the entire EWE.S.A. should commit itself, check itself in to a mental institution....or build a Betty Ford clinic on the Moon, because you are fucking loons....
This music video is incredible the whole world should see this! I cant believe you knew about all of this stuff you showed in the video 4 years ago. How much longer will NASA stick to there lies?
There are a few more reasons why the media ----- and I do greatly appreciate Dave Hook's inclusion of the line, " when you control the media, you control the truth" ----- talk up JFK supposed infidelities. One is to develop the storyline that, for those who accept that there was a conspiracy, JFK had an affair with Judith Campbell, an associate of the Italian mafia. Another, is to hide the fact that JFK was shot from the front. Jackie climbed out of the car to grab her husband's brains.
@mooninquirer As the recently released documents of the late Jackie Kennedy Onassis reveals, JFK did have affairs with other women. I am very disappointed in him, but at least Jackie ALSO reveals that LBJ was involved in his assassination. She even says that LBJ was the mastermind. Because I already know this to be true, I have to admit the JFK had affairs with other women. But notice how the media just LOVED to talk about his infidelities, but NEVER about LBJ being involved !
@mooninquirer And LBJ's guilt over JFK's assassination might have been a reason he was so determined to fake the moon landing, and he fired James Webb in Oct 1968, and just a few days later the Apollo missions resumed, with astronauts supposedly orbiting the moon before LBJ's term was finished, in Dec 1968. And unlike what Phil Plait said in his debate with Joe Rogan, the election in 1968 was very close and unpredictable, especially with George Wallace in the race.
I don't think JFK really "banged Marylyn Monroe," and certainly they have a vested interest in portraying him as a playboy, and NEVER played JFK's very serious speech : JFK TELLING US THE TRUTH.
Jarrah, good video to go with this song that summarizes the main points of why it was a hoax, but please try to do something about Dave Hook's " ......and he even banged Marylyn Monroe." I wish Dave Hook did not include that. Now, one of the benefits of realizing that the moon landing is a hoax, is that one is prompted to question everything that has been reapeated over and over again in the media. Certainly the media has portrayed JFK as a playboy.
Obama killed NASA's Moon program this week, and even killed all LEO rocket programs. Now NASA astronots must pay $50-million per ticket to the Russians to fly to the space station. EPIC FAIL!
... In the title of the video that is... I do see the "preformed by" in the credits but he wrote this song as well. His name should be searchable for this.
next time NASA should put bit more Kero into the ass end of the rocket looked so pretty with all that extra flame and smoke pissing out the back end...
great song if u do a follow up add the line they built the lm and tested it but the windows blew out so apollo 7 went without it then they just re fitted new windows and that was fine for the sim they woulda had more chance of landing a garbage can on the moon.
JFK couldn't even drive in a car without getting killed, so how could men ride to the Moon without getting killed? "So I can hear what you're saying: 'But you guys replicated the moon shot on a set, and you're special effects artists. You're exactly the kind of guys that NASA would've hired to do this kind of thing in the first place!'" - Adam Savage, Mythbusters Moon Scam on Youtube Wym04J_3Ls0 at 3:35. No rocket flame on LEM "blastoff" at 0:01. No stars. Mythbusters BUSTED! Ha.
@WhiteJarrah, and the requirement to use lead shielding to get to and from the moon for less than 2 weeks is based solely on one page of John Mauldin's book, "Prospecs for Interstellar Travel". Since when is going to the moon "interstellar travel"? Since when is going to the moon travel at near light speed for years at a time? You have never established a credible, substantiated explanation that short-duration travel to the moon is lethal. The lead shield nonsense is your Achilles heel.
b) What guarantees will I have that you won't flake out, not use the ticket and/or not show up?"
a) Nice try, but I don't give out my personal info to complete strangers on the internet under any circumstances.
b)I have an idea though. If you're willing to make this generous offer to someone else, I know someone who would benefit much more from this trip than I ever would, and very well might benefit you much more as well.
SD02:"I won't because the Apollo astronots aren't allowed to be interviewed by just anybody, or answer any questions that aren't pre-approved by NASA."
--No, not true. They're retired. They can talk to and be interviewed by anyone they wish to talk to. It's their choice, not NASA.
So, shall I make arrangements for you at the ISDC May 28-Jun 1 or San Diego Feb 19-22?
WS:"--No, not true. They're retired. They can talk to and be interviewed by anyone they wish to talk to. It's their choice, not NASA."
Well, then they have made two mistakes then. The first was choosing to not debate Bill Kaysing and the second was to allow themselves to be interviewed by Bart Sibrel. Bill exposed them as cowards for not having the courage to sit down one on one or all of them against him for a debate and Bart exposed them as liars. Which is why they are hated among the PANS.
SD02:"Well, then they have made two mistakes then. The first was choosing to not debate Bill Kaysing and the second was to allow themselves to be interviewed by Bart Sibrel."
--It wasn't necessary for them to "debate" Kaysing; his statements tansihed his reputation as a first-class kook.
Sibrel falsely represented himself as someone he wasn't using doctored or falsified media credentials (at the very least, a misdemeanor) of the History Channel, Japanese Asahi/NHK TV, even ABC News.
WS:"--It wasn't necessary for them to "debate" Kaysing; his statements tansihed his reputation as a first-class kook."
What a ridiculous cop out! It was VERY necessary for at least one, if not all of the astronots to debate Kaysing (as he offered many times) for the simple reason that he had a huge following after writing the book 'We Never Went to the Moon'.
The fact that at least 6 to 20% of the pop. believes that Apollo never landed men on the Moon, was reason enough to debate Kaysing.
