Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter



but you arent just implicating Dr. Berry.. if you are just implicating Dr. Berry then why are you not implicating the entire US Navy medical practitioners??

if you believe Dr. Berry is incompetent then you should believe the entire US Navy medical practitioners are incompetent too..

actually come to think of it.. he may even have a medical record with his family doctor.. now why didnt his family doctor bring it up?? are they incompetent also?? is the entire medical field in the US incompetent? how in the first 34 years of his life that not one doctor realise he had no immunity to measles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! absolutely outrageous am i right???

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by choos

not my logic.. this is your reasoning..

No, my reasoning did not extend that far. YOU extended the strawman and YOU built it up to say "the US Navy is not real".

(I am pretty sure that your strawman is going to get burned.)

All I indicated was that Dr. Berry was probably a real doctor who probably did not have access to quality medical records because 3 days before the launch Dr. Berry got a big surprise! Exposures to measles!!! Yikes!!!

choos, put yourself in the place of Dr. Berry. You were caught blindsided by this exposure to the measles.

How could this be? The last minute crew switcher-oo is caused by the fear of rubella.

You see, rubella epidemics break out every six to nine years. The last outbreak was in 1964. Which means the next one is due any day now. Source 1970 Metropolitan Life Insurance Ad German Measles Rubella www.ebay.com...

Dr. Berry must have known. Only at the last minute, when Mattingly got cold feet, it proves that NASA changed it's crew based on the fear of the rubella exposures, which surprised them. I think my case against Dr. Berry's competence is very straight forward.

So you expect your doctors to be psychic and know every disease you may come in contact with but then not stopping there immunize you from them as well wow that could take years since your really not supposed to receive more then 3 in a week. Hate to tell you every Doctor on the planet only checks if you have been exposed no point in checking if you have the west nile virus unless you have been exposed to it. Have you been checked for it hey your doctor must be bad at his job id find a new doctor if i were you.

Originally posted by Panic2k11

By that I get that you have a very limited historic context of the times and realities. Not all wars are equal and comparing Vietnam to Iraq (1.0 or 2.0) is extremely naive, I would even say that economically and in its effects on public opinion it would even supplant Korea (even if not geopolitically).

I have a good understanding of the Soviet mentality that is why I don't get the cooperation, even if I do get that the cold war was initiated by the US/UK and for most part the USSR was mostly fallowing suit I can't see any logic in the cooperation in this area especially since it was mostly one sided (since the US did get something out of it, not only technology and know how but an economical strain on economic system of the USSR). One needs only read some of the info on Regan and Thatcher (ISS and Starwars) to see how the fall of the USSR was partially orchestrated. Again we are talking about space endeavors so it makes even less sense that there was any cooperation at all if there wasn't a "secret" carrot that would make it all move along...

the US spent about 22%GDP by the end of ww1 and at its peak about 42%gdp during ww2..

defence spending at its peak during the vietnam war was about 10%gdp.. and NASA's budget was under 3%gdp in 1968 if im not mistaken.. which was not even the highest seen in NASA's budget.. so if im not mistaking you, you are suggesting the US gov should have put closer to 20-40% of gdp towards defence spending instead of 10% and under 3% for NASA??

secret carrot?? perhaps technology?? but then again im no psychologist so im not really qualified to say how the soviets should or should not have acted.

reply to post by choos


Yes technology was one reason for going to the moon Kennedy's secretary actually wrote this in response to a little girl who opposed us going to the moon dont remember the details right now. But that was not the reason you have to think of the mentality of what was going on. Look at the people you have your answer. We had people building bomb shelters in there yards schools having nuclear drills. Then in spring of 1961 a huge political problem is dumped on Kennedy. Yuri Gregarin a Russian cosmonaut went inot space but the trouble didnt stop there in the same month there was the bay of pigs fiasco. Now this was making democracy actually look inferior to communism and the soviets played it up for all it was worth.

So what is the president to do the United States is being shown up on the world stage well we cant have this at all can we. So he decides its time for shock and awe just like in the gulf war. Time to make a knock out blow and hit them hard his lets do something really difficult and show that communism just doesnt stand up to the might of democracy will go to the moon.You see this in Kennedys speech "we choose to go to the moon"? We choose to go to the moon, not because it's easy, but because it's hard ".. So the Russians try to play it off saying well really didnt plan on going to the moon but the cosmodrome went into high gear. The main reason they lost there Vostock rockets were to complicated unlike the Saturn 5 wasnt an amazing technological rocket it was simple and designed that way by Von Braun. The soviets Vostok rockets were hugely complicated and well actually more dangerous ill explain in a minute. So the race is on then it happens the Russians who said they were nt trying to go to the moon has a big rocket failure test killing 100 people now the bad news for the Soviets this was there top rocket scientists and technicians all gone in one huge accident. They really covered this one up we didnt find out until the 1990s.

