TFC 28th June 09 guests Rafeeg & Ognir- ZioMoon Landing Hoax

[ahaze]

A simple viewing of the Discovery Channel's "When We Left Earth"  delivers so much extensive footage of astronauts on the moon from Apollo 11 through Apollo 17 that this entire thread shouldn't have any problem convincing casual lurkers who've seen the series of our capacities for idiotic and asinine theorizing.  

So these two clips of supposed final moments on the moon they probably rigged the hammer with wires, right!? and the LEM liftoff was probably crude CGI (nevermind it was 1972), right!?

Astronaut Schmitt throws his hammer (Apollo 17)
[youtube:3e8ocrs2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIvTZLlV4F0[/youtube]3e8ocrs2]

Apollo 17 Lunar Liftoff
[youtube:3e8ocrs2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iziumcklDbM[/youtube]3e8ocrs2]

And in this camera trick they had wires on the ground to pull the feather down as fast as the hammer, riiight!?

Apollo 15 Hammer and Feather Experiment
[youtube:3e8ocrs2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE81zGhnb0w[/youtube]3e8ocrs2]


And Neil Armstrong knows he's a lousy public speaker but a very capable pilot, hence his self-deprecating intro about birds capable of speaking (parrots) incapable of flying well (the irony which appears lost on those construing some sort of hidden confession), but that cryptic comment he made back in 1994 does hold some interesting implications.

Today we have with us a group of students, among America's best.  To you we say we've only completed a beginning. We leave you much that is undone.  There are great ideas undiscovered.  Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truths protective layers.  There are places to go beyond belief.  Those challenges are yours.  In many fields, not the least of which is space because there lies human destiny.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

As for the hammer, ahaze, the general theory is that the tapes are slowed down. Slowing down the tapes makes those running appear to be bouncing with little or no gravity, so it makes sense why the hammer throw would be given a similar effect.

What's with you Yanks? Would confessing the moon hoax landing make you feel inferior or something? I don't get it. Patriotism shouldn't be built on such trivialities anyways.

Look what happened when man tried to defy God: man declared that the Titanic was unsinkable, even by the Almighty Himself. God showed man.

Man again tried to defy God by going to the moon, but God had a little trick up his sleeve--the old Van Allen Radiation belts. God showed man. Furthermore, man didn't defy God in the '60s; instead, man defied (deceived) man.

[Whaler]

What's with you Yanks? Would confessing the moon hoax landing make you feel inferior or something? I don't get it. Patriotism shouldn't be built on such trivialities anyways.

Look what happened when man tried to defy God: man declared that the Titanic was unsinkable, even by the Almighty Himself. God showed man.

Man again tried to defy God by going to the moon, but God had a little trick up his sleeve--the old Van Allen Radiation belts. God showed man. Furthermore, man didn't defy God in the '60s; instead, man defied (deceived) man.

This has nothing to do with being a "yank". This has to do with not believing in an ill conceived, poorly supported/wacky conspiracy theory. I just posted a video of a British guy debunking the moon hoax theory....yet you want to turn it into a "yank" thing. Tim, It's obvious you have a huge bug up your ass about America/Americans. An alarming amount of these gun ho moon hoaxers are products of the British Commonwealth nations. Not any experts or any scientists...just "blokes" pointing out some anomalies.

Get an engineers for 911 truth type group and I will take your poisonous conspiracy theory seriously. Where are the Canadian/British/German/French/Russian/Chinese scientists and experts debunking the moon landing??? There isn't any...

This has been posted before and has yet to be debunked through a logical argument.

Mythbuster's Proofing Moonlanding Isn't A Hoax



http://www.youtube.com/user/donnei1992# ... 152A4546D8

[pas]

Go ask The Mythbusters who did 911, or about homicidal gas chambers of WWII.

The Mythbusters are useless on talmudic myths.

And on that British guy, he's not convincing me with his fancy formula's and scientific yada-yada.
I'm a simple guy who didn't finish school, and i don't see any simple, straight foreward proof that Man went to the Moon.
What i see is: propaganda, theft and lies.

But, to be honest, i could be to dumb to see the evidence

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Yes, pas. I am surprised Whaler would use the Kosher mythbusters. You might as well use Wikipedia.

The point is, Whaler, the above videos prove nothing.

[ahaze]

This has been posted before and has yet to be debunked through a logical argument.

Mythbuster's Proofing Moonlanding Isn't A Hoax

I find it half entertaining how the detractors retreat to ad hominem, and since they can't stick to the rules of cogent debate, I see no point in responding.  Just like the official 9/11 story, the ad hominem "counter points" collapse in free fall time.  

The mythbusters moon landing hoax demolishes any shred of the half credible  questions denying reality - the non-parallel shadow picture, the illuminated astronaut in the shadow of the LEM photo, the impossibly clear footprint (purportedly sans moisture), the flapping flag (purportedly sans wind), slow motion faking 1/6th gravity - none of it stands up.  Plus mythbusters points out the reflectors left on the Moon are still there supporting ongoing astronomical research utilizing laser reflection.  Not to mention the volumes of footage showing real time labors on the moon displaying object event flow in the vacuous 1/6th-Earth-gravity environment.  But to me the simple demonstration of hammer and feather synchronously dropping in 1/6-Earth-gravity free-fall time makes clear the moon environment, and here's another vid showing incidents of objects thrown on the Moon behaving according to 1/6-Earth-grav while the real time motion of the astronauts demonstrates no camera tricks.

Six clips of objects thrown on the Moon
[youtube:1ocphug7]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isVO9AAAhxM[/youtube]1ocphug7]


So then the question becomes what motivates the ardent denial?  Why the refusal to acknowledge scientific achievement?  Hmmm, indigenous ideological ignorance? psycho-spiritual mythological defensiveness? racial superiority complex?  Maybe, but with all the advanced tech of the current infrastructure, and a century of suppression of scientific breakthrough, could it be the denial of reality stems from an agenda to seize up understanding and prevent perception of current infrastructure exploitation while secretly capitalizing on undisclosed scientific achievement in pursuit of self interested aims?  Hmmm, now that sounds more like the J-tribe mindset we know not to love.

There's no question whether mankind explored the Moon, but there're a lot of questions about what's ensued since then, especially since inception and launch of the space shuttle (early '80's) when confidence in space development warranted launching billion dollar satellites and telescopes, and embarking on space station construction.  With all the heavy tech space achievements, and all the denial of suppressed science from Tesla's radiant energy on through to T. Townsend Brown's electrogravitics, (along with all these ruse denials of reality), the obvious question becomes what "magical" scientific technological innovations have the PTB  withheld while terrorizing and sickening the Earth?  Seems like we've got a few advocates endorsing the sick agenda here, maybe they can explain.

[Christopher Marlowe]

A simple viewing of the Discovery Channel's "When We Left Earth" delivers so much extensive footage of astronauts on the moon from Apollo 11 through Apollo 17 that this entire thread shouldn't have any problem convincing casual lurkers who've seen the series of our capacities for idiotic and asinine theorizing.

Oh no.  I want to fit in with the casual lurkers. They are so cool. I am so embarrassed and ashamed. I think I'm getting a zit....

Characterizing the opposing side as asinine does not win the argument. From my perspective, I cannot understand how any reasonable person can see wires leading up several feet from two astronauts at the same time, and not realize that these fellows are being supported by a pulley system.  What are we supposed to think? That those are moon wires that grow on the moon?

People wonder how a top secret film could be made with no one squealing, but we have evidence of similar secrets kept. The Soviet Union built a huge rocket to go to the moon, the N-1, but they never used it.  That was a huge project, and it was kept secret until Glasnost.

There was a secret underground government film studio right in the middle of Los Angeles that was kept secret.  

In 1947, the Army Air Corps built its top-secret movie production studio on
> Wonderland Park Avenue. Military training films and Department of Defense
> documentaries were churned out, including a particularly famous series on the
> aboveground nuclear tests in Nevada. The studio was deactivated in 1969, and
> thanks to the efforts of the Laurel Canyon Association, it was prevented from
> being zoned for further commercial activity.
>
> http://www.laurelcanyon.org/Images/20th ... ghttp://ww
> w.laurelcanyon.org/Images/20th%20History/LookoutMtStudio3.jpg
>
>
> The top secret 1352d Motion Picture Squadron (Lookout Mountain Laboratory)
> hidden in the valley of Wonderland Park Avenue. The studio created
> documentaries on Nevada nuclear tests among other projects and is now a unique
> residence complex.
>
> David Guyatt
> 02-01-2009, 09:32 AM
> http://www.mouseplanet.com/articles.php?art=mg060222eb
>
> My Family Disney Dynasty, Part 1
>
> After the war he worked as a freelance commercial artist in Los Angeles, and
> in 1951 he joined the animation section at the U.S. Air Force Lookout Mountain
> Laboratory, Hollywood's ³secret² film studio. There he worked as a layout,
> background and story-sketch artist on training and informational films for the
> Air Force and Atomic Energy Commission, traveled to Yucca Flat in Nevada and
> Eniwetok in the Pacific to witness atomic and hydrogen bomb testing.
>
> http://www.sott.net/articles/show/15691 ... ut-Mostly-
> True-Story-of-Laurel-Canyon-and-the-Birth-of-the-Hippie-Generation-Part-IV
>
> What would become known as Lookout Mountain Laboratory was originally
> envisioned as an air defense center. Built in 1941 and nestled in
> two-and-a-half secluded acres off what is now Wonderland Park Avenue, the
> installation was hidden from view and surrounded by an electrified fence. By
> 1947, the facility featured a fully operational movie studio. In fact, it is
> claimed that it was perhaps the world's only completely self-contained movie
> studio. With 100,000 square feet of floor space, the covert studio included
> sound stages, screening rooms, film processing labs, editing facilities, an
> animation department, and seventeen climate-controlled film vaults. It also
> had underground parking, a helicopter pad and a bomb shelter.
>
>
>
>
> ©Unknown
> Lookout Mountain Laboratory
>
> Over its lifetime, the studio produced some 19,000 classified motion pictures
> - more than all the Hollywood studios combined (which I guess makes Laurel
> Canyon the real 'motion picture capital of the world'). Officially, the
> facility was run by the U.S. Air Force and did nothing more nefarious than
> process AEC footage of atomic and nuclear bomb tests. The studio, however, was
> clearly equipped to do far more than just process film. There are indications
> that Lookout Mountain Laboratory had an advanced research and development
> department that was on the cutting edge of new film technologies. Such
> technological advances as 3-D effects were apparently first developed at the
> Laurel Canyon site. And Hollywood luminaries like John Ford, Jimmy Stewart,
> Howard Hawks, Ronald Reagan, Bing Crosby, Walt Disney and Marilyn Monroe were
> given clearance to work at the facility on undisclosed projects. There is no
> indication that any of them ever spoke of their work at the clandestine
> studio.
>
> http://www.sott.net/image/image/9078/medium/LML.jpg
> ©Unknown
>
> The facility retained as many as 250 producers, directors, technicians,
> editors, animators, etc., both civilian and military, all with top security
> clearances - and all reporting to work in a secluded corner of Laurel Canyon.
> Accounts vary as to when the facility ceased operations. Some claim it was in
> 1969, while others say the installation remained in operation longer. In any
> event, by all accounts the secret bunker had been up and running for more than
> twenty years before Laurel Canyon's rebellious teen years, and it remained
> operational for the most turbulent of those years.
>
> The existence of the facility remained unknown to the general public until the
> early 1990s, though it had long been rumored that the CIA operated a secret
> movie studio somewhere in or near Hollywood. Filmmaker Peter Kuran was the
> first to learn of its existence, through classified documents he obtained
> while researching his 1995 documentary, "Trinity and Beyond." And yet even
> today, some 15 years after its public disclosure, one would have trouble
> finding even a single mention of this secret military/intelligence facility
> anywhere in the 'conspiracy' literature.

