My Husband Directed The Fake Moon Landing Says Stanley Kubrick's Widow.

Wrong. You don't need moisture in many substances to hold a print. The lunar soil has many jagged edges due to a lack of erosion so it tends to lock itself together.

Perhaps all Americans can agree with the great Neil Armstrong, whose famous quote appears in Wagener's biography on a special summary page at the end of the book (search for honestly say inside the book):

[link to www.amazon.com]
---
As for walking on the moon, sometimes I wonder if that really happened. I can honestly say--and it's a great surprise to me--that I have never had a dream about being on the moon. It's a great disappointment to me.

- Neil Armstrong
---

The first sentence makes clear that Mr. Armstrong is skeptical of the reality of the "moon landings"--and therefore so should we.

The second sentence is a little more cryptic, but understandable by analogy. Let's say that a young actor gets a reputation in fan magazines as a playboy. But as he gets older and never settles down with anyone, rumors start to swirl about him. Finally, when his career is over anyway, he cryptically mentions in an interview that "I've never dreamt of having relations with a woman. It's a great disappointment to me." What do you think the actor is trying to tell us?

Last Edited by Skeptic the First on 08/13/2012 06:08 PM

How about this.

America landed on the moon but the world didn't get to see the real footage, because there was evidence of aliens everywhere they pointed their cameras. Way too much to just airbrush out, so, in order to hide it all from the world, they had to produce a phony version showing a barren empty lunar landscape.

So, believers and non believers, you're both right.

I stopped believing in Sinterklaas when I was 4.
You're an adult, why do you believe the lies perpetrated by the Hoax Proponents?


Presumes facts not in evidence.


'Nixion' couldn't even cover up a mundane burglary.


Fuck the media.
We are talking about the actual evidence, not the media's presentation of it.


So you are claiming that the 400,000 workers and the hundreds of contractors and their shareholders weren't payed?


They don't.
There are literally hundreds of scientific mistakes in 2001, and that is just one feature-length film.
The Apollo visual record includes hundreds of hours of film and video, many thousands of DAC still frames, and 30,000 photographs.
Where did Kubrick find the time and where in England did they have a 5 mile-wide vacuum low-gravity soundstage?
Never mind that the visual documentation just scratches the surface of the evidence.


Contradicts facts in evidence.
Any hoax theory that doesn't include the astronauts themselves as participants is just silly anyway (or more silly than usual) because they are in the pictures.

All you have is a fantasy, net even a smidgen of an iota of a kernel of evidence.



What about the live TV broadcasts?

IF it was compartmentalized as you say, then everybody else involved designed, built and tested equipment capable of going to the Moon. So why not go?

Your logic is faulty on two counts.

1) The #1 difference between reality and fakery is that reality would have risked the lives of the celebrity "astronauts." Even if NASA had had equipment theoretically capable of carrying humans to the moon and back, President Nixon (of mass-murdering Vietnam War infamy) could not take the political chance of another celebrity multi-death "accident"--it would have entirely killed the space program, on which the military-industrial-intelligence complex had come to depend.

2) Compartmentalization does not mean that all of the components were fit for purpose; but rather, that those working on the fit-for-purpose components would be unaware of the inadequacies of other components.

The most obvious candidate for an unfit component was the Lunar Module (LM). The very idea that one might risk human lives on a contraption that had never been tested in the entirely alien environment in which it was supposed to operate is utterly ludicrous to any engineer who is not a mass murderer himself.


The United States has never landed a craft on another celestial body and returned it safely to earth--unless you count the "moon landings." Not before 1969, and not since.

The United States has never sent a mammal beyond near-earth orbit, returned it to earth, and verified its good health--again, unless you count the "moon landings." Not before 1969, and not since.

The official story is that NASA skipped testing the all-important Lunar Module on which the lives of the "astronauts" depended. Was the head of NASA a murderer or a faker?

[link to en.wikipedia.org]
---
The first unmanned LM flight was planned for April 1967, but because of development delays did not occur until January 22, 1968 when the Apollo 5 flight launched the LM-1 atop a Saturn IB for propulsion systems testing in low Earth orbit. A second unmanned test flight of LM-2 was originally planned, but canceled as unnecessary.

The first manned LM flight was also delayed, planned for Apollo 8 in December 1968 but not occurring until Apollo 9 using LM-3 on March 3, 1969 to test the LM's systems, separation and docking in low Earth orbit. Apollo 9 had been planned as a second manned, higher Earth orbit practice flight, but this was cancelled to keep the program timeline on track.