So NASA wins the race but you know what the Russians still tried to compete just hours before scheduled touch down of apollo the russians tried to land a probe on the moon. They wanted to get live shots of Apollo spacecraft. But it didnt work out for them it came in way to fast and crash landed in to the moon. Could you imagine the PR stunt if the Russians actually had live pictures of the Apollo landing it was a good idea i have to admit. Hope this helps kinda explain why we went good nite everyone.

reply to post by choos

Between 1965 and 1975, the United States spent $111 billion on the war ($686 billion in FY2008 dollars). This resulted in a large federal budget deficit.

Vietnam War @ Wikipedia

Project Mercury which put the first Americans in space, Apollo was later dedicated to President John F. Kennedy's national goal of "landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth" by the end of the 1960s, which he proposed in a May 25, 1961, address to Congress. Project Mercury was followed by the two-man Project Gemini (1962–66). The first manned flight of Apollo was in 1968 and it succeeded in landing the first humans on Earth's Moon from 1969 through 1972.

Apollo program @ Wikipedia

Vietnam War and the American Economy
The Vietnam War had several effects on the U.S. economy. The requirements of the war effort strained the nation's production capacities, leading to imbalances in the industrial sector. Factories that would have been producing consumer goods were being used to make items from the military, causing controversy over the government's handling of economic policy. In addition, the government's military spending caused several problems for the American economy. The funds were going overseas, which contributed to an imbalance in the balance of payments and a weak dollar, since no corresponding funds were returning to the country. In addition, military expenditures, combined with domestic social spending, created budget deficits which fueled inflation. Anti-war sentiments and dissatisfaction with government further eroded consumer confidence. Interest rates rose, restricting the amount of capital available for businesses and consumers. Despite the success of many Kennedy and Johnson economic policies, the Vietnam War was a important factor in bringing down the American economy from the growth and affluence of the early 1960s to the economic crises of the 1970s.

Vietnam War and the American Economy

Federal debt began the 20th century at less than 10 percent of GDP. It jerked above 30 percent as a result of World War I and then declined in the 1920s to 16.3 percent by 1929. Federal debt started to increase after the Crash of 1929, and rose above 40 percent in the depths of the Great Depression. Federal debt exploded during World War II to over 120 percent of GDP, and then began a decline that bottomed out at 32 percent of GDP in 1974. Federal debt almost doubled in the 1980s...

usgovernmentspending.com

You can argue one thing or another but none of them make sense to me.

On one side we have a non priority program, with improbable success (and a race), that stated mostly as propaganda stunt (or response to one) even if with some technological benefits in the long run (but not imitatively and without specific expectations). We can compare with the USSR, that had parallel capabilities (even if they did benefited from the same economic conditions).

So there are two possibilities the program was successful during a decade of economic, social and even political problems, because it did not consume indispensable resources from other areas, able to survive several administrations and the termination and lack of further expansion is unexplainable. Or the program was an exceptional occurrence that anything of the kind was never done before and after, so exceptional in fact that it boggles the mind on how they pulled it out, on the purported reasons and with so few gains.

Note also that this is the time frame from the in the 1970s, OPEC started to mess with the petrodollar setup (1973 oil crisis) and Nixon:

Starting in the 1959-1969 administration of President Charles de Gaulle and continuing until 1970, France reduced its dollar reserves, exchanging them for gold at the official exchange rate thereby reducing US economic influence. This, along with the fiscal strain of federal expenditures for the Vietnam War and persistent balance of payments deficits, led US President Richard Nixon to end the direct international convertibility of the dollar to gold on August 15, 1971 (the "Nixon Shock").

To prevent a run on the dollar, stabilize the US economy, and decrease US unemployment and inflation rates, on August 15, 1971, Nixon issued Executive Order 11615, pursuant to the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, which imposed a 90-day maximum wage and price ceiling, a 10% import surcharge and most importantly, "closed the gold window", ending convertibility between U.S. dollars and gold.