WS:"--You don't get it, do you? I'm not debating you; you're a lost cause.
Oh I get it alright.. You are retired military, who worked (works) for the Defense Dept. and feels that's it's your National duty/obligation to defend governnent / military lies.
It's not too difficult to see where you're coming from and why.
SD:"Oh I get it alright.. You are retired military, who worked (works) for the Defense Dept. and feels that's it's your National duty/obligation to defend governnent / military lies.
It's not too difficult to see where you're coming from and why."
--Then you need to be fitted for some new glasses, because you're wrong once again (go back and re-read some of the posts once again)
"What's got your panties in a bunch is you're not being allowed to run roughshod over an honorable event in history any longer."
It's not my panties that are in a bunch, NASA shill .. That particular problem would be yours, and also the one's whose lies you defend, by using ridicule of those who can see through those lies.
WJ:"John H. Mauldin, Eugene Parker. The last two in particular both propose meters of shielding to protect astronauts from GeV radiation, and the radiation in cislunar space is 10GeV."
--Have they been peer-reviewed by the rest of the scientific community? Is there a consensus?
WJ:"Did he say that at his own free will or blackmailed?"
--Produce your proof he was.
WJ:"Why would he say that when his own Geiger counters detected 100rem/hr?"
Why would he think the radiation was non-lethal when his own experiments from 1953 to 1963 proved the opposite?
"-A lot can happen in 10 yrs of learning."
I couldn't agree more: today we know that the radiation levels in the belts are 100MeV, the same energy levels of x-class solar flares such as NOAA 720.
WJ:"Oh please, those websites have been debunked over and over and over again."
--By who? Produce your evidence. Give me Names and their scientific credentials, as well as independent, peer-reviewed data, medical and/or research papers.
WJ:"James Van Allen's own research proved that even a brief passage through the belts would have resulted in 100rem/hour."
--Then why did he debunk people like you?
"...an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense."
James Van Allen, John H. Mauldin, Eugene Parker. The last two in particular both propose meters of shielding to protect astronauts from GeV radiation, and the radiation in cislunar space is 10GeV.
"...an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense."
Did he say that at his own free will or blackmailed? Why would he say that when his own Geiger counters detected 100rem/hr? AFTER he put 1mm of lead around them that it, without lead they died on him.
--Yeah, like I'm going to take the word of a "self-taught" non-degreed "engineer" who works as a cabinet maker by trade and can't get a recognized publication house to print his "theories", so he has to self-publish them himself.
"Yeah, like I'm going to take the word of a "self-taught" non-degreed "engineer" who works as a cabinet maker by trade and can't get a recognized publication house to print his "theories", so he has to self-publish them himself."
You don't have to take his word, you can take the word of the scientists he quotes: like NASA astrophysicist Mauldin, Solar Wind expert Parker, and James Van Allen.
WJ:"Second, you'd have to provide solid evidence that proves astronauts could have survived the 10GeV cislunar space radiation, knowing that Eugene Parker proposes 5meters of water shielding against deadly radiation at 2GeV."
madsci. org/posts/archives/may2000/959341359. As. r. html
Oh please, those websites have been debunked over and over and over again.
"The Apollo spacecraft passed through the Van Allen belt quite quickly, so that in the short time they were exposed, the astronauts did not receive a dose of radiation considered dangerous, at least not compared to the inevitable other risks in the mission."
James Van Allen's own research proved that even a brief passage through the belts would have resulted in 100rem/hour.
moonmovies (cover for 'BS'):"Yes. This is a commonly accepted figure"
--Except the correct way of saying it is "The cost of the Apollo program from 1961-1975 was estimated to be $25.4 billion in 1969 dollars ($135 billion in present day figures if current inflation rates of today are factored in)."
Here's a question for you to answer:
"What evidence would it take to prove to you that we really went to, landed on, and returned from the Moon?"
"--Except the correct way of saying it is "The cost of the Apollo program from 1961-1975 was estimated to be $25.4 billion in 1969 dollars ($135 billion in present day figures if current inflation rates of today are factored in).""
Have you even seen the movie? The actual narration: "The cost of the program whose sole goal was to be the first to plant a flag on the lifeless rock just outside the earth, if adjusted for inflation to the 21st century, was $135,000,000,000"
--Yep, I have, for free on YouTube. Many have scientifically torn it apart.
WJ:"The actual narration"
--Is based purely on the writer/director's fault-riddled, agenda-based script, mouthed by someone with a British accent to make it sound more "believable."
WJ:"So what's your problem?"
--You mean, aside from the entire "documentary"?
The fact that con man 'BS' still wants to charge gullible people to see his garbage can of disinformation.
"--You mean, aside from the entire "documentary"?"
Funny, you know very well that the doco stated exactly what you said: that the cost of Apollo in 21st century dollars is $135,000,000,000. You are basically attacking a film for making a factual statement that you echoed.
By the way, Bart Sibrel is retired. That's Wil Tracer who runs the moonmovies account.
WJ:"By the way, Bart Sibrel is retired. That's Wil Tracer who runs the moonmovies account."
--Yeah, I guess one punch to the nose by a Korean War fighter pilot (with 2 MiG kills to his credit) who overcame some personal adversity after Apollo 11 and is now a senior citizen nearly twice the age of 'BS", a full foot shorter and half his weight -- not to mention the world-wide (and deserved) ridicule from the world press would make 'BS' want to hide under the rock he crawled out from under.
