Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Patrick1000]

It is a total Fraud in the manned sense.....

Yet you say that an unmanned mission landed there for military purposes.

How is it both a total fraud and a secret military mission?

It is a total Fraud in the manned sense, using a "fake" manned lunar mission cover to weaponize space. You wouldn't call that a fraud tsig, a con, a scam, a royal deceitful ripoff up the Ying Yang, not to mention up everyone's WAZOO!?!?!?!?!?!?????????

How else are you going to launch giant military packages like they did, Russians too, without pretending something else is going on? You need money money money for this nefarious activity which is ILLEGAL, and you need the cooperation of Congress and the American people. Weaponizing space is forbidden tsig, a big time no no no no no no no......AND! if Congress and the American people knew what they were doing, they would have said NO NO NO, OR the military guys would have had to have clued us in as to what the Russians were up to as well, why weaponizing space to this degree was/is justified, and then EVERYONE ON THE PLANET WOULD HAVE FREAKED OUT AND SAID "NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" TO BOTH SIDES.......

How did they FOOL CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BOTH? They put a goldfish bowl on the boy scout's head and sent him up, that is how. They also needed the help of industry and a huge crew of engineers, scientists, technicians to pull this off. How best to fool all of these people? With a real military program that operated under the guise of a manned lunar mission program. In this regard, the insanely cunning nature of it all, the thing is pure pure pure unadulterated GENIUS, evil genius, but genius nonetheless..

Every country with high level intelligence capabilities; Isreal, Germany, England, Brazil, Japan, China and so on, know at the very highest level that Apollo was fundamentally a scam based program to weaponize space. I would suspect some, the Israelis for example, know the details as to what exactly we did, what exactly is up there.

 

[JayUtah]

Narrative analysis proves Apollo 11 fraudulent

No. What you seem to be calling "narrative analysis" is nothing more than elaborately begging the question. From the layman's perspective you invent new "rules" that you say authentic missions should follow. You attribute the departure from those new "rules" to fraud rather than your layman's ignorance of the specialized sciences and techniques that apply to the problem.

...and that includes proving the material evidence to be "fraudulent" as well.

No, you don't get to assert that the physical evidence must "somehow" be fraudulent just because you think you've proven overall fraudulence by some other means.

Though with regard to the material evidence, it is fraudulent in a special sense.

Irrelevant. You can either prove it to be fraudulent in the ordinary sense or you cannot. No handwaving allowed; you are the claimant of an extraordinary proposition.

By this I mean that one cannot say with any certainty that the rocks are or are not lunar...

You may be unable to do that, but geologists are. They can say with certainty that the rocks they have examined are from the Moon. It is that universal expert opinion that you are being asked to account for in your theory, not the uncertainty that may exist elsewhere.

...some of them may actually be rocks from the moon for all I or anyone knows.

If you concede that we have authentic lunar surface material in hand, then your theory has to account for how that was obtained if not by the astronauts you deny were sent there to retrieve it.

That said, the stones certainly were not collected by Armstrong and Aldrin.

That is a consequence of your belief, not proof of it. The fact that all the evidence suggests the lunar samples were collected by astronauts is a rebuttal to your claim.

Also, the pics may have been taken remotely, taken from 240,000 miles away. That is possible, conceivable.

We are not interested in what you can conceive of, but rather what you can prove actually occurred. Statements of the form "May have been..." allude to affirmative rebuttals you could offer, but does not actually offer them.

...those of course are 10 plus bogus, super phony, triply doubly and oh so very insanely fake fake fake.

Please describe the process you used to determine that they were fake. Keep in mind that I am a widely-consulted authority on Apollo photography and that my photographic analysis appears in the prestigious journal Science.

Any attempt on your part to bluff your way through such an argument will be met with the most aggressive response from me.

I am not a material analyst as I have said many times.

Thank you for conceding that (a) materials science is a field that requires expertise, (b) that you do not have the required expertise, and (c) that materials science is the appropriate field for studying lunar surface material.

You have therefore clearly refuted your own claims that "common sense" alone is a sufficient to study the authenticity of Apollo. Unless you clarify that refutation, I will consider it valid for all the other specialized subject matter in which you have either admitted a lack of understanding or have exhibited substantial error.

I don't do rocks and pics.

Thank you for conceding that your theory explicitly fails to account for two major sources of evidence considered to be proof of Apollo's authenticity. Since your theory fails to account for all the pertinent evidence, it is summarily rejected as insufficient.

I can prove them fraudulent in my special sense, prove the pics and rocks fraudulent...

By "special sense" it sounds as if you intend to move the goalposts. I am not interested in any effort you might make to redefine the terms of investigation to lower the bar for your pet claims. You don't get to adjust the rules until you win.

If you cannot prove them fraudulent according to the standards that prevail in the relevant sciences, then kindly concede that inability and move on.

...as I have just done again by showing the LAM-2 map...

Irrelevant argument. We are talking about whether you can address two specific forms of evidence.

As I mentioned before, I am more like a theater critic than anything...

You have provided no evidence that this constitutes any sort of valid approach to determining the authenticity of an historical event. Please give examples of other historical events proven to be fraudulent by principles of drama criticism.

Your approach here would suggest that drama and real-life should share similar properties, such that the criteria for "bad drama" would also be valid criteria for "bad reality." Would you agree or disagree with the statement that drama and real life each includes elements that would be considered inappropriate in the other?

...and I specialize in plot credibility and performance.

You have shown no aptitude in this respect. Please give us examples of your published theater criticism. You have simply offered your personal incredulity, supposition, and misunderstanding as the standard against which to measure the facts.

A determination of "plot credibility" requires a knowledge of the plot and setting elements around which the plot is based. You have shown a longstanding and predictable inability to understand any of those plot elements, and you freely admit that you are learning about them as you go.

You provide no explanation for why all the properly qualified experts disagree with your assessment of credibility, except that they "must" -- by virtue of that disagreement along -- somehow be uninformed or untrustworthy. In this case parsimony forces us to conclude that it is your judgment that is in error, not the rest of the world's.

 

[Patrick1000]

Same point to you Loss Leader that I just made to Tomblvd....

A long time ago in this thread, I mentioned that space sickness was a well-known open secret at the time. Though no astronaut would admit to it, some of them had experienced some hard times even before Apollo. We also had information that the Soviets were having problems with it, too.

It's hard to treat a problem when everybody affected keeps denying it exists.

Same point to you Loss Leader that I just made to Tomblvd...Hopefully we can clear up this ridiculous nonsense with regard to claims about space sickness in the case of Borman on the Apollo 8 fight once and for all.

First of all, if you intend to make such a claim, that Borman was afflicted with space sickness and not and infectious gastroenteritis as his doctor Berry indicated was the case, you Loss Leader need to provide us all with a good reference backing up your claim, such as a statement made by Charles Berry or one of the other Apollo Program quacks....As I reminded Tomblvd, the Apollo 8 Mission Report indicates the official diagnosis was viral gastroenteritis and so that diagnosis stands until your side can convincingly show otherwise with good referenced support. (Not that the bogus diagnosis of viral gastroenteritis is meaningful, it hardly is anything but gibberish for reasons already given.)

Also, you need to produce a good reference showing that space sickness is associated with diarrhea. As mentioned many times already, it is NOT NOT NOT, and as such, your claim is vacuous on more than one level.

 

[Patrick1000]

I'll rephrase my statement for you Jay........

No. What you seem to be calling "narrative analysis" is nothing more than elaborately begging the question. From the layman's perspective you invent new "rules" that you say authentic missions should follow. You attribute the departure from those new "rules" to fraud rather than your layman's ignorance of the specialized sciences and techniques that apply to the problem.



No, you don't get to assert that the physical evidence must "somehow" be fraudulent just because you think you've proven overall fraudulence by some other means.



Irrelevant. You can either prove it to be fraudulent in the ordinary sense or you cannot. No handwaving allowed; you are the claimant of an extraordinary proposition.



You may be unable to do that, but geologists are. They can say with certainty that the rocks they have examined are from the Moon. It is that universal expert opinion that you are being asked to account for in your theory, not the uncertainty that may exist elsewhere.



If you concede that we have authentic lunar surface material in hand, then your theory has to account for how that was obtained if not by the astronauts you deny were sent there to retrieve it.



That is a consequence of your belief, not proof of it. The fact that all the evidence suggests the lunar samples were collected by astronauts is a rebuttal to your claim.



We are not interested in what you can conceive of, but rather what you can prove actually occurred. Statements of the form "May have been..." allude to affirmative rebuttals you could offer, but does not actually offer them.



Please describe the process you used to determine that they were fake. Keep in mind that I am a widely-consulted authority on Apollo photography and that my photographic analysis appears in the prestigious journal Science.

Any attempt on your part to bluff your way through such an argument will be met with the most aggressive response from me.



Thank you for conceding that (a) materials science is a field that requires expertise, (b) that you do not have the required expertise, and (c) that materials science is the appropriate field for studying lunar surface material.

You have therefore clearly refuted your own claims that "common sense" alone is a sufficient to study the authenticity of Apollo. Unless you clarify that refutation, I will consider it valid for all the other specialized subject matter in which you have either admitted a lack of understanding or have exhibited substantial error.



Thank you for conceding that your theory explicitly fails to account for two major sources of evidence considered to be proof of Apollo's authenticity. Since your theory fails to account for all the pertinent evidence, it is summarily rejected as insufficient.



By "special sense" it sounds as if you intend to move the goalposts. I am not interested in any effort you might make to redefine the terms of investigation to lower the bar for your pet claims. You don't get to adjust the rules until you win.

If you cannot prove them fraudulent according to the standards that prevail in the relevant sciences, then kindly concede that inability and move on.



Irrelevant argument. We are talking about whether you can address two specific forms of evidence.



You have provided no evidence that this constitutes any sort of valid approach to determining the authenticity of an historical event. Please give examples of other historical events proven to be fraudulent by principles of drama criticism.

Your approach here would suggest that drama and real-life should share similar properties, such that the criteria for "bad drama" would also be valid criteria for "bad reality." Would you agree or disagree with the statement that drama and real life each includes elements that would be considered inappropriate in the other?



You have shown no aptitude in this respect. Please give us examples of your published theater criticism. You have simply offered your personal incredulity, supposition, and misunderstanding as the standard against which to measure the facts.

A determination of "plot credibility" requires a knowledge of the plot and setting elements around which the plot is based. You have shown a longstanding and predictable inability to understand any of those plot elements, and you freely admit that you are learning about them as you go.

You provide no explanation for why all the properly qualified experts disagree with your assessment of credibility, except that they "must" -- by virtue of that disagreement along -- somehow be uninformed or untrustworthy. In this case parsimony forces us to conclude that it is your judgment that is in error, not the rest of the world's.

I'll rephrase my statement for you Jay so that it works better given your scientific/engineering orientation.

THE LAM-2 MAP IS PROVEN FRAUDULENT AS IT IS INTENTIONALLY AND DECEPTIVELY ROTATED COUNTERCLOCKWISE FROM A TRUE NORTH/SOUTH ORIENTATION AND ADDITIONALLY, ALL EAST LOCATIONS ARE ROUGHLY 3 MINUTES AND CHANGE OF ARC TO THE WEST OF WHERE THEY SHOULD BE, THE COORDINATE GRID BEING INTENTIONALLY AND DECEPTIVELY MISPLACED. One may use Google Earth Moon or the other maps/images referenced above to again check the validity of my straightforward claim here.

This one here is a slam dunk Jay as you know Jay. No wiggle room is there? This ballgame is over! Never in a million years did they think someone would stumble across this HARD PIERCE OF EVIDENCE, THIS PATENTLY FAKE FAKE FAKE AND OBVIOUSLY MANIPULATED MAP, NOW DID THEY JAY...?....

Given the LAM-2 Map fraudulence, we may conclude Apollo 11 itself was fraudulent and we are quite rightly entitled to view all of the Apollo 11 material evidence as BOGUS! including the pictures and rocks since ONE CAN HARDLY FIND A LANDING SITE IF ONE'S MAP IS NOT ACCURATELY LABELED , ESPECIALLY WHEN GOING TO THE MOON OF ALL PLACES.

Now wouldn't you agree with that Jay.....?......

 

[R.A.F.]

What evidence would it take to convince you that it was a manned mission?
-LF

Killer question...well, Patrick? What say you??

 

[JayUtah]

How did they FOOL CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BOTH? They put a goldfish bowl on the boy scout's head and sent him up, that is how.

They also sent more than a dozen other people who weren't Neil Armstrong. Reconcile that with your theory.

They also needed the help of industry and a huge crew of engineers, scientists, technicians to pull this off. How best to fool all of these people? With a real military program that operated under the guise of a manned lunar mission program.

Please explain exactly how all these highly skilled and very well informed people were actually doing something other than what they set out to do.

...the thing is pure pure pure unadulterated GENIUS, evil genius, but genius nonetheless.

No, it's just an appeal to magic. Somehow, even though every iota of evidence points to authentic missions, something else "magically" occurred.

Every country with high level intelligence capabilities; Isreal, Germany, England, Brazil, Japan, China and so on, know at the very highest level that Apollo was fundamentally a scam...

Supply proof for this claim, please.

I would suspect some, the Israelis for example, know the details as to what exactly we did, what exactly is up there.

Name which Israelis know this.

 

[R.A.F.]

How did they FOOL CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BOTH? They put a goldfish bowl on the boy scout's head and sent him up, that is how.

All those people INCLUDING SCIENTISTS the world over...all those people "fooled"....but not you?

Please explain why your opinion should be of more interest than the opinions of the scientists of the world.

I and others have asked this question in a number of different ways...yet you've "dodged" it in every instance.

Please respond to it now...

 

[Garrison]

How did they FOOL CONGRESS AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BOTH? They put a goldfish bowl on the boy scout's head and sent him up, that is how. They also needed the help of industry and a huge crew of engineers, scientists, technicians to pull this off. How best to fool all of these people? With a real military program that operated under the guise of a manned lunar mission program. In this regard, the insanely cunning nature of it all, the thing is pure pure pure unadulterated GENIUS, evil genius, but genius nonetheless..

So all those engineers, scientists and technicians worked on hardware for a manned lunar mission which was just a cover, and yet all of them were apparently convinced that the hardware that they had designed, manufactured, tested, and assembled would do the job it was supposed to do, land a man on the moon. Indeed every qllaified person who has looked at the hardware in the years since has concluded it would do the job, so how was this miracle of deception achieved? Are you suggesting they built all the hardware for a manned landing and simply didn't use it?
And then we come back to you military program. We have this mass of evidence for the existence of the manned Apollo program, as I have asked repeatedly where are the equivalent blueprints, photographs and accounts of people who worked on this hardware? Are you seriously suggesting that in 40 odd years successive governments that couldn't keep their dirty dealings and sexual pecadillos out of the media somehow never leaked so much as a vague description for someone to make an inaccurate model kit of?

 

[JayUtah]

Berry's testimony in the Apollo 8 Mission Report is that the illness was viral gastroenteritis based.

Not quite. The medical flight controller on duty got the "impression" (p. 8-3) that the commander (Borman) was suffering from "acute viral gastroenteritis." While this may be a correct diagnosis, it was not confirmed because the symptoms had remitted on their own and no further action was deemed necessary.

Further, the Apollo 8 Mission Report mentions, with equal weight, the possibility that Borman had an unfavorable drug reaction (p. 8-4). Your summary of the medical testimony is inaccurate and misleading.

Consulting the CDC information sheet on acute viral gastroenteritis, we find that it is not considered a dangerous condition by itself, and that the primary concern is to manage the dehydration that results from the symptoms. It does not suggest quarantine or sequestration, nor recommend any specific action other than to maintain as sanitary a condition as possible.

In that acute viral gastroenteritis occurs commonly even when the best sanitary conditions are available, it is unrealistic to expect special precautions to be taken to reduce the risk, simply because it occurred in a space environment.

Again Tomblvd, the illness was attributed by quack, errrhh, I mean Dr. Berry...

You have provided no evidence that Dr. Charles Berry acted inappropriately except to offer instead your untrained, inexperienced personal judgment otherwise.

That is not guaranteed protection against influenza as they claimed was the case for Apollo 8.

Irrelevant. You assign people to tasks who are as healthy as you know how to make them, not who are perfectly free from and insusceptible to illness. Your personal standard is unrealistic and therefore rejected.

If this were real, when Apollo 8 "came back" from its mission, the capsule would have been "cultured", scrutinized, studied for evidence of infectious agents on the surface of the "walls and floors", in the water supply and with respect to the food supply.

Please provide Apollo documentation for this "required" procedure.

And what purpose would any such study serve, after the mission is concluded and the astronauts are back on Earth?

This is so ridiculous beyond belief. Maybe the astronauts were/are like me, getting sick to their stomachs because they can't stand the phoniness of it all........

If studying Apollo distresses you so much, then simply quit doing it. No one is forcing you to continue this witch-hunt. But while you're voluntarily studying Apollo, kindly quit bellyaching. We're all done with it. Your personal feelings of disgust have no proof value and are thus inappropriate.

 

[tsig]

Again, space sickness is NOT NOT NOT associated with diarrhea...Do you know how many astronauts get a least a touch of space sickness Tomblvd? Perhaps most>50%. If space sickness were associated with diarrhea what would THAT mean?

Also Tomblvd, if you are going to claim Borman's illness was space sickness based, YOU NEED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE FROM CHARLES BERRY OR ONE OF THE OTHER NASA DOCTORS SAYING THAT WAS SO. As I try to keep reminding everyone, Berry's testimony in the Apollo 8 Mission Report is that the illness was viral gastroenteritis based. Maybe if we find Berry changing his story here and there we can all catch him in a big fat lie like I did with Borman in the case of his idiotic LIFE MAGAZINE article in which he gave personal testimony to the fact that he UNBELIEVABLY TOOK MORE SECONAL TO INTENTIONALLY MAKE HIMSELF SICK IN SPACE. Not only are these astronauts FAKE but also very very very very very very DUMB DUMB DUMB.


Again Tomblvd, the illness was attributed by quack, errrhh, I mean Dr. Berry, to viral gastroenteritis per the Apollo 8 Mission Report. Read it for yourself.

AND! CONSIDER THIS!; in the midst of the ongoing Honk Kong flu epidemic 1968 and 1969, they continued to pretend INFLUENZA was not a threat given the circumstances. The point here being, so what if they vaccinated Stafford/Young/Cernan/McDivitt/Schweickart/Scott/Armstrong/Collins/Aldrin/Bean/Gordon/Conrad. That is not guaranteed protection against influenza as they claimed was the case for Apollo 8. TALK ABOUT FAKE FAKE FAKE FAKE........

It is the middle of a worldwide pandemic that killed 1,000,000 and made many many many many more millions sick on top of that. It could EASILY kill all three astronauts were ONE to get sick in space.

If this were real, when Apollo 8 "came back" from its mission, the capsule would have been "cultured", scrutinized, studied for evidence of infectious agents on the surface of the "walls and floors", in the water supply and with respect to the food supply.

Last but not least, they didn't even check Borman out to see if his HCG level was elevated upon return. Never know with those guys you know......

None of this happened. This is so ridiculous beyond belief. Maybe the astronauts were/are like me, getting sick to their stomachs because they can't stand the phoniness of it all........

So your argument is reduced to discussing toilet training?

 

[Tomblvd]

I found it comical that once the NASA/Apollo script writers realized they had botched this by concocting this unbelievable story about infectious diarrhea in outer space and couldn't undo the nonsensical story they had told, they decided to deal with the fraud exposure so created by claiming the astronauts could not have contracted influenza in the midst of the Hong Kong flu epidemic of 1968/1969. This false claim of course was necessary in a sense because were Borman to have had influenza, Lovell and Anders under those circumstances would be expected to get if for sure. So what can they do but make up this jive about the boys having been vaccinated? LOL..... Got 'em there...... So what, Borman still could have contracted influenza, especially in the winter of 1968.

I said previously that there are statements in the above wall-o-text that proves Patrick is most certainly NOT a physician. Since he pointedly ignored that, I'll show what I mean:

This false claim of course was necessary in a sense because were Borman to have had influenza, Lovell and Anders under those circumstances would be expected to get if for sure.

This is a mistake even a student in undergraduate immunology wouldn't make. Even the most virulent strains of influenza, such as the 1918 "Spanish" flu, was 'only' up to 50% infective in worst cases (and usually around 30%). So there is no certainty someone exposed to even the most virulent strain of influenza will "get it for sure".

Only a lay person with a poor grasp on infective disease would make that mistake.

Second he says this:

So what can they do but make up this jive about the boys having been vaccinated?

No vaccine ever invented is 100% effective. It is a common mistake of lay people to assume inoculation is a guarantee of immunity. Even if all had been vaccinated against the flu, there still is a (usually around 10%) chance that you can come down with the disease.

As I said, no doctor would make the simple misstatements here that "Doctor" Patrick made.

It is therefore appropriate to exclude all medical statements made by him, along with every engineering, astronomical, cartographic, and any other statements.

 

[abaddon]

Aldrin said himself they ran a p68 program. The results were 0.649 north and 23.46 east. Armstrong said in the voice transcript more than once, in at least a couple of different ways that they did not know where they were and this was confirmed/is confirmed by Collins. What do you want me to retract? What horse am I switching to? What kind of nonsense are you bringing up? Of course my point stands. They never reported these numbers to MSFN, just ask H. David Reed......

Your claim was that the PGNS calculated coordinates were never transmitted back to Houston.

Your evidence was that it did not appear in the transcript.

You were shown that N43 appears in the first couple of lines in the transcript that you yourself quoted as evidence, and that McCandless confirmed receipt of same.

Clearly you had now idea that Noun 43 even existed, or you would have seen it in the transcript.

Do you now retract the claim that the PGNS coordinates were not delivered to Houston?

 

[R.A.F.]

So your argument is reduced to discussing toilet training?

As that is basically where he started, we've come full circle.


Does that mean this thread will finally be moved to the "abandon hope" forum?

 

[JayUtah]

I'll rephrase my statement for you Jay so that it works better given your scientific/engineering orientation.

Rephrasing it doesn't make it relevant.

Given the LAM-2 Map fraudulence, we may conclude Apollo 11 itself was fraudulent and we are quite rightly entitled to view all of the Apollo 11 material evidence as BOGUS!

No, that's not how proof works.

Now wouldn't you agree with that Jay.....?......

Of course I wouldn't, and neither does anyone else.

You have frankly admitted that you are unable to explain the photographs and the physical samples except to say that "somehow" they must be fake. That is a blatant failure of your theory.

 

[Patrick1000]

He should proudly stand in front of the space ship he flew....

@RAF: Thanks for picking apart Patrick's response to my earlier question.

@Patrick: Since you've (sort of) engaged me on previously unanswered questions, I'll remind you of another one:

Just how is the first man on the moon supposed to behave, in your opinion? That is, what is it in Neil Armstrong's demeanor that is symptomatic of some sort of neurosis or psychosis? Was there a demonstrable change in his behavior pre- and post-mission to which you can point? Related to this point, what specialized training have received in normal/abnormal psychology that would qualify you to make such judgements?

He should proudly stand in front of the space ship he flew to the surface of the moon, give a thumbs up, figuratively speking of coures, AND HAVE HIS BLOOD YPICTURE TAKEN. THAT IS HOW HE SHOULD BEHAVE....

 

[Patrick1000]

No training, my opinion is based on common sense.....

@RAF: Thanks for picking apart Patrick's response to my earlier question.

@Patrick: Since you've (sort of) engaged me on previously unanswered questions, I'll remind you of another one:

Just how is the first man on the moon supposed to behave, in your opinion? That is, what is it in Neil Armstrong's demeanor that is symptomatic of some sort of neurosis or psychosis? Was there a demonstrable change in his behavior pre- and post-mission to which you can point? Related to this point, what specialized training have received in normal/abnormal psychology that would qualify you to make such judgements?

No training, my opinion is based on common sense.....

 

[Patrick1000]

For openers a LAM-2 Map that was accurately gridde and not rotated....

Killer question...well, Patrick? What say you??

For openers a LAM-2 Map that was accurately gridde and not rotated would go a long way toward convincing me this thing might be real....

If I were presented with such a map, then I might perhaps believe the pretend astronauts might be able to find the targeted landing site.

With the map gridded and rotated as it is, the targeted site is most decidedly NOT where it is supposed to be.l

I'll cover the details regarding this in a soon to be released devastating post.

 

[Patrick1000]

See my response above to RAF...

Patrick, if you are really a researcher, then you must be open to the possibility that Apollo happened as advertised. What evidence would it take to convince you that it was a manned mission?
-LF

See my response above to RAF...

 

[tsig]

Killer question...well, Patrick? What say you??

If they'd only hired him as script editor.

 

[Patrick1000]

All of the astronauts know this is a fraud Jay....

They also sent more than a dozen other people who weren't Neil Armstrong. Reconcile that with your theory.



Please explain exactly how all these highly skilled and very well informed people were actually doing something other than what they set out to do.



No, it's just an appeal to magic. Somehow, even though every iota of evidence points to authentic missions, something else "magically" occurred.



Supply proof for this claim, please.



Name which Israelis know this.

All of the astronauts know this is a fraud Jay....What do you think Charlie Duke is doing there at his CapCom Mission Control console when Apollo 11 makes its simulated landing, picking his nose ?.....?......?

They are sending an EAGLE to the moon Jay, what do you think they are doing? Acting? Almost all those guys in Houston BELIEVE THIS TO BE REAL. AND IT IS REAL, real in the sense genuine military equipment is being launched. The only fake thing about it and it is A VERY BIG FAKE THING, is that real astronauts are not involved. There are no manned landings, only equipment lands. Think of it Jay as a giant Surveyor VII touching down at Tranquility Base. Imagine all the great stuff they packed into that bad boy.

Apollo was a program to launch and land lots and lots and lots of this stuff. It is real Jay in that regard, very very very very real. They are protecting you from the Ruskies Dude......That is what Apollo is about.......Do I need to keep repeating that? I thought I had made that very very very clear, what the reality was. Apollo was an unmanned program to weaponize space, and this space weaponization program was run under the guise of peaceful/scientific exploratory missions. Get it?......

Every head of Israeli Intelligence from say 1970 on would know for starters. They may well have known, figured it out, or were told by US intelligence beforehand. It would have been pretty stupid for us to pretend with those guys, the Israelis, you know Jay. They tend to figure everything out pretty quickly. Certainly by the mid 70s Israeli Intelligence would have figured it out on their own. They are hardly stupid Jay, not like me. Not like I was. Then again, I was only 11 when this thing went off, so not stupid, but rather naiive. Were I say 16 and hip to the phony LAM-2 rotated and bogusly gridded map and the fake Borman dime store vomit and diarrhea, I would have been on board much earlier. Still, better late than never.....

As regarding the main actors, the few in the know know know, the most fascinating character for my money is Harrison AKA Jack Schmidt. He enters Apollo as a scientist, a geologist and then later becomes an astronaut.

In this particularly interesting case it is more than fascinating to read how Donald Beattie describes Schmidt's activities when he first entered Apollo as a scientist, pre "official astronaut" days. He is an obvious "PLANT" and a key and exceedingly useful PLANT at that. Imagine all the jive he feeds the astronauts like Armstrong so that they surprisingly sound so erudite. Brilliant really, evil genius and then some.

I almost ralphed up my dinner two nights ago while watching an over the top insanely bogus Schmidt talk/video on Apollo. What a phony that clown is.....

WHAT BULL!!!

And again it would be hysteriaclly funny if this all was not so expensive.....