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: 2454
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
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: christine (#0)
Moon hoax what?
______________________________________ Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
Prolly from the Petrified Forest in AZ.
“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
Gee...maybe the moon landing was faked after all as a number of people keep claiming.
well it is questionable how the rocket thruster of egale one can land on the moon without leaving a blast crater underneath it... i mean on earth a rocket propelled deceleration blasts everything in its path out of the way but i guess the moon has special rules .... just like most government things. ______________________________________ Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
I'll take a Pet Rock over a lunar one. Remember those? I think one or two kids had them when I was in the third grade or so.
Well, the wit and wisdom are really flowing on this page -- a gas. Yeah, I'm calling fraud on the moon walk. This rock business technically doesn't prove anything but it sure wouldn't look good in a court of law! Anybody want to chew the fat on this? Nice colorful page full of accusations. Kubrick's widow would be a coup and probably realer than Orwell's ;daughter by a good bit. My Husband Directed The Fake Moon Landing Says Stanley Kubrick's Widow. Why indeed so glum, lifeless, sloppy: Apollo astronauts press conference There's no way to answer that question as things stand now, but you know, if people had trained as astronauts, made the grade for the first moon flight ever, and then been ordered to go along with a hoax and keep mum about it or expect to die..... the above is exactly how I'd think such men would act. In the text below the screen there, a question I can't remember debunkers taking on thus far -- "If we did go to the moon back then, then why did we never go back?" Hey, this was supposedly the absolute pinnacle of all known human achievements since time began, and maybe the biggest reason ever that the rest of the world was supposed to bow down before amerika's incomparable greatness and excellency. Why do I find it utterly impossible to believe that no 1960s technology would have allowed us to go to the moon anyway? Am I just a natural-born heretic, or what?
Yes, you are a natural-born heretic. The Saturn V rocket was an awesome marvel of science and engineering. Some of the smartest people in the world worked on the Apollo project, including Wernher Magnus Maximilian, Freiherr von Braun. How come "we" never went back? According to NASA, they landed men on the moon in 6 different Apollo flights between 1969 and 1972. But that was a pretty weird press conference; no doubt about it. ???
First of all, it's Werner Von Braun, not Freiherr von Braun. Not sure what your point is. We never did go to the moon. Several of those top German scientists stated shortly before we supposedly went that we were nowhere close to going. NN: Why do I find it utterly impossible to believe that no 1960s technology would have allowed us to go to the moon anyway? Am I just a natural-born heretic, or what? The technology did not allow us to go to the moon. Many said so at the time and were hushed, including the three "collateral damage" astronauts that cooked in that pre-liftoff capsule fire in one "failed" mission. The simple reason why we "cannot" go back to the moon, even with a relatively insignificant cost unmanned vehicle, is because there's absolutely no way to recreate the scene. It's not there, flags, cars, capule bases, etc. The southwestern landscape that was used to film it no doubt has been drastically altered by an atmosphere that exists here on earth but not on the moon. So we will never see a trip back unless it's completely computerized. Who knows, maybe they're working on that now. It's quite simple. There's no doubt that if it were real, with our infatuation with ourselves as a nation, we'd have sent 20th, 30th, 40th anniversary revisits, at least with unmanned vehicles. Seriously, if we really did it in '69, then HTF difficult or expensive would it be to send a simple unmanned up there to photograph it. Answer: Not difficult or expensive at all. About 15 years ago Japan was supposed to launch one up, but that was quashed. Coincidence? Hardly.
Toss onto the heap of the rest of the false flags. Don't expect that one to ever come out soon, it's been way too woven into pop culture via sayings, expressions, insults, etc. Everyone knows about it. It's not like how the government works or anything that the majority of people are ignoramuses on. If it ever gets out widespread that the moon landings were faked, it would change everything. After all, if people can be duped on something so trivial, ... No one against the "conspiracy theorists" would ever be able to challenge them again. I actually think that this would be worse for the establishment than full exposure of and disclosure of the Fed.
Groovy, I'll ask again. How come it's 43 years with no more moon flights if they're so all-fired wonderful? And was the Saturn V rocket really capable of landing people on the moon and firing them back here again? Somehow I just can't credit it.
Oh, but he was a Freiherr, and it's Wernher BTW. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun Great points other than that, I'm guessing. Yeah, our overlords are into anniversaries all right -- but the supposed moon landings are barely even mentioned anymore, the "real" accomplishments they celebrate are mostly "diversity"-driven -- Brown vs. Board, Pettus Bridge and nauseam. This would be in keeping with their basic premise that blackening the white countries is the most important thing in the universe, even more than the top scientific coups, which are to be attributed to nonwhites whenever conceivably possible and then some.