Wikipedia

reply to post by Panic2k11



Your argument makes no sense Vietnam consisted of military advisers until the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in august of 64. By then the Apollo program was well under way as they say no turning back at that point moneys spent. The why it started i explained all ready in my last post. did the Vietnam war help end the Apollo program of course it did you see it in NASAs budget as it kept shrinking as they got a smaller piece of the pie. As you can see below at the height of the Apollo program they were getting over 4% of GDP then by 67 it keeps decreasing as the involvement in Vietnam increases. By 1972 they only getting 1.48% of GDP.And you also must keep in mind Kennedy got congress to approve 11 billion for the Apollo program pretty much ran out in 1965. Then NASA has to fight for there budget.


millions percent of GDP
1960 401 0.5%
1961 744 0.9%
1962 1,257 1.18%
1963 2,552 2.29%
1964 4,171 3.52%
1965 5,092 4.31%
1966 5,933 4.41%
1967 5,425 3.45%
1968 4,722 2.65%
1969 4,251 2.31%
1970 3,752 1.92%
1971 3,382 1.61%
1972 3,423 1.48%

Originally posted by Panic2k11

You can argue one thing or another but none of them make sense to me.

On one side we have a non priority program, with improbable success (and a race), that stated mostly as propaganda stunt (or response to one) even if with some technological benefits in the long run (but not imitatively and without specific expectations). We can compare with the USSR, that had parallel capabilities (even if they did benefited from the same economic conditions).

So there are two possibilities the program was successful during a decade of economic, social and even political problems, because it did not consume indispensable resources from other areas, able to survive several administrations and the termination and lack of further expansion is unexplainable. Or the program was an exceptional occurrence that anything of the kind was never done before and after, so exceptional in fact that it boggles the mind on how they pulled it out, on the purported reasons and with so few gains.

i dont really understand your stance.. are you saying that man landed on the moon and it was a waste of money or that it never happened??

it succeeded because of political will and financing.. the reason it stopped was because of political will and financing. its not unexplained..

are you trying to say that with nearly unlimited funds they cant land man on the moon because its hard to believe?? are you basing your judgment that man cant land on the moon because its too hard to believe?

reply to post by dragonridr


You replied exactly to the point I was making but you seem not to understand how states manage budgets (and you downplay all the military spending in the hight of the cold war (for instance Cuban missile crisis and other events). In the overall context the project makes no sense by itself politically, economically or even socially only as geopolitical propaganda (as someone else pointed out as one of the reasons it was proposed in Project Mercury (53-63) and the primary reason NASA was created).

It may all make some sense to you but I haven't seen any good argumentation in regards to a proper (rational) motive to invest such resources in that temporal context in such a doubtful project (even taking in consideration the different nation that the US was at the time it all stated and it was in the end). Granted that some defense interests may have prompted the development of the rocket program but all the rest of the argumentation is baseless if we compare it with the competition (USSR) and attempt to justify it by technological advancement, putting a man in the moon especially in the way that they say it occurred had no other practical benefits and many constrains and risks.

[The simple fact that the investment makes no sense is supported by the evidence that no future manned mission were made by the US or any other nation so far. If things are changing now it is due to the technology capability has finally matched the dream, even so in a more stable world and (well not so long ago) more powerful economic context no one saw it as a viable project add to that the new information in regards to Luna, something that is in itself a bit off to me, since we are told we had people walking over there.]

Even if we talk about know how, the US continued to be behind the USSR in most aspects to the point that today most of the work would have to start almost from 0 (manned mission) even the ISS was only possible due to Russian technology. I don't know your age but I still remember the frenzy it was around NASA to get Russian tech. after the USSR collapse.

In any case this is only on of the issue, but to me one that is the most obvious problem with the official story. And should be the starting point to anyone attempting to make sense of the official history. Considering the reputation of the US and simple logic if I was the government I would fake it and guarantee the perception of achieving all the goals. Some people point to national shame or the preservation of national pride as the reason that would prevent something like that but the US has even greater things to be ashamed of. One needs just to be reminded under what presidential watch it all ended.

