Apollo 11 Hoax?

11 posts / 0 new
Last post
Puck T. Smith
Puck T. Smith's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 8604
Posts: 1020
Apollo 11 Hoax?

Don't know if this has been brought up yet, but it seems today might be a good day for it.

http://lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds23.1.html

At 12:31 a.m. central time August 6 NASA will bless us with its latest extravaganza, a multi-billion-dollar, decade-long effort to launch a six-wheel rover dubbed ‘Curiosity’ on the red planet 154 million miles from home. Reading the newspaper one morning, I was amused to learn about the Rube Goldberg "braking" system invented to control landing on Mars. A huge parachute is supposed to slow the craft despite an atmosphere only one percent of the earth’s, followed by freefall, then eight rocket engines ignite and lurch the craft out of the path of the trailing parachute somehow previously jettisoned, followed by a second freefall episode beginning at 66 feet altitude followed by a ‘sky crane’ lowering the rover as it unfurls its wheels, capped off by pyrotechnic charges that send blades to cut the nylon tethers. Oh my.

The rationale for this dubious landing system? "In theory, the rockets could provide a gentle enough landing to finish the job. But in practice, they would kick up such a dust storm that it could ruin the rover." Ah yes, I agree the inevitable dust storm would be a big problem. Engineers must design around that. But why wasn’t a dust storm a formidable problem on July 20, 1969, the occasion of man’s "greatest technological achievement," landing a man on the moon and returning him safely via Apollo 11? The moon is plenty dusty too.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/luna/luna_apollomissions10.htm

The Shining is surely Stanley Kubrick's most misunderstood masterpiece.
 
I use the word 'masterpiece' guardedly because I have never really thought that The Shining was a very good film.
 
At the time, in 1980 when I first saw it, I didn't like it at all. The way that Kubrick threw out so much of Stephen King's great source material and replaced it with a lot of things that just didn't seem to make any sense, really bothered me.
 
Hopefully, before I am finished with this essay, the reader will see it is only when Kubrick dramatically alters the script from Stephen King's novel that we can begin to understand what Stanley Kubrick is trying to tell us in his version of The Shining.
 
It should be understood from the beginning that The Shining is Stanley Kubrick's most personal film (outside of, possibly, Eyes Wide Shut). Before we are done here it will be easy to see that Kubrick was only using Stephen King's novel as a launching pad (excuse the pun) to be able to tell a completely different story under the guise of making a film based on a best-selling novel.
 
He did this for a very important reason - mainly to save his life. Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
 
Anyone care to chime in?
Edited by admin on 11/08/2014 - 06:24

__________________

The way that can be shown is not the Way
The name that can be named is not the Name

Zoltan
Zoltan's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 4775
Posts: 811
Too soon?

Maybe not a good time to be bringing this up?  Always thought Neil was embarrassed by the whole Apollo program.

I had more of a problem with the real time communications they have  been rebroadcasting.  It takes light a few seconds to travel from the moon but the radio messages are back and forth with no delay.  Also the video footage looks so cheesy and you can actually see a wire if you look close.

Love the SK references (Eyes Wide Shut, watch it again after a red pill).

Sorry, just what I have always felt.

Z

Puck T. Smith
Puck T. Smith's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 8604
Posts: 1020
I learned a lot I did not know reading this...

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

“But wait,” you say, “NASA has solid evidence of the validity of the Moon landings. They have, for example, all of that film footage shot on the moon and beamed live directly into our television sets.”

As it turns out, however, NASA doesn’t actually have all of that Moonwalking footage anymore. Truth be told, they don’t have any of it. According to the agency, all the tapes were lost back in the late 1970s. All 700 cartons of them. As Reuters reported on August 15, 2006, “The U.S. government has misplaced the original recording of the first moon landing, including astronaut Neil Armstrong’s famous ‘one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind’ … Armstrong’s famous moonwalk, seen by millions of viewers on July 20, 1969, is among transmissions that NASA has failed to turn up in a year of searching, spokesman Grey Hautaluoma said. ‘We haven’t seen them for quite a while. We’ve been looking for over a year, and they haven’t turned up,’ Hautaluoma said … In all, some 700 boxes of transmissions from the Apollo lunar missions are missing.”

