in its own way greater still. In traveling to the moon, man stepped into the heavens. In meeting this great challenge here on earth, we can make the world safe for liberty and thus achieve what for centuries philosophers have set as mankind's goal.

Space caught man's imagination less for its technical wizardry than for its mystery. And yet it was not a mystery that took us up there. It was the genius, vision, courage, perseverance, and the dogged hard work of thousands of human beings joined in a common enterprise. excerpt from The Real War (1980)

That's Nixon. He treats the history of Apollo as if it were a good movie that he remembered watching.

One of Nixon's earliest priorities was to have the "best documented presidency" in history. Why? He thought he could control history from the Oval Office, in emulation of his mentor and godfather, Howard Hughes, who obsessively controlled a vast CIA network of high tech and top secret programs, including the satellite TV empire, the ToolCo/Hughes Aircraft and his money laundering casino empire, all from the penthouse suite of the Desert Inn, in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

This would permit the LM to accommodate a crew of three with the capability for a 14-day quiescent (inactive) lunar stay time, in addition to 3 days (active) operational time.

So, when Bellcomm were planning these missions 40 years ago, it looks like ANY extended plan missions, beyond the normal 12 days, they needed to have the extra shielding. What we know today is that this extra shielding has been in development for 40+ years.

If those extended mission plans were really viable they would need to design and test the shields on the lunar surface... which they never did do.

Also, for the extended stay missions, they planned to sit under a tent for 14 days and only be active for 3 days?? I did not realize the radiation threat on the moon was that bad.

Anyway, sitting in a tent for 2 weeks would look really boring on TV. No wonder Nixon got 18-19-20 and Mars beyond cancelled!! After 15, Nixon wanted to cancel 16 & 17, too, but he was persuaded against that.

The reason they were cancelled was budget constraints when they originally planned 20 apollo missions they estimated the cost to be 7 billion when NASA presented this to President Kennedy (notice wasnt Nixon that wanted to go to the moon). Turned out in the end to cost about 300 times that by the time apollo 14 went up they knew they were running out of funds with no hope of getting more money. And NASA all ready had in the planning stages Sky Lab im sure you heard of it. In the end the last 3 missions had to be scrubbed due to lack of funds. In fact they had to gut the apollo program just to get Sky lab in orbit because they couldnt come up with the funds to do that. So they take a Saturn 5 built for apollo and grabbed much of the stuff used in the Apollo program to finish Sky lab as cheap as possible.

And To make matters worse for NASA the general public was losing interest in Apollo.Congress was all ready clamoring that there was no reason to budget further space flights until we studied the previous flights. This is congressional speak for hey you should be happy we went all ready spend the next decade going over the data because we arent giving you more money because my projects i want wont go thou.We saw it again NASA had plans to return to the moon George Bush supported it Obama took office and said whoa thats alot of money and well im trying to get my healthcare program up and running sorry NASA cant afford it.

As far as radiation you could send astronauts up in anything for short term missions the astronauts would be fine as has been explained the problem comes in with extended stays in space you cant spend months without shielding and expect the astronauts to live more then a decade the cancer risks become to great.

Originally posted by dragonridr
And To make matters worse for NASA the general public was losing interest in Apollo.

All together you wrote a decent summary.... of the official narratives. I will accept it as your narrative (starred your post*) and I'm sure most of the Apollo Defenders in the thread will want to associate themselves with that story as you have laid it out.

This quote from you "And To make matters worse for NASA the general public was losing interest in Apollo. " Well that seems to be just you telling us what 150,000,000 American people were thinking in the early 1970's.

I will accept that statement as your view point in this debate, like I said I would. In my role as the Apollo Investigator I have to go ahead and ask the next series of questions, which to me are completely obvious.

Why did the general public losing interest in Apollo?
Are they bored of Apollo? No.
Are they concerned with the costs of Apollo? No.
Are they worried some astronauts might die? No.
Are they thinking that Apollo might be a distraction from reality? Yes.

In 1972, the American people finally realized they had been distracted and mesmerized and hypnotized since 1968 by the Apollo TV shows. The American people woke up, just a little bit, and realized that while Apollo was making achievements for all mankind the vile Richard Nixon was carpet bombing No. Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos.

After 88 pages of this thread we should all probably step back for a moment of review and take a deep breath to remember that...

The Apollo moon landings only took place during Richard Nixon's presidency. If we accepted the official narratives, like the Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission, we would all be happy campers. Except those narratives don't add up and so many problems in those official narratives can be found by simply scratching the surface.

It is hard to say why there are only a handful of people willing to discuss these issues on ATS. Probably there is a lot more people posting in the moral outrage threads or political madness threads. At least I am glad that there are some people on ATS who will Defend Apollo, up to and including, Dr. Berry's complete and utter incompetence.