There are probably a half dozens ways that the feather drop could be faked, but the easiest way would be to have a metal feather or insert a heavy metal implant. Easy.

The hammer throw is interesting, but I can't really see it very well.

I don't know how they could have faked that LEM shot.  They would have needed...a milk carton, some gold paint and some sky rockets.  The LEM looks totally fake to me.  I don't know what that is supposed to prove.

This has been posted before and has yet to be debunked through a logical argument.

Really Whaler?  Mythbusters?  Really?  Doesn't watching that show make you want to scratch you own eyes out?  To me, this is the equivalent of NOVA's coverage of the "9/11 conspiracy".  Remember that?  They misrepresented the structure of the WTC in order to lend credence to the heat-induced collapse.  

The mythbusters "busted" the "moon hoax" by showing how the astronaut walks on the moon couldn't have been faked.  They compared one mythbuster shabat goyim being held up by wires to the apollo astronaut footage; then they compared that mythbuster shabat goyim filmed in slow motion to the apollo astronaut footage.  Both could not duplicate the apollo footage.  

But we are supposed to believe that the clever mythbusters never thought to use wires AND slow down the footage at the same time.  When this is done, it fairly matches what we see in the Apollo footage.  But the mythbusters couldn't think to do this?  Here is WhiteJarrah, who does a great job of debunking all of the CIA-NASA hand waving.

Notice that when the Mythbuster guy answers about why he didn't use slow motion and wires at the same time, he rubs his nose.  That is body language for conscious lying.  He is rubbing his nose because he "nose" he is lying. He sounds the same way that NIST engineer John Gross sounded when he was confronted with the lies about the WTC collapse.  
[youtube:9rtvaevf]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TH4BfIwBXs[/youtube]9rtvaevf]
In this video, JW confronts the mythbusters with the fact that: 1) signals can be bounced off the moon WITHOUT any device being planted on the moon; and 2) the fact that the Russians sent up a reflector to the moon without any astronauts.  Both of those facts where not in the MIC-friendly mythbusters.  

JW also shows how the first apollo crew bungled the question about seeing stars from the surface of the moon.  They probably were so amazed at all of the stars they could see, that they forgot they could see any.  That's probably what happened.  That's like the time I went to the beach, and I forgot there was an ocean.
[youtube:9rtvaevf]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynSL0NpUEBU[/youtube]9rtvaevf]

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Tim, It's obvious you have a huge bug up your ass about America/Americans.

Not really. My point is that the patriotism thing--as faux as it is--was a key to ingraining this hoax into the minds of Americans as a real event. Emotionalizing a lie makes the listener more susceptible to embracing it. All I am saying is for people like you to detach yourself from this carefully crafted mechanism; it's an illusion.

Re: 1352d Motion Picture Squadron

CM, I wonder if that is where they make the Bin Laden segments, too.

IN that Plait segment, he not only rubs his nose, but he stumbles and fumbles like Alex Jones when the Jewish question is brought up. He comes off as defeated.

I wonder if that reporter even knows what a strawman theory is.

Oh, the tail end of that last video: Joe Rogan pops up. So he helped Plait set up the strawman...good ole Jewish Joe Rogan, confidante of Alex Judas Goat Jones.

[Father Brown]

Tim, It's obvious you have a huge bug up your ass about America/Americans.

Not really. My point is that the patriotism thing--as faux as it is--was a key to ingraining this hoax into the minds of Americans as a real event. Emotionalizing a lie makes the listener more susceptible to embracing it. All I am saying is for people like you to detach yourself from this carefully crafted mechanism; it's an illusion.

Re: 1352d Motion Picture Squadron

Your mentioning of the 1352nd Motion Picture Squadron, in particular, and the rest of your post inspires a thought in me. Part of it I had before. Here is what is new. I am reminded of Leni, I forget her last name, who made movies like Triumph of the Will. Patriotic propaganda at its finest. Seems we got the rocket program from the Nazis and also copied their propaganda in our own new form.

It also is just amazing to me, and it must be beyond coincidence, that TV was relatively new in the '60s. What better way to try out this new toy in the hands of the Zionist and Illuminst Engineers than to see how malleable this media could really make us? It was the most exciting series in all of television during this time period. These guys probably just looted the taxpayers, and/or, they used some or a lot of the loot to weaponize space, or create spy sattelites or maybe run their drug business, launder money, who knows?

[Christopher Marlowe]

The Lookout Mtn Studio is supposedly closed now, but I wondered if they might have produced the moon hoax films there.  As noted above, Lookout Mtn was completely self-contained.  Most studios in Hollywood farm out the post production work to developing labs, sound studios, editing bays, etc...

Leni Riefenstahl. Fr. Brown, you might be interested in reading this very humorous study on the moon hoax: "Wagging the Moon Doggie" by Dave McGowan.  He talks about von Braun's connections to an old silent film about a trip to the moon:

The first Apollo contract was awarded just two months later, in July of 1961, for the sophisticated navigation system that would allegedly guide the spacecraft to the Moon. In an unusual move, NASA opted not to solicit bids for the guidance system; instead, the contract was handed directly to MIT, generating "immediate controversy," as noted by Moon Machines. As one of the show's talking-heads noted, "There was actually a budding industry out there that had developed guidance systems and people from industry were quite upset. They felt that they should have been given the chance to bid on the contract – and a university is not ordinarily what the government contracts out to build hardware for operational systems."

There was, alas, nothing ordinary about the Apollo project.

The man NASA turned to first, long before awarding any of the other Apollo contracts, was one Charles Draper, who ran MIT's instrumentation lab, which would later carry Draper's name. Draper was generally described as an eccentric, charismatic, colorful gent whose background was in physics and, curiously, psychology. He is widely considered to be the father of the inertial guidance system.

Perhaps significantly, Bill Kaysing, the first Apollo skeptic to gain prominence, has claimed that it was MIT (in conjunction with DARPA) that provided NASA with the blueprint for how to plausibly simulate manned trips to the Moon. If true, then it of course makes perfect sense that NASA would have turned directly and immediately to MIT, and would have done so without taking any outside bids. Until MIT completed their work and provided the space agency with an outline of the project, it would seem, NASA wouldn't have known what other contracts to award.

The fact that the project landed on the desk of Charles Draper is perhaps significant, given that the name 'Draper' is a rather notorious one in twentieth century American history – and one that is closely tied to the name 'Bush.' It is a name that appears more than once on the membership list of everyone's favorite secret society, Skull & Bones (Herbert Draper Gallaudet [1898], Arthur Draper [1937], William Draper III [1950]). It is a name that was prominently featured in the American eugenics movement, with General William Draper, Jr. serving as founder and chairman of the Population Crisis Committee and vice-chairman of the Birth Control League (as Planned Parenthood was originally known). General Draper, a close friend of the Bush family, also helped finance the 1932 International Eugenics Conference. Many years later, during the Apollo era, Draper advised LBJ on population reduction strategies.
........
One final note about General Draper (whose son, Bonesman William Draper III, served as the chief of fundraising for George Bush's 1980 presidential campaign): he was a member of the Society of American Magicians. In other words, William Draper, Jr. considered himself to be something of an expert in the art of illusion. Perhaps the same could be said of Charles Draper of MIT.

According to Moon Machines, Draper and his team got to work on the Apollo guidance system in the spring of 1962. Given that Moon Machines also contends that the contract was awarded to MIT in early summer of 1961, the question that is naturally begged is: why, with the clock ticking and with an absurdly short timeframe to pull the Apollo project together, would the MIT team have waited almost a year to get started? Or did they, in fact, spend that first year working on their real assignment – mapping out the key elements of the simulation?

If so, then they apparently spent a fair amount of time viewing an obscure German silent film by the name of Die Frau im Mond (The Woman in the Moon), as noted in the painfully long documentary, What Happened on the Moon? The German feature film, released by filmmaker Fritz Lang in 1929, provided the blueprint for the heavily ritualized launch procedures that were adopted for the Apollo program. As can be seen in the screen caps below, all of the elements were there: the unnecessary vertical construction of the spaceship in a specially built hangar; the grand opening of the massive hangar doors; the excruciatingly slow roll-out of the upright rocketship from the hangar to the launch pad; the raucous crowds watching the spectacle live; the now ubiquitous countdown; even the shedding of two stages of the ship. In other words, the only elements of the performance that the public ever actually witnessed were all lifted directly from a forty-year-old silent film.

Fritz Lang's technical adviser on the film was Herman Oberth, considered to be one of the three founding fathers of rocketry. Assisting Oberth on the film project, according to the previously quoted Time-Life book To the Moon, was one of his brightest students, nineteen-year-old Wernher von Braun. A decade-and-a-half later, both Oberth and von Braun would be scooped up through the Paperclip project and brought to America to work on, among other things, the Apollo program, whose choreography just happened to very closely match that of the fake Moon launch Oberth and von Braun had crafted forty years earlier.

"Wagging the Moon Doggie" is presented in 13 parts here:  http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/index.html

Here is something new that I learned: Being on the moon makes you transparent.
[youtube:1l4jyc59]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQgWzAXjb4k[/youtube]1l4jyc59]

[ahaze]

Characterizing the opposing side as asinine does not win the argument. From my perspective, I cannot understand how any reasonable person can see wires leading up several feet from two astronauts at the same time, and not realize that these fellows are being supported by a pulley system. What are we supposed to think? That those are moon wires that grow on the moon?

I didn't characterize the opposing side as asinine, I characterized the denial of the public record as asinine, but given your other postings I should've anticipated the difficulty you'd have making that distinction.  So spelling out a little more clearly, it seems asinine to deny the volumes of publicly available records on the moon landings demonstrating they happened while exercising isolated scopes of forum postings to pose ruse curiosities.  And while I find it difficult to perceive the preciously proclaimed wires, I find it more disconcerting forum participants have difficulty perceiving objects thrown on the moon behaving according to moon gravity concurrent with people moving in real time.

This has been posted before and has yet to be debunked through a logical argument.

Really Whaler? Mythbusters? Really? Doesn't watching that show make you want to scratch you own eyes out? To me, this is the equivalent of NOVA's coverage of the "9/11 conspiracy". Remember that? They misrepresented the structure of the WTC in order to lend credence to the heat-induced collapse.

I think it infinitely appropriate that you're best qualified to chastise others for selectively cherry picking information based on your demonstrated strengths in bias with your Bible study teachings.  Nope, nobody sees the Judaic compromises to thinking in orthodox Christian teaching, and nobody notices when personal attacks avoid engaging facts (but since you're not interested in engaging research busting the conspiracy hoax, we can let it rest).