Had NASA claimed that a few tapes, or even a few cartons of tapes, had been misplaced, then maybe we could give them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps some careless NASA employee, for example, absent-mindedly taped a Super Bowl game over one of them. Or maybe some home porn. But does it really seem at all credible to claim that the entire collection of tapes has gone missing – all 700 cartons of them, the entire film record of the alleged Moon landings? In what alternative reality would that happen ‘accidentally’?

The fact that the tapes are missing (and according to NASA, have been for over three decades), amazingly enough, was not even the most compelling information that the Reuters article had to offer. Also to be found was an explanation of how the alleged Moonwalk tapes that we all know and love were created: “Because NASA’s equipment was not compatible with TV technology of the day, the original transmissions had to be displayed on a monitor and re-shot by a TV camera for broadcast.”

So what we saw then, and what we have seen in all the footage ever released by NASA since then, were not in fact live transmissions. To the contrary, it was footage shot off a television monitor, and a tiny black-and-white monitor at that. That monitor may have been running live footage, I suppose, but it seems far more likely that it was running taped footage. NASA of course has never explained why, even if it were true that the original broadcasts had to be ‘re-shot,’ they never subsequently released any of the actual ‘live’ footage. But I guess that’s a moot point now, what with the tapes having gone missing.

Unfortunately, it isn’t just the video footage that is missing. Also allegedly beamed back from the Moon was voice data, biomedical monitoring data, and telemetry data to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship. All of that data, the entire alleged record of the Moon landings, was on the 13,000+ reels that are said to be ‘missing.’ Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.

There is, therefore, no way for the modern scientific community to determine whether all of that fancy 1960s technology was even close to being functional or whether it was all for show.

You would think that someone at NASA would have thought to preserve such things. No wonder we haven’t given them the money to go back to the Moon; they’d probably just lose it.

Not the right time? I call it striking while the iron is hot.

__________________

The way that can be shown is not the Way
The name that can be named is not the Name

Strongsidejedi
Strongsidejedi's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 11801
Posts: 2281
idiots thread

This thread is one of the most idiotic threads ever started on this site.

Not only did Armstrong and Aldrin land on the moon, you can see the fricking LEM descent stage on the moon to this day.

ALL of the Apollo lunar landing sites are photographed from lunar orbit by a recently orbited spacecraft.

Plus, all the moonwalking footage is commonly available.

Many years ago I acquired video tape copy from a person in Houston.  The moon walking transmissions are public property.

If your metals analysis is anything like this thread, you must be very wrong.

Puck T. Smith
Puck T. Smith's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 8604
Posts: 1020
Thanks for playing.

Strongsidejedi wrote:
This thread is one of the most idiotic threads ever started on this site.

Ad hominem.   It does not address any thing in the previous posts.

Strongsidejedi wrote:
Not only did Armstrong and Aldrin land on the moon, you can see the fricking LEM descent stage on the moon to this day.

Care to offer a link or cite a reference that can be confirmed?

Strongsidejedi wrote:
ALL of the Apollo lunar landing sites are photographed from lunar orbit by a recently orbited spacecraft.

Care to offer a link or cite a reference that can be confirmed?

Strongsidejedi wrote:
Plus, all the moonwalking footage is commonly available.

Care to offer a link or cite a reference that can be confirmed? Reuters reports that NASA says it has only low quality copies and that the originals have been lost.  Are you saying Reuters is wrong?

Strongsidejedi wrote:
Many years ago I acquired video tape copy from a person in Houston.  The moon walking transmissions are public property.

Why should I believe you?  Some people say they have seen bigfoot.  If the transmissions are public property, where can I acquire a copy? Reuters reports that NASA says it has only low quality copies and that the originals have been lost. Are you saying Reuters is wrong?

Strongsidejedi wrote:
If your metals analysis is anything like this thread, you must be very wrong.

More ad hominem.  Attacking me rather refuting the sources I quote does not accomplish anything except demonstrating you have nothing substantive to say.  Would you say 2+2=5 if you heard Mahmoud Ahmadinejad say it equals 4?  

BTW I don't analyze metals,  I buy them.

I did not say that I believe the Apollo narrative or not.  I simply cite others who doubt it.  Rather than addressing those doubts you resort to name-calling and making unsubstantiated assertions.  

