[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

we see peaceful protests launching in Los Angeles” - Democrat Senator Cory Booke

We have no legal framework for designating domestic terror organizations

Los Angeles Braces For Another Day Of Chaos As Newsom Pits Marxist Color Revolution Against Trump Admin

Methylene Blue Benefits

Another Mossad War Crime

80 served arrest warrants at 'cartel afterparty' in South Carolina

When Ideas Become Too Dangerous To Platform

The silent bloodbath that's tearing through the middle-class

Kiev Postponed Exchange With Russia, Leaves Bodies Of 6,000 Slain Ukrainian Troops In Trucks

Iranian Intelligence Stole Trove Of Sensitive Israeli Nuclear Files

In the USA, the identity of Musk's abuser, who gave him a black eye, was revealed

Return of 6,000 Soldiers' Bodies Will Cost Ukraine Extra $2.1Bln

Palantir's Secret War: Inside the Plot to Cripple WikiLeaks

Digital Prison in the Making?

In France we're horrified by spending money on Ukraine

Russia has patented technology for launching drones from the space station

Kill ICE: Foreign Flags And Fires Sweep LA

6,000-year-old skeletons with never-before-seen DNA rewrites human history

First Close Look at China’s Ultra-Long Range Sixth Generation J-36Jet

I'm Caitlin Clark, and I refuse to return to the WNBA

Border Czar Tom Homan: “We Are Going to Bring National Guard in Tonight” to Los Angeles

These Are The U.S. States With The Most Drug Use

Chabria: ICE arrested a California union leader. Does Trump understand what that means?Anita Chabria

White House Staffer Responsible for ‘Fanning Flames’ Between Trump and Musk ID’d

Texas Yanks Major Perk From Illegal Aliens - After Pioneering It 24 Years Ago

Dozens detained during Los Angeles ICE raids

Russian army suffers massive losses as Kremlin feigns interest in peace talks — ISW

Russia’s Defense Collapse Exposed by Ukraine Strike

I heard libs might block some streets. 🤣

Jimmy Dore: What’s Being Said On Israeli TV Will BLOW YOUR MIND!


Miscellaneous
See other Miscellaneous Articles

Title: 'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci ... g-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html
Published: May 24, 2015
Author: The Telegraph
Post Date: 2015-05-24 13:11:54 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 2477
Comments: 87

Curators at Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, where the rock has attracted tens of thousands of visitors each year, discovered that the "lunar rock", valued at £308,000, was in fact petrified wood.

Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation, said the museum would continue to keep the stone as a curiosity.

"It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," she said. "We can laugh about it."

The rock was given to Willem Drees, a former Dutch leader, during a global tour by Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin following their moon mission 50 years ago.

J. William Middendorf, the former American ambassador to the Netherlands, made the presentation to Mr Drees and the rock was then donated to the Rijksmuseum after his death in 1988.

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

Nasa gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries following lunar missions in 1969 and the 1970s.

The United States Embassy in The Hague is carrying out an investigation into the affair.

Researchers Amsterdam's Free University were able to tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be from the moon, a conclusion that was borne out by tests.

"It's a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone," said Frank Beunk, a geologist involved in the investigation.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-34) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#35. To: StraitGate (#32)

The moon's gravity is only 17% that of earth's, so that impulse, along with the hand hold pull-up from his partner, would easily allow him to get upright without violating any of the laws of physics.

Why the struggle to get up initially and the request for help?

Think big picture here, not everything in its own little microcosm.

Also, I've been down this road before and why, when the astronauts seem to be leaping about on the surface, why they're not leaping 4, 5, or more feet into the air based on what you said.

Explanation: Packs weigh 200 lbs.

OK, something's not adding up somewhere.

Katniss  posted on  2015-05-25   23:51:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: StraitGate (#33)

Fair enough. I'll take a look at the links you supplied.

Thanks.

You're welcome!

I can't afford to spend tons of time on this, but if you need an assist or have a question, feel free to ping me.

Katniss  posted on  2015-05-25   23:52:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Katniss (#35)

Explanation: Packs weigh 200 lbs.

That would be like wearing 24 gallons of water. Hard to imagine.

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-05-26   0:02:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Katniss (#35)

why, when the astronauts seem to be leaping about on the surface, why they're not leaping 4, 5, or more feet into the air based on what you said.