Apollo 10, launched on May 18, 1969, was a "dress rehearsal" for the lunar landing, practicing all phases of the mission except powered descent initiation through takeoff [i.e., what it was actually supposed to do]. The LM descended to 47,400 feet (14.4 km) above the lunar surface, then jettisoned the descent stage and used its ascent engine to return to the CSM.
---

If an engineer actually wanted a successful mission without murdering the passengers, he would demand thorough testing of the single most critical component.

On the other hand, if an evil engineer wanted to fool the public with an inadequate crucial component, he would deliberately minimize public testing of that component so as not to make its inadequacies obvious.

That's some fine circular reasoning, and begging of questions.

When you get your own space agency you get to run how you think is the correct way.

That's the excuse of every dimwitted fatcat bureaucrat: "How dare you disagree with me? I'm the King!"

The obvious answer to such worthless leeches is: "You work for us the taxpayers, fella. You are required to give a complete and honest account of everything you do in our employ, and we will then judge your work as we see fit."

BS. They knew the risks. You can't claim to know the mind of a dead president.


So now you want even more people in on it that have never said a word. you can't have it both ways.


Never tested? They tested the components on the ground, they tested the assembled vehicle in orbit unmanned then manned then manned in lunar orbit. Apollo 11 was the final test and you are still full of BS.




Why would they need to? They can and did test the radiation environment with sensors. They KNEW what the environment was like.

All you ever do is say people would behave in a certain way.

How the fuck do you know, you are not them.
You don't have clue about their motivations, priorities, knowledge, resources, and needs.


You being oblivious of the record or to dumb to understand it is nobody's fault but YOUR OWN.

Your monomanic obsession with bureaucrats, LBJ, and Nixon is completely irrelevant.
Men on the Moon is historical fact.
If YOU insist on accusing hundreds of thousands of people of wrongdoing, you shameless slanderer, YOU have the burden to proof it.

Chuckle. Satan, and his minions in high places, are quite predictable.

You fail Apollo 101, re-take the class.

The primary purpose of the Lunar Module was to land live humans on the moon safely from lunar orbit, then to ascend back into lunar orbit again carrying live humans safely. This primary purpose was never tested in the environment in which it was supposed to operate.

Any engineer who would risk human lives as a "test" is a murderer just as Nixon was.

Any engineer who thinks that way is a murderer.

An engineer worthy of the title would always test an alien environment on another mammal first before risking human lives.

Repeating your assertion while stamping your foot is not a convincing argument.

It is NASA that is making the extraordinary claim; it is NASA that must provide the extraordinary evidence.

Please note that NASA hardly ever even bothers to defend its own claim--making any third-party defense sound rather hollow. This was how NASA described Neil Armstrong:

[link to www.space.com]
---
"Neil is, if nothing else, an engineering test pilot, and in that milieu, is a test pilot's test pilot."
---

Actually, NASA did this in early July 1969--with horrifying results:

[link to lis.arc.nasa.gov]
---
The last mission in the U.S. biosatellite program was Biosatellite III, launched on June 28, 1969. The intent had been to fly a pigtailed monkey in Earth-orbit for 30 days. However, after only 8.8 days in orbit, the mission was terminated because of the monkey's deteriorating health.
...
When it became evident that the primate's condition was continuing to decline, the biosatellite was recalled. Immediately after the biosatellite was recovered, attempts were made to revive the primate but there was no response to remedial measures.

The flight subject died about eight hours after the capsule was recovered. The acute cause of death was ventricular fibrillation. At the time of death, body weight was 4.4 kg. Weight loss may have been due to the marginally palatable food pellets that had to be used to accommodate experimental requirements. Marked dehydration was evident. The cause of death is still controversial. At the time it was speculated that the changes noted in the animal were an effect of microgravity alone.
---

In other words, the experiment convinced NASA that microgravity was itself fatal to mammals. (Whether or not this later turned out to be true is irrelevant here.)

So NASA immediately sends up humans into the same environment? Would any good engineer do such a thing? Would a celebrity "astronaut" agree to it?

Last Edited by Skeptic the First on 08/15/2012 11:36 AM

TL;DR

So if we can't go to the moon I take it the current Mars mission is just part of the modern circus. I only ask because I've seen the pictures.

Do you know what Aldrin and Armstrong's job description was when they were hired by NASA?


That makes a lot of murderers.
How many types of manned aircraft are there in the world?
Was any of them flight-tested unmanned?


More "If I ran the zoo".
It is a baseless assumption, and you know what they say about assumptions.


Get a history book.


They did.

Your turn now.


Now you're just making shit up.
The monkey refused to eat and drink, it went kooky.
Meanwhile mammals (as in human) had already flown numerous missions.