WS"...not to mention the world-wide (and deserved) ridicule from the world press would make 'BS' want to hide under the rock he crawled out from under."
Speaking of 'BS'.. you sure are busy spreading enough of your's around here.
If anyone needs to crawl back under their rock, it would be you, NASA shill .. and while you're at it, take your BS character assassinations and ridicule of all the CT's with you.
SD02:"If anyone needs to crawl back under their rock, it would be you, NASA shill .. and while you're at it, take your BS character assassinations and ridicule of all the CT's with you."
--Why? You're so much fun to ridicule because of your far-fetched "theories" and claims. The rest of us are secure in our background intelligence and knowledge of the facts.
What's got your panties in a bunch is you're not being allowed to run roughshod over an honorable event in history any longer.
WS"--Why? You're so much fun to ridicule because of your far-fetched "theories" and claims. The rest of us are secure in our background intelligence and knowledge of the facts."
If the hoax "theories" were really so "far fetched", then you wouldn't be working so hard and wasting all of your precious time attempting to refute them, with all of your "background intelligence" and "knowledge of the facts" ... LOL
SD02:"If the hoax "theories" were really so "far fetched"
--Thanks for concedeing that point.
SD02:"then you wouldn't be working so hard and wasting all of your precious time attempting to refute them"
--You don't get it, do you? I'm not debating you; you're a lost cause. I'm ensuring some elementary/high school kid doesn't walk in here and gets a wild-ass, one-sided, slickly produced, but uninformed & implausible "theory" based on smoke & mirrors instead of hard, scientific facts.
WS:"---Nor will you relying on Wikipedia or other CT hoax sites as your "Bible" of reference will help your "theories" and "claims"."
Wikipedia is NOT a conspiracy site!
Actually, I get most of the Apollo hoax evidence from NASA sites .. I find it's always best to go right to the source of the lie, instead of using a middle man.
WS:"I'm ensuring some elementary/high school kid doesn't walk in here and gets a wild-ass, one-sided, slickly produced, but uninformed & implausible "theory" based on smoke & mirrors instead of hard, scientific facts."
Smoke and mirrors is a very appropriate term to use, because the only smoke and mirrors I see here (besides your routine), would be NASA's Apollo scam.
SD02:"Smoke and mirrors is a very appropriate term to use, because the only smoke and mirrors I see here (besides your routine), would be NASA's Apollo scam."
--Then find yourself or hire an independent researcher to examine the rocks at the Lunar Laboratory in Houston.
Save up for a vacation to San Diego next year, call a press conference and challenge the surviving Apollo astronauts with your "claims".
You won't because you don't have the courage of your convictions to do so publicly.
SD02:"and while you're at it, take your BS character assassinations and ridicule of all the CT's with you."
--Oh but it's not character assassination when the main character in question, a self-admitted drug user, winds up shooting himself in the foot (or getting punched in the nose by a senior citizen twice his age and half his size).
It's also not slander or libel either when legal courts, media and public opinion also considers 'BS' & the CTs as having lights on when no one's home.
WS:"--Oh but it's not character assassination when the main character in question, a self-admitted drug user, winds up shooting himself in the foot (or getting punched in the nose by a senior citizen twice his age and half his size)."
If you look at that clip you will notice that Bart never punched that "senior citizen twice his age and half his size", but that the angry aggression was very ONE SIDED.
Just like your's is, with your character assassination of all CT's who have your number.
SD02:"If you look at that clip you will notice that Bart never punched that "senior citizen twice his age and half his size", but that the angry aggression was very ONE SIDED."
--Guess you didn't read the LAPD report or talk to the witnesses who were there.
SD02:"Just like your's is, with your character assassination of all CT's who have your number."
Intersting pro Buzz spin on that one .. I do believe this was my favorite part..
"For those who think Buzz Aldrin set a bad example for young people by punching his verbal attacker, a two-part short lesson in law and common sense may be instructive."
Thanks for posting the link .. It proves that Bart never hit Buzz.. but he sure did use those "fighting words"!
SD02:"Thanks for posting the link .. It proves that Bart never hit Buzz.. but he sure did use those "fighting words"!
--"The police spokesman added that witnesses have come forward stating that they saw Sibrel aggressively poke Aldrin with a Bible..." [CBS News]
"Last week Aldrin punched a guy for saying he hadn't. Good for Buzz. The person he punched was a filmmaker from Nashville. Bart Sibrel, 37, was shoving a Bible at him." {Daytona Beach News Journal]
"It's also not slander or libel either when legal courts, media and public opinion also considers 'BS' & the CTs as having lights on when no one's home."
The only one's who would have that silly and erroneous opinion are either duped fools, or NASA shills like you.
WJ:"You are basically attacking a film for making a factual statement that you echoed."
--I'm attacking a "factual statement" that was placed in the wrong context in your "Moon Song" video.
You make no mention of, or use the narration from 'BS' "documentary" because the "song" is running in the background. Any first-time viewer is going to see the graphic and be left with the impression the Apollo landings cost $135 Billion back in the 60's, not in today's costs.
"$135 Billion Dollars"!?! Where's your source to this claim?
Nice Lie and/or misdirection (once again). Apollo cost $25 Billion in 1960 dollars. In 2008 dollars it *might* be equal to $135 billion.
Neil Armstrong "has never even granted one single interview?" That's news to me. Guess that interview of him on CBS "60 Minutes" in connection with his biography "First Man" (now being optioned for a movie) was a hoax.
This is pathetic. I pity those who would get suckered in by it.
First you're talking to the wrong guy regarding the money. I took that clip from Bart Sibrel's documentary, and in it he's talking about the cost of Apollo in 21st century currency.