You're right about that. Though, technically, von Braun gave up the baronial title when he became a US citizen. A German naturalized as an American can keep (but not add) a "von" but all titles of nobility are surrendered. I also agree that there is lots that's not right with the story of our moon landings. Jay Wiedner probably laid it out best in his videos detailing how Stanley Kubrick faked the films that show the Apollo astronauts on the moon, although he doesn't completely discount that idea that we were there. "If ignorance is truly bliss, then why do so many Americans need Prozac?" - Dave McGowan
Hearing your video right now. It's said they killed Kubrick for exposing them in Eyes wide shut. I believe it.
The moon rock was "diverted" right into the private "art collection" of Slappy Sheckstein in a suburb of Tel Aviv.....
#2. To: christine (#0)
#3. To: christine (#0)
#4. To: Tatarewicz (#3)
Gee...maybe the moon landing was faked after all as a number of people keep claiming.
#5. To: christine (#0)
Nasa gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries following lunar missions in 1969 and the 1970s.
#6. To: titorite (#4)
#7. To: NeoconsNailed (#6)
Why do I find it utterly impossible to believe that no 1960s technology would have allowed us to go to the moon anyway? Am I just a natural-born heretic, or what?
#8. To: StraitGate, All (#7)
#9. To: Tatarewicz (#3)
(Edited)
Gee...maybe the moon landing was faked after all as a number of people keep claiming.
#10. To: StraitGate (#7)
(Edited)
#11. To: Katniss (#8)
(Edited)
#12. To: NeoconsNailed (#11)
Oh, but he was a Freiherr, and it's Wernher BTW
#13. To: randge (#12)
#14. To: christine (#0)
-Alex Kurtagic
#15. To: Katniss (#8)
My point is that in 1969 some pretty awesome technology did exist. What evidence do you have that such technology did not allow us to go to the moon? Engineers knew how to propel the spacecraft beyond the earth's gravitational field after orbiting the earth, and they could calculate where the moon would be when the spacecraft reached it. They had spent decades and billions and billions of dollars with thousands of engineers and scientists researching, developing, and testing all of the various required systems -- propulsion, navigation, communications, life support, etc. Lots of people were surprised when the Soviet Union shot down a U-2 spy plane flying at 70,000 feet in 1960. I remember watching television during the first moon landing. The picture of the "lunar landing" on the TV was captioned "Simulated Image", and looked like it could have been filmed in New Mexico or West Texas. But that per se doesn't mean that that the lunar landing didn't take place. Who were these several top German scientists who stated shortly before we supposedly went that we were nowhere close to going? Are you serious that the reason you are so certain that man never made it to the moon is because the US government hasn't sent anniversary revisits, at least with unmanned vehicles? I really don't see how that proves that all the supposed moon landings were hoaxes. Not sure what your point is. ... The technology did not allow us to go to the moon.
#16. To: NeoconsNailed (#6)
that, to me, is very compelling evidence that the moon landing was faked. why in the world would the astronauts be behaving in this manner if they had really accomplished a most exciting feat! Why indeed so glum, lifeless, sloppy: Apollo astronauts press conference
Truth is still truth even if no one believes it. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.
#17. To: Katniss (#8)
and isn't just oh-so convenient that all of the film from the moon walk was lost? A+
Truth is still truth even if no one believes it. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.
#18. To: NeoconsNailed, Katniss (#11)
You might be on to something there, NN. The mission control room was a sea of Whiteness. Maybe that has something to do with it? ...but the supposed moon landings are barely even mentioned anymore, the "real" accomplishments they celebrate are mostly "diversity"-driven -- Brown vs. Board, Pettus Bridge and nauseam.
#19. To: christine, 4 (#17)
www.nasa.gov/content/godd...netrable-barrier-in-space So who's kidding whom about US going to the moon and back? nasa says the van allen radiation belt is impenetrable -
“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
#20. To: StraitGate (#15)
Are you serious that the reason you are so certain that man never made it to the moon is because the US government hasn't sent anniversary revisits, at least with unmanned vehicles? I really don't see how that proves that all the supposed moon landings were hoaxes. I don't think anybody's saying it does prove it, but I and perhaps others are calling it smoking gun-shaped anomaly in the context of many other extreme weirdnesses and incongruities. Who were these several top German scientists who stated shortly before we supposedly went that we were nowhere close to going?