I know too many people like myself who've worked through the material on the "moon landing hoax" canard and come up empty.  There's just no substance to any of the so called "pwoof it didn't happen" compared to the volumes of data demonstrating everything from Apollo 11 through to Apollo 17 did happen (sans A-13).  Exercising the isolated scope of forum posting may lend itself well to inflaming doubts, but looks pretty idiotic to a lot of people I know that I'm trying to get to take a look at the information out here, so I thought I'd mention the concern.  

But don't let me spoil the fun, please feel free to selectively cherry pick curiosities and inflate them into pwoof.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Ahaze, we may not be able to prove the Apollo's alleged moon landing, but on the other side can you prove it did? There were no third-party witnesses who weren't bought off that can verify the veracity of NASA's, and the MSM's, claims.

I find it interesting that people have the capacity to know of the Jewish conspiracy, yet fall for the obvious Zionist ruse of this "moon landing." Is it a coincidence that the moon deniers on this forum are almost exclusively Americans?

You have nothing to lose by admitting the Jews control the world, but you--being a baby boomer I assume--have a lot to lose by admitting a defining moment in your life is a complete lie. It's understandable. But at the same time, it's time to get over it.

[MonkeySeeMonkeyDo]

Ahaze, we may not be able to prove the Apollo's alleged moon landing, but on the other side can you prove it did? There were no third-party witnesses who weren't bought off that can verify the veracity of NASA's, and the MSM's, claims.

I can't believe my eyes.  :shock:

How many credible 'eyewitnesses' were there to the "immaculate conception", Jesus' walk-on-water tale, Jesus' ressurection from the dead tale and his bird-flight into heaven tale, all of which you actually believe in, huh? How can you maintain this appalling and ludicrous double standard when it comes to "evidence"?  :lol:  :lol:

[Whaler]

I love this. FOX... the maniacal Jew evil empire channel runs a special about the moon landing hoax and takes an obscure and kooky conspiracy theory dreamed by crackpots and launches it into the mainstream...yet you guys are trying to make it seem like Jews are trying to silence you and cover it up. Give me a break. :roll:

 Aren't Jews constantly whining about the Nazis and Nasa?? Look at all of the coast to coast conspirotard stuff and there is endless Nasa/Nazi conspiracy nonsense. The moonhoax is Jew disinfo period. It's a trap to lump all believers in a Jewish/banking/media criminal network conspiracy with moonhoaxers. Classic poisoning of the well...yet you guys are willfully running into the ambush.

Again...tell me when Fox does a holohoax special. Also tell me when they will have their primetime special on Israel's role in 911. Tell me when youtube deletes your moonhoax videos and you start getting harassed by JIDF trolls. So basically the argument trying to say that the moonlandings were a Jewish conspiracy is bonkers.  :crazy:

Are you guys aware of what the Jewish collective was doing in the 1960's? They blew the guy's head off that made the directive for NASA to go to the moon before the decade ended.(JFK) They were actively engaged in radical communist activities, they were actively involved in morally corrupting the culture through the mass media. I think you guys don't quite get what the Jews goal was during the 60's. They were trying to pull of a Bolshevik style revolution. The Jewish media were the first ones to blow the whistle on the Pentagon papers and criticize the Vietnam war. They were the first to cover Watergate and impeach Nixon. Jews were actively involved in every non 'patriotic'/destabilizing movement during this time. It was certainly not making Americans feel good and patriotic...it was too stir the shit... Saying the moon landings are a hoax would fit into this agenda perfectly.

Jewish Communist
Mass Mind-Control
(Psycho-politics)

Text Revised and Edited by: Lt. Col. Gordon "Jack" Mohr U.S. Army, Retired

INTRODUCTION

The booklet you are about to read is an English paraphrase of a Red Communist "textbook" used both in The Soviet Union and in America to train Communist agents in the art of deceiving non-communists with words and with false precepts.
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgov ... party.html

CHAPTER V
AN EXAMINATION OF LOYALTIES

In rearranging loyalties we must have a command of their values. In the animal the first loyalty is to himself. This is destroyed by demonstrating errors to him, showing him that he does not remember, cannot act or does not trust himself. The second loyalty is to his family unit, his parents and brothers and sisters. This is destroyed by making a family unit economically non-dependent, by lessening the value of marriage, by making an easiness of divorce and by raising the children wherever possible by the State. The next loyalty is to his friends and local environment. This is destroyed by lowering his trust and bringing about reporting upon him allegedly by his fellows, or the town or village authorities. The next is to the State and this, for the purposes of Communism, is the only loyalty which should exist once the state is founded as a Communist State. To destroy loyalty to the State all manner of forbidding for youth must be put into effect so as to disenfranchise them as members of the Capitalist state and, by promises of a better lot under Communism, to gain their loyalty to a Communist movement.

Denying a Capitalist country easy access to courts, bringing about and supporting propaganda to destroy the home, creating and continuous juvenile delinquency, forcing upon the state all manner of practices to divorce the child from it will in the end create the chaos necessary to Communism. Note: Current efforts to take very young children from parental care and place in govt. run day-care centers. See Feb. 1976 House Bill #2966 and Senate Bill #626.

By making readily available drugs of various kinds, by giving the teenager alcohol, by praising his wildness, by stimulating him with sex literature and advertising to him or her practices as taught at the Sexpol, * the psycho-political operator can create the necessary attitude of chaos, idleness and worthlessness into which can then be cast the solution which will give the teenager complete freedom everywhere - Communism. Note: Current efforts towards S.E.I.C.U.S. education in the public school.

Should it be possible to continue conscription beyond any reasonable time by promoting unpopular wars and other means the draft can always stand as a further barrier to the progress of youth in life, destroying any immediate hope to participate in his nation's civil life.

By these means patriotism of youth for their Capitalistic flag can be dulled to a point where they are no longer dangerous as soldiers. While this might require many decades to effect, Capitalism's short term view will never envision the lengths across which we can plan. If we could effectively kill the national pride and patriotism of just one generation we will have won that country. Therefore there must be continual propaganda abroad to undermine the loyalty of the citizens in general and the teenager in particular.

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgov ... a-sds.html
HOW JEWS CONTROLLED
THE NEW LEFT OF THE 1960'S

From, Chapter 3, "Radical Jews: The Dilemmas of Marginality," Roots of Radicalism, by Rothman and Lichter, Oxford University Press, New York & Oxford, pages 80-84.

To begin with, Americans of Jewish background were disproportionately represented among the leadership and cadres of the Movement until the mid--1960's. At the time they constituted under 3 percent of the population of the United States, and about 10 percent of the students at colleges and universities. Yet, they provided a majority of its most active members and perhaps even a larger proportion of its top leadership. They also provided a very significant proportion of the intellectual community's most vocal supporters of the student movement.

Many of these young people came from liberal or radical families. Some of their parents had been quite active on the Left during the 1930's but later toned down their political activities while retaining their basic value orientations. As early as the 1962 Washington peace demonstration, students of Jewish background constituted over 40 percent of those participants whose religious back-ground could be identified. [Frederick Solomon and Jacob R. Fishman, "Youth and Peace: A Psychosocial Study of Student Peace Demonstrators in Washington, D.C.," Journal of Social Issues 20 (Oct. 1964): 54-73.]

Perhaps more significantly, the early SDS was heavily Jewish both in its leadership and its activist cadres. Key SDS leaders included Richard Flacks, who played an important role in its formation and growth, as well as Al Haber, Robb Ross, Steve Max, Mike Spiegal, Mike Klonsky, Todd Gitlin, Mark Rudd, and others. Indeed, during its first few years, SDS was largely funded by the League for Industrial Democracy, a heavily Jewish socialist (but anti-communist) organization. [See Kirkpatrick Sale, SDS (New York: Vintage, 1973), and Arthur Liebman, Jews and the Left (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1979).]

SDS's early successes were at elite universities containing substantial numbers of Jewish students and sympathetic Jewish faculty, including the University of Wisconsin at Madison, Brandeis, Oberlin, and the University of California at Berkeley. SDS leaders were not unaware of their roots. As Robb Ross put it, describing the situation at the University of Wisconsin in the early 1960's,

my impression is that the left at Madison is not a new left, but a revival of the old . . . with all the problems that entails. I am struck by the lack of Wisconsin born people in the left and the massive preponderance of New York Jews. The situation at the University of Minnesota is similar. [Quoted in Liebman, ibid., p.549.]

http://rac.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=21 ... ge_id=2394

During the Civil Rights Movement, Jewish activists represented a disproportionate number of whites involved in the struggle. Jews made up half of the young people who participated in the Mississippi Freedom Summer in 1964. Leaders of the Reform Movement were arrested with Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in St. Augustine, Florida, in 1964 after a challenge to racial segregation in public accommodations. Most famously, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel marched arm-in-arm with Dr. King in his 1965 March on Selma.


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were drafted in the conference room of Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, under the aegis of the Leadership Conference, which for decades was located in the RAC's building. The Jewish community has continued its support of civil rights laws addressing persistent discrimination in voting, housing and employment against not only women and people of color but also in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community and the disabled community. Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, is currently the only non-African-American member of the NAACP board.

It doesn't really matter though, I have never seen a group like the moonhaxers. They can have all of their arguments debunked but they just keep swinging away. Just look at the debates I posted. It's the same kind of pattern... always.

I think this will be my last post on this issue because I don't want what is a relatively minor issue for me turning into an issue.

So nothing personal. I don't think you guys are dumb or evil for believing the moon landings were faked...just wrong.

[Christopher Marlowe]

First off, I wanted to point out that both Ahaze and MSMD have seen fit to criticize other people's religious beliefs in response to our questioning the Apollo moon landings.  

I think it infinitely appropriate that you're best qualified to chastise others for selectively cherry picking information based on your demonstrated strengths in bias with your Bible study teachings.  Nope, nobody sees the Judaic compromises to thinking in orthodox Christian teaching, and nobody notices when personal attacks avoid engaging facts (but since you're not interested in engaging research busting the conspiracy hoax, we can let it rest).

How many credible 'eyewitnesses' were there to the "immaculate conception", Jesus' walk-on-water tale, Jesus' ressurection from the dead tale and his bird-flight into heaven tale, all of which you actually believe in, huh? How can you maintain this appalling and ludicrous double standard when it comes to "evidence"?

Gentlemen, if you believe, for religious reasons, that men landed on the moon, I am sorry for having attacked your religion.  If it is not your religious belief, then I would ask you not to refer to mine.  

I have not brought my religion into this debate, and I see no reason for others to do so. I could just as easily another persons beliefs, or lack thereof, but I don't think it has a place here.  Whether someone believes in God, or how they interpret the Bible doesn't seem relevant in this debate, and it seems to work only as an ad hom.

This subject line was re-opened a couple pages back by TF and Whaler, who good naturedly wrote:

TF: Anyone for more moon landing talk?
W: Yeah I guess Timbo. Keep it clean cuz it's not really that big of a deal for me. I have done some research on this after seeing "hoaxers" get repeatedly schooled in debates. I am pretty certain that there is not one single valid argument for a hoax. I have seen all of them get completely destroyed....So if you wanna post one, I will try to come back with a debunking point. Give me an hour or two though....and I will extend you the same courtesy of a two hour buffer between posts. It is important that we get this sorted out cuz right now it's a distraction of monumental proportions.

To me, "keep it clean" means that people aren't going to criticize my religious beliefs when I'm discussing the moon landing. That doesn't sound to much to ask, does it?