Second, this song was written well before Armstrong gave that interview to 60 minutes.
The only thing that is pathectic around here is your spewing of hatred against the messenger before even bothering to research the message.
What's pathetic is any credibility you had before is now lost.
Any ethical journalist/writer/producer or director would have researched their material before using it. By your own admission, you've done none of the above.
You used a questionable clip from BS's "documentary" instead of other public domain source footage. You created a piece "ex post facto" knowing the song is flawed.
An ethical person wouldn't have used this material, or retracted it once known. You've done neither.
"Any ethical journalist/writer/producer or director would have researched their material before using it. By your own admission, you've done none of the above."
You really like to twist people's words, don't you? Regarding credibility, I could say the same about you. Had you bothered to do any actual research, you might have found this quotation from Wikipedia: "The cost of the program is estimated at $135 billion (2006 dollars) ($25.4 billion in 1969 dollars)."
WJ:"Regarding credibility, I could say the same about you. Had you bothered to do any actual research, you might have found this quotation from Wikipedia: "The cost of the program is estimated at $135 billion (2006 dollars) ($25.4 billion in 1969 dollars)."
--Thanks for unwittingly backing up my claim in the first place.
While you're at Wikipedia, look up "NASA Budget" and click on the History and Discussion tabs.
Don't vandalize the site; we'll know who did it and will report it.
WJ:"Care to emphasize what you mean by "vandalizing" the site? You better come back with good hard evidence for your accusation."
--I made no accusation; I just placed you on fair warning. A sudden spike of entries with malicious intent is going to look very suspicious for those who made the posting.
I noticed you've managed to avoid, and haven't answered "The Question": What evidence would it take to prove to you that we really went to, landed on, and returned from the Moon?
I ignored your question because the evidence for the Moon landing is nil.
First, you'd have to explain the clearly edited Apollo 10 telecasts that were purported by NASA to be live.
Second, you'd have to provide solid evidence that proves astronauts could have survived the 10GeV cislunar space radiation, knowing that Eugene Parker proposes 5meters of water shielding against deadly radiation at 2GeV.
Now I ask you, what would it take you to prove the moon missions were faked?
WJ:"Now I ask you, what would it take you to prove the moon missions were faked?"
--I don't understand your question. Are you asking me what I would need to prove that Apollo was faked, or are you asking me what compelling evidence do I need to have in order to have my knowledge that Apollo occurred to be changed by you?
WJ:"Well I'll ask again: what would it take to convince you the missions were hoaxes?"
--The executive management teams of U.S. Gov't, aerospace contractor and subcontractor corporations, the Russians, the Aussie gov't, the Manned Spaceflight Tracking Network, 400,000+ aerospace workers, the Int'l mainstream press, the top College and University research teams and the World's scientific community who inspected the lunar samples (and continue to do so today) all saying they were faked.
In case you didn't understand that, virtually everybody else in the world, except you and a handful of other kooks, cranks, slackers, disaffected/disallusioned youth and crackpots in your cult following who believe in sad, misguided folly.
WJ:"First, you'd have to explain the clearly edited Apollo 10 telecasts that were purported by NASA to be live."
--First, I'll have to see all the tapes of Apollo 10.
It could simply be that the major networks themselves delayed NASA's broadcast as "live on tape" -- just as the NBC network (the parent company of the affiliate I once worked for) did for the 2000 Sydney Games.
"--First, I'll have to see all the tapes of Apollo 10."
Allow me to help: Live Video, Flagging The Gems, search
I have all the raw footage that has been sold to the public as complete and unedited. And these 'live' and 'unedited' videos are quite clearly riddled with camera cuts.
I agree with you JFK
the entire EWE.S.A. should commit itself, check itself in to a mental institution....or build a Betty Ford clinic on the Moon, because you are fucking loons....
islandbuoy4 3 weeks ago
perfect thanks, someday the world will laugh about apollo and nasa
pt1gard 3 months ago
@ LunerTuner ---- OK, then why have no men, nor even animals, been sent higher than 400 miles above the Earth's surface ?
mooninquirer 4 months ago
This music video is incredible the whole world should see this! I cant believe you knew about all of this stuff you showed in the video 4 years ago. How much longer will NASA stick to there lies?
wiiagent 6 months ago
mate can you post a link for the lyrics to this song please? :D
f34543ownsrunescape 6 months ago
@f34543ownsrunescape Request granted. See the sidebar. :D
WhiteJarrah 6 months ago
There are a few more reasons why the media ----- and I do greatly appreciate Dave Hook's inclusion of the line, " when you control the media, you control the truth" ----- talk up JFK supposed infidelities. One is to develop the storyline that, for those who accept that there was a conspiracy, JFK had an affair with Judith Campbell, an associate of the Italian mafia. Another, is to hide the fact that JFK was shot from the front. Jackie climbed out of the car to grab her husband's brains.
mooninquirer 1 year ago
@mooninquirer As the recently released documents of the late Jackie Kennedy Onassis reveals, JFK did have affairs with other women. I am very disappointed in him, but at least Jackie ALSO reveals that LBJ was involved in his assassination. She even says that LBJ was the mastermind. Because I already know this to be true, I have to admit the JFK had affairs with other women. But notice how the media just LOVED to talk about his infidelities, but NEVER about LBJ being involved !