A 4 foot leap into the air on the moon equates to an 8 inch vertical jump on earth. On earth, a man's normal walking gait leaves him with at least one foot on the ground at all times. Not so on the moon, with its less gravity. That's why the astronauts had to train to walk on the moon prior to the lunar flights.

While 4-5 foot leaps are possible on the moon, the astronauts avoided that, because it's not safe. The longer air time (compared to an 8 inch jump on earth) allows more time for the rotational forces (torque inducing pitch, roll, and yaw) to act on the astronaut's body, so that he risks being maloriented upon landing, and the risk of falling is high. If the astronaut lands on his feet, he will feel the same shock as if he jumped off of an 8 in tall step, but if he falls, it will feel more like rolling off of a 12-14 inch step because his body will have fallen 6-8 feet instead of only 4 feet.

StraitGate  posted on  2015-05-26   0:23:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: NeoconsNailed, StraitGate (#37)

That would be like wearing 24 gallons of water. Hard to imagine.

That's correct, and it's one among hundreds of data points making that even less plausible than 9II.

And while apologists for the OFT talk about how that was possible on the moon, what about inside the capsule and getting down that ladder? Doesn't look as if they have/had the same issues.

Another critical data point is that one money shot of "the earth" from the capsule, but then "unofficial" footage shows that it was simply a shot of the ocean while in orbit. Factor in all of the "green screen news" these days, and it's hardly a far-fetched notion that there was world-class hanky-panky going on.

Here's one link with the greater search link below it, and I've seen one where they remove everything and it's clear that there merely in orbit above the earth. But the main question is why? Why would they do this given that it was completely unnecessary if it were all real.

And let's not forget, that they could easily disprove a good chunk of "conspiracy-theory-ism" by simply sending an unmanned vehicle to the moon to rove around and take pics in hi-def for the world to scrutinize. I'm guessing that at best they'd look like the laughable footage of what they claim is a 757 hitting the Pentacon.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=window+shot+of+earth+from+moon+rockets+fake

Katniss  posted on  2015-05-26   9:36:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: StraitGate (#38)

A 4 foot leap into the air on the moon equates to an 8 inch vertical jump on earth. On earth, a man's normal walking gait leaves him with at least one foot on the ground at all times. Not so on the moon, with its less gravity. That's why the astronauts had to train to walk on the moon prior to the lunar flights.

While 4-5 foot leaps are possible on the moon, the astronauts avoided that, because it's not safe. The longer air time (compared to an 8 inch jump on earth) allows more time for the rotational forces (torque inducing pitch, roll, and yaw) to act on the astronaut's body, so that he risks being maloriented upon landing, and the risk of falling is high. If the astronaut lands on his feet, he will feel the same shock as if he jumped off of an 8 in tall step, but if he falls, it will feel more like rolling off of a 12-14 inch step because his body will have fallen 6-8 feet instead of only 4 feet.

Say what you want, as the saying goes, talk (theirs) is cheap.

I've seen footage of supposedly a moon walk slowed down (slow motion), and it's quite clear that it could have just as easily been filmed on earth. In fact, if it wasn't, then it's a major coincidence, and a telling one, that the same gait, height off the ground, etc., could have possibly been accomplished in earth's atmosphere.

Again, to start your search, watch this;

Much of this is coming back for me. The astronauts' interview is in that one too. Tell me you think that they're sincere. Then there's the pitch about the stars which is obvious hogwash.

I mean as usual with these FF cover-ups, people believe it "because they saw it on TV." As we now know, that's easy to fake.

More links on walking/hopping on the moon;

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hopping+on+the+moon

Clearly possible to duplicate on earth, making one question why it was exactly the same on the moon.

This is easy stuff for any good analyst.

Also, let's not forget the most recent data point, that the rock given by these guys to Holland is fake. Why?

Again, it would be a relatively cheap exercise to send an unmanned rover to the moon to validate everything. Unfortunately it's mission impossible for the reasons that I said unless it's all computerized, and I'm pretty sure that in today's technological world that would be exposed right quickly, since there is no atmosphere on the moon but there is where they filmed this in the American Southwest rendering the "moonscape" impossible to duplicate as it should be fully in tact from nearly 50 years ago.