Characterizing the opposing side as asinine does not win the argument. From my perspective, I cannot understand how any reasonable person can see wires leading up several feet from two astronauts at the same time, and not realize that these fellows are being supported by a pulley system. What are we supposed to think? That those are moon wires that grow on the moon?

I didn't characterize the opposing side as asinine, I characterized the denial of the public record as asinine, but given your other postings I should've anticipated the difficulty you'd have making that distinction.  So spelling out a little more clearly, it seems asinine to deny the volumes of publicly available records on the moon landings demonstrating they happened...

This is what is known as a distinction without a difference.  Watch me do it:
I'm not calling my opponent asinine, I'm calling people who question the official story, that has lots of facts to back it up, asinine.  

Addressing the substance: Volumes of publicly available records? Do you mean public records like the Warren Commission report, or the 9/11 commission report? Or are you talking about volumes of public records that show the solar flares that took place during the apollo missions? There are volumes of reasons to believe that the apollo missions were faked.  

And while I find it difficult to perceive the preciously proclaimed wires...

They are thin bright lines that run straight up from the astronauts to the top of the frame.  Freeze it at 1:19.
[youtube:b40t8akc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23_QdAz2tfY[/youtube]b40t8akc]

I find it more disconcerting forum participants have difficulty perceiving objects thrown on the moon behaving according to moon gravity concurrent with people moving in real time.

If the apollo landings were faked using special effects, as is demonstrated by the transparent astronaut video, then using a video of special effects is hardly proof of anything.  Could I post a video of "The Terminator", and use that as proof that killer robots exist? Those are bitchin special effects!
[youtube:b40t8akc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBJUyYuzivo[/youtube]b40t8akc]

There's just no substance to any of the so called "pwoof it didn't happen" compared to the volumes of data demonstrating everything from Apollo 11 through to Apollo 17 did happen (sans A-13).  Exercising the isolated scope of forum posting may lend itself well to inflaming doubts, but looks pretty idiotic to a lot of people I know that I'm trying to get to take a look at the information out here, so I thought I'd mention the concern.  

But don't let me spoil the fun, please feel free to selectively cherry pick curiosities and inflate them into pwoof. [/quote]
Yes.  People have been calling me a "twoofer" for years because I doubt the official story of 9/11.  

There are many rational arguments that show the apollo landings were faked.  Here are two:

1) The Russians were leading the space race, but they couldn't make it to the moon because of the danger of radiation. So the US won the race to the moon by....ignoring the radiation. Now the radiation still does exist when you talk about putting satellites into high orbit; and the shuttle also manages to stay below the Van Allen belts; but the Apollo astronauts were immune to radiation poisoning from the VA belts, and from the solar flares while they were on the moon.  That's not cherry picking evidence.  Radiation is the reason no one has ever gone beyond the VA belts.  

2) Moon dust

From Wagging the Moon Doggie:
As previously discussed, NASA nowadays acknowledges that dealing with lunar dust will require the development of sophisticated new technology. No explanation has been provided, of course, for why the Apollo astronauts didn't have any problems with the dust despite allegedly venturing out on multiple EVAs during their alleged missions.

During the alleged Apollo 17 mission, for example, our fearless astronauts supposedly took the Moon buggy out on three separate occasions, returning each time, by their own accounts, covered from head to toe in Moon dust, which they necessarily would have brought back into the lunar module with them, and then ultimately transferred to the command module when the supposed docking later took place. Why then is there no mention in the Apollo literature of any health problems arising from this, or of any problems with any of the delicate instrumentation, or of any problems with any of the door seals? If it is "difficult to filter out of habitats" even with the technology we possess today, then how were we able to do it 40+ years ago?

The 'debunker' crowd, despite loudly proclaiming that they have thoroughly debunked every 'conspiracy' claim that has ever been made, has had nothing to say on this issue. I wonder why that is?

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Well done, CM. You have graciously refuted them. Let's see if they can graciously come up with another angle.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

I love this. FOX... the maniacal Jew evil empire channel runs a special about the moon landing hoax and takes an obscure and kooky conspiracy theory dreamed by crackpots and launches it into the mainstream...yet you guys are trying to make it seem like Jews are trying to silence you and cover it up. Give me a break. :roll:

 Aren't Jews constantly whining about the Nazis and Nasa?? Look at all of the coast to coast conspirotard stuff and there is endless Nasa/Nazi conspiracy nonsense. The moonhoax is Jew disinfo period. It's a trap to lump all believers in a Jewish/banking/media criminal network conspiracy with moonhoaxers. Classic poisoning of the well...yet you guys are willfully running into the ambush.

Again...tell me when Fox does a holohoax special. Also tell me when they will have their primetime special on Israel's role in 911. Tell me when youtube deletes your moonhoax videos and you start getting harassed by JIDF trolls. So basically the argument trying to say that the moonlandings were a Jewish conspiracy is bonkers.  :crazy:

Are you guys aware of what the Jewish collective was doing in the 1960's? They blew the guy's head off that made the directive for NASA to go to the moon before the decade ended.(JFK) They were actively engaged in radical communist activities, they were actively involved in morally corrupting the culture through the mass media. I think you guys don't quite get what the Jews goal was during the 60's. They were trying to pull of a Bolshevik style revolution. The Jewish media were the first ones to blow the whistle on the Pentagon papers and criticize the Vietnam war. They were the first to cover Watergate and impeach Nixon. Jews were actively involved in every non 'patriotic'/destabilizing movement during this time. It was certainly not making Americans feel good and patriotic...it was too stir the shit... Saying the moon landings are a hoax would fit into this agenda perfectly.

Come on, Whaler, You know this is a weak argument. Jewish Hollywood, via Oliver Stone, also revealed much truth about the JFK Assassination with the Hollywood film JFK. So what? Fox News probably set up a bunch of strawmen around the airing anyways. That's what they do.

[Whaler]

I love this. FOX... the maniacal Jew evil empire channel runs a special about the moon landing hoax and takes an obscure and kooky conspiracy theory dreamed by crackpots and launches it into the mainstream...yet you guys are trying to make it seem like Jews are trying to silence you and cover it up. Give me a break. :roll:

 Aren't Jews constantly whining about the Nazis and Nasa?? Look at all of the coast to coast conspirotard stuff and there is endless Nasa/Nazi conspiracy nonsense. The moonhoax is Jew disinfo period. It's a trap to lump all believers in a Jewish/banking/media criminal network conspiracy with moonhoaxers. Classic poisoning of the well...yet you guys are willfully running into the ambush.

Again...tell me when Fox does a holohoax special. Also tell me when they will have their primetime special on Israel's role in 911. Tell me when youtube deletes your moonhoax videos and you start getting harassed by JIDF trolls. So basically the argument trying to say that the moonlandings were a Jewish conspiracy is bonkers.  :crazy:

Are you guys aware of what the Jewish collective was doing in the 1960's? They blew the guy's head off that made the directive for NASA to go to the moon before the decade ended.(JFK) They were actively engaged in radical communist activities, they were actively involved in morally corrupting the culture through the mass media. I think you guys don't quite get what the Jews goal was during the 60's. They were trying to pull of a Bolshevik style revolution. The Jewish media were the first ones to blow the whistle on the Pentagon papers and criticize the Vietnam war. They were the first to cover Watergate and impeach Nixon. Jews were actively involved in every non 'patriotic'/destabilizing movement during this time. It was certainly not making Americans feel good and patriotic...it was too stir the shit... Saying the moon landings are a hoax would fit into this agenda perfectly.

Come on, Whaler, You know this is a weak argument. Jewish Hollywood, via Oliver Stone, also revealed much truth about the JFK Assassination with the Hollywood film JFK. So what? Fox News probably set up a bunch of strawmen around the airing anyways. That's what they do.

JFK didn't reveal anything new. It was and is a limited hangout pinning the murder on the US military. Stone's money man was an Israeli arms dealer.

http://www.rense.com/general42/enemies.htm

Why didn't Oliver Stone, in his famous movie "JFK" not mention any of this? It turns out the chief financial backer of Stone's film was longtime Mossad figure, Arnon Milchan, Israel's biggest arms dealer.

 It was obviously put out there by the Jews as a disinfo tool. No mention of Mossad, the Federal reserve or anything pointing in that direction. The theory put forth in that movie pins the the whole thing on the MIC...which is classic Noam Chomsky/Jewish intellectual/Marxist academic limited hangout stuff. My father was a JFK assassination buff and there was tons of material about the JFK assassination long before that movie came out. Not comparable to the moonlanding hoax which was a relatively obscure conspiracy theory. Also, Jim Marrs was Stone's consultant on JFK...and we know who butters his bread. Don't get me wrong, JFK is an awesome movie but it's very kosher and was most likely funded by Mossad even if Stone wasn't completely aware of it.

http://www.rense.com/general42/enemies.htm

When New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison charged businessman Clay Shaw with participation in the JFK assassination conspiracy Garrison stumbled upon the Israeli Mossad connection to the murder of President Kennedy. Shaw served on the board of a shadowy corporation known as Permindex. A primary shareholder in Permindex was the Banque De Credit International of Geneva, founded by Tibor Rosenbaum, an arms procurer and financier for the Mossad.
 
What's more, the Mossad-sponsored Swiss bank was the chief "money laundry" for Meyer Lansky, the head of the international crime syndicate and an Israeli loyalist whose operations meshed closely on many fronts with the American CIA.
 
The chairman of Permindex was Louis M. Bloomfield of Montreal, a key figure in the Israeli lobby and an operative of the Bronfman family of Canada, long-time Lansky associates and among Israel's primary international patrons.
 
In the pages of "Final Judgment" the Israeli connection to the JFK assassination is explored in frightening--and fully documented--detail. For example, did you know:
 
* That JFK was engaged in a bitter secret conflict with Israel over U.S. East policy and that Israel's prime minister resigned in disgust, saying JFK's stance threatened Israel's very survival?
 
* That JFK's successor, Lyndon Johnson, immediately reversed America's policy toward Israel?
 
* That the top Mafia figures often alleged to be behind the JFK assassination were only front men for Meyer Lansky?
 
* That the CIA's liaison to the Mossad, James Angleton, was a prime mover behind the cover-up of the JFK assassination?

JFK movie could also be part of this agenda.

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occupiedgov ... party.html

If we could effectively kill the national pride and patriotism of just one generation we will have won that country. Therefore there must be continual propaganda abroad to undermine the loyalty of the citizens in general and the teenager in particular.

Becuase Jews don't mind promoting theories that undermine the gov't or military. They do it all of the time. As long as the Jews behind the curtain aren't exposed. That's why they hate 911 so much...cuz Israel was caught red handed and they know it. The whole 911 operation was for the Jews...so you saw the Jews promoting a fake patriotism to whip up the American pubic for a war. Same with pre ww2 propaganda.

 Also part of the reason for 911 was to implement a bolshevik style brutal police state aimed completely at the American people...which the Jews have been wanting to do for at least a hundred years now. Department of Homeland security is the tool the Jews were trying to use to stomp on the constitution. The gun grabbing hasn't gone well for them either. It only made people go out and buy more guns after they hear rats like Emmanuel saying that they are going to take away the right to buy guns for those on the no fly list. The no fly list of course would be people considered to be "anti-Semitic" and "political extremists"...a total Jew scam to crack some more gentile heads and achieve total domination.