mooninquirer 4 months ago
@mooninquirer And LBJ's guilt over JFK's assassination might have been a reason he was so determined to fake the moon landing, and he fired James Webb in Oct 1968, and just a few days later the Apollo missions resumed, with astronauts supposedly orbiting the moon before LBJ's term was finished, in Dec 1968. And unlike what Phil Plait said in his debate with Joe Rogan, the election in 1968 was very close and unpredictable, especially with George Wallace in the race.
mooninquirer 4 months ago
Comment removed
mooninquirer 1 year ago
I don't think JFK really "banged Marylyn Monroe," and certainly they have a vested interest in portraying him as a playboy, and NEVER played JFK's very serious speech : JFK TELLING US THE TRUTH.
mooninquirer 1 year ago
Jarrah, good video to go with this song that summarizes the main points of why it was a hoax, but please try to do something about Dave Hook's " ......and he even banged Marylyn Monroe." I wish Dave Hook did not include that. Now, one of the benefits of realizing that the moon landing is a hoax, is that one is prompted to question everything that has been reapeated over and over again in the media. Certainly the media has portrayed JFK as a playboy.
mooninquirer 1 year ago
Obama killed NASA's Moon program this week, and even killed all LEO rocket programs. Now NASA astronots must pay $50-million per ticket to the Russians to fly to the space station. EPIC FAIL!
operationnorthwoodz 1 year ago
Dave Hook needs to be recognized here as the writer and performer of this song please.
JillyTheGreat 2 years ago
... In the title of the video that is... I do see the "preformed by" in the credits but he wrote this song as well. His name should be searchable for this.
JillyTheGreat 2 years ago
OK, I've added his name to the title. :)
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
Thank you very muh!! Keep on, keeping on!
JillyTheGreat 2 years ago
next time NASA should put bit more Kero into the ass end of the rocket looked so pretty with all that extra flame and smoke pissing out the back end...
ccc771 2 years ago
great song if u do a follow up add the line they built the lm and tested it but the windows blew out so apollo 7 went without it then they just re fitted new windows and that was fine for the sim they woulda had more chance of landing a garbage can on the moon.
bigfist255 2 years ago
JFK couldn't even drive in a car without getting killed, so how could men ride to the Moon without getting killed? "So I can hear what you're saying: 'But you guys replicated the moon shot on a set, and you're special effects artists. You're exactly the kind of guys that NASA would've hired to do this kind of thing in the first place!'" - Adam Savage, Mythbusters Moon Scam on Youtube Wym04J_3Ls0 at 3:35. No rocket flame on LEM "blastoff" at 0:01. No stars. Mythbusters BUSTED! Ha.
operationnorthwoodz 2 years ago
Technology and science has evolved a hundred fold in the last forty years , however they still don't have the technology to go to the moon do they ?
waptext 2 years ago
The required mass for the meters of shielding is about 500 tons. The space shuttle can only lift 30 tons of cargo.
WhiteJarrah 2 years ago
@WhiteJarrah, and the requirement to use lead shielding to get to and from the moon for less than 2 weeks is based solely on one page of John Mauldin's book, "Prospecs for Interstellar Travel". Since when is going to the moon "interstellar travel"? Since when is going to the moon travel at near light speed for years at a time? You have never established a credible, substantiated explanation that short-duration travel to the moon is lethal. The lead shield nonsense is your Achilles heel.
LunarTuner 9 months ago
oh for fuck sake. I'm really tired of these moon landing hoax theory's. just get a life.
Alfrey619 3 years ago
Hey Alfrey, I am not tired. I still laugh a lot about these conspiracists. Silly & sad people.
Rob260259 2 years ago
So, shall I make arrangements for you at the ISDC May 28-Jun 1 or San Diego Feb 19-22?"
Are you paying for my trip?
straydog02 3 years ago
SD02:"Are you paying for my trip?"
a) What city/major airport?
b) What guarantees will I have that you won't flake out, not use the ticket and/or not show up?
wspaceport 3 years ago
WS:" a) What city/major airport?
b) What guarantees will I have that you won't flake out, not use the ticket and/or not show up?"
a) Nice try, but I don't give out my personal info to complete strangers on the internet under any circumstances.
b)I have an idea though. If you're willing to make this generous offer to someone else, I know someone who would benefit much more from this trip than I ever would, and very well might benefit you much more as well.
I will PM you about it.
straydog02 3 years ago
"You won't because you don't have the courage of your convictions to do so publicly."
I won't because the Apollo astronots aren't allowed to be interviewed by just anybody, or answer any questions that aren't pre-approved by NASA.
straydog02 3 years ago
SD02:"I won't because the Apollo astronots aren't allowed to be interviewed by just anybody, or answer any questions that aren't pre-approved by NASA."
--No, not true. They're retired. They can talk to and be interviewed by anyone they wish to talk to. It's their choice, not NASA.
So, shall I make arrangements for you at the ISDC May 28-Jun 1 or San Diego Feb 19-22?
isdc2008. org/
novaspace. com/ spacefest/
wspaceport 3 years ago
WS:"--No, not true. They're retired. They can talk to and be interviewed by anyone they wish to talk to. It's their choice, not NASA."
Well, then they have made two mistakes then. The first was choosing to not debate Bill Kaysing and the second was to allow themselves to be interviewed by Bart Sibrel. Bill exposed them as cowards for not having the courage to sit down one on one or all of them against him for a debate and Bart exposed them as liars. Which is why they are hated among the PANS.
straydog02 3 years ago
SD02:"Well, then they have made two mistakes then. The first was choosing to not debate Bill Kaysing and the second was to allow themselves to be interviewed by Bart Sibrel."
--It wasn't necessary for them to "debate" Kaysing; his statements tansihed his reputation as a first-class kook.