What does Charles Berry know about German Measles, anyway? Not enough, obviously.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


I just know im going to regret asking this but here goes what is wrong with postponing a mission after exposure to measles thats 6 days away when it can take up to 2 weeks for symptoms to show? Especially since another astronaut working with him had it. And let me save some time here the reason its set for a month later is launch windows so dont come back with why wait a month when symptoms only take 2 weeks to show up.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by dragonridr
And To make matters worse for NASA the general public was losing interest in Apollo.

All together you wrote a decent summary.... of the official narratives. I will accept it as your narrative (starred your post*) and I'm sure most of the Apollo Defenders in the thread will want to associate themselves with that story as you have laid it out.

This quote from you "And To make matters worse for NASA the general public was losing interest in Apollo. " Well that seems to be just you telling us what 150,000,000 American people were thinking in the early 1970's.

I will accept that statement as your view point in this debate, like I said I would. In my role as the Apollo Investigator I have to go ahead and ask the next series of questions, which to me are completely obvious.

Why did the general public losing interest in Apollo?
Are they bored of Apollo? No.
Are they concerned with the costs of Apollo? No.
Are they worried some astronauts might die? No.
Are they thinking that Apollo might be a distraction from reality? Yes.

In 1972, the American people finally realized they had been distracted and mesmerized and hypnotized since 1968 by the Apollo TV shows. The American people woke up, just a little bit, and realized that while Apollo was making achievements for all mankind the vile Richard Nixon was carpet bombing No. Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos.[/QUOTE]

It's already been posted in this thread significant numbers of Americans were already beginning to question the need for further lunar missions once Apollo 11 had achieved Kennedy's goal. I remind you again of Gil Scott Heron's "Whitey on the moon" track, which wasn't just his lone voice but one of many concerned at the expense of the missions. Earlier in this thread there is an article that states that extended lunar Apollo style missions were being abandoned before Nixon took office and money was the reason they were cancelled.

The suggestion that Apollo was a distraction from the Vietnam conflict doesn't work. After the first landing Apollo missions rarely merited more column inches than Vietnam on the front pages of American newspapers and were low down the order of news bulletins. Apollo 13's last TV transmission before the accident wasn't even broadcast live. The fact that millions of Americans protested before and during the Apollo missions against Vietnam and made it so politically damaging is proof in in itself that the Apollo missions distracted no-one from it. Just 3 months after Apollo 11 there were mass protests over Vietnam. Hardly a mind-numbing act of national hypnotism was it?

[QUOTE]
After 88 pages of this thread we should all probably step back for a moment of review and take a deep breath to remember that...

The Apollo moon landings only took place during Richard Nixon's presidency. If we accepted the official narratives, like the Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission, we would all be happy campers. Except those narratives don't add up and so many problems in those official narratives can be found by simply scratching the surface.[/QUOTE]

The Apollo missions were started before Nixon. Apollo 8's circumlunar mission was during LBJ's presidency. The official narratives add up completely down to the smallest details and amount to full disclosure of the Apollo missions. What you actually mean is "I don't believe them". Nixon had nothing to do with Apollo - he just happened to be sat there while they happened around him.

[QUOTE]

It is hard to say why there are only a handful of people willing to discuss these issues on ATS. Probably there is a lot more people posting in the moral outrage threads or political madness threads. At least I am glad that there are some people on ATS who will Defend Apollo, up to and including, Dr. Berry's complete and utter incompetence.

What does Charles Berry know about German Measles, anyway? Not enough, obviously.

edit on 8/25/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: fix!

edit on 8/25/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: two more little fixes

And your problem with Dr Berry is?

Originally posted by hellobruce

So just how do you fly on a supersonic passenger jet today?

Either get one that's already built, or have a new one built.

Any other excuses?

Originally posted by turbonium1

Originally posted by hellobruce

So just how do you fly on a supersonic passenger jet today?

Either get one that's already built, or have a new one built.

Any other excuses?

Well, according to you as there are none built today that means they never existed....

Originally posted by choos
But do you see the issue that if the KGB had done it, and if they continue to raise the issue that it was the us gov and not a lone gun man. Do you realize that if the us gov was pressured enough to do a thorough investigation and then find new evidence implicating the KGB.. Right now there is not much enquiry into it it's dead and buried exactly where the KGB would want it.

You have no idea how ironic this is, do you? To disparage others as conspiracy theorists, and then argue how the KGB may have done it?? That's classic!

Let's see....

Why was the USSR silent about JFK?

Because it was done by the KGB, but the US thought a lone nut did it. And if the USSR accused the US of it, they'd risk a deeper investigation, and the US would then realize it was actually a KGB plot!

So you want to go with that one?

Originally posted by choos

Do you even understand the point that the Apollo craft was 1960's technology and you want to use 1960's technology for Orion?? Even the space shuttle is obsolete technology for Orion.