In fact, I can think of no better way to kill numerous birds with a single stone than to do this for the 50th in 4 years. Don't hold your breath.

Also, remember all the talk of colonies on the moon? Don't you really think, given our national pride, that for no other reason we'd send some stuff up there to at least build a station of some sort? I do. It's ridiculous, given the money we spend as a nation on bullshit, that they wouldn't have done it, merely "because we could."

Again, problem is that we cannot. If we cannot today, how much less so nearly 50 years ago.

In your search, keep in mind the reasons why having "gone to the moon" would have benefited our nation from the establishment's perspective. Immense, just as 9II was, just as the "Holocaust"® has been to our nation's handlers.

Katniss  posted on  2015-05-26   10:00:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Katniss (#40)

Thanks for the excellent de-construction.

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken

Lod  posted on  2015-05-26   11:46:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: Katniss (#40)

WOW! A BBC documentary passionately taking down not only the moon fraud but the dead matter than makes up most of the US fedgov? Man, this is LIVING. Kudos Katniss -- and thanks!

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-05-26   11:56:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: Katniss, Neoconsnailed (#40)

Here's a whole book about the reason NASA never went back to the moon. From the book description, it appears that Paul Kersey believes that the U.S. space program died because NASA's mission was changed from the exploration of space to the celebration of diversity. I haven't read it; just passing on the info here. (You can find the book on Amazon.com; the link won't work for me here.)

'Whitey on the Moon': Race, Politics, and the death of the U.S. Space Program, 1958 - 1972 by Paul Kersey

***

Book Description Publication Date: July 22, 2014:

We went to the moon. This is a fact. Indisputable, except to those conspiracy theorists clinging to their belief some sinister plot was hatched by the US Government to conceal our inability to navigate to earth's natural satellite.

On July 20, 1969, man first stood on the moon; on December 18, 1972, man stood on the moon for the last time. What happened to end the dream of space exploration, left instead to the colorful imagination of Trekkies and science fiction fans believing some diverse band of humans could navigate the heavens in a utopian future?

The US Government neutered NASA by forcing a much different mission upon the space agency: diversity and the promotion of blacks. We went to the moon.

On multiple occasions. When NASA was nearly all-white, with an all-white astronaut team. But in 1972, the Apollo program was grounded, with the Space Shuttle program becoming a glorified experiment in social engineering and special interest group cheerleading. Each successive launch included women, blacks, and other racial minorities, not for the sake of exploration, but for the sake of gender and racial cheerleading.

The glory of NASA and mankind's great moments in space exploration were all milestones performed under the watchful of an almost completely white NASA, devoid of the hindrance of affirmative action programs and the shackles of Equal Employment Opportunity mandates.

The mandate then was to get the moon; the mandate soon after was the promotion of blackness and diversity, at the expense of the initial dream of exploring the stars.

'Whitey on the Moon': Race, Politics, and the death of the U.S. Space Program, 1958 - 1972 tells the shocking story of NASA's demise from an angle never- before told: the racial angle.

Learn the story of Captain Ed Dwight, the black Air Force pilot the Kennedy Administration tried to force on NASA; learn about how General Curtis LeMay and Lt. Colonel Chuck Yeager demanded accountability and stood against what the latter deemed "reverse racism" in how the Kennedy Administration forced a black astronaut candidate on NASA just for the sake of having a black astronaut candidate.

Learn about the "Poor People's Campaign" (led by Rev. Ralph Abernathy), which protested the launch of Apollo 11 on July 16th, 1969, by showing up with a horse and buggy.

Rev. Abernathy demanded the money going to Apollo and space exploration be redistributed to fight poverty and starvation in America's inner cities...

And his vision won out.

The final chapters of the book deal not with the exploration and colonization of new worlds, but the redistributing of wealth to pay for EBT/SNAP Food Stamps cards and other welfare payouts.

We could have been on Mars, but we had to fund Black-Run American instead...

StraitGate  posted on  2015-05-29   21:47:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: StraitGate (#43) (Edited)

So you say we did it? Why the weirdorama interview etc?

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-05-29   22:00:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: NeoconsNailed (#44)

So you say we did it, huh.

I'll take that as a question, even though it's not like you to omit a question mark (or any other punctuation).