#21. To: Lod (#19)
Yeah, by electrons, but what kind of radiation is it? Alpha, beta, gamma, electromagnetic, what? nasa says the van allen radiation belt is impenetrable -
Godfrey Smith: Mike, I wouldn't worry. Prosperity is just around the corner.
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#22. To: christine (#17)
Probably given to our "Good Ally" in the middle east.
Godfrey Smith: Mike, I wouldn't worry. Prosperity is just around the corner.
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#23. To: Lod (#19) (Edited)
So who's kidding whom about US going to the moon and back? Now you've brought up another hot anomaly. Beyond said belts, it's said that ubiquitous space radiation would have fried the crew long before they reached the moon. People discuss all this at Snopes but the link on that one is dead -- click here. Or were they talking about the belts? Wikipedia deals with them, but not any radiation pervading outer space at large: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories nasa says the van allen radiation belt is impenetrable - www.nasa.gov/content/godd...netrable-barrier-in-space
#24. To: NeoconsNailed, 4 (#23)
That's what I've come to believe. Beyond said belts, it's said that ubiquitous space radiation would have fried the crew long before they reached the moon.
“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
#25. To: Lod (#24)
Wow, some jam-packed stuff in that Weidner video around 38-39! They're talking about the positive negatives of Kubrick's approach.... the biggest real negative is, of course, the same as Orwell's books, namely that they have nothing to say about race or, even worse, do so and get it exactly backward (Emanuel Goldstein the victim, pure-celtic Beethoven-loving Alex and his peachy-skinned droogs). Yeah, it was either that or never get published.......... but but what if Burgess, Kubrick, Tolkien, C.S. Lewis and other towering fantasists had devoted all that talent and effort to openly shouting a warning to their fans (1930s to present) about the rising tide of color?
#26. To: StraitGate (#18)
Lot of Moonbeams out tonight on 4um.
#27. To: StraitGate (#15)
Are you serious that the reason you are so certain that man never made it to the moon is because the US government hasn't sent anniversary revisits, at least with unmanned vehicles? I really don't see how that proves that all the supposed moon landings were hoaxes. This is something that I researched a good 10 years ago, maybe more, to ad nauseum. There were a number of pivotal people that just months prior to the missions said that it could not be done and laughed it off. Also, I think it was Armstrong that has pretty much gone into hiding as it were to avoid media appearances over it. I also mentioned the three burned to death, you didn't mention them. Coincidence that it happened? You can spend your time doing all the research I did, I don't have time (or desire) to do it again, I didn't save it or compile my findings. I approached it objectively and with an entirely open mind, and much as with 9II I came to the conclusion that it was hokey. If they can pull off 9II, OKC, FF war starting things, a simple trip to the moon which is out of sight and unverifiable by just about everyone isn't out of the question by a long shot. Also, Russians were astonished and said that they never could make it. They always copied us back in the day. Anyway, sounds like a good project for you in your independent study. This is the one link I saved for whatever reason; http://shatteringthematrix.com/profiles/blogs/my-husband-directed-the-fake?xg_source=activity#.VWPctkbMKJ8 Here's a quick YT search of hoax documentaries; https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moon+landing+hoax+documentary+ Here's the one I think I watched that got me thinking; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj5r3jXhV2Q Who were these several top German scientists who stated shortly before we supposedly went that we were nowhere close to going?
#28. To: christine, All (#16)
Exactly, and then to have all but a lifelong moratorium on discussing it personally? Odd to the point of raising the bullshit flag. Among many other things. that, to me, is very compelling evidence that the moon landing was faked. why in the world would the astronauts be behaving in this manner if they had really accomplished a most exciting feat!
#29. To: christine, StraitGate (#17)
Yeah, isn't it. Ever see the footage of the men hopping around on the moon slowed down? Also, just one of many of the hundreds if not thousands of vids out there, this one's new to me and hysterical; and isn't just oh-so convenient that all of the film from the moon walk was lost?
#30. To: Cynicom (#26)
And one pot-shotter. Lot of Moonbeams out tonight on 4um.
#31. To: Katniss (#29)
LOL. he's lifted up without the other astronaut even touching him!
Truth is still truth even if no one believes it. A lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.