Well done, CM. You have graciously refuted them. Let's see if they can graciously come up with another angle.

No other angle necessary. Every single argument to a moon landing hoax has been addressed in Ahaze's and my posts. The van allen belt, the strings, moon gravity,video speeds etc There is no angle or agenda other than to show people that all of these hoaxer arguments have a counter argument that easily explains the anomalies that hoaxers put forth as evidence. That's fine that you guys come back with a counter argument...fair is fair.  I'm not really trying to convince you or CM because I think your mind is made up. Maybe others out there reading might do a little digging.

 I used to believe in moonhoax theory and I've been known to be a bit of a conspiracy theorist so cognitive dissonance is not why I don't believe in a moon hoax. Last summer I started to read some moonhoax debates on the DI forum. Some of these people debunking the hoax theory were anti zio and Jew wise so I gave their arguments a little more attention and did some research.

btw...That special wasn't on Fox News, It was on the Fox Network. Free TV. Huge audience.

[ahaze]

I find it interesting that people have the capacity to know of the Jewish conspiracy, yet fall for the obvious Zionist ruse of this "moon landing." Is it a coincidence that the moon deniers on this forum are almost exclusively Americans?

You have nothing to lose by admitting the Jews control the world, but you--being a baby boomer I assume--have a lot to lose by admitting a defining moment in your life is a complete lie. It's understandable. But at the same time, it's time to get over it.

Timothy_Fitzpatrick, Maybe you should be on one of those psychic forums where they're practicing remote viewing techniques trying to find their psychic sense because your insights obviously need corrective lenses, and nobody asked what your psychic perceptions detected about me.  Rather the discussion here is about how brain dead the conspiracy theory of "hoax Moon landings" happens to be.  

But I likewise find it interesting that people have the capacity to know of the Jewish conspiracy and yet endorse orthodox Christianity and deny scientific achievement.  

This is what is known as a distinction without a difference.

I like that characterization.  It distinguishes the obfuscation "asinine" lends to the conversation, and better describes what I was trying to do in attempting to shout down the nonsense.  My response was prompted by such distinctions without difference in all the reemphasized snapshot curiosities, ad hominem denial of the public record, refusal of research debunking "hoax Moon landings" theories, and failure to acknowledge the interests most likely colluding in such disinfo.  Since it appears certain participants are having difficulty keeping track, that's three aspects of the "hoax Moon landings" theory failing measures of accuracy.

Ultimately I think Whaler nailed it pointing out how perfectly the idiotic "hoax Moon landings" theory fits the J-tribe profile.  They were totally opposed to JFK hubris, and the nation seized on his moon-shot dream even more earnestly in his death.  The Moon landing accomplishments irritated all kinds of religious "sensibilities" in which the J-tribe rules supreme gaming sentiments, and meanwhile insulted the arrogant blind minded self appointed gods on Earth.  So promoting the "hoax Moon landings" theory dovetails perfectly with their hatred of everything JFK represented and provided a convenient sideshow for inflaming religious confusion.  Speaking of which...

To me, "keep it clean" means that people aren't going to criticize my religious beliefs when I'm discussing the moon landing. That doesn't sound to much to ask, does it?

Actually in my opinion, yes it is too much to ask on a forum fundamentally questioning the ideology of a religious people, especially when the faith proclaimed depends on scriptures of that tribe in question.  I suspect the J-tribe masters and keepers would cackle reading Bible quotations out here.  I hear the concern about not seeing the reason to bring religion into this debate, however I assert the double-standard of ideological allegiance deserves scrutiny when the mind expressing the thoughts  demonstrates biases according to such influences.  

If I were intent on attack the religion in question, I would've done it with the conversation on "Re: Jews are not to blame for death of Jesus, says Pope in dispute over Bible passage", and maybe for the record I should hit that thread with my perceptions, but as I was mentioning to TF, I really don't think there's much room for psychic insights out here.  

Asserting the Moon landings were a hoax directly offends the memory of JFK, and pisses on the graves of the Apollo 1 through Columbia and Challenger crews who sacrificed their lives directly for the endeavor.  So denying the capacities of space science and technology has a more insidious quality, bespeaking murderous contempt, and displaying a stratagem of dumbing down collective perception.  A perfect profile of the J-tribe MO we know not to love.  

But not to forfeit the buffoonery!

Addressing the substance: Volumes of publicly available records? Do you mean public records like the Warren Commission report, or the 9/11 commission report? ...

I already mentioned a simple viewing of the Discovery Channel's "When We Left Earth"  series provides a convenient synopsis overview of the NASA archives giving extensive example of all the technological achievement in realizing the officially disclosed space program rolling today.  So is the refusal to see here a byproduct of lacking search techniques?  Should I list all the title releases of even more extensive compilations of NASA Apollo footage documenting the history over the decades now?  Would it help if I spelled out an Amazon query spilling out all the extensive historical documentaries overwhelmingly demonstrating the spuriousness of isolated incidental speculations?

They are thin bright lines that run straight up from the astronauts to the top of the frame. Freeze it at 1:19.

Hilarious, using an obviously altered hack job of the discounted 'myth busters' episode debunking the "hoax Moon landings" theory to assert the "hoax Moon landings" theory.  The debunking is so easy they knew they couldn't dodge telling it like it is.  They go to great lengths to illustrate, but I read all the explanations of the curiosities ages ago, and never even gave the "myth busters" episodes a viewing until this thread recently forced it.  I think its healthy to focus on the "loud uproarious reveler in myths" distinction of their oh so clever double entendre mission and take everything they say as grain of salt truth, but in this case they had no choice but to fully acknowledge what's real due to the extensive public record (something we don't have for 9/11).

There are many rational arguments that show the apollo landings were faked. Here are two:

1) The Russians were leading the space race, but they couldn't make it to the moon because of the danger of radiation. So the US won the race to the moon by....ignoring the radiation. Now the radiation still does exist when you talk about putting satellites into high orbit; and the shuttle also manages to stay below the Van Allen belts; but the Apollo astronauts were immune to radiation poisoning from the VA belts, and from the solar flares while they were on the moon. That's not cherry picking evidence. Radiation is the reason no one has ever gone beyond the VA belts.

Wrong.  The Shuttle both launched Hubble, and when Hubble proved a dud returned to Hubble's orbital altitude to repair it.  Repairing the Hubble Space Telescope was a more complicated mission than landing on the moon.  The Shuttle both set Hubble in orbit at its altitude, and then returned to its orbital altitude to repair it.  Right, the Van Allen belt deals radiation, but space tech engineered how to deal with it as even the Wikipedia gives a simple example of how with, "The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation."  The limited number of astronauts unfortunately passing through that radiation zone were and are well aware of the job hazards, their gear is built to withstand those realities (you know, like nuclear plant worker gear), and they're powering on and off systems all the time.

2) Moon dust
From Wagging the Moon Doggie:

As previously discussed, NASA nowadays acknowledges that dealing with lunar dust will require the development of sophisticated new technology. No explanation has been provided, of course, for why the Apollo astronauts didn't have any problems with the dust despite allegedly venturing out on multiple EVAs during their alleged missions.

During the alleged Apollo 17 mission, for example, our fearless astronauts supposedly took the Moon buggy out on three separate occasions, returning each time, by their own accounts, covered from head to toe in Moon dust, which they necessarily would have brought back into the lunar module with them, and then ultimately transferred to the command module when the supposed docking later took place. Why then is there no mention in the Apollo literature of any health problems arising from this, or of any problems with any of the delicate instrumentation, or of any problems with any of the door seals? If it is "difficult to filter out of habitats" even with the technology we possess today, then how were we able to do it 40+ years ago?

The 'debunker' crowd, despite loudly proclaiming that they have thoroughly debunked every 'conspiracy' claim that has ever been made, has had nothing to say on this issue. I wonder why that is?

Um, er, that would be because the conjecture is so brain dead Mr. McGowan sir.  Have you ever heard of a "decompression chamber" used in undersea exploration?  Well similarly in space exploration, vessels are segregated into pressurized chambers allowing personnel in command modules to remain safe and sound while other personnel retreat into separate airlock modules to carry out Moon and space walks.  The Lunar Excursion Module is just such a completely separate pressurized chamber - a kind of "mud room"  if you will - where the astronauts who walked and rode around on the moon were able to dust themselves off before returning to the primary command module.  

So no insults intended (with exception to the personal biases), but the Moon landings did happen.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

JFK didn't reveal anything new. It was and is a limited hangout pinning the murder on the US military. Stone's money man was an Israeli arms dealer.

True, Whaler, but only to people like us. However, Oliver Stone's JFK revealed an incredible amount to every day folk--the same every day folk who also probably watch Fox News. Therefore, your argument that the Zionist Fox News airing of a fraction of the moon landing hoax theory means the hoax theory is Jewish derived is fallacious.

What is blatantly hypocritical of you and Ahaze, Whaler, is the fact that you point out Jewish sources when it benefits your arguments (weak as they are) and then turn around and use Jewish sources yourself. (Discovery Channel, Mythbusters, etc.)

[Christopher Marlowe]

This is what is known as a distinction without a difference.

I like that characterization.  It distinguishes the obfuscation "asinine" lends to the conversation, and better describes what I was trying to do in attempting to shout down the nonsense.  My response was prompted by such distinctions without difference in all the reemphasized snapshot curiosities, ad hominem denial of the public record, refusal of research debunking "hoax Moon landings" theories, and failure to acknowledge the interests most likely colluding in such disinfo.  Since it appears certain participants are having difficulty keeping track, that's three aspects of the "hoax Moon landings" theory failing measures of accuracy.

This whole thread is beginning to remind me of the Monty Python "Argument" sketch, where a man pays for an argument, but instead is treated to mere contradictions.

I don't want to launch into a whole explanation of the difference, but a good argument is specific and backs up its assertions. Bad arguments look more like mere contradictions. They merely choose a side, and refute the opposite side. They tend to make the same points over and over, and they don't respond to what the other person is saying; they gloss over distinctions.

Here, I took one point you made and said that it was making a distinction without a difference. Instead of responding to that one specific point, you launched into a general laundry list.  IMHO, that is not a proper response, but more of a mere contradiction: "Whatever you say, I will say the opposite. The person who says the last thing WINS."

To me, "keep it clean" means that people aren't going to criticize my religious beliefs when I'm discussing the moon landing. That doesn't sound to much to ask, does it?

Actually in my opinion, yes it is too much to ask on a forum fundamentally questioning the ideology of a religious people, especially when the faith proclaimed depends on scriptures of that tribe in question.  I suspect the J-tribe masters and keepers would cackle reading Bible quotations out here.  I hear the concern about not seeing the reason to bring religion into this debate, however I assert the double-standard of ideological allegiance deserves scrutiny when the mind expressing the thoughts  demonstrates biases according to such influences.

This is probably going to be a deal breaker for me for two reasons:
1) I don't care to debate my religion with people who treat the Lord and sacred scripture with profanity. The admonition about "casting pearls" seems fitting here.
2) My religion isn't relevant here. I come from a legal background, and I know that a clever argument can be made to make anything seem relevant. But the law recognizes that things which are said to be relevant, and that may actually be relevant, should still be left out because of the tendency to prejudice:

FRE 403: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Ahaze, I could talk about whatever land it is you are from, and about all of the foolish people that came from that land, and its disgraceful history, it's well-known tendency towards wickedness, etc... And then I could make a little speech about how that is relevant because it is too much to ask on a forum fundamentally questioning the history of a certain group of people, especially when they practice those same social customs of that tribe in question.
 