Sibrel falsely represented himself as someone he wasn't using doctored or falsified media credentials (at the very least, a misdemeanor) of the History Channel, Japanese Asahi/NHK TV, even ABC News.
wspaceport 3 years ago
WS:"--It wasn't necessary for them to "debate" Kaysing; his statements tansihed his reputation as a first-class kook."
What a ridiculous cop out! It was VERY necessary for at least one, if not all of the astronots to debate Kaysing (as he offered many times) for the simple reason that he had a huge following after writing the book 'We Never Went to the Moon'.
The fact that at least 6 to 20% of the pop. believes that Apollo never landed men on the Moon, was reason enough to debate Kaysing.
straydog02 3 years ago 2
WS:"--You don't get it, do you? I'm not debating you; you're a lost cause.
Oh I get it alright.. You are retired military, who worked (works) for the Defense Dept. and feels that's it's your National duty/obligation to defend governnent / military lies.
It's not too difficult to see where you're coming from and why.
straydog02 3 years ago
SD:"Oh I get it alright.. You are retired military, who worked (works) for the Defense Dept. and feels that's it's your National duty/obligation to defend governnent / military lies.
It's not too difficult to see where you're coming from and why."
--Then you need to be fitted for some new glasses, because you're wrong once again (go back and re-read some of the posts once again)
wspaceport 3 years ago
"What's got your panties in a bunch is you're not being allowed to run roughshod over an honorable event in history any longer."
It's not my panties that are in a bunch, NASA shill .. That particular problem would be yours, and also the one's whose lies you defend, by using ridicule of those who can see through those lies.
straydog02 3 years ago
WJ:"John H. Mauldin, Eugene Parker. The last two in particular both propose meters of shielding to protect astronauts from GeV radiation, and the radiation in cislunar space is 10GeV."
--Have they been peer-reviewed by the rest of the scientific community? Is there a consensus?
WJ:"Did he say that at his own free will or blackmailed?"
--Produce your proof he was.
WJ:"Why would he say that when his own Geiger counters detected 100rem/hr?"
--A lot can happen in 10 yrs of learning.
wspaceport 3 years ago
"Produce your proof he was."
Why would he think the radiation was non-lethal when his own experiments from 1953 to 1963 proved the opposite?
"-A lot can happen in 10 yrs of learning."
I couldn't agree more: today we know that the radiation levels in the belts are 100MeV, the same energy levels of x-class solar flares such as NOAA 720.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
WJ:"Oh please, those websites have been debunked over and over and over again."
--By who? Produce your evidence. Give me Names and their scientific credentials, as well as independent, peer-reviewed data, medical and/or research papers.
WJ:"James Van Allen's own research proved that even a brief passage through the belts would have resulted in 100rem/hour."
--Then why did he debunk people like you?
"...an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense."
wspaceport 3 years ago
"By who?"
James Van Allen, John H. Mauldin, Eugene Parker. The last two in particular both propose meters of shielding to protect astronauts from GeV radiation, and the radiation in cislunar space is 10GeV.
"...an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense."
Did he say that at his own free will or blackmailed? Why would he say that when his own Geiger counters detected 100rem/hr? AFTER he put 1mm of lead around them that it, without lead they died on him.
watch?v=f2rotplZn0g
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
WJ:"watch?v=f2rotplZn0g"
--Yeah, like I'm going to take the word of a "self-taught" non-degreed "engineer" who works as a cabinet maker by trade and can't get a recognized publication house to print his "theories", so he has to self-publish them himself.
wspaceport 3 years ago
"Yeah, like I'm going to take the word of a "self-taught" non-degreed "engineer" who works as a cabinet maker by trade and can't get a recognized publication house to print his "theories", so he has to self-publish them himself."
You don't have to take his word, you can take the word of the scientists he quotes: like NASA astrophysicist Mauldin, Solar Wind expert Parker, and James Van Allen.
Try watching more than five seconds.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
WJ:"Second, you'd have to provide solid evidence that proves astronauts could have survived the 10GeV cislunar space radiation, knowing that Eugene Parker proposes 5meters of water shielding against deadly radiation at 2GeV."
madsci. org/posts/archives/may2000/959341359. As. r. html
physics. isu. edu/radinf/radsandus/spec. htm
umich. edu/~radinfo/introduction/spec. htm
wspaceport 3 years ago
Oh please, those websites have been debunked over and over and over again.
"The Apollo spacecraft passed through the Van Allen belt quite quickly, so that in the short time they were exposed, the astronauts did not receive a dose of radiation considered dangerous, at least not compared to the inevitable other risks in the mission."
James Van Allen's own research proved that even a brief passage through the belts would have resulted in 100rem/hour.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
moonmovies (cover for 'BS'):"Yes. This is a commonly accepted figure"
--Except the correct way of saying it is "The cost of the Apollo program from 1961-1975 was estimated to be $25.4 billion in 1969 dollars ($135 billion in present day figures if current inflation rates of today are factored in)."
Here's a question for you to answer:
"What evidence would it take to prove to you that we really went to, landed on, and returned from the Moon?"
wspaceport 3 years ago
"--Except the correct way of saying it is "The cost of the Apollo program from 1961-1975 was estimated to be $25.4 billion in 1969 dollars ($135 billion in present day figures if current inflation rates of today are factored in).""
Have you even seen the movie? The actual narration: "The cost of the program whose sole goal was to be the first to plant a flag on the lifeless rock just outside the earth, if adjusted for inflation to the 21st century, was $135,000,000,000"
So what's your problem?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
WJ:"Have you even seen the movie?"