Yes, I think that the first moon landing was successful. That said, I do not doubt that the government had a contingency plan to lie to the people about it if it had not been successful.

One reason I think the first mission succeeded is because they went back -- five more times. If the first mission had been a dismal failure, I think they would have scrapped the program or at least delayed it for a few years.

None of the "scientific" evidence presented here -- photos, videos of moonwalking, etc. -- causes me to doubt that the lunar landings really happened. To date, the strongest controverting evidence has been that bizarre press conference. I saw that for the first time when you or someone else posted it here a few days ago, and I have to admit, it's really weird, and does raise some doubt.

I am a little astonished that you and some of the others here are so all-fired SURE that it never happened, especially when the evidence that has been cited is, in my view, not very convincing. I would think that you all would at least give a little space to the possibility that it might have happened. You know, assign something greater than a non-zero probability to it.

I'm not SURE man has been to the moon (so, technically, I do not "say that we did it"). But I am a little befuddled as to how some people are so SURE that he hasn't.

StraitGate  posted on  2015-05-29   22:45:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: StraitGate, Neoconsnailed (#43)

If you want to make progress in this or any level of truth that rivals the establishment version, I'd strongly suggest not using much less citing establishment sources.

Sounds to me as if you've already made up your mind. You won't find much if anything at all in the mainstream to uncover the truth if that truth is different from what the establishment claims it is.

That applies across the board.

This is the problem in America, the running joke is "I read it on the internet so it must be true," but the reality is that the greatest volumes of lies, half-truths, and red-herring propaganda is exactly from mainstream sources.

Katniss  posted on  2015-05-29   23:37:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: Katniss (#46)

That applies across the board.

Wheee! Bravo!!!

corruptissima re publica plurimae leges - Tacitus

Dakmar  posted on  2015-05-29   23:41:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Katniss (#46)

It's you who have already made up your mind. You posted a video that you found on the internet that claims that an astronaut on the lunar surface could not have helped his partner up in the manner depicted without violating the laws of physics. I disputed that claim using knowledge that I learned not from the internet, but from an engineering mechanics class that I took many years ago. You never responded directly to that.

Then when I said I'm not sure man has been to the moon, but I don't understand how some people including you can be so sure that he hasn't, you say it sounds like I have already made up my mind?

I am as skeptical of the "establishment" as (almost) anyone I know. And I'm pretty sure that I haven't cited any establishment sources to support my belief that the Apollo program placed man on the moon. If so, please show me where I did, and explain why that "establishment source" should not be trusted. And please note that when I simply reported that NASA says that they went back to the moon 5 more times I wasn't citing that as evidence that they actually had.

StraitGate  posted on  2015-05-30   0:09:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: StraitGate (#45)

I'll take that as a question, even though it's not like you to omit a question mark (or any other punctuation).

Oh, but a 'huh' can obviate an eroteme and indicatify a plenary cessation. :-)

Did you, as I recall, comment on the radiation factor, StraitGate?

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-05-30   1:28:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: StraitGate (#48) (Edited)

It's you who have already made up your mind.

To the contrary, I once believed it and argued against people such as myself.

As soon as I took to research it entirely 100% independently and at great length and over much time, much as with 9II, I became convinced that they were both false.

Katniss  posted on  2015-05-30   14:07:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: NeoconsNailed (#49)

Did you, as I recall, comment on the radiation factor, StraitGate?

What radiation?

The only reports of layers of energetic charged particles surrounding the earth come from untrustworthy establishment sources.

Surely you don't buy into all that nonsense about Dr. Van Allen's work, the Explorer and Pioneer satellites that they say they launched, and all the telemetrically returned data that they say confirmed the existence of the alleged radiation belts?

You know they're all lying, don't you? ;)

StraitGate  posted on  2015-05-30   14:41:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: Katniss (#50)

...I became convinced...

Well, OK, then. You have already made up your mind.

StraitGate  posted on  2015-05-30   14:44:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: StraitGate (#48)

Hey strait, how come.their is no blast crater from the landing of.eagle one underneath the lander?

And why is it some photos depict differnt scenes in differnt lunar places but have the same exact backrounds??

______________________________________

Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.

titorite  posted on  2015-05-30   14:50:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: StraitGate (#51)

It sounds like a "strait" answer isn't in the works on this one.