Frankly, I find your answers on this subject to be intellectually dishonest. You are obviously engaging in ad hom, and when I call you on it, you refer to a discussion in another thread that has nothing to do with this topic. You sound like you are carrying around a big grudge.  I have never even met you, and I don't recall saying anything to you that would make you treat me rudely.

I can trade insults, but what is the point? Does it prove I am right if I find out information about your personal life and use it against you?

If you can't park your hatred of Christianity outside, then I don't care to talk to you on this or any other thread.  If you can't avoid insulting my religion, if that is too much to ask, then I will just skip over you responses.

Asserting the Moon landings were a hoax directly offends the memory of JFK, and pisses on the graves of the Apollo 1 through Columbia and Challenger crews who sacrificed their lives directly for the endeavor.  So denying the capacities of space science and technology has a more insidious quality, bespeaking murderous contempt, and displaying a stratagem of dumbing down collective perception.  A perfect profile of the J-tribe MO we know not to love.

Yes, and questioning 9/11 is like farting in the noses of all the dead people who heroically died in the WTC, when they were heroically trapped in those heroic towers.  

Bill O'Riley: Why do you hate the United States of America?

I wasn't aware that Columbia and Challenger were said to have gone to the moon.  Of course it that were said, it would be also be a lie. And if they didn't go to the moon, then they are not really relevant.  
 
As for Apollo 1,

Allegedly to "save time," NASA opted to conduct both tests simultaneously. So once the astronauts were in place, the cabin was filled with 16 PSI of pure oxygen. With the inward-opening hatch sealed by the interior cabin pressure, the astronauts never had a chance to survive the 'test.' All it took was a spark, allegedly from some faulty wiring, to turn the capsule into a crematorium. In a pressurized oxygen environment, even aluminum will ignite. The crew reportedly were dead within 30 seconds of the onset of the fire. It took rescuers five minutes to pry the hatch open.

Weighing in with perhaps the most appalling quote to make it into these articles, George Jeffs, the chief engineer of the command and service modules, had this to say: "From a technical point of view, I think the fire had a, a very beneficial final effect on the program. It enabled the program to stop and re-review exactly where we stood on every element of the system and to fix every problem that we saw in the system." Of course, roughly the same effect would have been achieved by burning up the module while the astronauts weren't in it, but there is no need to quibble over minor details, I suppose.

"January 1, 1967 - The last known test was over three weeks before Grissom, Chaffee & White suffered immolation. Two men were handling 16 rabbits in a chamber of 100% oxygen at 7.2 psi at Brooks Air Force Base and all living things died in the inferno. The cause may have been as simple as a static discharge from a rabbit's fur ... but we'll never know."

NASA subjected Grissom, White and Chaffee to over 90% pure oxygen at over 16 psi in a test with live electrical circuits and switches being thrown, and with a hatch that took more than three minutes to open, resulting in the fatal Apollo 1 fire.

Bill Kaysing, in his book We Never Went To The Moon, states, in Chapter 9 titled "Murder By Negligence On Pad 34", "If any two documents lend credibility to the contention that the Apollo flights were faked, they are most certainly the Baron Report and the Phillips Report. They were authored by two men of obvious integrity and dedication. Although from diverse backgrounds, both Tom Baron and Sam Phillips were in total agreement on one basic premise, i.e., that North American Aviation and its sponsor, NASA, were totally unequal to the task of assuring even one successful flight to the moon!"

Why did NASA decide to subject Grissom, White and Chaffee to more than 90% pure oxygen at over 16 psi in a test with live electrical circuits and switches being thrown, and with a hatch that took more than three minutes to open, resulting in the fatal Apollo 1 fire?
http://www.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo2.htm

Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom, the astronaut slated to be the first man to walk on the moon, was murdered, his son has charged in the Feb. 16 edition of Star magazine.
In another stunning development, a lead NASA investigator has charged that the agency engaged in a cover-up of the true cause of the catastrophe that killed Grissom and two other astronauts.

The tabloid exclusive by Steve Herz reports that Scott Grissom, 48, has gone public with the family's long-held belief that their father was purposefully killed during Apollo I.

The Jan. 27, 1967, Apollo I mission was a simulated launch in preparation for an actual lunar flight.

NASA concluded that the Apollo I deaths of Grissom, as well as astronauts Edward H. White and Roger Chafee, were the result of an explosive fire that burst from the pure oxygen atmosphere of the space capsule. NASA investigators could not identify what caused the spark, but wrote the catastrophe off as an accident.

"My father's death was no accident. He was murdered," Grissom, a commercial pilot, told Star.

Grissom said he recently was granted access to the charred capsule and discovered a "fabricated" metal plate located behind a control panel switch. The switch controlled the capsules' electrical power source from an outside source to the ship's batteries. Grissom argues that the placement of the metal plate was an act of sabotage. When one of the astronauts toggled the switch to transfer power to the ship's batteries, a spark was created that ignited a fireball.

Clark Mac Donald, a McDonnell-Douglas engineer hired by NASA to investigate the fire, offered corroborating evidence. Breaking more than three decades of silence, Mac Donald says he determined that an electrical short caused by the changeover to battery power had sparked the fire.

He says that NASA destroyed his report and interview tapes in an effort to stem public criticism of the space program.

"I have agonized for 31 years about revealing the truth, but I didn't want to hurt NASA's image or cause trouble," Mac Donald told the paper. "But I can't let one more day go by without the truth being known."

Grissom's widow, Betty, now 71, told Star she agrees with her son's claim that her husband had been murdered.
http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/2/11/00539

They are thin bright lines that run straight up from the astronauts to the top of the frame. Freeze it at 1:19.

Hilarious, using an obviously altered hack job of the discounted 'myth busters' episode debunking the "hoax Moon landings" theory to assert the "hoax Moon landings" theory.  The debunking is so easy they knew they couldn't dodge telling it like it is.  They go to great lengths to illustrate, but I read all the explanations of the curiosities ages ago, and never even gave the "myth busters" episodes a viewing until this thread recently forced it.  I think its healthy to focus on the "loud uproarious reveler in myths" distinction of their oh so clever double entendre mission and take everything they say as grain of salt truth, but in this case they had no choice but to fully acknowledge what's real due to the extensive public record (something we don't have for 9/11).

I have a hard time understanding what this paragraph means. You say that mythbusters is discounted?

Previously you said you couldn't notice the wires, now it is an "obviously altered hack job"?  Was the hack job so obvious that you didn't notice it before?  

That is a convenient way to handle video evidence.  A video of a hammer faintly spinning in space is proof positive of the apollo lunar landing, but wires that show the astronauts on a harness are obvious hack jobs.  Neat. I will take this as an admission that you can see wires leading up from the astronauts to the top of the frame.

You see: The wires are attached to a rig that supported the weight of the astronauts, making them appear weightless.
Here is a video that talks about the harness system used to make people think that men were walking on the moon:
[youtube:2pmroan5]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkzTLmX3FHs[/youtube]2pmroan5]
In the video, JW refers to documents that can be found on NASA's on website.  One dated 1/1/63 can be found here:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?Ntx=mod ... %20walking

It is listed at number 9 on that page.

On pages 8 and 9 of that document, the author discusses the vertical leap of the men on earth vs moon men.  On page 9 it says:

For the tests of jumping under the earth gravity condition, average maximum heights of 20 to 22 inches were obtained....
Average maximum heights of 8 to 9 feet were obtained for the lunar gravity condition simulated with the existing equipment.  Application of height corrections to account for the gravity gradient produced by the test equipment showed that heights of 12 to 14 feet could be achieved under a condition of constant lunar gravity.  A few jumps were made by one of subjects with the loaded back-pack, and although no measurements were taken the subject's capability was not noticeably impaired by this additional load.

14 feet?  If the astronauts could jump 14 feet, how come we only see little bunny hops in the fake video?  

Because it's fake video.  

I just thought I should point out how I cited my sources, and how I dealt with specific facts.  See that?

2) Moon dust
From Wagging the Moon Doggie:

As previously discussed, NASA nowadays acknowledges that dealing with lunar dust will require the development of sophisticated new technology. No explanation has been provided, of course, for why the Apollo astronauts didn't have any problems with the dust despite allegedly venturing out on multiple EVAs during their alleged missions.

During the alleged Apollo 17 mission, for example, our fearless astronauts supposedly took the Moon buggy out on three separate occasions, returning each time, by their own accounts, covered from head to toe in Moon dust, which they necessarily would have brought back into the lunar module with them, and then ultimately transferred to the command module when the supposed docking later took place. Why then is there no mention in the Apollo literature of any health problems arising from this, or of any problems with any of the delicate instrumentation, or of any problems with any of the door seals? If it is "difficult to filter out of habitats" even with the technology we possess today, then how were we able to do it 40+ years ago?

The 'debunker' crowd, despite loudly proclaiming that they have thoroughly debunked every 'conspiracy' claim that has ever been made, has had nothing to say on this issue. I wonder why that is?

Um, er, that would be because the conjecture is so brain dead Mr. McGowan sir.  Have you ever heard of a "decompression chamber" used in undersea exploration?  Well similarly in space exploration, vessels are segregated into pressurized chambers allowing personnel in command modules to remain safe and sound while other personnel retreat into separate airlock modules to carry out Moon and space walks.  The Lunar Excursion Module is just such a completely separate pressurized chamber - a kind of "mud room"  if you will - where the astronauts who walked and rode around on the moon were able to dust themselves off before returning to the primary command module.

Um, so is there a decompression chamber to keep the um, dust from getting all over the um, LEM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LM_illustration_02.jpg

Left unexplored by the makers of Moon Machines was the obvious question of how those clean-room conditions could have been maintained once the lander set down on the Moon. The astronauts couldn't shed their protective suits until they were back in the safety of the pressurized capsule, so how exactly did they keep from tracking copious amounts of that lunar dust back into the allegedly sterile LEM cabin? As is revealed in the Lunar Rover episode of the Moon Machines series, "The astronauts quickly learned that the dust adhered to everything it touched."

Everything, that is, except the outside of the lunar module, which, as we have already seen, remained as clean as if it were sitting on the showroom floor. And the dust apparently also didn't adhere to the astronauts' boots or spacesuits, even if Apollo astronaut Charlie Duke did say, while describing what it was like to ride in the lunar rover, that "Moon dust was pouring down on us like rain, and so after a half of a Moon walk, our white suits turned gray." None of that dust, of course, was introduced into the sterile interior of the cabin.

We know that with absolute certainty because we have already been told that in order for the lunar module to operate safely and correctly, the cabin had to be kept dust-free. One of the best-kept secrets of the Apollo program, it turns out, is that there was actually a third passenger along for the rides to the Moon and back: Neil Armstrong's mother. Her primary responsibility was to make sure the boys properly wiped their feet before entering the capsule.

Astute readers, by the way, may have noticed that Duke's comments about driving the rover directly contradict another of the fables sold by the 'debunkers.' According to Phil Plait, if you watch the video footage allegedly shot on the Moon, "you will see dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. Again, the Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum."