My view on the subject is that the official story smells, that I doubt much of the data provided for and during the project (in regards to maned space traveling beyond low earth orbit and the moon) and do not see the technology as presented of being capable, even if capable, something that I would bet not only the resources but the credibility of my nation (the facade doggy but still holding when Tricky Dicky resigned) in the historical context it occurred.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
My view on the subject is that the official story smells, that I doubt much of the data provided for and during the project (in regards to maned space traveling beyond low earth orbit and the moon) and do not see the technology as presented of being capable, even if capable, something that I would bet not only the resources but the credibility of my nation (the facade doggy but still holding when Tricky Dicky resigned) in the historical context it occurred.

edit on 29-8-2013 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)

so effectively you dont believe it happened because its too hard for you to personally believe..

even given the resources that NASA was given and the political will.. its just too hard to believe they landed man on the moon??

you are using your own personal judgment and your pessimism as justification that if they were capable of landing man on the moon that they shouldnt have done so???

hmmm.. im sorry but the actions of NASA or even the US gov is not based on what you think alone.

p.s. its funny how you think its too hard to believe they landed on the moon.. but were able to fake it while building equipment large enough to get man to the moon.. how do you think they were able to film the fake footage so accurately?? you cant use ropes and slow mo because even though jarrah white has tried to debunk the mythbusters on this issue when you compare his video to john youngs jumping salute, you can clearly see that john young stays in the air longer than adam savage at 67%.. but that not even mentioning that they simply didnt have the technology to feasibly slow down hours of footage, they had the capabilities to slow down 30seconds of footage i think it was.. and then there is the wide video pans and the visor reflection.. with the video editing technology in the 60's its just not possible to have fake the moon landing.

Yep, it all pretty much seems to boil dopwn to "I don't believe it", no matter that the evidence totally and consistently supports the landings, and none of the fraudsters selling people their 'we didn't go' books anbd DVDs ahve ever produced one iota of evidence that stands up to rational scrutiny.

If the only standpoint you take is "this was just a propaganda stunt" this is still no proof that the missions were faked, and it completely ignores the technological and scientific progress that the missions represent - it completely altered views of how the moon was formed and how it is structured.

Somehow there is the completely paradoxical view being held that the technology to get beyond Earth orbit didn't exist, yet the capability to take live images of Earth that completely match weather satellite images that wouldn't be available til later existed, along with the ability to photograph things that no-one else would see until 40 years later.

Somehow it is possible to send a remote probe to the moon and take photographs on film but not send a person there and do the same. An entire space program somehow worked successfully doing the really bit of getting to Earth orbit, but once you try and leave Earth orbit it becomes impossible if there's a human involved.

The hoax argument is contradictory, illogical and incoherent. The offically documented story of Apollo is completely coherent and consistent from start to finish.

Here's an interesting one ...

Why can we view a car, and see its windshield from an earth satellite, yet from satellites orbiting the moon we can only see tiny pixels of the supposed landers.

Earth has an atmosphere and satellites have to remain in a higher orbit than the moon to take photos.
The moon has practically no atmosphere and satellites can lower themselves down to at least 50 miles, if not lower.

So why can we see more detail from the earth satellites than the ones orbiting the moon?

If we can clearly make out a car at Mile High Stadium, Denver, then surely we could see at least the same detail in all the Apollo landers still residing on the moon. ps. They're quite a bit bigger than a car.

edit: this if from the WorldView-2 Satellite.



source: www.digitalglobe.com...

reply to post by ppk55


Because when compared to lunar satellites spy satellites that take those pictures are huge. The LRO weighs 4000 lbs, whereas the KH-11 satellite is a similar design as the Hubble (and is even called a "Stubby Hubble", with an aperture the same size as Hubbles (94 inches), and weigh around 35,000 lbs. That's not exactly something you can easily loft into lunar orbit just to take pictures of the LM that people will probably say are fake anyway.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The LRO weighs 4000 lbs,

That's great, the LRO weighs 4000 lbs and the WorldView-2 satellite that took the above close up images of the cars on earth weighs 4400 lbs. Your argument is what?

reply to post by ppk55


Why spend the money, to send an ultra high resolution camera to take pictures of the LMs, that people aren't going to believe anyway. The current resolution of moon pictures is just fine for what they use them for. NASA does not have an infinite budget.

reply to post by ppk55


Just the fact you have to ask tells me you know nothing about launching a satellite. These were probably taken by geo 1 through a company called geo eye. This thing weighs over 4000 lbs and was hugely expensive. The company itself spent 500 million and google kicked in another 500 million to update ground stations and then there was the defense department as well cost unknown but good likely hood hundreds of millions. Now of course lunar orbit would be even more expensive at minimum double if not triple. So your talking over a billion dollars spent on a satellite in low earth orbit. So what was NASAs budget for 2013 17.5 billion. Does that answer your question?