Orion is a brand new vehicle new design new technology. They are not going to put a calculator as the guidance computer for Orion, that's old obsolete technology. Are you able to comprehend this?

let me put it this way, the next generation fighter jet is not going to be based on the p51 mustang technology.

edit on 23-8-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)

Just because you want to have newer technology doesn't mean you'll magically get it. Or that you need it. .

If you don't have newer technology, you use the existing technology.

The goal is to land men on the moon. It doesn't matter one bit what technologies are used to achieve that goal.

It is that simple.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Well, according to you as there are none built today that means they never existed....

They aren't being built today. That is not "according" to me, it is a fact.

I never said they never existed, you're falsely attributing that to me.

Originally posted by turbonium1

You have no idea how ironic this is, do you? To disparage others as conspiracy theorists, and then argue how the KGB may have done it?? That's classic!

you say it like i believe it?? i already told you i dont believe the KGB done it.. im pointing out the fact that you do not know who was really behind it.. you only believe its the US Gov.. im just pointing out that the KGB is also a possibility.

Let's see....

Why was the USSR silent about JFK?

Because it was done by the KGB, but the US thought a lone nut did it. And if the USSR accused the US of it, they'd risk a deeper investigation, and the US would then realize it was actually a KGB plot!

So you want to go with that one?

yes case in point look at what mohammed al fayed has caused after 16 years the investigations into the death of diana has kind of renewed.

hypothetically.. if mohammed was behind the death of dodi and diana, why did he prod and prod until they reopen the investigation only to find that he himself was behind it?? doesnt make sense does it.. better for him to have left it alone and buried. just like if the KGB was behind the assassination and the US gov thinks its a lone gun man then fine let them think that, the KGB got away scot free.

Just because you want to have newer technology doesn't mean you'll magically get it.

bingo.. where does newer technology come from?? money congratulations and welcome to today.

If you don't have newer technology, you use the existing technology.

The goal is to land men on the moon. It doesn't matter one bit what technologies are used to achieve that goal.

It is that simple.

wow... if we dont have newer technology we use existing ones??? just wow...

have you even heard of the term research and development???? are you even aware of how newer technology comes about??

p.s. it most definitey does matter what technology we us to achieve the goal.. look at the guidance computer inside the apollo craft.. and tell me you want to use that over something more modern.. look at how the apollo crew used the toilets and tell me that you dont want to use something more modern.

i mean heck why did they even bothering developing space suits to what they are today?? why didnt they just use the gemini suits. according to you theres no reason to develop the spacesuits anymore than the gemini suits.

reply to post by choos



Wow you guys strayed way off course. Let me see if i can help as technology advances by its ver nature its incorporated in are designs. Example If they were going to try to rebuild the lunar lander today by specs they would need vacuum tubes. But vacuum tubes are no longer made anywhere they are simply out dated. So obviously when building the lander they would use microprocessors correct everyone agree? So then they have to program them and then they realize darn we cant get it to talk to the engine we might as well so astronauts dont have to look out the window to see if it fired.So they redesign the engine. Heres another example suppose we were wanting a TV again we could build one like the original but it would cost far more because again we would have to make vacuum tubes.Then we would have to create a plant to build cathode ray tubes again even though cheaper and better tech is out there.

So when you say something like why dont we use technology we all ready had used to go to the moon is stupid. It would cost us more to reproduce that technology then just redesigning it now So in short saying why dont we go back to the moon using the technology we had in the 60s is all most laughable we have had 50 years of advancement since then i have a cell phone my galaxy cell phone has more computing power then Houston had on hand during the apollo missions. My god they would have killed to be able to do scientific calculations on my cell phone instead of a slide rule and a couple of hours. So since are technology has increased and we can do things faster and cheaper we have to have people redesign the the vehicles to todays standards. And if your going to spend the money to do that your going to do research to make sure the vehicle you build is safer because we have the technology to do it!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by onebigmonkey
And your problem with Dr Berry is?

Well, obviously, if Dr. Berry was worth his PhD he would have known for a long time that Ken Mattingly had no immunity to German Measles. That's what doctors are supposed to do, they examine patients and they know about their medical histories.

The question that comes to my mind is this: why was it a last minute surprise for NASA?

We have been told that astronaut selections were based on strict criteria, medically, physically, psychologically, all candidates were rigorously tested before they were selected.

It seems highly unusual that both the US Navy and NASA would over look Ken Mattingly's condition, as a US Navy jet fighter pilot and NASA astronaut selected in April of 1966,
Group #5 en.wikipedia.org...

Mattingly's first assignment was to be the Command Module Pilot on the Apollo 13 mission. Three days prior to launch, he was removed from the mission due to exposure to German measles (which he never contracted) and was replaced by the backup CM pilot, Jack Swigert. As a result, he missed the dramatic in-flight explosion that crippled the spacecraft.