As would be expected, we find Jay Windley making essentially the same claim: "dust will fall immediately to the lunar surface. The behavior of the dust in the video and film taken on the lunar surface is one of the most compelling reasons we have for believing it was shot in a vacuum. The dust is clearly dry, but it falls immediately to the surface and does not form clouds."

Who then are we to believe? The guy who actually operated the rover, allegedly on the surface of the Moon, and said that the dust was raining down on he and his partner from all directions, or a couple of self-proclaimed 'experts' who directly contradict NASA's man-on-the-scene?

There is a reason, I might add here, why NASA defers to these two clowns while not officially endorsing their 'debunking' arguments. It's called plausible deniability. NASA knows that 'debunking' the fact that the Moon landings were hoaxed requires a lot of twisting of facts and the promotion of a lot of dubious science, and they choose not to be directly involved in such endeavors. That is also, no doubt, why the agency withdrew its sponsorship of a 'debunking' book that is said to be in the works.
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo7.html

[ahaze]

As far as I can tell, the topic dilution statements of both CM and TF spell out all they have to offer; denial and distraction.  

Three bodies of research now stand confounding what appear to me as dogmatic denials:

1) Extensive public record demonstrating the Moon landings happened and beyond.
2) Facts thoroughly debunking "hoax Moon landings" theories.
3) Framing of "hoax Moon landings" theories complimenting J-tribe prejudices.

I find their repeated insistence on acknowledging only the isolated scope of this thread, and repeated posting of isolated instances on incidental curiosities to show the mechanisms they're capable of exercising and leave it to the better judgment of others wiser than me how best to make sense of what they have to offer.

[Christopher Marlowe]

Here's a little summary of the main points put forth in "Wagging the Moon Doggie".
(Note: I think he's completely off when he uses "Nazi" stuff to refute the Moon Landings.)

Summary/Key Points in McGowan's Moon Landing Hoax Pieces

This is not as fun to read as the real thing, but hopefully useful if you want to get an overview or look at a specific section.

Part 1-- :
1) we did it 40 years ago with relatively crude technology, but haven't done it since; neither has any other country; arguments that there is no reason to go back or that it is too expensive don't really hold up
2) we send astronauts up in the space shuttle regularly but still no one has gone further than low earth orbit
3) NASA has "lost" all of the original moon landing recordings – a huge amount of material
4) near-perfect moon-to-earth transmissions very unlikely given technology of '60s
5) NASA transmissions weren't really "live" but taped off a NASA monitor
6) In moon footage, astronauts really just look they are moving awkwardly on earth at half normal speed
7) Astronauts never do anything particularly impressive in terms of jumps, as they should have been capable of
Wouldn't astronauts move QUICKER on the moon, in lower gravity and no air resistance?
9) Also missing from the Moon missions was recordings with voice data, biomedical monitoring data, and telemetry data to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship. All of that data, the entire alleged record of the Moon landings, was on the 13,000+ reels that are said to be 'missing.' Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.

Part 2--
1) moon rocks could have been easily obtained from Antartica; von Braun went on mysterious mission to expedition to Antartica during developmental stage of Apollo missions
2) at least one official moon rock was a fraud
3) many other official moon rocks have disappeared
4) why it is that in the 1960s we possessed the advanced technology required to actually land men on the Moon, but in the 21st century we don't even have the technology required to get an unmanned craft close enough to the Moon to take usable photographs? Or could it be that there's just nothing there to photograph?
5) LROC photos supposedly showing Apollo lander are not convincing and are essentially worthless
6) why it is then that just about everyone seems to want to send unmanned probes there, or to train enormously powerful telescopes on the Moon's surface? What could they possibly learn about the "parking lot" from those distances that our astronauts didn't already discover by actually being there?
7) "Laser targets" on moon could easily have been placed there by unmanned probes, or lasers just bounced off moon rock
the lunar modules look cheesy and poorly constructed
9) the lunar modules are small and do not seem to have enough space for everything they would need
10) very hard to believe the moon buggy actually fit in there a for the later mission
11) the lunar module on display in the museum has miniature astronauts
12) the landing of the lunar module was never tested in proper conditions except officially on the actual mission—and landing would be extremely tricky with the setup they had
13) On Earth, it took many long years of trial and error, many failed test flights, many unfortunate accidents, and many, many trips back to the drawing board before we could safely and reliably launch men into low-Earth orbit. But on the Moon we did it perfectly the first time.
14) Today, we can't even launch a space shuttle from right here on planet Earth without occasionally blowing one up, even though sending spacecraft into low-Earth orbit is considerably easier than sending spacecraft all the way to the Moon and back. It would appear then that we can draw the following conclusion: although technology has advanced immeasurably since the first Apollo Moon landing and we have significantly downgraded our goals in space, we can't come close to matching the amazing safety record we had in the Apollo days.
15) Apollo spacecraft, which officially performed flawlessly, with the exception of Apollo 13, were produced at a surprisingly fast rate in the 60's

Part 3--
1) 1969 was a strange time in the US; lots of turmoil and upheaval in popular culture
2) lots of people actually doubted the moon landings at the time
3) Nixon had an obvious reason for the show—distraction from the awful Vietnam war, and it needed to work successfully
4) various terrible news events (mostly relating to the war) and the Apollo trips dovetailed
5) Radiation exposure in space a major problem--- NASA says it is a big problem now. The Apollo ships simply didn't have proper radiation protection.
6) Astronauts haven't gotten cancer from all the radiation they should have been exposed to

Part 4—
1) the photos were taken from a very odd and cumbersome system—chest mounted cameras-- that didn't allow exposure setting, focusing or framing; hard to believe the amazing and perfect shots taken could have been taken with this system
2) The odds then of getting exposure, focus and framing correct under these conditions on any given shot would have been exceedingly low. And yet, amazingly enough, on the overwhelming majority of the photos, they got all three right.
3) Debunker explanations of how the photography was done are flawed—in terms of depth of field, and use of a 500mm lens.
4) Film would have been ruined by the radiation on the moon
5) Stars should have come out in at least some of the photos, and why didn't one astronaut bother to TRY to take pics of the stars?
6) Shadows may show different light sources: http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5925HR.jpg
7) Too much light on the astronaut here: http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5869HR.jpg and http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg; this photo shows how the shadows should have looked: http://davesweb.cnchost.com/NASA_Apollo ... ehicle.jpg
"If the camera is stopped down to avoid overexposing extremely bright highlights, it cannot simultaneously capture full detail in the shadows. And if the aperture and shutter speeds are set to capture detail in the shadows, the camera would necessarily also capture the brilliant stars, which would be far brighter than anything lying in the lunar shadows. Other planets would be pretty hard to miss in the lunar sky as well, though none can be seen in any of NASA's photos."
9) Obvious photo compositing here: http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo_CSM_lunar_orbit.jpg

Part 5--
1) http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5864HR.jpg -- the soil under the LEM is completely undisturbed. "Not only is there no crater, there is no sign of scorching and none of the small 'Moon rocks' and not a speck of 'lunar soil' has been displaced! And if you refer back to the earlier close-up of the module's landing pod, you will see that not so much as a single grain of 'lunar soil' settled onto the lunar modules while they were setting down. http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5925HR.jpg
2) Not at all clear how the spacesuits protected the astronauts from temperatures ranging from -260F to +280F.
3) None of the pictures of the spacesuits shows them strongly pressurized, which would have been required.
4) Micrometeorites a real problem on the moon, and could have easily killed an astronaut.
5) President George W. Bush announced on January 14, 2004 that America was going to be returning to the Moon, and we were told by NASA types and various television talking heads that such a goal would require about fifteen years to achieve. No one in the media thought to ask why it would take fifteen years to do with twenty-first century technology what it took only eight years to accomplish with 1960s technology. Not one voice was raised to ask how with the twin advantages of improved technology and prior experience it would still take twice as long this time around.
6) NASA footage of the blastoff from the lunar surface is fraudulent, due to the ability of the moon-based camera to pan and tilt up to track the rising ship (there should have been a delay even if there was a remote control for this)
7) "Astronaut Steve Lindsey, after being chosen to command the final planned mission of the space shuttle, had this to say: "Everybody at NASA feels the same way. We're in favor of taking the next step and getting out of low-Earth orbit." So while technology in every other realm of human existence continues to take giant strides forward, everyone at NASA appears to want to take a big step backwards. To 1969."

Part 6--
1) LCROSS bombing of the moon apparently a disappointment
2) The mission to find water kind of pointless given no current plans to go to moon

Part 7--
1) when JFK said the US would go to the moon by the end of the decade, US had extremely minimal experience with spaceflight
2) Soviets beat the US in a huge number of space milestones
3) "of course, it makes perfect sense that America's first true spacecraft, coming as it did during the infancy of the Space Age, would also stand to this day as the most complicated and sophisticated spacecraft "ever conceived." After all, didn't Henry Ford build the most complicated and sophisticated automobile ever conceived? And didn't Orville and Wilbur build the most complicated and sophisticated aircraft ever conceived? And didn't Alexander Graham Bell invent the IPhone?"
4) conceptually, the LEM was supposed to be extremely clean, any dust or debris could be a hazard. Not clear how they planned to keep the LEM clean once it was on the moon and astronauts were walking in and out.

Part 8--
1) for "future" trips to the moon, NASA has taken extra precautions for moon dust contamination in the LEM and for guarding against radiation. Why wasn't this a concern or a major problem in 1969?
2) The LEM used the first throttle-controlled rocket engine ever to land on the moon, and of course, no one was able to land it properly on the earth, in tests
3) The LEM ascent engine was never tested in its final form
4) Mission Control at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas was a movie set of sorts: on television it looked pretty damned impressive, for the era at least-- an enormous room filled with computer consoles, each staffed by a key member of the Apollo team diligently monitoring his computer screen for any signs of trouble. In reality, as Apollo 11 computer engineer Jack Garman clues us in, "the computer screens that we looked at in Mission Control weren't computer screens at all. They were televisions. All the letters, or characters, [they] were all hand drawn. I don't necessarily mean with a brush, but I mean they were painted on a slide."
5) "The skin on the crew cabin [of the lunar module] was very thin, and that was all done because of weight savings." ... "If you really took your finger and poked hard at it, you could poke right through the outer skin of the spacecraft. It was about the thickness of two layers of aluminum foil." Project Manager Thomas Kelly concurred, noting that "the skin, the aluminum alloy skin of the crew compartment was about 12/1000s of an inch thick. That's equivalent to about three layers of Reynold's Wrap that you would use in the kitchen."" Not clear how this thing was pressurized then.
6) Official story has fragile lunar modules exposed "to the hazards of a lengthy space flight" also involves a docking maneuver in outer space, of unclear procedure at thousands of miles per hour, something that never could have been practiced ahead of time.

Part 9--
1) "Mythbusters" debunking of the hoax is bogus
2) Apollo astronauts never perform any seriously high jumps, even though this can be done easily in free-fall machines
3) Not clear how NASA designed Apollo space suits as early designs were not good and easily overheated in Florida sun
4) "Gemini astronaut Ed White allegedly became the first American to perform a space-walk, despite the fact that NASA did not yet appear to have a suit that would allow for such a maneuver. Nevertheless, on June 3, 1965, White allegedly performed a successful 22-minute EVA (extra-vehicular activity, in NASA jargon) which was yet another "We can do it too!" response to the Soviet Union's first space-walk." His walk was likely a fake.
5) After White, 3 astronauts in a row failed to do a spacewalk
6) "The Apollo spacesuits supposedly weighed in at 180 pounds each, including the PLSS backpacks. You would think that with the advanced technology now available, NASA would have been able to streamline the package. To the contrary, the suits now worn aboard the space shuttle weigh in at 310 pounds each. And ILC claims that it takes three months and 5,000 man-hours to produce each one. Back in the '60s, they claimed to be cranking out a minimum of nine of them for each Apollo flight."
7) There are flaws in the official Apollo 13 story, involving the temperature, water condensation and food supplies

Part 10--
1) "Apollo 8 was only the third launch of a Saturn V rocket, and the first to carry a crew. The first two Saturn V launches, Apollo 4 and Apollo 6, were what NASA referred to as "all-up" tests of the three-stage launch vehicle. Those tests didn't go so well."... "Without taking any of the preliminary steps, and with a launch vehicle that had failed on its last outing, and without knowing if the ship itself could make the journey there and back, America was going to send men all the way to the Moon!"
2) Before Apollo, NASA didn't have such a good record for spaceflight
3) The unmanned Lunar Orbiter program officially sent back relatively few pictures from the moon, may have set up shots for the faked Apollo program
4) "One final note on the Lunar Orbiters: during their flights to and around the Moon, the five satellites recorded twenty-two "micrometeoroid events." The eight lunar modules that made the trip to the Moon apparently recorded no such events. Or maybe the guys just put some duct tape over the holes."
5) Previous tests with docking a spacecraft to another spacecraft were not very successful.
6) Probe-and-drogue mechanism used to dock CM and LEM. Not clear how, with the probe-and-drogue assembly having been removed, the LEM was able to dock with the command module the second time, upon its return from the lunar surface.

Part 11--
1) "The very first Moonwalk by Neil and Buzz was broadcast ('live' of course) at 9:00 PM Eastern time, as though it were a Monday Night Football game. Prime time Moonwalks became a staple of the Apollo program, to such an extent that it was not at all uncommon for the networks to be deluged with complaints when a popular weekly sitcom was preempted for yet another fake 'live' Moonwalk. After the second fake Moon landing, NASA began adding exciting new elements to the Apollo missions to combat public apathy. Apollo 13, of course, added the element of danger. Apollo 14 brought us the Moon in Technicolor, with the first color video broadcasts. Apollo 15 kept us entertained with the addition of a Moon buggy. And Apollo 17 featured the first, and only, spectacular night launch of a Saturn V rocket."
2) "Despite all the acclaim he has received for his exploits as an astronaut, Neil Armstrong clearly has been unjustly denied recognition of his astounding abilities as a photographer. Some may argue that he clearly was not playing in the same league as, say, an Ansel Adams, but I beg to differ. Adams created some awe-inspiring work, to be sure, but could he have done so while wearing a spacesuit, gloves and helmet, and with his camera mounted to his chest, and while acclimating himself to an environment that featured no air, greatly reduced gravity, and extreme heat and cold?"
3) The fold-up Rover buggy "seems to be missing such things as a floor pan, and seats, and cameras, and antennae, and battery packs, and various other components – which raises a few questions, such as where were all the other rover parts stowed? How many empty equipment bays were available to accommodate all the various rover components? And how long exactly did it take the astronauts, given the limitations imposed by their suits and gloves, to deploy and fully assemble a Moon buggy?"

Part 12--
1) The now-canceled Constellation Program to go "back to" the moon was begun in 2005, and at the end, aimed for men on the moon by 2028. The Apollo program allegedly landed men on the Moon in a mere eight years. It shouldn't take almost three times as long to get back to the Moon with today's technology as it did in the 60's!
2) "In May of 1966, after spending five years working on the Apollo project, we were just a-year-and-a-half away from the launch of the first Saturn V. In 2010, after spending five years working on the Constellation project, NASA has nothing to present to us but a hefty bill"
3) "If NASA returns to the moon in 2020 as planned, astronauts will step out in a brand-new space suit. It will give them new mobility and flexibility on the lunar surface while still protecting them from its harsh environment ... The space agency has awarded a $500 million, 6.5-year contract for the design and development of the Constellation space suit." Astronauts performing EVAs these days currently use something known as the Extravehicular Mobility Unit: "It has a hard upper torso, layers of material to protect astronauts from micrometeoroids and radiation, a temperature-regulation system, and its own life support and communication system. The EMU weighs over 300 pounds and has limited leg mobility – astronauts feet are normally locked in place on foot restraints while performing extravehicular tasks, and during Apollo missions, which used a different EMU suit, astronauts were forced to develop a bunny hop to traverse the lunar surface." It is absurd that is takes about four times as long to develop a spacesuit now than it did back in the 1960s.
4) Wernher von Braunn, one of NASA's chief rocket scientists, was a real Nazi
5) Nazi connection to MIT where idea of Apollo missions was developed
6) Computer programming for Apollo was critical for the mission but poorly specified according to one of the computer engineers. "Despite the overwhelming obstacles faced by the MIT team, and the seemingly lackadaisical approach taken with the project, the Apollo guidance system, as would be expected, performed nearly flawlessly on every outing."

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

The other thing that I don't believe has been discussed here, CM, is the fact that NASA is a completely Masonic operation, top down, bottom up.



[youtube:2przkcyu]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMAvpDdcq88[/youtube]2przkcyu]

All the more reason they can't be trusted; all the more reason their moon landing stage theatrics can't be trusted.

What is the tie that binds in keeping a lid on this gross conspiracy? A blood oath sworn by every single one of the Astronauts--all of whom happen to be Freemasons.

The Jewish-Masonic Apollo 11 crew


The whole thing is a Jew operation.



And for those who are offended at the revealing of these Masonic traitors, know this: they are not heroes, they didn't go to the moon, they sold out the United States of America by swearing allegiance to the Jewish Masonic Lodge of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Ahaze, CM is right, you are not addressing the specifics he brings up and, instead, you're airing a "laundry list" of generalizations.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits
2009 07 16

By Maggie Fox | Reuters.com
The original recordings of the first humans landing on the moon 40 years ago were erased and re-used, but newly restored copies of the original broadcast look even better, NASA officials said on Thursday.

NASA released the first glimpses of a complete digital make-over of the original landing footage that clarifies the blurry and grainy images of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walking on the surface of the moon.

The full set of recordings, being cleaned up by Burbank, California-based Lowry Digital, will be released in September. The preview is available at www.nasa.gov.

NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing.

Since then, Richard Nafzger, an engineer at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, who oversaw television processing at the ground-tracking sites during the Apollo 11 mission, has been looking for them.

The good news is he found where they went. The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed -- magnetically erased -- and re-used to save money.

"The goal was live TV," Nafzger told a news conference.

"We should have had a historian running around saying 'I don't care if you are ever going to use them -- we are going to keep them'," he said.

They found good copies in the archives of CBS news and some recordings called kinescopes found in film vaults at Johnson Space Center.

Lowry, best known for restoring old Hollywood films, has been digitizing these along with some other bits and pieces to make a new rendering of the original landing.

Nafzger does not worry that using a Hollywood-based company might fuel the fire of conspiracy theorists who believe the entire lunar program that landed people on the moon six times between 1969 and 1972 was staged on a movie set or secret military base.

"This company is restoring historic video. It mattered not to me where the company was from," Nafzger said.

"The conspiracy theorists are going to believe what they are going to believe," added Lowry Digital Chief Operating Officer Mike Inchalik.

And there may be some unofficial copies of the original broadcast out there somewhere that were taken from a NASA video switching center in Sydney, Australia, the space agency said. Nafzger said someone else in Sydney made recordings too.

"These tapes are not in the system," Nafzger said. "We are certainly open to finding them."

Article from: Reuters.com

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

"My husband directed the fake moon landing" says Stanley Kubrick's widow

http://www.firetown.com/blog/2011/03/21/my-husband-directed-the-fake-moon-landing-says-stanley-kubricks-widow/

[Wimpy]

Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits
2009 07 16

By Maggie Fox | Reuters.com
The original recordings of the first humans landing on the moon 40 years ago were erased and re-used, but newly restored copies of the original broadcast look even better, NASA officials said on Thursday.

NASA released the first glimpses of a complete digital make-over of the original landing footage that clarifies the blurry and grainy images of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walking on the surface of the moon.

The full set of recordings, being cleaned up by Burbank, California-based Lowry Digital, will be released in September. The preview is available at http://www.nasa.gov.

NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing.

Since then, Richard Nafzger, an engineer at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, who oversaw television processing at the ground-tracking sites during the Apollo 11 mission, has been looking for them.

The good news is he found where they went. The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed -- magnetically erased -- and re-used to save money.

"The goal was live TV," Nafzger told a news conference.

"We should have had a historian running around saying 'I don't care if you are ever going to use them -- we are going to keep them'," he said.

They found good copies in the archives of CBS news and some recordings called kinescopes found in film vaults at Johnson Space Center.

Lowry, best known for restoring old Hollywood films, has been digitizing these along with some other bits and pieces to make a new rendering of the original landing.

Nafzger does not worry that using a Hollywood-based company might fuel the fire of conspiracy theorists who believe the entire lunar program that landed people on the moon six times between 1969 and 1972 was staged on a movie set or secret military base.

"This company is restoring historic video. It mattered not to me where the company was from," Nafzger said.

"The conspiracy theorists are going to believe what they are going to believe," added Lowry Digital Chief Operating Officer Mike Inchalik.

And there may be some unofficial copies of the original broadcast out there somewhere that were taken from a NASA video switching center in Sydney, Australia, the space agency said. Nafzger said someone else in Sydney made recordings too.

"These tapes are not in the system," Nafzger said. "We are certainly open to finding them."

Article from: Reuters.com

I personally know a fellow whom received "MANY" pallets of magnetic tapes on ALUMINUM reels from NASA.  He could "keep the aluminum" but he had to dispose of the tape.  I personally saw mounds of aluminum discs and hubs at his place ready for recycling.  This occurred intermittently over the past two decades.  I Do Not know what was on these tapes but I do know he performed this 'service' regularly.  He is a very good man so I will not reveal more.

[Christopher Marlowe]

The good news is he found where they went. The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed -- magnetically erased -- and re-used to save money.

I personally know a fellow whom received "MANY" pallets of magnetic tapes on ALUMINUM reels from NASA. He could "keep the aluminum" but he had to dispose of the tape. I personally saw mounds of aluminum discs and hubs at his place ready for recycling. This occurred intermittently over the past two decades. I Do Not know what was on these tapes but I do know he performed this 'service' regularly. He is a very good man so I will not reveal more.

NASA sold them for scrap? Well at least the aluminum was recycled.

The story makes perfect sense: NASA erased the original recordings of Mankind's first landing on the Moon in order to save money.

First of all, I can't believe that someone used the words "save money" in a sentence relating to NASA.  "We had a bake sale, and we were able to raise enough money to buy John Glen a helmet."

[Wimpy]

NASA sold them for scrap? Well at least the aluminum was recycled.

Not sold, they gave him the reels.