--Yep, I have, for free on YouTube. Many have scientifically torn it apart.
WJ:"The actual narration"
--Is based purely on the writer/director's fault-riddled, agenda-based script, mouthed by someone with a British accent to make it sound more "believable."
WJ:"So what's your problem?"
--You mean, aside from the entire "documentary"?
The fact that con man 'BS' still wants to charge gullible people to see his garbage can of disinformation.
wspaceport 3 years ago
"--You mean, aside from the entire "documentary"?"
Funny, you know very well that the doco stated exactly what you said: that the cost of Apollo in 21st century dollars is $135,000,000,000. You are basically attacking a film for making a factual statement that you echoed.
By the way, Bart Sibrel is retired. That's Wil Tracer who runs the moonmovies account.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
WJ:"By the way, Bart Sibrel is retired. That's Wil Tracer who runs the moonmovies account."
--Yeah, I guess one punch to the nose by a Korean War fighter pilot (with 2 MiG kills to his credit) who overcame some personal adversity after Apollo 11 and is now a senior citizen nearly twice the age of 'BS", a full foot shorter and half his weight -- not to mention the world-wide (and deserved) ridicule from the world press would make 'BS' want to hide under the rock he crawled out from under.
wspaceport 3 years ago
WS"...not to mention the world-wide (and deserved) ridicule from the world press would make 'BS' want to hide under the rock he crawled out from under."
Speaking of 'BS'.. you sure are busy spreading enough of your's around here.
If anyone needs to crawl back under their rock, it would be you, NASA shill .. and while you're at it, take your BS character assassinations and ridicule of all the CT's with you.
straydog02 3 years ago
SD02:"If anyone needs to crawl back under their rock, it would be you, NASA shill .. and while you're at it, take your BS character assassinations and ridicule of all the CT's with you."
--Why? You're so much fun to ridicule because of your far-fetched "theories" and claims. The rest of us are secure in our background intelligence and knowledge of the facts.
What's got your panties in a bunch is you're not being allowed to run roughshod over an honorable event in history any longer.
wspaceport 3 years ago
WS"--Why? You're so much fun to ridicule because of your far-fetched "theories" and claims. The rest of us are secure in our background intelligence and knowledge of the facts."
If the hoax "theories" were really so "far fetched", then you wouldn't be working so hard and wasting all of your precious time attempting to refute them, with all of your "background intelligence" and "knowledge of the facts" ... LOL
straydog02 3 years ago
SD02:"If the hoax "theories" were really so "far fetched"
--Thanks for concedeing that point.
SD02:"then you wouldn't be working so hard and wasting all of your precious time attempting to refute them"
--You don't get it, do you? I'm not debating you; you're a lost cause. I'm ensuring some elementary/high school kid doesn't walk in here and gets a wild-ass, one-sided, slickly produced, but uninformed & implausible "theory" based on smoke & mirrors instead of hard, scientific facts.
wspaceport 3 years ago
WS:"--Thanks for concedeing that point."
Taking my comments out of context will NOT help your "noble" cause.
straydog02 3 years ago
SD02:"Taking my comments out of context will NOT help your "noble" cause."
--Nor will you relying on Wikipedia or other CT hoax sites as your "Bible" of reference will help your "theories" and "claims".
wspaceport 3 years ago
WS:"---Nor will you relying on Wikipedia or other CT hoax sites as your "Bible" of reference will help your "theories" and "claims"."
Wikipedia is NOT a conspiracy site!
Actually, I get most of the Apollo hoax evidence from NASA sites .. I find it's always best to go right to the source of the lie, instead of using a middle man.
straydog02 3 years ago
WS:"I'm ensuring some elementary/high school kid doesn't walk in here and gets a wild-ass, one-sided, slickly produced, but uninformed & implausible "theory" based on smoke & mirrors instead of hard, scientific facts."
Smoke and mirrors is a very appropriate term to use, because the only smoke and mirrors I see here (besides your routine), would be NASA's Apollo scam.
straydog02 3 years ago
SD02:"Smoke and mirrors is a very appropriate term to use, because the only smoke and mirrors I see here (besides your routine), would be NASA's Apollo scam."
--Then find yourself or hire an independent researcher to examine the rocks at the Lunar Laboratory in Houston.
Save up for a vacation to San Diego next year, call a press conference and challenge the surviving Apollo astronauts with your "claims".
You won't because you don't have the courage of your convictions to do so publicly.
wspaceport 3 years ago
WS:"--Then find yourself or hire an independent researcher to examine the rocks at the Lunar Laboratory in Houston."
What part of NASA won't allow ALL of the rocks to be studied by ANYONE, do you not understand?
"Save up for a vacation to San Diego next year, call a press conference and challenge the surviving Apollo astronauts with your "claims"."
What part of NASA won't allow the Apollo astronots to be interviewed by just anyone, do you not understand?
straydog02 3 years ago
SD02:"and while you're at it, take your BS character assassinations and ridicule of all the CT's with you."
--Oh but it's not character assassination when the main character in question, a self-admitted drug user, winds up shooting himself in the foot (or getting punched in the nose by a senior citizen twice his age and half his size).
It's also not slander or libel either when legal courts, media and public opinion also considers 'BS' & the CTs as having lights on when no one's home.
wspaceport 3 years ago
WS:"--Oh but it's not character assassination when the main character in question, a self-admitted drug user, winds up shooting himself in the foot (or getting punched in the nose by a senior citizen twice his age and half his size)."