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The LRO weighs 4000 lbs,

That's great, the LRO weighs 4000 lbs and the WorldView-2 satellite that took the above close up images of the cars on earth weighs 4400 lbs. Your argument is what?

edit on 29-8-2013 by ppk55 because: (no reason given)

www.digitalglobe.com...

says here worldview-2 is 5765lbs.. and that is pure imagery equipment.

and heres the LRO's payload (4070lbs):

CRaTER- related to cosmic rays
DLRE- measures lunar surface thermal emmissions
LAMP- UV camera designed to look at permanently shadowed craters.
LEND- looks for water
LOLA- precise topographical measurements
LROC- cameras used for the landing site imaging, comprises a pair of narrow-angle cameras (NAC) and a single wide-angle camera (WAC)
Mini-RF- technology demonstrator.

so you are comparing a multifunction satellite with a single purpose built satellite.. great..

and if you are honest with yourself.. those cars are quite blurry LRO shows more detail than that, if you dont believe so then perhaps you can make out the make and model of each vehicle??

about as clear as this:
4.bp.blogspot.com...

reply to post by choos

so effectively you dont believe it happened because its too hard for you to personally believe..

I think that should be the norm, I only believe in things I do believe I don't believe in much on faith or because other people tell me it is so, I always need facts or at least a good pastern of rationality so things make sense. I have no problem living with unknowns, since most of those that I can't personally verify do not affect me directly.

it succeeded because of political will and financing.. the reason it stopped was because of political will and financing. its not unexplained..

Again that is the point on this subject that I'm calling amazing, the context of it all and the proposed reasons and returns do not make sense. I'm only questioning the manned landings in the way and with the technology they said was used at the time. In any case all scientific claims are only valid after replication by an independent party, I'm avidly waiting for such (and no pictures of artifacts do no suffice).

are you trying to say that with nearly unlimited funds they cant land man on the moon because its hard to believe?? are you basing your judgment that man cant land on the moon because its too hard to believe?

I was almost not even going to reply to you because of that. Haven't you read what I wrote ? There was is "nearly unlimited funds" and yes I normally reserve my judgment until I do believe on something or there is independent verification or replication, even that depends on many factors.

Originally posted by ppk55
Here's an interesting one ...

Why can we view a car, and see its windshield from an earth satellite, yet from satellites orbiting the moon we can only see tiny pixels of the supposed landers.

Earth has an atmosphere and satellites have to remain in a higher orbit than the moon to take photos.
The moon has practically no atmosphere and satellites can lower themselves down to at least 50 miles, if not lower.

So why can we see more detail from the earth satellites than the ones orbiting the moon?

If we can clearly make out a car at Mile High Stadium, Denver, then surely we could see at least the same detail in all the Apollo landers still residing on the moon. ps. They're quite a bit bigger than a car.

Quite a bit bigger? The LM Descent Stage (the bits left behind) are a just over 4 metres wide (not counting the feet). Probably about the length of those cars in the parking lot. Here's a picture of one of them:



You can also see some of the other bits of equipment they left behind, and the footpaths left by Astronauts. There are lots of Apollo photographs that show very clearly craters and boulders that are much smaller than the lander (and that weren't visible in any pre-Apollo photographs) that also show up in LRO photographs, such as those in Little West crater on the photograph above, or like the video still taken from the ascent movie taken by Apollo 15 (left) compared with the LRO's view of the same area (right) in Hadley Rille.



or the same area viewed from the ground by the LRO (top) and Apollo (bottom - an image that was published in National Geographic in 1972)



So yes, the satellites above the moon resolve a more than adequate amount of detail that allow us to prove that Apollo hardware is on the moon, and that astronauts took them there..

reply to post by Panic2k11


So you dont believe anything unless you see it. Ever been to Europe or maybe that doesnt exist to you. How about taj mahal, the great wall the Egyptian pyramids been there or just seen pictures? If you accept these exist then obviously your willing to accept common knowledge and pictures as proof guess what we have both proving we went to the moon.

reply to post by dragonridr


That was not what I said, at all. I just do not faithfully accept everything I'm said as absolute truth, by anyone. Or anything as immutable or impossible. Most of the time I simply withed judgment as most things have no real impact in my life, if it does have impact I try to obtain verification or at least a rational that validates the claim, because of this I rarely find my self in trouble of modifying my opinion about anything as I only invest myself into issues that do really impact me and I'm not easily swayed by trends and the opinion of others or take much consideration in regard to reputations or credentials. Trust to me is something that is not given, it is won...

I believe that this is a good philosophy and it has served me well. I have yet to find anything that I could do to this mind process of examining reality around myself that would improve it.