#32. To: Katniss (#29)
In the video, it's pretty clear to me that the astronaut on the left is holding on to the right hand of the astronaut on the right, and gets a pull-up (and a pitch-up spin) from him (notwithstanding the video's assertion that the other astronaut isn't even touching him). The astronaut on the left also pushes himself up from the ground with his right hand. 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. I'm not saying that there isn't any evidence disproving a lunar landing; all I'm saying is this ain't it.
#33. To: Katniss (#27)
Fair enough. I'll take a look at the links you supplied. Thanks. Anyway, sounds like a good project for you in your independent study.
#34. To: christine (#31)
And yet ... LOL LOL. he's lifted up without the other astronaut even touching him!
#35. To: StraitGate (#32)
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. 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.
#36. To: StraitGate (#33)
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. Fair enough. I'll take a look at the links you supplied.
#37. To: Katniss (#35)
That would be like wearing 24 gallons of water. Hard to imagine. Explanation: Packs weigh 200 lbs.
#38. To: Katniss (#35)
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. 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.
#39. To: NeoconsNailed, StraitGate (#37)
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 That would be like wearing 24 gallons of water. Hard to imagine.
#40. To: StraitGate (#38)
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. 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.
#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
#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!
#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...
#44. To: StraitGate (#43) (Edited)
So you say we did it? Why the weirdorama interview etc?
#45. To: NeoconsNailed (#44)
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. So you say we did it, huh.
#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.
#47. To: Katniss (#46)
Wheee! Bravo!!!That applies across the board.
corruptissima re publica plurimae leges - Tacitus
#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.
#49. To: StraitGate (#45)
Oh, but a 'huh' can obviate an eroteme and indicatify a plenary cessation. :-) Did you, as I recall, comment on the radiation factor, StraitGate? I'll take that as a question, even though it's not like you to omit a question mark (or any other punctuation).
#50. To: StraitGate (#48) (Edited)
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. It's you who have already made up your mind.
#51. To: NeoconsNailed (#49)
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? ;) Did you, as I recall, comment on the radiation factor, StraitGate?
#52. To: Katniss (#50)
Well, OK, then. You have already made up your mind. ...I became convinced...
#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.
#54. To: StraitGate (#51)
It sounds like a "strait" answer isn't in the works on this one.
#55. To: NeoconsNailed (#54)
Well done! Props.to.you. lol It sounds like a "strait" answer isn't in the works on this one.
______________________________________
Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.
#56. To: titorite (#53)
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. Hey strait, how come.their is no blast crater from the landing of.eagle one underneath the lander?
#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.
#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
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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
#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.
#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.
#66. To: NeoconsNailed (#57)
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, have you offered an explanation of how the astronauts could have passed through the van Allen belts safely
#67. To: titorite (#65)
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. Oh and here is a link to nixons lunar phone call
#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.
#69. To: StraitGate, Neoconsnailed (#52)
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. : ) Well, OK, then. You have already made up your mind.
#70. To: titorite (#68)
Yes, they are all crooks. I'm with you there. demonstrait -- Good one! I just now now caught that. Well i mentioned the context to demonstrait the offical time delay. Obummer nixon.. there is.no.difference, they are all.crooks.
#71. To: Katniss (#69)
Sounds good, brother. We both have bigger fish to fry. :) I see we'll have to agree to disagree.
#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 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. 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. 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.
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.
#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.
#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.
#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
#76. To: GreyLmist (#75)
To reiterate, this is merely a first step, there is much more evidence.
#77. To: Katniss (#76)
Thanks for reposting that. So, CNN reported NASA's "unpredicted surprise" that the Van Allen belts posed a huge danger to astronauts when they saw "shooting stars" of radiation through closed eyes at only 350 miles' altitude. I don't know that I believe the Russkies got satellites up there first. Cui bono? amerikan politicians and contractors who had spent the previous 35 years working to show the world that we're the biggest, baddest country on the block. Aha, minutes after I mention contractors here, the Englishwoman uses the word (15:26)!
#78. To: GreyLmist (#75)
Also Grey, watch that video, you'll notice the same lack of evidence that there is for 9II, even less in fact.
