@ some point in the near future, a non nasa lunar orbitor will again try to take some up tp date pics of the moon's surface, as in not 70's footage, the Japanese and chinese were rumored to have done it, but not heard or seen anything about it, then i'm sure we will know some things like, we were there, cause there is one of the 3 moon buggy's right where we left it, OR ok the place is crawling with creatures, lets get the fuck out of here! :)
lmao,that song is great. There are songs about all kinds of fairy tails so why shouldnt the moon landings have one too.There are already new photo's from china's Chang'e and japans space scan photograghy of the so called landing sites with many more to come. Looks like someone raked out the footprints,stole all the lem frames,flags,lunar rovers and everything else they claim was on the moon.Enough of this crap already.Its time for nasa and the gov. to come clean or completly lose credibility.
i honestly cant make up my mind how i feel towards the moon landings. theres a lot of evidence saying that they did in fact go to the moon. But i just dont see how they could stand the radiation and extreme temperatures.. even with their gear.. It just seems like the first mission was too perfect. i unno i just have a strong feeling its not real. But i would like to believe that it is.
Look think of it this way; the hoax beleivers will lie about everything to get their point across. They're like creationists in this regard. Besides, what would anyone hope to acheive from this if it was a hoax? The bogosity series made by shanedk explains in detail.
or is it they just never went and didn't want to get there to show the rest of the world the moon had nothing on it, no human equipment left there from the apollo missions
If nasa really made it to the moon why have they never gone back especially since technology has improved since they 'last went'? That's the question that should be asked. Why in a press meeting did nasa say "the moon is crawling with alien life" after they came back, even recently with the new equipment that is said there's so far no other life forms
Continued from: The American people got taken for a ride.
We are talking well over half a million people who supposedly worked to send men to the Moon. With those kind of numbers, everyone should know someone who worked on the project, right. Funny thing is, I don't personally know anyone who worked on the project. Do you? More Americans supposedly worked on the Apollo project then who fought and died in whole entire Vietnam war, which lasted from 1957-1975.
How many people does it take to design, build, launch, and recovery a rocket and crew launched into space? 100? 200? How about 500?
According to Wikipedia, the Apollo program employed 400,000 people and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities.[ That's alot of paychecks. Come on, does it really require all of those people to put a few men into space? Of course not. 95% of those paychecks went into someone's pocket. The American people got taken for a ride.
@fanbutton >>"Come on, does it really require all of those people to put a few men into space?"<<
__________________
You think it was just a tin gas full of gas with a fuse on the end? Those rockets and L.E.M's had about a million specialized parts on them and they weren't built on assembly lines like cars. You using 500 as a high figure pretty much disqualifies you as an intelligent human being.
Hoaxer pshychology: "SHOW US PROOF!" *gets proof* "This is FAKED!" *gets more proof* "There MUST be an explanation to this Wait, HERE'S one...!" *gets even more proof* "You're FAKING this! Give us PROOF!" *gets even more proof again* "What the hell stop faking!" *gets even more proof yet again*
the moonlanding, whether fake or true, was part of the cold war propaganda war and achieved what it was supposed to show, i.e., that the US was ahead of USSR. It restored the confidence of the american people. As for scientific value, it had none. In fact, it is a little more valuable as fake than as true. Satellite technology is the real thing.
well this is not very convincing.. for the russian argument there could be a lot of reasons why they didnt say it was faked if it was, diplomacy, bribes, threats (in 69 neither them or us did really want a war that'd have destroyed earth).. I personnaly think they went to the moon but the footages were made on earth.. there was simply too many things that could go wrong for the whole world to see live, and shame the entire nation in the process, especially in those times
calling someone a fucking retard is hardly the best way to get your point across,you show yourself to be of low inteligence you cant express your feelings without the use of profanitys,and thats a sad inditment, in an of its self,
But there is a kernel of truth in their statement, despite the profanity. The moonrocks indeed are not like those of Earth. What's more, they can not be meteorites, as meteorites have a melted crust from entry through the atmosphere.
As well, meteorites and moon rocks can be dated from when the left the moon, due to cosmic-ray exposure ages. The only conclusion I can see is that a manned mission retrieved them.
you are a fucken retard go back to school and lean somthing they got rocks back from there any geoligest can look at them and tell they are not from earth and why fake it 6 times jackass
"We never went to the Moon..." what an asinine, redundant and stupid comment...
you may as well say...
"Let's rub out that painting of bison on the cave wall"...
Indeed, you ought to go and grab a rock- (there is actual Moon rock available) and smash the Computer you posted this nonsense on...then you can claim-
"Computers and the Internet were fake!"
You are an insult to Human dignity.
BRAVO THE INGENUITY, BRAVERY AND VISION OF APOLLO!
Last week the the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photographed the Apollo landing sites from low orbit. I find it interesting that no serious and level-headed historian, researcher or space industry analyst has ever doubted the moon landings.
try looking at pictures from apollo 17 then, they show a man in the reflection in a visor,and he has no plss on ,now even if all your evidence is correct,please explain how he was suppoesdly on the moon with no personal lfe support system on his back
from tv and if you even think of telling me that tv is real im gonna laugh so hard i might piss myself ,so lets just agree to disagree,you wont change my mind and you dont have one to change
Not only it is intentional, but they have purposedly modified the zoom to put into evidence an important element which gives a devastating evidence that the photos are shot in a studio.
If you want to know what it is, see my next video.
They have shown much imagination to give other pieces of evidence, I have quickly understood it, and once I have understood it, I have found plenty of other pieces of evidence.
You give the example of the photo referenced AS15-82-11057 with the LEM present on it, and another photo on which the LEM has disappeared, and say! "would yhey have made anything as stupid as removing the LEM before taking the photo?"
It would most certainly be stupid if the error was unintentional, but it is not, like many other errors.
It's unfortunate that these small minded imbeciles get so much airtime. Conspiracists should have their oxygen limited to their IQ, which even collectively would amount to little. Even if you got them to look through a telescope at a lander they'd say it was painted on the lens. These morons know so little about anything it frightens me knowing they actually drive on the road!
Impossible to fake the moonlandings. Astronauts, NASA management, technicians, film crews, people who created the moon stages, directed the films, dealt with the outtakes, the scientific advisors who would have needed to be on hand to oversee every aspect of every bit of film, video or voice transmission to make it as authentic as possible. Surely some of these people (if not most of them) would have had a guilty conscience and picked up the phone and rung the Washington Post or NBC... surely.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Impossible to fake the moonlandings. Astronauts, NASA management, technicians, film crews, people who created the moon stages, directed the films, dealt with the outtakes, the scientific advisors who would have needed to be on hand to oversee every aspect of every bit of film, video or voice transmission to make it as authentic as possible. Surely some of these people (if not most of them) would have had a guilty conscience and picked up the phone and rung the Washington Post or NBC... surely.
One giant leap of denial, if you can't find the proof your don't want to find it. If you look for straw man arguments you will find them, look for the truth and you will find it.
Take your too-scared-to-actually-curse attitude, bogus remarks, and get off my video. Why don't you sit down with cereal and watch some star trek or play shuffleboard with your mother whom you still live with. If I have to say it again, I will report you to my friend Jonn at youtube and get you DELETED.
@fanbutton -- There is not one single shred of credible evidence that the moon landings were "faked." In fact, it is rather easy to prove that a number of the hoax-theory promoters like Bart Sibrel and "Dr" David Groves actually LIED in order to attempt to convince people that it was a fake. All you need for some of these proofs is just a basic understanding of geometry and a little knowledge of physics and astronomy.
The point about conspiracy theories is thats all they are, theories. Anyone can start one and there is always someone who will believe it.
Do you not you think the USSR would found out about the hoax through their intelligence network? Think of the amount of people who would have to be involved to set up a fake and to keep it secret, how would you be able to keep all those people quiet for all these years?
It's cheap and easy to say 'fake' about things you do not understand.
@addielancianese Also, if they would've eliminated everyone who knew about this "hoax" - a macabre theory that is believed by many hoaxers - why didn't they eliminate Neil Armstrong and his companions?
And why does he never look the slightest ashamed when someone calls him "The First Man on the Moon!" etc?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Some sad people LOVE conspiracies. They need it as some kind of faith.
Hoaxes like Kennedy, Bigfoot, 9/11 by Bush, Apollo, you name it. What about individuals from NASA or any other enigineers involved went 'talking' and spilling the beans? Over 400.000 employed, at many hundreds of companies, hired by NASA. Not only NASA went to the moon, the contracted engineers and companies building the program did, too.
No hoax, just science, engineering and a lot of courage brought men to the moon.
How is it that we managed to fly aaaaaalllllll the way to the moon, land on its surface, fuck around for a while and then fly aaaaaaaalllllll the way back without so much as a slight computer error, bumpy landing or anything. First time we went to the moon, we had no real idea what was in store but we managed a flawless trip, landing, visit and return. Fuck me, they were good in those days. Or maybe, just maybe--- ITS ALL BULLSHIT
I won't believe that they went to the moon unitl I see rover tracks from the rover, foot prints, and a US flag, from an independent source from some country or person other then NASA and the U.S. military.
"I won't believe that they went to the moon unitl I see rover tracks from the rover, foot prints, and a US flag, from an independent source from some country or person other then NASA and the U.S. military."
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter's camera was developed and built by Arizona State University, and all the camera data will go through them.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't care.
You don't know much about spacecraft development either, do you? Not surprising.
You don't just buy whatever camcorder is on sale at the local Best Buy and bolt it onto your moon-bound spacecraft.
Instruments, including cameras, for scientific spacecraft tend to be specialized, custom-made devices. Calibration and characterization of artifacts are extremely important. Wouldn't want to find moon men and microwave towers in a stuck pixel, would we?
He won't believe NASA went to the moon EVER. It won't matter what evidence you ever give him. Take him there yourself and he'll insist all that hardware was recently planted by robots, or that his whole memory of the trip was implanted in his brain and all his photographs faked.
"40 years and ticking and still no sign of any LM.
Could thing I didn't hold my breath waiting for some space probe to snapshot 'em."
Since there has never been a good reason to take pictures of the Apollo landers, and since it costs upwards of half a billion dollars to send a camera capable of doing it to the Moon, we never did it. The only reason we're doing it now is that we're scouting future landing sites for which you do need very high resolution.
I love this. Because NASA won't spend a few billion to prove Apollo was real, they must be hiding something! Says a lot about the conspiracists, huh?
The only thing NASA is trying to hide (without total success) is their annoyance and amusement with these clowns. Anyone with a brain already has all the proof they need, and no additional proof would make any difference anyway.
Still, I'd like to go back to a landing site someday just to see how the materials fared in that environment.
"Because NASA won't spend a few billion to prove Apollo was real, they must be hiding something!"
Yeah, my favorite is always how Neil Armstrong refused to swear on a Bible for Bart Sibrel so it must have been faked. Oh yeah, gee, when someone makes a living off of films calling me a liar and a traitor, I know I'm always happy to help them make their films in whatever way possible! :rolleyes:
ITSS, for a good time look up the "15 second hoax proof video" in which our hard-headed friend Sibrel implicitly ridicules Alan Bean's perfectly factual statement that the LM was cooled by battery power.
Sibrel's willful scientific ignorance is nothing short of amazing. The man has no shame. None.
Is 'pareidolia' spelled right? I don't see it in the dictionary. I know this phenomenon is especially common with faces because evolution has programmed us to recognize them from almost the time we're born. Hence the "face" on Mars, the various apparitions of deities on toast, walls, etc. My favorite is a recent Onion story about evolutionists flocking to an apparition of Charles Darwin.
I trusted you enough to go looking for this bridge. SO where is it? All I see in AS8-13-2225 is craters , ridges and lunar seas of solidified magma.
No bridge, nothing that has the lines we associate with an artificial structure. I see a a central peak in the center of some of the craters, but that is common to many impact craters. I think they form by the same basic process as the central splash you see when someone cannonballs into the water. So what about this photo screams 'bridge' to you?
"I have not abandoned anything. I showed you the tower, plus a lot more. What more do you want?"
I'm aware you showed me the tower and four others... after you abandoned the first four videos you showed me plus that Apollo picture. There were no "structures" in any of those.
"You are very defensive about the fact."
Right, I'm in on it. Everyone's in on it except you, we have big parties when you're not around.
"if you wish to not open your eyes to the obvious"
lol, you just say it's "obvious" and refuse to actually say where half of the structures are in the videos. Not to mention that your "obvious" structures inherently presume a gigantic worldwide Zionist conspiracy encompassing every telescope in the world. You're staring at blobs in pictures taken through 8" telescopes on Earth and calling them gigantic structures -- I honestly don't know what to say except that you are out of your head.
"...you just say it's "obvious" and refuse to actually say where half of the structures are in the videos."
Can you show me where the "apollo landers" are? If you can, grab a telescope, take a snapshot, and send me a picture of the landers. Don't send me a bunch of NASA picture/video crap either.
"Can you show me where the "apollo landers" are? If you can, grab a telescope, take a snapshot, and send me a picture of the landers."
:rolleyes: The landers are TWENTY FEET ACROSS. You can't see them with the Hubble, much less some backyard 8" telescope. These "structures" you imagine you see in these pictures are many miles across.
"The Hubble can supposedly see chit clean across the visible universe, but it can't see on the Moon?"
A galaxy spanning 100,000 light years (Milky Way size) 50 billion light years away (the edge of the observable universe) is 127 times LARGER than a 20-foot lander appears at 240,000 miles, AND it glows with the light of a million suns.
"NASA is using the Hubble right now to look for landing sites"
Why would they use that when there are Lunar satellites with more resolution?
"The general area some of the sites has been imaged, but with no sign of the landers. As it should be, as you and I both know."
How can you figure that someone is suppose to know what you know?
Now I know that I can google earth my neighbor's car on the street, plain as day and in great detail, through smog and haze. But are you really going to say that no telescope or lunar observation satellite can see the lunar landers?
I wasn't talking to you. But I have made enough comments to you that you were addressing to other people ,I can't really complain :-). What I am saying is that Hubble shouldn't be able to see the landers, they are both too small. Now, SELENE was able to spot a disturbance consistent a lunar landing around the reported landing site, and it's 3D mapping showed the surrounding geography to be the same as shown in the Apollo 15 photos. The LRO be able to pick up images of the landers themselves.
Fanbutton, it would REALLY help if you'd study a good physics book. Read the chapter on optics about "diffraction limit". It's kinda relevant here -- it sets the absolute best resolution a telescope of a given size can ever achieve at a given wavelength.
Let's say your neighbor cut himself shaving. Can you see an individual red blood cell on his face from across the street? That's still 10x easier than seeing an LM descent stage from earth. Do the math.
"They have imaged the mars rovers and rovers' tracks, over 60,000,000 miles away,"
LOL!!! You think they did that from EARTH?!
Those pictures are from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, a satellite around Mars. Its Moon counterpart, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, will be going up in May (if it isn't delayed again) and yes, will be taking clear pictures of the Apollo landing sites.
"Those pictures are from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, a satellite around Mars."
Lunar Prospector went to the moon on January 7, 1998. It found no sign of any apollo relics.
Clementine went to the moon on February 26, 1994. It snapped more than 1.8 million digital images of the moon. It found no sign of any apollo relics. The Japanese KAGUYA moon probe found nothing. The Indian Chandrayaan found nothing.
So now, we are suppose to believe that LRO is going to find something? LOL
jaxa [.] jp/press/2008/05/20080520_kaguya_e [.] html
It isn't much, the resolution isn't good enough to show the landers, but it's a start. The Lunar Reconnaissance orbiter, will be able to show some of the equipment, such as the descent stage. It is set to be launched in a few months.
"So now, we are suppose to believe that LRO is going to find something?"
As we have said, the LRO is mapping future landing sites. You need very high resolution for that. It's not a matter of technology -- the Lunar Orbiter in the mid-60s had the same resolution for the same purpose. It's simply that no scientist needs half-meter resolution, and Congress is not going to waste a billion dollars proving that Apollo happened to a bunch of people who won't believe it anyway.
"Congress is not going to waste a billion dollars proving that Apollo happened to a bunch of people who won't believe it anyway."
What billion dollars? It's going to moon anyway, aint it? It'll be in a polar orbit, so it should pass over the place where all of the astronauts supposedly landed. The only thing required is a higher resolution camera like on the MRO. I am sure that that will not cost more then a few thousand bucks in gov't wasteful spending figures.
We already have pictures of LMs and even rovers sitting on the surface, taken from orbit by CSM mapping cameras on Apollos 15-17. Their shadows are obvious.
So if the conspiracy nuts won't accept these pictures, they're certainly not going to accept anything from the LRO or anything else that threatens their cherished delusion that Apollo was a hoax.
Even if you took them there in person, they'd claim it was an implanted memory a la Total Recall!
That wasn't done from Earth, it was by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. Beautiful spacecraft, with an excellent camera. But it is in orbit, around MARS. It is far closer to those rovers then any telescope, either on Earth or in earth orbit, is to the landing sites. Fanbutton, we may disagree up and down the wazoo, but your a great person to chat with. Thanks.
"So is the Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge in Japan. It is almost two and half miles across."
Oh my gosh, two and a half miles long, wow.
An eight-inch telescope in orbit around the Earth with a perfect lens would have a maximum resolution of one square kilometer per pixel on the Moon. A consumer telescope on Earth wouldn't be able to see a bridge two-and-a-half miles WIDE, much less two-and-a-half miles LONG. When I said "many miles" I didn't mean two.
How did you reply to my comment to ImTheSecretSquare so fast? I just posted it.
Hmmm, fanbutton is beginning to smell a rat.
You wouldn't be one of those with several user accounts going to the same email, now would you, loper?
In fact, you replied so fast that you didn't give youtube a chance to put my comment and your reply in the right chronological order. Look at the time difference. Your reply shows up before my comment....wtf?
All I can say in my defence is that I regularly check contentious videos in which I have posted in with no email notification of a reply, as sometimes Youtube doesn't always send them, which can throw me out of the loop of the 'conversation'. No rat, just a person with no life. ;)
No existing telescope is big enough. That is just plain ordinary physics. I am sure you know that. And if you don't, well, you should. One can point where 3 of the landers landed, with three laser reflectors in place there. Yes, they could be placed by an unmanned probe. But you have no evidence they were. The only other option is a MANNED probe.
Could you provide a link to an image of this big black structure? Please, not a youtube video if you can, they are really sucky quality for this kind of analysis, full of compression and image artefacts.
I can't find an independent link as this is a fairly new find and obviously, the person who posted this on youtube prefers to remain anonominous for security reasons.
However, I did find links to other structures on the Moon.
flickr . c o m / photos/pizmonk / 1481682143 /
aliensurgeon . c o m / moon % 20anntenna . j p g
aliensurgeon . c o m / moon % 20condocaves . j p g
That penis shape near the central mosaic join look kinda interesting.
aliensurgeon [.] com/moon-structure-1p [.] jpg
Ah, AS8-13-2225 (or maybe 4). A central peak. I have seen a much high res version,and it still just looks liek a craters central peak. Funny you use an Apollo photo as proof, while claiming Apollo was fake.
"Funny you use an Apollo photo as proof, while claiming Apollo was fake."
Who said that these were apollo photos? For all you know, these could be ranger, pioneer, or even surveyor photos under the guise of being apollo photos.
Oh I forgot, you believe everything NASA says, so these must be apollo photos.
They can't be any of those. All of those transmitted the images back to Earth. Apollo had camera that returned with negatives. For examples from a another nation, look at the difference between contemporary Soviet Luna probes, which transmitted and Zond, which returned film.
Okay here we go. You mean to tell me that these structures look like mere central peaks when one of them has a microwave tower spanning several miles high?
The microwave tower is symmetrically aligned. Notice how it becomes thinner at the base and wider at the top, clearly showing elevation. It also shows a spiraling pattern of symmetry.
Wait - I just realized you're not talking about the surface but the boom in the foreground! I found the originals: AS16-M-2836 and AS16-M-2839, two nonconsecutive shots from Apollo 16's CSM metric camera, assembled into a mosaic. The 25' boom in the foreground holds the alpha ray spectrumeter. A cable is wrapped around it. The boom is visible in EVERY picture from this camera on passes when it was extended.
So much for "microwave towers" on the surface! Bzzt. Thanks for playing.
oops, make that the gamma ray spectrometer boom. The boom kept it away from radioactive sources inside the CSM and from cosmic ray interactions with it. Another boom carried a mass spectrometer.
If you conspiracists properly cited and USED original sources, you wouldn't think man-made photographic artifacts were strange alien structures. But that would be a lot less fun, wouldn't it?
"If you conspiracists properly cited and USED original sources, you wouldn't think man-made photographic artifacts were strange alien structures. But that would be a lot less fun, wouldn't it?
Sorry, but unlike you, we conspiracist do not get our sources from wikipedia and comic books.
"Wait - I just realized you're not talking about the surface but the boom in the foreground! I found the originals: AS16-M-2836 and AS16-M-2839, two nonconsecutive shots from Apollo 16's CSM metric camera, assembled into a mosaic. The 25' boom in the foreground holds the alpha ray spectrumeter. A cable is wrapped around it. The boom is visible in EVERY picture from this camera on passes when it was extended."
Whatever you just said, it sounded like one expensive movie.
Nobody said actually going to the moon would be cheap.
You guys are a hoot. First you cite this picture as "proof" of some weird alien structure on the moon and dare us to prove you wrong (even though the burden is on you).
So I find the source and prove it was a man made structure on the spacecraft that took the picture. Now the whole thing must have been a fake, huh?
The picture "moon-structure-1" is indeed AS8-13-2225, a Hasselblad 70mm photo from Apollo 8. The crater with the red arrow is Magelhaens-A. Even in the other views taken just before and after this one, it looks like a thoroughly typical lunar crater with a central peak. The low sun angle exaggerates the features.
Linear crater chains like those in "condocaves" were a bit of a mystery until Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 hit Jupiter. Then it became apparent - tidal forces can break up loose objects into a series that fly in nearly the same trajectory until they hit something. The same chained structures are seen on other cratered solar system bodies.
On the moon, these crater chains (technical term "catena/catenae") can also be secondary craters formed by the ejecta thrown out from large primary impacts. I don't know enough lunar geology to tell if these chains are primary or secondary.
Have you ever heard of pareidolia? It is that human instinct for taking incomplete information, and trying to attach meaning to it, even when there is none. We base these things on our own bias. So if we are expecting bridges on the moon, or virgin Marys in burnt toast, we are more likely to see it.
"I gave you the coordinates, so what seems to be the problem?"
A) You gave me the coordinates half an hour ago, and you are replying to the same post as you were when you gave the coordinates.
B) The coordinates are to the picture you are now talking about, not to the bridge, which is what we were talking about.
"AS8-13-2224"
That's called a "central peak uplift", it is an extremely common feature of impact craters across the solar system. Look at Tycho -- the exact same thing.
Countless lunar craters have uplifts, just look at them! They happen because the crust liquifies and rebounds when hit. You can see the same thing by dripping water into a filled sink. A moment after the drop hits, the center rebounds upward. On the moon, this "drop" is often retained because the material cools and solidifies before it can completely fall back.
Isn't there something strange about his using photos from missions that supposedly didn't happen to "prove" structures on the moon?
Good to see you back, fanbutton. So while you're here, do you want to answer where you got your "five miles" number?
Oh, while we're on the subject, the "bridge" in that Youtube video is not the same "bridge" as was found by John O'Neill. But GRIDKEEPER claimed it was. Interesting how your source on that one doesn't even know where on the Moon it is, who found it, or when he found it, isn't it?
"I am sure that it would not hurt to leave a little something for the next guy who comes along?!!"
I don't think I left anything. You clearly have absolutely nothing to say in your defense.
Siiigh, to be honest, fanbutton, I'm on a quest here to find a Moon hoaxer who can spend more than five minutes debating without dissolving into a puddle of poorly spelled insults and profanity. I knew you weren't it but still, these constant reminders of the failure of public education are depressing.
"Anyway, I believe that his souce's name is Walson or something like that. GRIDKEEPER uploads the videos for him and that's all."
So GRIDKEEPER claims. If you'll look around, you'll discover that GRIDKEEPER has several secret people, like John Leonard Walson, Simon Anderson, and James Casbolt -- apparently none of these people can post online, only GRID can.
It's worth noting that Grid used to claim he "found" the Walson videos. He's also posted fake letters to Walson.
"apparently none of these people can post online, only GRID can."
Feeding into conspiracy theories now are we, ImTheSecretSquare? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Now that's slander!
Did it ever occur to you that Walson or whoever might be computer illiterate? I could sit around come up with all kinds of conspiracy therories about Walson, or Gridkeeper or whoever too.
Those structures on the Moon make far more sense to me, then some astronaut walking on the moon.
"Those structures on the Moon make far more sense to me, then some astronaut walking on the moon."
lol. To explain these structures, you have had to postulate a worldwide Zionist conspiracy which has absolute and total control of every telescope of any size anywhere -- and your evidence was that one observatory was owned by a non-Jewish organization.
Your statement is an exercise in confirmation bias.
"Now that's slander!"
Please quote what I said that you believe to be a lie.
Walson, is a astronomer. I am sure he knows where on the Moon he found it.
Furthermore, any professional astronomer can find that area on a finely detailed lunar map. since the Moon's one side is always facing the Earth, I am sure that the solution would be to look for a particular crater formation.
"Furthermore, any professional astronomer can find that area on a finely detailed lunar map. since the Moon's one side is always facing the Earth"
Right, it's only seven million square miles to search, twice the size of the United States. So if I hand you a finely detailed map of the United States and ask you to find a particular bridge, it should be twice as easy to find as this.
"Piece of cake. Get to it!"
lol, YOU'RE the one claiming there's a bridge. YOU find it.
Who told you that? These pictures are taken with cheap consumer telescopes, my godfather has one larger than the one Walson used and he's as much an astronomer as I am an astronaut.
Indeed, Mr. Walson claims he has secret techniques to extend the range of his cheap-ass telescopes -- naturally, he doesn't. You're being duped here -- and no, not by the Jews.
Yes indeed -- you can't help the fact that people all over the world own telescopes just as large as Mr. Walson, and that they have looked at the Moon for many years and found none of the structures he postulates. Mr. Walson has posted pictures of UFOs that were shown to be long-exposure shots of satellites.
And once again, when asked, Gridkeeper claimed this bridge was somewhere completely different on the Moon. It doesn't worry you that he casually lies?
Calling someone a liar without substantial proof and without examing all of the facts and evidence is a serious accusation.
Hey, I wouldn't stick my neck out anymore then I have to either--knowing that the NWO thugs might want to bump me off before I could let the world know what's really up there.
I applaud Walson for his bravery in coming forward through proxy, in revealing this important information.
"Calling someone a liar without substantial proof and without examing all of the facts and evidence is a serious accusation."
I have most certainly examined all the facts and evidence. I asked him where the bridge was imaged, and he claimed it was the same bridge imaged by John O'Neill. It is most certainly not -- it is not in the same location and it is far too large.
At best this is malicious negligence -- five minutes of study was enough to show it was not that bridge.
I was hoping that you would bring that up. See, there is a big difference here:
When they murdered those astronauts on the pad, there was a substantially huge amount of facts and evidence to go around for all who was involved in those astronaut's demise.
Whereas, in this case, the accusation is baseless...no facts nor evidence...no nothing.
"there was a substantially huge amount of facts and evidence to go around for all who was involved in those astronaut's demise."
Quite so -- there was a long investigation and many changes were made to safety protocols. North American Aviation was essentially forced to merge with Rockwell. It's not the sort of thing you can assign personal blame for -- hundreds of people at NAA and NASA were working on this stuff.
Oh, btw, the investigation found no evidence of any murderous conspiracy.
"Let me ask you this: have you yourself read the ENTIRE investigative report?"
NO. Have you?
The report disappeared immediately after the dude and his family were killed on the railroad tracks by a train. He was to have submitted it to Congress. The report was said to contain some very incriminating evidence against NASA and their subcontractors.
Need I say more? You made your conclusion without examining all the evidence!
I haven't read it all but I have read a very large part of it, enough to have a very good understanding of just how the accident happened.
NB: this is the official report of the Apollo 1 investigating panel. I'm not talking about the mythical Baron memo that probably never even existed. Baron was just one of many quality control inspectors and he didn't even participate in the investigation.
You didn't pay attentiont. I'm not talking about the mythical second Baron report. I'm talking about the voluminous reports of the exhaustive investigations into the fire that spelled out the facts and the probable causes (negligence, haste, poor workmanship) in great detail.
But no! You ignore it, preferring the conclusions of a document that quite probably never existed just because it was "said to" come to the conclusion you personally prefer.
"I'm not talking about the mythical second Baron report. I'm talking about the voluminous reports of the exhaustive investigations into the fire that spelled out the facts and the probable causes (negligence, haste, poor workmanship) in great detail."
So what you are saying is that your "facts" are based solely on NASA's official investigation into its own misconduct? Sorry, but that does not cut the mustard.
Baron only got a chance to present his deposition to Congress.
I see, I see. You say the investigative report came from NASA, therefore you can summarily dismiss it without even bothering to read it. Yet you give huge weight to another report that also by your admission you've never read and no one has even seen!
And you said earlier it's important to consider all the evidence. Uh huh. Right.
By the way, many NON-NASA people were involved in the investigation.
They did get a lot of flack at the time for the internal investigation. Apollo 1 was a public relations DISASTER for NASA. Which is why they were much more open at other major problems, like the Apollo 13 incident. Which nearly got the program cancelled and did not, at least once the flight was over, 'attract attention back to the program'. Except in the sense now people from outside the agency were poking all over, NOT things you want if your running a fraud.
"You ignore it, preferring the conclusions of a document that quite probably never existed just because it was "said to" come to the conclusion you personally prefer."
Baron submitted his findings to the Congressional comittee investigating the atronaut's deaths. But obviously it was hushed up. Why? Only his deposition was made public.
You keep begging the question, stating assertions as fact. There's no proof the second Baron "report" even existed, much less that it was ever submitted to Congress. Either way, by your own admission you've never read it, yet you're prepared to adopt the conclusions it is "said to" have.
"There's no proof the second Baron "report" even existed, much less that it was ever submitted to Congress."
Here it is in black and white: his deposition to congress. His report contained anywhere from 300 to 500 pages. He gave his report not to the entire congress, but to the congressional committee conducting the investigation.
Now stop saying that I am begging the question and do some research.
I admit, I find the missing report is rather curious. However, why would they murder him in such counterproductive fashion? Oh, it fits a kind of cackling villainy. but really, it's stupid. Gus says the Apollo 1 is a lemon? Well, wouldn't the best thing to do would be to discredit him by, say, not killing him in a death that reveals to the world the inadequacies of the vehicle he so labelled? If they wanted him dead, why didn't they just give him a heart attack like CT's claim they did to Irwin?
Straightforward logic is not the CT'ers forte, now is it?
The simplest explanation for the missing report is that it didn't exist and Baron bluffed to make himself appear more important than he was. But then he died not long after in an utterly obvious suicide. (Or did NASA control his mind to make him drive onto the tracks?)
News flash: mentally unstable people don't make good witnesses, especially when they lack any evidence to back them up.
Let's see just how far out of touch with reality you are.
Prosecutor (you): Your honor, I haven't seen it but people say the crime lab has a kick-ass report that's damning to the defendant. We don't need to hear the defense's case because they always lie. The people rest their case.
@ some point in the near future, a non nasa lunar orbitor will again try to take some up tp date pics of the moon's surface, as in not 70's footage, the Japanese and chinese were rumored to have done it, but not heard or seen anything about it, then i'm sure we will know some things like, we were there, cause there is one of the 3 moon buggy's right where we left it, OR ok the place is crawling with creatures, lets get the fuck out of here! :)
chrisjdoran 8 months ago
lmao,that song is great. There are songs about all kinds of fairy tails so why shouldnt the moon landings have one too.There are already new photo's from china's Chang'e and japans space scan photograghy of the so called landing sites with many more to come. Looks like someone raked out the footprints,stole all the lem frames,flags,lunar rovers and everything else they claim was on the moon.Enough of this crap already.Its time for nasa and the gov. to come clean or completly lose credibility.
kraftdinnersalad 1 year ago
@kraftdinnersalad
You are a idiot.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
@kraftdinnersalad <---------Moron.
teddysalad65 1 year ago
i honestly cant make up my mind how i feel towards the moon landings. theres a lot of evidence saying that they did in fact go to the moon. But i just dont see how they could stand the radiation and extreme temperatures.. even with their gear.. It just seems like the first mission was too perfect. i unno i just have a strong feeling its not real. But i would like to believe that it is.
yugoterror 1 year ago
@yugoterror
Look think of it this way; the hoax beleivers will lie about everything to get their point across. They're like creationists in this regard. Besides, what would anyone hope to acheive from this if it was a hoax? The bogosity series made by shanedk explains in detail.
NUTCASE71733 1 year ago
or is it they just never went and didn't want to get there to show the rest of the world the moon had nothing on it, no human equipment left there from the apollo missions
SuperTimbo94 1 year ago
If nasa really made it to the moon why have they never gone back especially since technology has improved since they 'last went'? That's the question that should be asked. Why in a press meeting did nasa say "the moon is crawling with alien life" after they came back, even recently with the new equipment that is said there's so far no other life forms
SuperTimbo94 1 year ago
FAKE IT NASA SCUM
Keep the flag still you idiots
2nasafakedit 1 year ago 3
They couldn't even get a real person as a narrator? Goes to show.
MARSTVCHANNEL 1 year ago
Continued from: The American people got taken for a ride.
We are talking well over half a million people who supposedly worked to send men to the Moon. With those kind of numbers, everyone should know someone who worked on the project, right. Funny thing is, I don't personally know anyone who worked on the project. Do you? More Americans supposedly worked on the Apollo project then who fought and died in whole entire Vietnam war, which lasted from 1957-1975.
fanbutton 1 year ago
How many people does it take to design, build, launch, and recovery a rocket and crew launched into space? 100? 200? How about 500?
According to Wikipedia, the Apollo program employed 400,000 people and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities.[ That's alot of paychecks. Come on, does it really require all of those people to put a few men into space? Of course not. 95% of those paychecks went into someone's pocket. The American people got taken for a ride.
fanbutton 1 year ago
@fanbutton >>"Come on, does it really require all of those people to put a few men into space?"<<
__________________
You think it was just a tin gas full of gas with a fuse on the end? Those rockets and L.E.M's had about a million specialized parts on them and they weren't built on assembly lines like cars. You using 500 as a high figure pretty much disqualifies you as an intelligent human being.
teddysalad65 1 year ago
Laurelindo 1 year ago
the moonlanding, whether fake or true, was part of the cold war propaganda war and achieved what it was supposed to show, i.e., that the US was ahead of USSR. It restored the confidence of the american people. As for scientific value, it had none. In fact, it is a little more valuable as fake than as true. Satellite technology is the real thing.
alfalfafalafelmafia 1 year ago
@alfalfafalafelmafia
Alfalfafalafelmafia... you're spot on. Who needs to go to the moon, when there's Mars?
MARSTVCHANNEL 1 year ago
Fuck off.
BLAGASPANTS 1 year ago
well this is not very convincing.. for the russian argument there could be a lot of reasons why they didnt say it was faked if it was, diplomacy, bribes, threats (in 69 neither them or us did really want a war that'd have destroyed earth).. I personnaly think they went to the moon but the footages were made on earth.. there was simply too many things that could go wrong for the whole world to see live, and shame the entire nation in the process, especially in those times
truthmouthpiece2 1 year ago
The landing was filmed on a set in the U.K. not area 51 or anywhere in the U.S. check out the documentry called " Dark Side of the Moon "
CRIMBOMAN666 2 years ago
the computer voice.........Fail
but I like the vid
stripymccatpuss 2 years ago
FAKE!
goodnoah 2 years ago
calling someone a fucking retard is hardly the best way to get your point across,you show yourself to be of low inteligence you cant express your feelings without the use of profanitys,and thats a sad inditment, in an of its self,
furq2m8 2 years ago 5
I agree with that.
But there is a kernel of truth in their statement, despite the profanity. The moonrocks indeed are not like those of Earth. What's more, they can not be meteorites, as meteorites have a melted crust from entry through the atmosphere.
As well, meteorites and moon rocks can be dated from when the left the moon, due to cosmic-ray exposure ages. The only conclusion I can see is that a manned mission retrieved them.
meteorites*wustl*edu/lunar/moon_meteorites*htm
Cheers,
Loperspest
loperspest 2 years ago
you are a fucken retard go back to school and lean somthing they got rocks back from there any geoligest can look at them and tell they are not from earth and why fake it 6 times jackass
lar5220 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"We never went to the Moon..." what an asinine, redundant and stupid comment...
you may as well say...
"Let's rub out that painting of bison on the cave wall"...
Indeed, you ought to go and grab a rock- (there is actual Moon rock available) and smash the Computer you posted this nonsense on...then you can claim-
"Computers and the Internet were fake!"
You are an insult to Human dignity.
BRAVO THE INGENUITY, BRAVERY AND VISION OF APOLLO!
Stereolabdream 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Last week the the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photographed the Apollo landing sites from low orbit. I find it interesting that no serious and level-headed historian, researcher or space industry analyst has ever doubted the moon landings.
danolson68 2 years ago
try looking at pictures from apollo 17 then, they show a man in the reflection in a visor,and he has no plss on ,now even if all your evidence is correct,please explain how he was suppoesdly on the moon with no personal lfe support system on his back
furq2m8 2 years ago
LOL, one thing mister. Get over it, man went to the moon. You're just to dumb to get it LOL.
Search for Bogosity :)
i sugest ep 3 and 9 :)
Amxd 2 years ago
i refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent
furq2m8 2 years ago
You just have to be joking me :)
get a life and get over it :)
man went to the moon :)
Amxd 2 years ago
again with the jibes, its sad really that your only comments are derogatory .
but it seems thats all you can do .
no counter argument just personal attacks
furq2m8 2 years ago
I told you already :)
Bogosity ep3 and ep9 :)
I am not going to waste my time with you because it has already been proved that man has landed on the moon :)
in fact it was 40 years ago :)
once again :) Bogosity ep3 and ep9 :)
Amxd 2 years ago
and your evedence is ??
from tv and if you even think of telling me that tv is real im gonna laugh so hard i might piss myself ,so lets just agree to disagree,you wont change my mind and you dont have one to change
furq2m8 2 years ago
There must be a bluff because I live
FreeWorld99 2 years ago
watch?v=umEpXKdTm5k
.
Rob260259 2 years ago
Not only it is intentional, but they have purposedly modified the zoom to put into evidence an important element which gives a devastating evidence that the photos are shot in a studio.
If you want to know what it is, see my next video.
They have shown much imagination to give other pieces of evidence, I have quickly understood it, and once I have understood it, I have found plenty of other pieces of evidence.
hunchbacked 2 years ago
You give the example of the photo referenced AS15-82-11057 with the LEM present on it, and another photo on which the LEM has disappeared, and say! "would yhey have made anything as stupid as removing the LEM before taking the photo?"
It would most certainly be stupid if the error was unintentional, but it is not, like many other errors.
hunchbacked 2 years ago
It's unfortunate that these small minded imbeciles get so much airtime. Conspiracists should have their oxygen limited to their IQ, which even collectively would amount to little. Even if you got them to look through a telescope at a lander they'd say it was painted on the lens. These morons know so little about anything it frightens me knowing they actually drive on the road!
MrOllyK 2 years ago 3
Damn right MrOllyK. However, there are only a few of these idiots. Most of them appear on YouTube.
Rob260259 2 years ago 2
Impossible to fake the moonlandings. Astronauts, NASA management, technicians, film crews, people who created the moon stages, directed the films, dealt with the outtakes, the scientific advisors who would have needed to be on hand to oversee every aspect of every bit of film, video or voice transmission to make it as authentic as possible. Surely some of these people (if not most of them) would have had a guilty conscience and picked up the phone and rung the Washington Post or NBC... surely.
dopje31857 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Impossible to fake the moonlandings. Astronauts, NASA management, technicians, film crews, people who created the moon stages, directed the films, dealt with the outtakes, the scientific advisors who would have needed to be on hand to oversee every aspect of every bit of film, video or voice transmission to make it as authentic as possible. Surely some of these people (if not most of them) would have had a guilty conscience and picked up the phone and rung the Washington Post or NBC... surely.
dopje31857 2 years ago
One giant leap of denial, if you can't find the proof your don't want to find it. If you look for straw man arguments you will find them, look for the truth and you will find it.
QuietTyro 2 years ago 14
Comment removed
dopje31857 2 years ago
YOU GOT TO SEE THIS CHIT!!!! Asstronot is lifted SKYHIGH with a wire. The asstronot does not so much as flinch his legs to make
the "jump". He looks like a puppet on a string being lifted. Portions of this video are no longer in the Apollo archives, so check it
out quick before youtube pulls it.
YouTube video: "Moon Landing Hoax-Abracadabra"
watch?v=Ui1TVGEJqHA
FF to the 5:00 min mark. Shills go absolutely ape and jump off the deep end when they see this chit.
fanbutton 2 years ago
Take your too-scared-to-actually-curse attitude, bogus remarks, and get off my video. Why don't you sit down with cereal and watch some star trek or play shuffleboard with your mother whom you still live with. If I have to say it again, I will report you to my friend Jonn at youtube and get you DELETED.
addielancianese 2 years ago
@addielancianese You just proved my point about going absolutely ape and jumping off the deep end.
fanbutton 1 year ago
Good list you have there. A bit long to post as comments though. But you are correct!
Apollo moon landings=hoax
VannaTroms 2 years ago 6
@fanbutton : the vid has been deleted
truthmouthpiece2 1 year ago
@truthmouthpiece2 Well I said they would as it proved that the "moon landings" were faked.
fanbutton 1 year ago
@fanbutton -- There is not one single shred of credible evidence that the moon landings were "faked." In fact, it is rather easy to prove that a number of the hoax-theory promoters like Bart Sibrel and "Dr" David Groves actually LIED in order to attempt to convince people that it was a fake. All you need for some of these proofs is just a basic understanding of geometry and a little knowledge of physics and astronomy.
nesokretep 1 year ago
@fanbutton
Too latel YouTube/Google pulled it.
fanbutton 1 year ago
16. ass-tro-nots only able to do one foot leaps and bounds
17. prop rocks with lettering on them
18. fake lunar rocks acquired from Anarctica
19. senior war crimminals in charge of space program
20. rover soil trails only able to shoot a few ft into the sky
21. Fabric on the top of the asstronot's backpack is pulled upward and "snowcones" everytime they hop, jump, and waltz about
indicating wires usage
22. LM defiys physics by doing a roll burn and stopping on a dime
fanbutton 2 years ago
9. ass-tro-nots surviving deadly radiation
10. lighting hot spots on the moon
11. indentical backgrounds in different images
12. camera cross hairs behind the images
13. ass-tro-nots refuse lie detector test
14. Grissom's son cites sabatoge
15. government investigator and his family killed and his report disappears
fanbutton 2 years ago
Moon anomolies and inconsistencies:
1. no stars
2. flag waving
3. no blast crater from lander
4. no concentric sun spokes in lunar ass-tro-nots visor
5. no visible exhaust from LM
6. inconsistent shadows on the moon
7. ass-tro-nots coached to say talk when prompted
8. 11 ass-tro-nots die within months of one another
fanbutton 2 years ago
All these socalled anomalies have been refuted and explained using science, engineering, physics and common sense.
You are talking crap Fanbutt. And your writing is even worse.
Rob260259 2 years ago 5
Comment removed
dopje31857 2 years ago
The point about conspiracy theories is thats all they are, theories. Anyone can start one and there is always someone who will believe it.
Do you not you think the USSR would found out about the hoax through their intelligence network? Think of the amount of people who would have to be involved to set up a fake and to keep it secret, how would you be able to keep all those people quiet for all these years?
It's cheap and easy to say 'fake' about things you do not understand.
dopje31857 2 years ago
I know. Every other secret has gotten out in this world...and just one has been protected? No bitter astronauts, or tech guys let it out?
addielancianese 2 years ago
@addielancianese Also, if they would've eliminated everyone who knew about this "hoax" - a macabre theory that is believed by many hoaxers - why didn't they eliminate Neil Armstrong and his companions?
And why does he never look the slightest ashamed when someone calls him "The First Man on the Moon!" etc?
Simply because - HE WAS THERE.
Laurelindo 1 year ago
@Laurelindo PROVE NASA LANDED ON THE MOON
Besides these Fake TV Disney Movies
nasafakedit 1 year ago
@nasafakedit You will never be satisfied no matter how much proof you get anyway, so I won't even bother to deal with you.
Goodbye.
Laurelindo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Laurelindo LOL
you have no proof except fake TV movies
WHAT A RIDE
WHAT A HOAX
Since 1973 no nasa astronaut has ever been further than 500 miles from earth
but nasa claims they went 250,000 miles to the moon in 1969
nasafakedit 1 year ago
@Laurelindo you have no proof
you are a brainwashed human monkey who believes whatever is on TV
and your criminal government
in 2010 nasa still cant go to the moon
40 fucking years later
nasafakedit 1 year ago
@dopje31857
Well it was best the USSR said nothing. They were faking too. Yuri was not the first Russian in space but something like the tenth.
daro2096 1 year ago
@daro2096 ....are you counting the dogs? lol.
teddysalad65 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Some sad people LOVE conspiracies. They need it as some kind of faith.
Hoaxes like Kennedy, Bigfoot, 9/11 by Bush, Apollo, you name it. What about individuals from NASA or any other enigineers involved went 'talking' and spilling the beans? Over 400.000 employed, at many hundreds of companies, hired by NASA. Not only NASA went to the moon, the contracted engineers and companies building the program did, too.
No hoax, just science, engineering and a lot of courage brought men to the moon.
dopje31857 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How is it that we managed to fly aaaaaalllllll the way to the moon, land on its surface, fuck around for a while and then fly aaaaaaaalllllll the way back without so much as a slight computer error, bumpy landing or anything. First time we went to the moon, we had no real idea what was in store but we managed a flawless trip, landing, visit and return. Fuck me, they were good in those days. Or maybe, just maybe--- ITS ALL BULLSHIT
Greggybread 2 years ago
I won't believe that they went to the moon unitl I see rover tracks from the rover, foot prints, and a US flag, from an independent source from some country or person other then NASA and the U.S. military.
fanbutton 3 years ago
"I won't believe that they went to the moon unitl I see rover tracks from the rover, foot prints, and a US flag, from an independent source from some country or person other then NASA and the U.S. military."
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter's camera was developed and built by Arizona State University, and all the camera data will go through them.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't care.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter's camera was developed and built by Arizona State University"
I didn't know that universities were in the camera making business. I thought they left chit like that to companies like sony and toshiba.
fanbutton 3 years ago
You don't know much about spacecraft development either, do you? Not surprising.
You don't just buy whatever camcorder is on sale at the local Best Buy and bolt it onto your moon-bound spacecraft.
Instruments, including cameras, for scientific spacecraft tend to be specialized, custom-made devices. Calibration and characterization of artifacts are extremely important. Wouldn't want to find moon men and microwave towers in a stuck pixel, would we?
philkarn 3 years ago
He won't believe NASA went to the moon EVER. It won't matter what evidence you ever give him. Take him there yourself and he'll insist all that hardware was recently planted by robots, or that his whole memory of the trip was implanted in his brain and all his photographs faked.
philkarn 3 years ago
I guess we're suppose to believe that they went to the moon 'cause people like Loper like pointing out landing sites.
Hey look, there's the Mare of Serineum, I bet they went there too.
fanbutton 3 years ago
40 years and ticking and still no sign of any LM.
Could thing I didn't hold my breath waiting for some space probe to snapshot 'em.
fanbutton 3 years ago
"40 years and ticking and still no sign of any LM.
Could thing I didn't hold my breath waiting for some space probe to snapshot 'em."
Since there has never been a good reason to take pictures of the Apollo landers, and since it costs upwards of half a billion dollars to send a camera capable of doing it to the Moon, we never did it. The only reason we're doing it now is that we're scouting future landing sites for which you do need very high resolution.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
I love this. Because NASA won't spend a few billion to prove Apollo was real, they must be hiding something! Says a lot about the conspiracists, huh?
The only thing NASA is trying to hide (without total success) is their annoyance and amusement with these clowns. Anyone with a brain already has all the proof they need, and no additional proof would make any difference anyway.
Still, I'd like to go back to a landing site someday just to see how the materials fared in that environment.
philkarn 3 years ago
"Because NASA won't spend a few billion to prove Apollo was real, they must be hiding something!"
Yeah, my favorite is always how Neil Armstrong refused to swear on a Bible for Bart Sibrel so it must have been faked. Oh yeah, gee, when someone makes a living off of films calling me a liar and a traitor, I know I'm always happy to help them make their films in whatever way possible! :rolleyes:
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
Well, Alan Bean *did* take Sibrel's bible challenge. Did it do any good? Of course not.
Sibrel still edited Bean's comments out of context to make Bean look foolish or worse. I winced when I saw it.
Nobody, especially Bean deserved to be treated like that. Sibrel is just a loathsome jerk.
philkarn 3 years ago
ITSS, for a good time look up the "15 second hoax proof video" in which our hard-headed friend Sibrel implicitly ridicules Alan Bean's perfectly factual statement that the LM was cooled by battery power.
Sibrel's willful scientific ignorance is nothing short of amazing. The man has no shame. None.
philkarn 3 years ago
We didnt stupid american
mg42GR 3 years ago
Is 'pareidolia' spelled right? I don't see it in the dictionary. I know this phenomenon is especially common with faces because evolution has programmed us to recognize them from almost the time we're born. Hence the "face" on Mars, the various apparitions of deities on toast, walls, etc. My favorite is a recent Onion story about evolutionists flocking to an apparition of Charles Darwin.
philkarn 3 years ago
I must have struck a serious nerve when I mentioned, huge artificial structures on the moon.
You are very defensive about the fact. Even more so then the fake manned moon landings.
So now you aim to argue that there are not any artificial structures on the Moon.
You seen the NASA photos which show huge objects smudged or airbrushed out.
fanbutton 3 years ago
I trusted you enough to go looking for this bridge. SO where is it? All I see in AS8-13-2225 is craters , ridges and lunar seas of solidified magma.
No bridge, nothing that has the lines we associate with an artificial structure. I see a a central peak in the center of some of the craters, but that is common to many impact craters. I think they form by the same basic process as the central splash you see when someone cannonballs into the water. So what about this photo screams 'bridge' to you?
loperspest 3 years ago
"I have not abandoned anything. I showed you the tower, plus a lot more. What more do you want?"
I'm aware you showed me the tower and four others... after you abandoned the first four videos you showed me plus that Apollo picture. There were no "structures" in any of those.
"You are very defensive about the fact."
Right, I'm in on it. Everyone's in on it except you, we have big parties when you're not around.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
Look, if you wish to not open your eyes to the obvious, I can't help that.
fanbutton 3 years ago
"if you wish to not open your eyes to the obvious"
lol, you just say it's "obvious" and refuse to actually say where half of the structures are in the videos. Not to mention that your "obvious" structures inherently presume a gigantic worldwide Zionist conspiracy encompassing every telescope in the world. You're staring at blobs in pictures taken through 8" telescopes on Earth and calling them gigantic structures -- I honestly don't know what to say except that you are out of your head.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"...you just say it's "obvious" and refuse to actually say where half of the structures are in the videos."
Can you show me where the "apollo landers" are? If you can, grab a telescope, take a snapshot, and send me a picture of the landers. Don't send me a bunch of NASA picture/video crap either.
fanbutton 3 years ago
"Can you show me where the "apollo landers" are? If you can, grab a telescope, take a snapshot, and send me a picture of the landers."
:rolleyes: The landers are TWENTY FEET ACROSS. You can't see them with the Hubble, much less some backyard 8" telescope. These "structures" you imagine you see in these pictures are many miles across.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"You can't see them with the Hubble, much less some backyard 8" telescope. "
The Hubble can supposedly see chit clean across the visible universe, but it can't see on the Moon?
Bullchit! NASA is using the Hubble right now to look for landing sites for the "new manned lunar missions".
fanbutton 3 years ago
"The Hubble can supposedly see chit clean across the visible universe, but it can't see on the Moon?"
A galaxy spanning 100,000 light years (Milky Way size) 50 billion light years away (the edge of the observable universe) is 127 times LARGER than a 20-foot lander appears at 240,000 miles, AND it glows with the light of a million suns.
"NASA is using the Hubble right now to look for landing sites"
Why would they use that when there are Lunar satellites with more resolution?
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
The general area some of the sites has been imaged, but with no sign of the landers. As it should be, as you and I both know.
loperspest 3 years ago
"The general area some of the sites has been imaged, but with no sign of the landers. As it should be, as you and I both know."
How can you figure that someone is suppose to know what you know?
Now I know that I can google earth my neighbor's car on the street, plain as day and in great detail, through smog and haze. But are you really going to say that no telescope or lunar observation satellite can see the lunar landers?
Unbelievable!
fanbutton 3 years ago
I wasn't talking to you. But I have made enough comments to you that you were addressing to other people ,I can't really complain :-). What I am saying is that Hubble shouldn't be able to see the landers, they are both too small. Now, SELENE was able to spot a disturbance consistent a lunar landing around the reported landing site, and it's 3D mapping showed the surrounding geography to be the same as shown in the Apollo 15 photos. The LRO be able to pick up images of the landers themselves.
loperspest 3 years ago
Fanbutton, it would REALLY help if you'd study a good physics book. Read the chapter on optics about "diffraction limit". It's kinda relevant here -- it sets the absolute best resolution a telescope of a given size can ever achieve at a given wavelength.
Let's say your neighbor cut himself shaving. Can you see an individual red blood cell on his face from across the street? That's still 10x easier than seeing an LM descent stage from earth. Do the math.
philkarn 3 years ago
They have imaged the mars rovers and rovers' tracks, over 60,000,000 miles away, but they can't image a great big LM, that's only 230,000 miles away?
Come on now, you got to sing better then that.
fanbutton 3 years ago
"They have imaged the mars rovers and rovers' tracks, over 60,000,000 miles away,"
LOL!!! You think they did that from EARTH?!
Those pictures are from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, a satellite around Mars. Its Moon counterpart, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, will be going up in May (if it isn't delayed again) and yes, will be taking clear pictures of the Apollo landing sites.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"Those pictures are from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, a satellite around Mars."
Lunar Prospector went to the moon on January 7, 1998. It found no sign of any apollo relics.
Clementine went to the moon on February 26, 1994. It snapped more than 1.8 million digital images of the moon. It found no sign of any apollo relics. The Japanese KAGUYA moon probe found nothing. The Indian Chandrayaan found nothing.
So now, we are suppose to believe that LRO is going to find something? LOL
fanbutton 3 years ago
Kaguya, also known as Selene, DID find something.
watch?v=6r80qhoPB0g
jaxa [.] jp/press/2008/05/20080520_kaguya_e [.] html
It isn't much, the resolution isn't good enough to show the landers, but it's a start. The Lunar Reconnaissance orbiter, will be able to show some of the equipment, such as the descent stage. It is set to be launched in a few months.
loperspest 3 years ago
"Clementine went..."
Resolution 7-20m.
"KAGUYA moon probe found nothing"
Resolution 10m. Not to mention they found the dust plumes and showed the terrain matched.
" Indian Chandrayaan"
The closest one -- with 5m resolution, the lunar lander would appear as a single black pixel. But they only launched three months ago, no pics yet.
"Lunar Prospector went to the moon on January 7, 1998. It found no sign of any apollo relics."
It didn't even have a camera, you git!
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"So now, we are suppose to believe that LRO is going to find something?"
As we have said, the LRO is mapping future landing sites. You need very high resolution for that. It's not a matter of technology -- the Lunar Orbiter in the mid-60s had the same resolution for the same purpose. It's simply that no scientist needs half-meter resolution, and Congress is not going to waste a billion dollars proving that Apollo happened to a bunch of people who won't believe it anyway.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"Congress is not going to waste a billion dollars proving that Apollo happened to a bunch of people who won't believe it anyway."
What billion dollars? It's going to moon anyway, aint it? It'll be in a polar orbit, so it should pass over the place where all of the astronauts supposedly landed. The only thing required is a higher resolution camera like on the MRO. I am sure that that will not cost more then a few thousand bucks in gov't wasteful spending figures.
fanbutton 3 years ago
We already have pictures of LMs and even rovers sitting on the surface, taken from orbit by CSM mapping cameras on Apollos 15-17. Their shadows are obvious.
So if the conspiracy nuts won't accept these pictures, they're certainly not going to accept anything from the LRO or anything else that threatens their cherished delusion that Apollo was a hoax.
Even if you took them there in person, they'd claim it was an implanted memory a la Total Recall!
philkarn 3 years ago
Sorry, I am tone deaf. ;)
That wasn't done from Earth, it was by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. Beautiful spacecraft, with an excellent camera. But it is in orbit, around MARS. It is far closer to those rovers then any telescope, either on Earth or in earth orbit, is to the landing sites. Fanbutton, we may disagree up and down the wazoo, but your a great person to chat with. Thanks.
loperspest 3 years ago
"These "structures" you imagine you see in these pictures are many miles across."
So is the Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge in Japan. It is almost two and half miles across. But according to your logic, I guess that's imaginary too.
fanbutton 3 years ago
"So is the Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge in Japan. It is almost two and half miles across."
Oh my gosh, two and a half miles long, wow.
An eight-inch telescope in orbit around the Earth with a perfect lens would have a maximum resolution of one square kilometer per pixel on the Moon. A consumer telescope on Earth wouldn't be able to see a bridge two-and-a-half miles WIDE, much less two-and-a-half miles LONG. When I said "many miles" I didn't mean two.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
Comment removed
loperspest 3 years ago
How did you reply to my comment to ImTheSecretSquare so fast? I just posted it.
Hmmm, fanbutton is beginning to smell a rat.
You wouldn't be one of those with several user accounts going to the same email, now would you, loper?
In fact, you replied so fast that you didn't give youtube a chance to put my comment and your reply in the right chronological order. Look at the time difference. Your reply shows up before my comment....wtf?
fanbutton 3 years ago
All I can say in my defence is that I regularly check contentious videos in which I have posted in with no email notification of a reply, as sometimes Youtube doesn't always send them, which can throw me out of the loop of the 'conversation'. No rat, just a person with no life. ;)
loperspest 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No existing telescope is big enough. That is just plain ordinary physics. I am sure you know that. And if you don't, well, you should. One can point where 3 of the landers landed, with three laser reflectors in place there. Yes, they could be placed by an unmanned probe. But you have no evidence they were. The only other option is a MANNED probe.
loperspest 3 years ago
ImTheSecretSquare, you never did explain the big black square structure on the Moon.
Surely, you must have some sort clue as to what it could be?
fanbutton 3 years ago
Loper"Not SecretSquare" Pest, here.
Could you provide a link to an image of this big black structure? Please, not a youtube video if you can, they are really sucky quality for this kind of analysis, full of compression and image artefacts.
loperspest 3 years ago
I can't find an independent link as this is a fairly new find and obviously, the person who posted this on youtube prefers to remain anonominous for security reasons.
However, I did find links to other structures on the Moon.
flickr . c o m / photos/pizmonk / 1481682143 /
aliensurgeon . c o m / moon % 20anntenna . j p g
aliensurgeon . c o m / moon % 20condocaves . j p g
aliensurgeon . c o m / moon-structure-1. j p g
These should get your motor going.
fanbutton 3 years ago
flickr [.] com/photos/pizmonk/1481682143/
I see craters with central peaks
What's the 'structure'?
aliensurgeon [.] com/moon%20anntenna [.] jpg
The moon has craters. Who knew?
That penis shape near the central mosaic join look kinda interesting.
aliensurgeon [.] com/moon-structure-1p [.] jpg
Ah, AS8-13-2225 (or maybe 4). A central peak. I have seen a much high res version,and it still just looks liek a craters central peak. Funny you use an Apollo photo as proof, while claiming Apollo was fake.
loperspest 3 years ago
"Funny you use an Apollo photo as proof, while claiming Apollo was fake."
Who said that these were apollo photos? For all you know, these could be ranger, pioneer, or even surveyor photos under the guise of being apollo photos.
Oh I forgot, you believe everything NASA says, so these must be apollo photos.
fanbutton 3 years ago
They can't be any of those. All of those transmitted the images back to Earth. Apollo had camera that returned with negatives. For examples from a another nation, look at the difference between contemporary Soviet Luna probes, which transmitted and Zond, which returned film.
mentallandscape [.] com/C_CatalogMoon [.] htm
loperspest 3 years ago
Okay here we go. You mean to tell me that these structures look like mere central peaks when one of them has a microwave tower spanning several miles high?
The microwave tower is symmetrically aligned. Notice how it becomes thinner at the base and wider at the top, clearly showing elevation. It also shows a spiraling pattern of symmetry.
fanbutton 3 years ago
What are you smoking? Either that or the chip NASA implanted in my brain censors these things. Which photo are we talking about?
Lets label them, fliker, surgeon, and apollo, for convenience sake.
loperspest 3 years ago
Wait - I just realized you're not talking about the surface but the boom in the foreground! I found the originals: AS16-M-2836 and AS16-M-2839, two nonconsecutive shots from Apollo 16's CSM metric camera, assembled into a mosaic. The 25' boom in the foreground holds the alpha ray spectrumeter. A cable is wrapped around it. The boom is visible in EVERY picture from this camera on passes when it was extended.
So much for "microwave towers" on the surface! Bzzt. Thanks for playing.
philkarn 3 years ago
oops, make that the gamma ray spectrometer boom. The boom kept it away from radioactive sources inside the CSM and from cosmic ray interactions with it. Another boom carried a mass spectrometer.
If you conspiracists properly cited and USED original sources, you wouldn't think man-made photographic artifacts were strange alien structures. But that would be a lot less fun, wouldn't it?
philkarn 3 years ago
"If you conspiracists properly cited and USED original sources, you wouldn't think man-made photographic artifacts were strange alien structures. But that would be a lot less fun, wouldn't it?
Sorry, but unlike you, we conspiracist do not get our sources from wikipedia and comic books.
fanbutton 3 years ago
Wikipedia can often point you to good sources, but it can be a battle to keep the conspiracy nutters from rewriting stories to suit their reality.
I don't use comic books either.
philkarn 3 years ago
"Wait - I just realized you're not talking about the surface but the boom in the foreground! I found the originals: AS16-M-2836 and AS16-M-2839, two nonconsecutive shots from Apollo 16's CSM metric camera, assembled into a mosaic. The 25' boom in the foreground holds the alpha ray spectrumeter. A cable is wrapped around it. The boom is visible in EVERY picture from this camera on passes when it was extended."
Whatever you just said, it sounded like one expensive movie.
fanbutton 3 years ago
Nobody said actually going to the moon would be cheap.
You guys are a hoot. First you cite this picture as "proof" of some weird alien structure on the moon and dare us to prove you wrong (even though the burden is on you).
So I find the source and prove it was a man made structure on the spacecraft that took the picture. Now the whole thing must have been a fake, huh?
You're on a roll. Keep it up.
philkarn 3 years ago
The picture "moon-structure-1" is indeed AS8-13-2225, a Hasselblad 70mm photo from Apollo 8. The crater with the red arrow is Magelhaens-A. Even in the other views taken just before and after this one, it looks like a thoroughly typical lunar crater with a central peak. The low sun angle exaggerates the features.
philkarn 3 years ago
Linear crater chains like those in "condocaves" were a bit of a mystery until Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 hit Jupiter. Then it became apparent - tidal forces can break up loose objects into a series that fly in nearly the same trajectory until they hit something. The same chained structures are seen on other cratered solar system bodies.
philkarn 3 years ago
On the moon, these crater chains (technical term "catena/catenae") can also be secondary craters formed by the ejecta thrown out from large primary impacts. I don't know enough lunar geology to tell if these chains are primary or secondary.
philkarn 3 years ago
Have you ever heard of pareidolia? It is that human instinct for taking incomplete information, and trying to attach meaning to it, even when there is none. We base these things on our own bias. So if we are expecting bridges on the moon, or virgin Marys in burnt toast, we are more likely to see it.
loperspest 3 years ago
"I gave you the coordinates, so what seems to be the problem?"
A) You gave me the coordinates half an hour ago, and you are replying to the same post as you were when you gave the coordinates.
B) The coordinates are to the picture you are now talking about, not to the bridge, which is what we were talking about.
"AS8-13-2224"
That's called a "central peak uplift", it is an extremely common feature of impact craters across the solar system. Look at Tycho -- the exact same thing.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
Countless lunar craters have uplifts, just look at them! They happen because the crust liquifies and rebounds when hit. You can see the same thing by dripping water into a filled sink. A moment after the drop hits, the center rebounds upward. On the moon, this "drop" is often retained because the material cools and solidifies before it can completely fall back.
Isn't there something strange about his using photos from missions that supposedly didn't happen to "prove" structures on the moon?
philkarn 3 years ago
Fanbutton > CODE 31
fanbutton 3 years ago
"Fanbutton > CODE 31"
Good to see you back, fanbutton. So while you're here, do you want to answer where you got your "five miles" number?
Oh, while we're on the subject, the "bridge" in that Youtube video is not the same "bridge" as was found by John O'Neill. But GRIDKEEPER claimed it was. Interesting how your source on that one doesn't even know where on the Moon it is, who found it, or when he found it, isn't it?
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
ImTheSecretSquare, there is no YouTube rule that says that you have to reply to everything little dumb chit that you see on the screen.
I am sure that it would not hurt to leave a little something for the next guy who comes along?!!
Anyway, I believe that his souce's name is Walson or something like that. GRIDKEEPER uploads the videos for him and that's all.
Just because you bump heads with someone doesn't mean that you have to take warm showers together.
fanbutton 3 years ago
"I am sure that it would not hurt to leave a little something for the next guy who comes along?!!"
I don't think I left anything. You clearly have absolutely nothing to say in your defense.
Siiigh, to be honest, fanbutton, I'm on a quest here to find a Moon hoaxer who can spend more than five minutes debating without dissolving into a puddle of poorly spelled insults and profanity. I knew you weren't it but still, these constant reminders of the failure of public education are depressing.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"Anyway, I believe that his souce's name is Walson or something like that. GRIDKEEPER uploads the videos for him and that's all."
So GRIDKEEPER claims. If you'll look around, you'll discover that GRIDKEEPER has several secret people, like John Leonard Walson, Simon Anderson, and James Casbolt -- apparently none of these people can post online, only GRID can.
It's worth noting that Grid used to claim he "found" the Walson videos. He's also posted fake letters to Walson.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"apparently none of these people can post online, only GRID can."
Feeding into conspiracy theories now are we, ImTheSecretSquare? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Now that's slander!
Did it ever occur to you that Walson or whoever might be computer illiterate? I could sit around come up with all kinds of conspiracy therories about Walson, or Gridkeeper or whoever too.
Those structures on the Moon make far more sense to me, then some astronaut walking on the moon.
fanbutton 3 years ago
"Those structures on the Moon make far more sense to me, then some astronaut walking on the moon."
lol. To explain these structures, you have had to postulate a worldwide Zionist conspiracy which has absolute and total control of every telescope of any size anywhere -- and your evidence was that one observatory was owned by a non-Jewish organization.
Your statement is an exercise in confirmation bias.
"Now that's slander!"
Please quote what I said that you believe to be a lie.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
Obviously, if NASA and the government are keeping a tight lip about structures being on the moon and mars, something serious has to be going on.
If I was Walson, I wouldn't come forward either, knowing that the government, some large corporations, and the media, are full of corruption.
Maybe some of his colleagues, misteriously disappeared after doing what you said, and Walson does not want to simply disappear either.
Better to pass chit on to a third party then to wind up dead.
fanbutton 3 years ago
Walson, is a astronomer. I am sure he knows where on the Moon he found it.
Furthermore, any professional astronomer can find that area on a finely detailed lunar map. since the Moon's one side is always facing the Earth, I am sure that the solution would be to look for a particular crater formation.
Piece of cake. Get to it!
fanbutton 3 years ago
"Furthermore, any professional astronomer can find that area on a finely detailed lunar map. since the Moon's one side is always facing the Earth"
Right, it's only seven million square miles to search, twice the size of the United States. So if I hand you a finely detailed map of the United States and ask you to find a particular bridge, it should be twice as easy to find as this.
"Piece of cake. Get to it!"
lol, YOU'RE the one claiming there's a bridge. YOU find it.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"lol, YOU'RE the one claiming there's a bridge. YOU find it."
You are the one claiming to have a better telescope then Walson, you find it! LOL!
Here, I'll even give you the lunar coordinates to where it is.
45 degrees east longitude and 10 degrees south latitude in the Sea of Fertility.
Now get to it!
fanbutton 3 years ago
"Walson, is a astronomer."
Who told you that? These pictures are taken with cheap consumer telescopes, my godfather has one larger than the one Walson used and he's as much an astronomer as I am an astronaut.
Indeed, Mr. Walson claims he has secret techniques to extend the range of his cheap-ass telescopes -- naturally, he doesn't. You're being duped here -- and no, not by the Jews.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"my godfather has one larger than the one Walson used and he's as much an astronomer as I am an astronaut."
Well, I can't help that.
fanbutton 3 years ago
"Well, I can't help that."
Yes indeed -- you can't help the fact that people all over the world own telescopes just as large as Mr. Walson, and that they have looked at the Moon for many years and found none of the structures he postulates. Mr. Walson has posted pictures of UFOs that were shown to be long-exposure shots of satellites.
And once again, when asked, Gridkeeper claimed this bridge was somewhere completely different on the Moon. It doesn't worry you that he casually lies?
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"It doesn't worry you that he casually lies?"
Calling someone a liar without substantial proof and without examing all of the facts and evidence is a serious accusation.
Hey, I wouldn't stick my neck out anymore then I have to either--knowing that the NWO thugs might want to bump me off before I could let the world know what's really up there.
I applaud Walson for his bravery in coming forward through proxy, in revealing this important information.
Should be more people like him.
fanbutton 3 years ago
"Calling someone a liar without substantial proof and without examing all of the facts and evidence is a serious accusation."
I have most certainly examined all the facts and evidence. I asked him where the bridge was imaged, and he claimed it was the same bridge imaged by John O'Neill. It is most certainly not -- it is not in the same location and it is far too large.
At best this is malicious negligence -- five minutes of study was enough to show it was not that bridge.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
"Calling someone a liar without substantial proof and without examing all of the facts and evidence is a serious accusation. "
Um, yes it is. You really should think about that a bit.
I'd say its even worse to accuse someone of murder under the same circumstances, as with the Apollo 1 fire.
philkarn 3 years ago
I was hoping that you would bring that up. See, there is a big difference here:
When they murdered those astronauts on the pad, there was a substantially huge amount of facts and evidence to go around for all who was involved in those astronaut's demise.
Whereas, in this case, the accusation is baseless...no facts nor evidence...no nothing.
fanbutton 3 years ago
"there was a substantially huge amount of facts and evidence to go around for all who was involved in those astronaut's demise."
Quite so -- there was a long investigation and many changes were made to safety protocols. North American Aviation was essentially forced to merge with Rockwell. It's not the sort of thing you can assign personal blame for -- hundreds of people at NAA and NASA were working on this stuff.
Oh, btw, the investigation found no evidence of any murderous conspiracy.
ImTheSecretSquare 3 years ago
Except there isn't a "substantially huge amount of facts and evidence". Saying so over and over won't make it true.
Let me ask you this: have you yourself read the ENTIRE investigative report? How about Congressional testimony from Borman et al?
I didn't think so.
philkarn 3 years ago
"Let me ask you this: have you yourself read the ENTIRE investigative report?"
NO. Have you?
The report disappeared immediately after the dude and his family were killed on the railroad tracks by a train. He was to have submitted it to Congress. The report was said to contain some very incriminating evidence against NASA and their subcontractors.
fanbutton 3 years ago
"NO".
Need I say more? You made your conclusion without examining all the evidence!
I haven't read it all but I have read a very large part of it, enough to have a very good understanding of just how the accident happened.
NB: this is the official report of the Apollo 1 investigating panel. I'm not talking about the mythical Baron memo that probably never even existed. Baron was just one of many quality control inspectors and he didn't even participate in the investigation.
philkarn 3 years ago
"I haven't read it all but I have read a very large part of it, enough to have a very good understanding of just how the accident happened."
How could you have read it when the Congress didn't get a chance to read it?
fanbutton 3 years ago
You didn't pay attentiont. I'm not talking about the mythical second Baron report. I'm talking about the voluminous reports of the exhaustive investigations into the fire that spelled out the facts and the probable causes (negligence, haste, poor workmanship) in great detail.
But no! You ignore it, preferring the conclusions of a document that quite probably never existed just because it was "said to" come to the conclusion you personally prefer.
You're just intellectually dishonest.
philkarn 3 years ago
"I'm not talking about the mythical second Baron report. I'm talking about the voluminous reports of the exhaustive investigations into the fire that spelled out the facts and the probable causes (negligence, haste, poor workmanship) in great detail."
So what you are saying is that your "facts" are based solely on NASA's official investigation into its own misconduct? Sorry, but that does not cut the mustard.
Baron only got a chance to present his deposition to Congress.
fanbutton 3 years ago
I see, I see. You say the investigative report came from NASA, therefore you can summarily dismiss it without even bothering to read it. Yet you give huge weight to another report that also by your admission you've never read and no one has even seen!
And you said earlier it's important to consider all the evidence. Uh huh. Right.
By the way, many NON-NASA people were involved in the investigation.
philkarn 3 years ago
They did get a lot of flack at the time for the internal investigation. Apollo 1 was a public relations DISASTER for NASA. Which is why they were much more open at other major problems, like the Apollo 13 incident. Which nearly got the program cancelled and did not, at least once the flight was over, 'attract attention back to the program'. Except in the sense now people from outside the agency were poking all over, NOT things you want if your running a fraud.
loperspest 3 years ago
"You ignore it, preferring the conclusions of a document that quite probably never existed just because it was "said to" come to the conclusion you personally prefer."
Baron submitted his findings to the Congressional comittee investigating the atronaut's deaths. But obviously it was hushed up. Why? Only his deposition was made public.
fanbutton 3 years ago
You keep begging the question, stating assertions as fact. There's no proof the second Baron "report" even existed, much less that it was ever submitted to Congress. Either way, by your own admission you've never read it, yet you're prepared to adopt the conclusions it is "said to" have.
philkarn 3 years ago
"There's no proof the second Baron "report" even existed, much less that it was ever submitted to Congress."
Here it is in black and white: his deposition to congress. His report contained anywhere from 300 to 500 pages. He gave his report not to the entire congress, but to the congressional committee conducting the investigation.
Now stop saying that I am begging the question and do some research.
clavius . o r g / baron-test . h t m l
fanbutton 3 years ago
I admit, I find the missing report is rather curious. However, why would they murder him in such counterproductive fashion? Oh, it fits a kind of cackling villainy. but really, it's stupid. Gus says the Apollo 1 is a lemon? Well, wouldn't the best thing to do would be to discredit him by, say, not killing him in a death that reveals to the world the inadequacies of the vehicle he so labelled? If they wanted him dead, why didn't they just give him a heart attack like CT's claim they did to Irwin?
loperspest 3 years ago
Straightforward logic is not the CT'ers forte, now is it?
The simplest explanation for the missing report is that it didn't exist and Baron bluffed to make himself appear more important than he was. But then he died not long after in an utterly obvious suicide. (Or did NASA control his mind to make him drive onto the tracks?)
News flash: mentally unstable people don't make good witnesses, especially when they lack any evidence to back them up.
philkarn 3 years ago
Let's see just how far out of touch with reality you are.
Prosecutor (you): Your honor, I haven't seen it but people say the crime lab has a kick-ass report that's damning to the defendant. We don't need to hear the defense's case because they always lie. The people rest their case.
Judge: (fill in the blank)
philkarn 3 years ago