Once again the only thing proven in this thread is that hoaxies to the man are ignorant of the facts, history, science, engineering, politics, project management, and logic.

Why were they celebrities, then? Are you saying it was not under NASA's control -- that regardless of who they put in the craft, they would instantly become a "celebrity" too dangerous to expose to risk?

Why didn't this happen during the Mercury program? When did John Glenn become too well known to risk? Before or after his first flight?

What went wrong for Grissom, Chaffee, and White? Were they not well enough known to be "celebrities" before the Apollo 1 fire? Was Grissom's earlier flights insufficient? Was getting picked for the first Moon landing (because this was the leading crew at the time) not enough?

Or was this an honest accident, not a cover-up at all?

I'd be interested to hear how you reconcile this.




So your argument is that 9 groups were compartmentalized and made "parts" that worked anyhow, but 1 group of the ten was in on the hoax and made a part that wouldn't work?

You are aware, I hope, that all these parts actually had to fit together, right?

And by the by, you are wrong about the lack of testing. To be precise, you are lying about it; because you have had the testing program explained to you in detail before. You aren't being a skeptic here and engaging in query; you are being a debater here and trying to sway the opinions of others -- by carefully omitting facts you know might harm your case.

The LM, of course, is not a "component." It is an assembly, including the AGC developed at MIT, the airframe built by Grumman, the APS built by -- I think it was Thiokol but I'd have to look it up -- and so on and so forth. Although Grumman did the final assembly, over a hundred different companies supplied elements and at least half of them had people come out and work on the final craft.

There isn't a point at which yellow tape is thrown around the LM, and all the monitors connected to it, and all the documentation attached to it, and all the simulators for it, with a big sign saying "Grumman Top Secret Compartmentalized Fake LM Team Access Only, All Others Denied."





Are you including robotic sample-return missions?

Since you are so hung up on specific meanings in language, I have to ask if "United States" and "Celestial Body" are both necessary and inclusive.

Do you doubt that the Soviets (as opposed to the US) DID succeed in landing on another celestial body and returning to Earth? Do you doubt, to be be specific, Luna 16?

And do you doubt that the US ever sent a craft into space and returned it safely WITHOUT landing on another celestial body?

I would like to plumb the exact extent of your denial.

Ridiculous.

From the standpoint of a hoax, Apollo 10 is as easy -- or even easier -- to hoax than Apollo 11.

There is no technical reason not to claim that Apollo 10 performed whatever would be perceived as appropriate rehearsal. The purported hoax is not constrained to report Apollo 10 exactly as it took place, and then begin lying during Apollo 11.

Consider that the problem may not lie with the program or with the muddle-headed, contradictory conspiracy you have constructed, but with your own expectations.

Regardless of your own spin, the descent engine was fired, the ascent engine fired, the guidance computer and RCS systems were tested. The only thing not tested in lunar conditions were the descent radar and the shock absorbers.

(And, indeed, the radar was almost a problem for Apollo 11 -- or, rather, the approach radar, which had been accidentally left on and caused interrupts which flashed up an error message on the AGC.)

Circular.

NASA has been honest.

You claim they have been lying. What is your evidence? Why ...that NASA isn't honest; they lie!

So........

NASA didn't test if the LM could safely land and return human beings, because they didn't use an LM to safely return human beings, before they used an LM to safely land and return human beings?

Are you on drugs?

I've long suspected that Skeptic is a spambot.

He's been making the exact same posts for years.

Now he's Satan? You really are mental.


Engineers aren't as stupid as you think they are. The final test was Apollo 11.


So they should have added extra complexity to make it automated to be tested unmanned? For a craft that was designed to operated largely manned? In an environment where they needed the immediate reactions of a live pilot? Again, engineers aren't as stupid as you think they are. I suppose you think aircraft are all tested unmanned first as well (they're not)



Any engineer who thinks that way is a murderer.

An engineer worthy of the title would always test an alien environment on another mammal first before risking human lives.


They KNEW the environment from the tens of probes that had already been sent! What part of that do you not understand? What good would sending a mammal that can't tell them what's wrong do them if there was a problem?

So an animal dies supposedly because of microgravity alone AFTER men had already spent LONGER in orbit (orbit is in microgravity conditions by the way). All that proves is that one animal had a problem. Men had already survived in the environment.

Funny to watch the shills still trying to make out that the hoax was real. Gets more absurd as time goes on.

I agree, humans did not go to the moon. I think we can agree that Nixon had a few problems with Lies....he realy needed to look good to the world. Which was eventually a failed effort. NASA also needed to look good so they could get more money out of the American public. They could not afford a failed effort.

FIVE GOLD STAR POST!!!!!

You have to laugh!
Thx