#79. To: Katniss, StraitGate (#72) (Edited)
Neil Armstrong died in 2012, so am noting here that "refused" in the past-tense would be the accurate wording. On the issue of confusion about StraitGate's alleged contradictory statements, my impression is that he thinks but isn't sure that astronauts went to the moon, based to some extent on continuation of the manned moon landing program and reported returns there but said that his doubts were raised somewhat by the bizarre astronaut press conference he viewed (e.g. wherein Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins seemed jet lagged or whatever) -- more so than by any debated scientific concerns. (Ref. #45) For consideration of something other than simply technical impossibility being the preeminent explanation that halted and diverted manned lunar landing missions, he presented a book of a non-establishment topic but available at the establishment-outlet, Amazon.com -- similar in that way to the non-establishment documentary about the reported manned lunar mission(s) presented through a BBC establishment-channel. (Ref. #40) And thanks for reposting that at #76. One thing I am quite confused about at this point regarding outer space interference isn't so much the Van Allen radiation belt but why satelites and the space station seemingly aren't being flung around by solar winds and storms and such. Is the possibility of that even figured at all into the plannings? ...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.
-------
"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
#80. To: GreyLmist (#79)
Also Grey, if it was all on the level, why all of the cover-up and unanswered questions. Reeks of the same stuff that 9II is made of. This documentary was made well before Armstrong died. Don't know, haven't looked into that at all. Good point though. The simplest things are a enough for me, pretty much summed up in this video, but again, with much much more elsewhere. Why so few official pics? Why the clouded video, even to NASA? Why all of the photographic discrepancies? etc. The reasons for why they would do this were obvious, at least at the time. Today it might be no big deal. Also, knowing exactly where they supposedly landed on the moon, again, it would take absolutely nothing monetarily to send up an unmanned probe with today's technology, one that wouldn't even need to be returned, to simply drive around and take pics. Given the technology that supposedly put repeated missions in all but the same spot on the moon nearly 50 years ago, with today's technology they should be able to drop a lander directly on top of one of those moon cars if they so chose, yet not one single effort much less actual occurrence of us going back to document how great we are. Why not? Neil Armstrong died in 2012, so am noting here that "refused" in the past-tense would be the accurate wording.
One thing I am quite confused about at this point regarding outer space interference isn't so much the Van Allen radiation belt but why satelites and the space station seemingly aren't being flung around by solar winds and storms and such. Is the possibility of that even figured at all into the plannings?
#81. To: Katniss (#78)
I watched some of the video before it was removed but not all and appreciate your replacement of that documentary for us. There was something mentioned in it around the 35 minute mark about the time span involved, which I hadn't heard before and thought was rather anomalous, if so. Also Grey, watch that video, you'll notice the same lack of evidence that there is for 9II, even less in fact.
-------
"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
#82. To: Lod, NeoconsNailed (#19)
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
#83. To: Katniss (#80)
This documentary was made well before Armstrong died. Thanks for the context clarification. I don't know why not. Cheapskate politicos maybe. At the very least, I think they ought to be more motivated to sweep up the debris floating round about in space that could possibly damage our satelites and the space station if tossed into them by solar winds and storms and the like. Neil Armstrong died in 2012, so am noting here that "refused" in the past-tense would be the accurate wording.
knowing exactly where they supposedly landed on the moon, again, it would take absolutely nothing monetarily to send up an unmanned probe with today's technology, one that wouldn't even need to be returned, to simply drive around and take pics. Given the technology that supposedly put repeated missions in all but the same spot on the moon nearly 50 years ago, with today's technology they should be able to drop a lander directly on top of one of those moon cars if they so chose, yet not one single effort much less actual occurrence of us going back to document how great we are. Why not?
-------
"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
#84. To: GreyLmist (#83)
It simply makes no sense that neither the USSA, USSR nor anybody else would have done any moon walking for the past 40 years. The moon walk is the main conceit of national greatness of all time. If we cant explain it, that's a serious gaping hole in the picture -- even taking amerika's insane pursuit of "diversity" into ccount.
#85. To: Bill D Berger (#82)
Looking for a date on that quote, a bit hard to find since google is poky for some reason (I probly need to sweep for viruses again). If it dates from 1960, that's one thing. If from 2010, quite another. wicked pedia goes through the entire issue and purports to debunk the hoax "theory", notably a section called Environment which alleges that "Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too harmful for the Apollo missions." wicked pedia is totally, maniacally establishment. Throwing this in to grease the wheels of "theory" progress, not the debunking :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#The_hoax_claims
#86. To: GreyLmist (#83)
Come on, since when are the Feds cheapskates. They spend astronomically on FFs. I know why, because if they do it'll prove that they never went there, so all we get is excuses and reasons why we won't. The entire thing is so transparent. I don't know why not. Cheapskate politicos maybe.
#87. To: NeoconsNailed (#85)
Did you watch that video that I just posted? ... in its entirety?
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest