When Did the Apollo Hoax Nonesnese start?

I agree.......

The Apollo hoax was planned even before JFK was selected President.

I agree.......Kennedy knew they were not going to the moon. In that sense, the hoax/fraud was known from the time of its inception, probably when NASA was formed........

So the answer to the OP's question is late 1950s the hoax/fraud rumors started.....
 
Last edited:
I agree.......Kennedy knew they were not going to the moon. In that sense, the hoax/fraud was known from the time of its inception, probably when NASA was formed........

So the answer to the OP's question is late 1950s the hoax/fraud rumors started.....

Well, actually JFK did believe they were going to the moon. And I have the documents to prove it (well, at least one transcript of a Presidential meeting)! And Lyndon Johnson tricked JFK to order the moon mission in a memo. I have the documentation for that too! And also a video showing LBJ rolling his eyes when JFK declared the moon mission to the public.
 
How do you know the document is not fraudulent Anders..????.

Well, actually JFK did believe they were going to the moon. And I have the documents to prove it (well, at least one transcript of a Presidential meeting)! And Lyndon Johnson tricked JFK to order the moon mission in a memo. I have the documentation for that too! And also a video showing LBJ rolling his eyes when JFK declared the moon mission to the public.

How do you know the document is not fraudulent Anders..?????.It could easily be you know....

You know the ol' line, "Don't believe anything ya' hear and only half of what you read".. Not bad advice if ya' ask me......
 
Last edited:
How do you know the document is not fraudulent Anders..?????.It could easily be you know....

You know the ol' line, "Don't believe anything ya' hear and only half of what you read".. Not bad advice if ya' ask me......

In addition to the transcript of the Presidential meeting I have also listened to an audio recording of it. Here is the transcript: http://history.nasa.gov/JFK-Webbconv/pages/transcript.pdf

The memo also looks pretty authentic: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollomon/apollo1.pdf

Here is LBJ rolling his eyes when JFK declares a request for a moon mission: www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUXuV7XbZvU#at=130
 
You know the ol' line, "Don't believe anything ya' hear and only half of what you read".. Not bad advice if ya' ask me......


That "ol' line" is attributed to Benjamin Franklin, one of the most fascinating and brilliant men who ever lived and somehow I don't think he meant it in quite the same queasily folksy "shucks, I may not have a lot of fancy book learnin' [spit] but I know when there's a [burp] fox in the henhouse blah blah y'all blah" spin you are trying to put on it.

Skepticism isn't nearly so straightforward or easy to apply. It takes hard work, intelligence, humility and the willingness to dispassionately investigate both sides of an argument. Still, your interpretation of the Franklin quote points vaguely in the direction of something roughly approaching a sort of dumbed down kind of skepticism, so you should be commended for getting that far...I guess? If only you and other Conspiracy Theorists applied that adage to your own beliefs.
 
No later than 1974, and possibly earlier.

In 1974 Bill Kaysing self-published his book We Never Went to the Moon. That book has been the blueprint for Apollo conspiracism to this day, and many of Kaysing's original claims, though of course debunked long ago, still pop up in blog posts etc.

Some consider a scene in the 1971 James Bond film Diamonds Are Forever to be an allusion to faked Moon landings. In this scene, Bond runs across a simulated lunar landscape in a secret lab. Conspiracists say this is Ian Fleming's revelation of faked Moon landings, but the scene was written only for the movie and does not appear in the book, which was written in the mid-1950s anyway. It is unclear what role of the simulated lunar surface plays in the film's plot, so it's unclear that it was meant to suggest faked Moon landings; it may have been training simulations such as those carried out extensively at NASA. Screenwriters Tom Mankiewicz and Richard Maibaum passed away before I could interview them, and I have not been able yet to contact director Guy Hamilton.

According to some of the Apollo flight crews, there were hoax theories circulating at the time the missions were being flown, some as early as 1969. I don't have any corroborating documentary evidence for them. Kaysing's book claims Dutch newspapers broke the hoax story shortly after Apollo 11, but no documentation can be found to substantiate this.

Can't give the date, but at some point in the '60s a source I recall as Popular Science or a mag of that type ran an article on the space mission photography of the Russians and the US of which the primary point was the Russian ones were too lousy and US's too good. Whether that was anyway involved or not, I do not know, but.....
 
I really never heard of anyone claiming the Apollo missions were faked until I joined the Bad Astronomy board about eight years ago. Honestly, I didn't think anyone could be that stupid, but when I read the claims I was fascinated by the mix of paranoia and incompetence displayed by hoax believers (HBs). Not to mention the arrogance of most of them, who based on not knowing anything about the subject, were convinced they had cracked the big coverup that had fooled generations of scientists and engineers.

Then again, I've been in the space business for a couple of decades, so I spent most of my time with people who knew something about space flight, and physics and engineering in general. So it's hardly surprising that they grasped the reality of Apollo. Heck, some of them designed and built Apollo hardware; one of them was an Apollo CAPCOM. My current boss oversaw development of part of the ALSEP systems and worked in one of the backrooms during some of the missions.
 
That would make him a Perp then?
I know that's not from you, but who even says that? A 12-year-old?

Anyway, that makes him a real hard-nosed engineer. I already pointed out what an idiotic notion it is that guys like that would either consent to a "hoax" or be fooled by one. I suppose the ignorance and gullibility of hoax believers makes it easy for them to believe, but fortunately the real world doesn't rely on them to get things done.
 
My post's is no different NO MORE OFFENSIVE AND NO MORE TRUE!!!! than Kubrick's "post", his similar scene, similarly poignant and true from Clockwork Orange.
Kubrick is dead. He has never, to my knowledge posted here. If you know different, link Kubricks posts.

Watch the clip and tell me what Karel said abaddon, you cannot squirm out of this one, his words are his words are his words. Karel explicitly tells us what the film is about. It would seem, better said , it is indeed the case, Jay knows nothing of this film, nor how to read a film in any broad sense.
I have watched it many times. It is a masterful takedown of Hoax believers. That you don't get it speaks to your observational skills, not mine.

Case in point. Why does the CIA dude only speak in Russian with subtitles?

If you agree with Jay, if you think this film features an unambiguous theme of APOLLO AUTHENTICITY, perhaps you should enroll in my class as well. My Italian is quite good abaddon, so is my knowledge of literature , film and art. Come to Florence with us. You might learn something.

I do agree with Jay, as do all of the other contributors on this thread.

You are in a minority of one.

If you were the last teacher on the planet, I would start my own college.

The notion of going to Florence with you will give me lasting nightmares.

And wait just a second, now you are an expert in knowledge of literature , film and art? Where did that come from? Got degrees in that too?

I posted my credentials in a public forum because I have no fear. My credentials are unimpeachable, and verifiable. As are Jay's.

Where are yours?
 
I think you should talk to him again Jay, get your facts straight....

https://plus.google.com/u/0/107946557021507888184/posts/fZUJVqA4hVY

I encourage everyone to watch this video because it confirms everything I said about Karel and everything he said to me.

Specifically, he said he wants to tell you "not to believe everything you see on TV" (0:19).

He describes "building it like a fiction, with a script..." (1:16) which is then fully revealed in the credits as a scripted farce. He expected his viewer to figure out the farce by the end of the first act (1:26). He then goes on to express surprise that so many test-screening viewers didn't realize he was kidding.

Prior to the 3:42 mark, where you cherry-pick your quote, he's talking about how the Soviets staged footage of the concentration-camp liberations because the real world version was too shocking. They "rewrote history" (Karel's words) by passing staged footage off as the real thing. And that's what he proposed to do, leading up to your excerpt, with the Moon landings.

In your typical fashion, you're trying to backpedal and split hairs. The amusing story about fake footage purported to be shot on the Moon makes absolutely no sense unless the viewer knows certainly that the Moon landings were real. Then and only then does his humor make sense. It's only funny if it rewrites history.

I, Patrick1000 will lecture ... [puerile condescension snipped]

Watch the movie Jay. It would seem that you have never seen it.....

Just admit you didn't watch the Dark Side of the Moon credits, Patrick. For once, stand up and admit a failure straight up.
 
I love splitting hairs, typically I use a pill cutter....

I encourage everyone to watch this video because it confirms everything I said about Karel and everything he said to me.

Specifically, he said he wants to tell you "not to believe everything you see on TV" (0:19).

He describes "building it like a fiction, with a script..." (1:16) which is then fully revealed in the credits as a scripted farce. He expected his viewer to figure out the farce by the end of the first act (1:26). He then goes on to express surprise that so many test-screening viewers didn't realize he was kidding.

Prior to the 3:42 mark, where you cherry-pick your quote, he's talking about how the Soviets staged footage of the concentration-camp liberations because the real world version was too shocking. They "rewrote history" (Karel's words) by passing staged footage off as the real thing. And that's what he proposed to do, leading up to your excerpt, with the Moon landings.

In your typical fashion, you're trying to backpedal and split hairs. The amusing story about fake footage purported to be shot on the Moon makes absolutely no sense unless the viewer knows certainly that the Moon landings were real. Then and only then does his humor make sense. It's only funny if it rewrites history.



Just admit you didn't watch the Dark Side of the Moon credits, Patrick. For once, stand up and admit a failure straight up.

I love splitting hairs, typically I use a pill cutter when engaging in such activity...

My point, whether you got it or not was that the question of Apollo authenticity/inauthenticity is not known one way or the other inside this film's contrived reality, the truth of the "rumour" so referred to by Karel is unsubstantiated. It is just that, a "rumour", AND IT REMAINS A "RUMOUR". AND there is no explicit reference in the film made to anyone having seen the REAL PHOTOS, "did we see them?", anyone see them? Watch the Karel interview video, and read my posts again if you cannot recall what MY POINT WAS, thank you very much Jay......

This issue needs no further comment from me. Karel's words speak for themselves, as does his film, and most importantly, my own posts....

Karel, you out there????????.
 
Last edited:
I spoke to its director. You did not. As usual you're posting secondary material and trying to equivocate your way around it to make it say what you need it to say.

Shame.

Patrick has yet to address appendix F of the Cortright report, so what would one expect, but dodging and weaving.
 
Capricorn One has a mention in this thread and the question was asked if it preceded the CT or followed it.

Well I have the DVD of this and there's a "making of" that has along with others, an interview with James Brolin (obviously filmed during the production) and he pretty much casts doubt on the Apollo landings in that.

So I'm pretty sure the CT was well established before 75/76, and the film company were quite happy to go along with it too to promote their film :)

The staggering thing is the film was made with the co-operation of NASA, which was pretty brazen of them if it really was faked! :jaw-dropp

... then again maybe they did it BECAUSE they could then use that defence ... :jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp
 
I love splitting hairs...

Obviously.

My point, whether you got it or not...

I've heard your claims. Repeating them does not make them true. I gave you my argument and I illustrated it with quotes from your very own source. You haven't addressed it at all. Unless Karel is seen to "rewrite history," (i.e., not merely offer some plausible competing view) his entire film falls flat. You're trying to quibble out an apology by saying that he doesn't outright claim in-universe that the Moon landings were hoaxed. Karel's point is not that the question of the Moon landings is left ambiguous. It is precisely that he can make you believe in an alternate history simply by telling you stories on television.

This issue needs no further comment from me. Karel's words speak for themselves...

Yes, they do. And everyone except you agrees that they say a certain thing. That hasn't prevented you from trying to co-opt his meaning. Face it: you glommed onto him from the get-go and didn't realize he was kidding. You're doing exactly the same thing everyone else has done when they realized Karel had fooled them -- you're trying to cobble together something that makes it still seem like you were right to believe him.

...and most importantly, my own posts.

Wow, in one paragraph you went from saying that Karel's words speak for themselves without any need for commentary from you, to saying that your posts on the subject are the most important part. Fail.

Karel, you out there?

Yes, he is. I've talked to him. You haven't. That is the bottom line. You are not the proper interpreter of Karel's work, no matter how loftily you purport to be.
 
Back to the same old question yet again.

Patrick, what are your qualifications in the interpretation of film?

Any at all? No?

Please explain why the CIA dude speaks only in Russian? Got a reason for that? no?

Please explain the out-takes at the end? Got a reason for that ? no?

You fail.
 
Can't give the date, but at some point in the '60s a source I recall as Popular Science or a mag of that type ran an article on the space mission photography of the Russians and the US of which the primary point was the Russian ones were too lousy and US's too good. Whether that was anyway involved or not, I do not know, but.....

The magazine was called SCIENCE AND MECHANICS. I remember it started with arguing the Leonov space walk was fake, then expanded to include the entire Russian space program.
 

Back
Top Bottom