What I know for certain is that governments lie as a matter of policy.  Do the terms Gulf of Tonkin and Weapons of Mass Destruction mean anything to you?

If you offer compelling evidence to back up your assertions I'm willing to change my position.  Are you willing to do the same?

__________________

The way that can be shown is not the Way
The name that can be named is not the Name

Buzz
Buzz's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/20/2011
Hat Tips: 64
Posts: 4
In 20 years time, or whenever another attempt will be made

it will be obvious ... NASA never made it to the moon!!

check out for instance this documentary 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yo5w0pm24ic#t=478s 

and there's much more info around!

beeb
beeb's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/21/2012
Hat Tips: 138
Posts: 38
Suggest you might want to

Suggest you might want to spend some time here:

http://www.clavius.org/

And don't forget to post on their forums to have your "ass handed to you on a plate...." to use the vernacular.

Puck T. Smith
Puck T. Smith's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 8604
Posts: 1020
@beeb

I have to reiterate what I said in my response to Strongsidejedi, I am not saying one way or the other.  I have seen compelling evidence from both camps.  I mainly started this thread because of Neil Armstrong's death.  Maybe it was morbid of me.  I'm like that sometimes.  I will say that link I posted to http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html does ask some very interesting questions.  Aside from the terrible formatting on that site, the guy has done his homework.  Personally I always thought the Moon landing happened since I was alive at the time and was caught up in the excitement of it.  I also used to believe that government was good, that WWI and II were necessary and good and that Jesus died for my sins--among many other "unquestionable" truths.  As I have grown older many of the things I once took for granted have been shown to be dubious at best and outright false in many cases.  I have learned to question ​everything.

One of the biggest indicators is the visceral anger that many people express when you question things they believe.  People have a tendency to identify with things outside themselves.  If you attack what they have accepted as true, they feel you are attacking them. They resist doubt because if what they believe is shown to be false then their sense of self is threatened.  It's the kind of thing that makes people shout "USA! USA! USA!"  People with no inner strength, no sense of inherent adequacy tie themselves to their faith, their sports team, their nation.  If you take all that away they are left with nothing.  Rather than examining that need for external affirmation, they will defend their idols, sometimes to the death.

I don't know when it happened, but at some point in my life I learned that a person's character and actions are the only things that matter.  It's not whom your parents were, what you believe, where you went to school or what country you live in that make you who you are.  When I realized that, I realized it does not matter if the United States is a shining beacon on a hill or rapacious global empire.  I am still who I am regardless.

The more important question is not was Lincoln a great president or dictator, did America make the world safe for democracy or needlessly waste live and treasure for pragmatic political ends, did NASA go to the Moon or pull and elaborate hoax to bolster it's image in the world.  The question is why is it so important that the stories be true and why does even asking the questions bring up such an impassioned defense?

If it is all lies, does that diminish you?  If America is not great does that mean you* are less of person for it?  The kind of collectivism that makes people matter because of the group they are apart of, not because of who they are and how they act as individuals is a great weight on human progress.  They sooner we abandon it, the better off we'll be.

*I'm using "you" in a rhetorical fashion, not as you in particular.

__________________

The way that can be shown is not the Way
The name that can be named is not the Name

beeb
beeb's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/21/2012
Hat Tips: 138
Posts: 38
Appreciate the response Puck

Appreciate the response Puck - I certainly wasn't having a go at you ......

I don't give much time to concepts such as "belief" or "truth" - I prefer to analyse evidence and come to a conclusion.....eg someone may "believe" that there is a Unicorn living in their garage, but that belief alone is evidentially worthless to any sane person. If people can't recognise such things, it is not worth trying to discuss matters with them as there is no common ground across which agreement can be made.

IMHO.....

murphy
murphy's picture
Online
Joined: 06/14/2011
Hat Tips: 17111
Posts: 1882
another video
A while back Tabberto posted this.
 

Saratoga - by Tabberto

9 weeks 17 hours ago

your fly me to the moon video reminded me of this, sure to split the congregation of the speak...:

maravich44
maravich44's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/22/2011
Posts: 1221
Puck

have you heard of Ingo Swann? A very fascinating character, a book that he wrote *Penetration* is available On-Line, mind blowing stuff indeed.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Topic locked
Syndicate contentComments for "Apollo 11 Hoax?"