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-05-30   14:53:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: NeoconsNailed (#54)

It sounds like a "strait" answer isn't in the works on this one.

Well done! Props.to.you. lol

______________________________________

Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.

titorite  posted on  2015-05-30   15:03:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: titorite (#53)

Hey strait, how come.their is no blast crater from the landing of.eagle one underneath the lander?

And why is it some photos depict differnt scenes in differnt lunar places but have the same exact backrounds??

I just searched "lunar module" on google images (I, know, google is arch- establishment), and several of the photos show a smooth area under the engine nozzle that appears to be relatively devoid of surface dust, as would be expected if the engine had blown the dust away. I am not a rocket scientist, so I'm not qualified to state just how large a "blast crater" the engine would have to create in order to safely land the LM. But I suspect that it wouldn't be very deep, especially if there was a horizontal component to the LM velocity on landing approach. Are you aware of any authoritative study of that question? If so, I would be interested in that info. Thanks.

With regard to photos of different scenes that have the exact same backgrounds: I haven't heard of that. Where can I see these photos? Thanks again.

StraitGate  posted on  2015-05-30   15:40:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: titorite (#55)

Let me rephrase that. Straitgate, have you offered an explanation of how the astronauts could have passed through the van Allen belts safely, and have I misplaced it? If it had aluminum shielding, would that be enough, and if lead, would that be light enough, and aren't there windows in each craft.

Being the king of the search box, I'm painfully 'umbled to ask, but searching doesn't work right in 4um.

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-05-30   15:47:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: StraitGate, 4 (#56)

Searching for Apollo 11 photographs, over 500K results were found including NASA sites.

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken

Lod  posted on  2015-05-30   15:58:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: StraitGate (#56)

Type the following search term into google and hit images...different lunar pictures with the same background...

Also in regards to that landing... if the blast of the.rocket exhaust cleared a path as you suggest, shouldn't. The under carrige and landing pads be covvered in the expelled lunar dirt?

______________________________________

Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.

titorite  posted on  2015-05-30   16:04:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: titorite (#59)

The least you could do Tito is search and provide the stuff since it's you that's making the claim -- basic netiquette.

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-05-30   16:16:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: NeoconsNailed (#60)

Well i was gonna ask how Houston was able to.provide.second by second telemetry when it takes a radio signal three minutes to reach the moon and three more minutes for that reply to.reach earth. But hey science. But no i can not embed pictures. I forgot how to do that.

______________________________________

Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.

titorite  posted on  2015-05-30   16:27:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: titorite (#59)

OK, looking at the pictures and following some of the links now. Interesting. Thanks.

Regarding no dirt on the landing pads: I'm thinking that because the engine exhaust creates a high pressure zone under the LM, the displaced dirt would be expelled radially at high velocity. When the LM finally lands, all of the loose dirt at the surface would have already been blown away by the time the engine shuts down and the pressure decreases. During the last few seconds (or tenths of seconds) of the blast, the pressure is too low to displace more dirt (all the loose stuff is already gone, remember), but high enough to blow the landing pads clean as if they had blasted by a leafblower. Just a hypothesis.

StraitGate  posted on  2015-05-30   16:37:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: titorite (#61)

Check your math. Radio signals travel ~186,000 miles per second in space. And the distance from the earth to the moon is only ~240,000 miles.

240,000 miles / 186,000 mile/s = 1.3s

StraitGate  posted on  2015-05-30   16:42:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: StraitGate (#62)

Something to remeber regarding your hypotheisis is that their is no pressure on the moon. No atmosphere. I too can surmise that most of the particles anddirt would of blown away in the reduced gravity, but even so, some dirt should of embedded itself all underneath that thing. Can you imagine how such a landing would look over sand ? Were talking a dirty landing.

You are welcome for the interesting search suggestions. Happy learning.

______________________________________

Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.

titorite  posted on  2015-05-30   16:43:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: StraitGate (#63)

Oh and here is a link to nixons lunar phone call en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/...d_Nixon%27s_Phone_Call_to _the_Moon You might need to copy and paste the link. Sorry about that.

______________________________________

Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.

titorite  posted on  2015-05-30   16:45:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: NeoconsNailed (#57)

Straitgate, have you offered an explanation of how the astronauts could have passed through the van Allen belts safely

No.

According to Establishment sources, fedgov had studied the Van Allen belts pretty extensively with several satellites instrumented for just that purpose prior to 1969. Although there was still some question regarding exactly what kind of particles might exist and in what concentration in the flight path, the feeling was that the risk was acceptable*, especially considering the fairly short time that they astronauts would actually be exposed to the belts.

*Sitting on top of a Saturn V rocket when it lights off is also a little dangerous.

And according to Establishment reports, the spacecrafts were aluminum lined (inside and outside) and equipped with Geiger counters and such to record the actual amount of radiation encountered inside the space ship. Reportedly, considering the whole trip, most of the radiation that the astronauts were exposed to was due to cosmic rays (with no earth atmosphere to attenuate them) rather than from the Van Allen belts. And that the exposure level wasn't dangerously high.

Note to all: In the interest of efficiency, I'm planning to abbreviate Establishment as Est. in all future posts.

StraitGate  posted on  2015-05-30   17:28:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: titorite (#65)

Oh and here is a link to nixons lunar phone call

Très intéressant. Merci.

Nixon used the pronoun "I" only four times in that brief exchange.

Obama would would have made the whole thing about himself, talked for 35 minutes, and used "I" 147 times.

StraitGate  posted on  2015-05-30   17:43:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: StraitGate (#67)

Well i mentioned the context to demonstrait the offical time delay. Obummer nixon.. there is.no.difference, they are all.crooks.

______________________________________

Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.

titorite  posted on  2015-05-30   17:47:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: StraitGate, Neoconsnailed (#52)

Well, OK, then. You have already made up your mind.

The only one you have to convince is yourself.

I see we'll have to agree to disagree.

Same with those that think that OKC, 9II, and many other things believe.

: )

Katniss  posted on  2015-05-31   19:40:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: titorite (#68)

Well i mentioned the context to demonstrait the offical time delay. Obummer nixon.. there is.no.difference, they are all.crooks.

Yes, they are all crooks. I'm with you there.

demonstrait -- Good one! I just now now caught that.

StraitGate  posted on  2015-05-31   19:48:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: Katniss (#69)

I see we'll have to agree to disagree.

Sounds good, brother.

We both have bigger fish to fry. :)

StraitGate  posted on  2015-05-31   20:41:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: StraitGate, All (#71)

Interesting that you phrase it that way.

I guess, as is common when debating people on this stuff, I'm trying to reconcile some of your statements with other of your statements.

Do we have bigger fish to fry? Maybe not directly, but indirectly? Think about it.

I'm talking lies and cover-ups here, of which, based on everything I've seen, includes the Moon "landings."

This nation, once one figures out what is going on, is so drowning in lies and cover-ups that to say that it would make one's head spin is a grand understatement.

If that's just another enormous lie/cover-up, then it certainly is relevant and no, there are no "bigger fish to fry" other than to understand the extents of the lies and cover-ups over the years.

I was just reading the article that someone just posted this a.m.

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=177318

And when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik—precipitating a national panic about our falling behind in science and technology—Congress enacted the National Defense Education Act of 1958, which provided federal grants to schools to bolster training in mathematics and science. But, writes Buckley, it was during Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society project that “grants-in-aid programs became epidemic.” By 1970, there were 530 such programs, and they consumed more than 12 percent of the federal budget.

The space programs were no small thing back then. As well, given that the Soviets have a history of copying and doing everything that we do, but admitted that they could not come close to going to the moon, IMO that's highly relevant as well.

It's funny, on one hand, 99% of the support for the "Holocaust"© comes from behind the Iron Curtain, and we've gobbled that stuff down for decades. But we don't believe anything else that they said during that span.

I am as skeptical of the "establishment" as (almost) anyone I know. And I'm pretty sure that I haven't cited any establishment sources to support my belief that the Apollo program placed man on the moon. If so, please show me where I did, and explain why that "establishment source" should not be trusted. And please note that when I simply reported that NASA says that they went back to the moon 5 more times I wasn't citing that as evidence that they actually had.

This statement of yours confuses me. On one hand you say that you are skeptical of the establishment, but don't use any "establishment sources" to support your argument.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, since there weren't any independent sources anywhere near that program, that's all the support it has. Simply because you launder it through some other mainstream "news" or "info" source does not alter the original source of the info one iota.