So why was Mattingly's exposure of measles such a cause for surprise? Maybe he got cold feet for that mission and didn't want to go. Maybe the official story is contrived.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by onebigmonkey
And your problem with Dr Berry is?

Well, obviously, if Dr. Berry was worth his PhD he would have known for a long time that Ken Mattingly had no immunity to German Measles. That's what doctors are supposed to do, they examine patients and they know about their medical histories.

The question that comes to my mind is this: why was it a last minute surprise for NASA?

We have been told that astronaut selections were based on strict criteria, medically, physically, psychologically, all candidates were rigorously tested before they were selected.

It seems highly unusual that both the US Navy and NASA would over look Ken Mattingly's condition, as a US Navy jet fighter pilot and NASA astronaut selected in April of 1966,
Group #5 en.wikipedia.org...

Mattingly's first assignment was to be the Command Module Pilot on the Apollo 13 mission. Three days prior to launch, he was removed from the mission due to exposure to German measles (which he never contracted) and was replaced by the backup CM pilot, Jack Swigert. As a result, he missed the dramatic in-flight explosion that crippled the spacecraft.

So why was Mattingly's exposure of measles such a cause for surprise? Maybe he got cold feet for that mission and didn't want to go. Maybe the official story is contrived.

Because not having the measles has never in the history of the world denied someone from taking a job as a pilot or astronaut. Obviously Charlie Duke never had it either since hes the one that exposed them to it. Are you ok never mind do you think you could find some real proof instead of trying to make it sound like somethings wrong because you arent doing a very good job!

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

It seems highly unusual that both the US Navy and NASA would over look Ken Mattingly's condition, as a US Navy jet fighter pilot and NASA astronaut selected in April of 1966,

why is it highly unusual?? are you a doctor or were you a doctor in the 60's??

you also dont seem to be implying Dr Berry is at fault here but also the entire US Navy's medical practitioners. as you say he not only went under the radar of Dr. Berry but also the yearly medical examinations during his entire US Navy career.

reply to post by choos


"Have you ever had the measles?" is a basic question on a medical exam. Mattingly would have been asked numerous times in his career in the Navy and during the astronaut screening process.

Leaving it to the last minute seems hopelessly inept. Dr. Berry is also the same guy who approved Jim Irwin, the astronaut with the bad heart and Michael Collins, the Roman born, who experienced the miracle 100% recovery after having spinal surgery in 1968. By the way, Collins was also not disclosing all his medical problems to the NASA doctors and so put his mission in jeopardy. Dr. Berry is the same guy who was prescribing vitamins to Deke Slayton who was suddenly able to fly again! Dr Berry who certified Alan Shepard after his top secret, experimental ear surgery, also giving Shepard medical clearance to fly in space again, to satisfy Shepard's raging ego.

I wonder what Dr. Berry's real job was at NASA?? CIA, no doubt.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


so what you are saying is that the entire US Navy screening process is entirely inept?? considering the yearly medical examinations they need to go through.. never once catching mattingly's non-immunity to measles over the decades he was in the US Navy.

which must also mean that the US Navy is hoax.. the US Navy is not real..

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos

 

"Have you ever had the measles?" is a basic question on a medical exam. Mattingly would have been asked numerous times in his career in the Navy and during the astronaut screening process.

Leaving it to the last minute seems hopelessly inept. Dr. Berry is also the same guy who approved Jim Irwin, the astronaut with the bad heart and Michael Collins, the Roman born, who experienced the miracle 100% recovery after having spinal surgery in 1968. By the way, Collins was also not disclosing all his medical problems to the NASA doctors and so put his mission in jeopardy. Dr. Berry is the same guy who was prescribing vitamins to Deke Slayton who was suddenly able to fly again! Dr Berry who certified Alan Shepard after his top secret, experimental ear surgery, also giving Shepard medical clearance to fly in space again, to satisfy Shepard's raging ego.

I wonder what Dr. Berry's real job was at NASA?? CIA, no doubt.

Not having had Rubella was not an issue to Mattingly's career. Not having had Rubella but coming into contact with someone who was ill with it just before going on an Apollo mission was an issue. If it was all fake he could have gone anyway couldn't he?

Why is Michael Collins' birthplace significant?

It's funny isn't it ... after nearly 45 years of spacesuit technological advancement it seems we've gone backwards.

When we supposedly landed on the moon we were able to perform all sorts of incredible gymnastics without any fear of a suit breach. Just look at these guys go at it, remembering if they hit one sharp rock and cut their suit they're dead.



However in 2013, a relaxed space walk in far more controlled circumstances just a few hundred kilometres from earth results in a near drowning.

"By now, the upper part of the helmet is full of water and I can't even be sure that the next time I breathe I will fill my lungs with air and not liquid.

So it seems today we can't replicate the supposedly fantastic technology we had half a century ago.