As to the "five more times" thing, come on now. Once, six times, who cares. Again, I divert your attention to those in the program that wouldn't "play ball," perhaps they should be interviewed today. Oh yeah, that's right, they're mostly dead and Armstrong refuses to discuss it. I mean honestly, what does it take?

So technically that's not a true statement of yours.

Secondly, if you are truly that skeptical, then after doing the extent of the research that I've done, I have no idea how you can continue to claim as you do.

You said that I already have my mind made up after I said that to you, but it does not seem as if you've done a fraction of the research that I've done, admittedly by you. So what you're saying is that despite that, you know better.

OK, but again, this renders your own statements about your stated positions to be in conflict with one another, both directly as well as indirectly.

Just pointing that out, that's all.

I agree to disagree because to me it's not that important. We have an entire nation that takes solace and refuge in lies and deception as long as that's the majority opinion.

When it (any piece, part, or parcel of that) ceases to become majority opinion, or at least has reached a minority opinion tipping point, then it becomes unprofitable, both ideologically as well as economically/financially, for sources to continue to spout in favor of those lies and cover-ups.

At what point will those claiming to get it that do not, finally see the big picture. That's my question.

By the time things become blatant is way too late.

Our pop-culture is awash in lies, deception, corruption, and cover-ups, and it all starts at the top as it were.

Katniss  posted on  2015-06-01   10:35:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: Katniss (#72)

You're the one that said "I see we'll have to agree to disagree" and you're agreeing with S. that "it's not that important," obviously meaning compared to other things.....?

Not taking sides, there are no sides. Just trying to get the picture.

NeoconsNailed  posted on  2015-06-01   10:48:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: NeoconsNailed (#73) (Edited)

Since when does "we'll have to agree to disagree" translate to irrelevant/unimportant to you?

You and I are left to "agree to disagree" with the vast majority of the nation on a good many things that are critically important.

All it means is that I'm not going to convince him/them. It's not my job to spend tons of time educating someone that's willfully (refuses to do a good amount of research independently) ignorant on something that to me is as plain as day.

We're fucked pal. It's hardly because of us. It's entirely because of people driven by the winds of the media. You aren't going to convince them, if they find out, it'll be entirely either because they take it upon themselves to spend some of their time researching things independently, which will be a tremendously small group of people, or if the mainstream starts swinging on certain topics, but by then it's usually too late for any practical purposes. Kind of like having learned relatively recently that the Katyn Forest massacre wasn't committed by Germans at all, rather Soviets. Or McNamara coming clean that the Gulf of Tonkin was contrived and made up.

Notice that I said "certain topics," because there are always tons in the pipeline that are lies and cover-ups, plenty to keep even a huge team of independent researchers more than busy.

Ignorance is what assists in allowing all of it.

So what, you going to combat each of them on an independent level? Or are you going to "agree to disagree" because you realize that the power to change the things that they believe is out of your hands?

We still have to live in this world. It's the one's with the staunchest establishment/pop-culture beliefs that are the least tolerant. It's because they have numbers, not truth, on their side.

Just look at The Holocaust©, JFK, OKC, 9II, WWII, WWI, etc., etc. People that believe establishment history on those topics don't "agree to disagree" very well at all. They become hostile and castigating.

The bottom line is that the vast majority of people fall under the umbrella of ignorance is bliss and prefer it that way. As long as they can go count their money/wealth in peace, they're happy. Just don't fuck with their money though, that's the "last straw." They'll sell every last vestige of their morality and honor while making excuses and keeping the basis for those things on a moving scale simply to accommodate their quest for mammon.

Unfortunately they fail to see how this mentality is quietly leading them to hell. Hell, we're largely already in hell. Those truly desirous of living independently are in it already. As unfortunate as it is, the rest seem to be quite happy living in the matrix/charade. They don't want to see the real world, they can't handle the truth.

Funny, I noticed that you failed to comment on the contradictory nature of SG's statement that I cited.

Katniss  posted on  2015-06-01   12:33:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: Katniss (#74)

The BBC establishment-sourced documentary contesting establishment version(s) of astronauts on the moon, which you had posted at #40, is no longer available now. Do you have an alternate link or searchable title for it?

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-06-03   5:42:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (76 - 87) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]