If you look at that clip you will notice that Bart never punched that "senior citizen twice his age and half his size", but that the angry aggression was very ONE SIDED.
Just like your's is, with your character assassination of all CT's who have your number.
straydog02 3 years ago
SD02:"If you look at that clip you will notice that Bart never punched that "senior citizen twice his age and half his size", but that the angry aggression was very ONE SIDED."
--Guess you didn't read the LAPD report or talk to the witnesses who were there.
SD02:"Just like your's is, with your character assassination of all CT's who have your number."
--Hardly. You can't count high enough.
wspaceport 3 years ago
WS:"--Guess you didn't read the LAPD report or talk to the witnesses who were there."
No, but I watched the video clip which clearly showed who punched who.. and Bart never laid a hand on "senior citizen" Buzz.
"--Hardly. You can't count high enough."
But one doesn't need to count very high to have your number.. They only need to know how to put a minus sign in front of the zero.
straydog02 3 years ago
SD02:"No, but I watched the video clip which clearly showed who punched who.. and Bart never laid a hand on "senior citizen" Buzz."
upi. com/ NewsTrack/ Quirks/ 2002/ 09/ 28/ outside_view_buzz_comes_out_fightin/ 5603/
wspaceport 3 years ago
WS:"upi. com/ NewsTrack/ Quirks/ 2002/ 09/ 28/ outside_view_buzz_comes_out_fightin/ 5603/
Intersting pro Buzz spin on that one .. I do believe this was my favorite part..
"For those who think Buzz Aldrin set a bad example for young people by punching his verbal attacker, a two-part short lesson in law and common sense may be instructive."
Thanks for posting the link .. It proves that Bart never hit Buzz.. but he sure did use those "fighting words"!
LOL
straydog02 3 years ago
SD02:"Thanks for posting the link .. It proves that Bart never hit Buzz.. but he sure did use those "fighting words"!
--"The police spokesman added that witnesses have come forward stating that they saw Sibrel aggressively poke Aldrin with a Bible..." [CBS News]
"Last week Aldrin punched a guy for saying he hadn't. Good for Buzz. The person he punched was a filmmaker from Nashville. Bart Sibrel, 37, was shoving a Bible at him." {Daytona Beach News Journal]
wspaceport 3 years ago
WS:"--"The police spokesman added that witnesses have come forward stating that they saw Sibrel aggressively poke Aldrin with a Bible..." [CBS News]
And what "witnesses" were those? ..Oh wait, let me guess.. Friends of Buzz!
We all saw the clip, and at no time did Sibrel ever make contact, or shove Buzz with his Bible.
straydog02 3 years ago 2
"It's also not slander or libel either when legal courts, media and public opinion also considers 'BS' & the CTs as having lights on when no one's home."
The only one's who would have that silly and erroneous opinion are either duped fools, or NASA shills like you.
straydog02 3 years ago
WJ:"You are basically attacking a film for making a factual statement that you echoed."
--I'm attacking a "factual statement" that was placed in the wrong context in your "Moon Song" video.
You make no mention of, or use the narration from 'BS' "documentary" because the "song" is running in the background. Any first-time viewer is going to see the graphic and be left with the impression the Apollo landings cost $135 Billion back in the 60's, not in today's costs.
wspaceport 3 years ago
"I'm attacking a "factual statement" that was placed in the wrong context in your "Moon Song" video."
Might I ask what you would have put in this song visual wise?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
WJ:"Might I ask what you would have put in this song visual wise?"
--It would depend on how you reframe your premise...AFTER you did some thorough research in the first place and vetted your facts.
wspaceport 3 years ago
"$135 Billion Dollars"!?! Where's your source to this claim?
Nice Lie and/or misdirection (once again). Apollo cost $25 Billion in 1960 dollars. In 2008 dollars it *might* be equal to $135 billion.
Neil Armstrong "has never even granted one single interview?" That's news to me. Guess that interview of him on CBS "60 Minutes" in connection with his biography "First Man" (now being optioned for a movie) was a hoax.
This is pathetic. I pity those who would get suckered in by it.
wspaceport 3 years ago
First you're talking to the wrong guy regarding the money. I took that clip from Bart Sibrel's documentary, and in it he's talking about the cost of Apollo in 21st century currency.
Second, this song was written well before Armstrong gave that interview to 60 minutes.
The only thing that is pathectic around here is your spewing of hatred against the messenger before even bothering to research the message.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
What's pathetic is any credibility you had before is now lost.
Any ethical journalist/writer/producer or director would have researched their material before using it. By your own admission, you've done none of the above.
You used a questionable clip from BS's "documentary" instead of other public domain source footage. You created a piece "ex post facto" knowing the song is flawed.
An ethical person wouldn't have used this material, or retracted it once known. You've done neither.
wspaceport 3 years ago
"Any ethical journalist/writer/producer or director would have researched their material before using it. By your own admission, you've done none of the above."
You really like to twist people's words, don't you? Regarding credibility, I could say the same about you. Had you bothered to do any actual research, you might have found this quotation from Wikipedia: "The cost of the program is estimated at $135 billion (2006 dollars) ($25.4 billion in 1969 dollars)."
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
WJ:"Regarding credibility, I could say the same about you. Had you bothered to do any actual research, you might have found this quotation from Wikipedia: "The cost of the program is estimated at $135 billion (2006 dollars) ($25.4 billion in 1969 dollars)."
--Thanks for unwittingly backing up my claim in the first place.
While you're at Wikipedia, look up "NASA Budget" and click on the History and Discussion tabs.
Don't vandalize the site; we'll know who did it and will report it.
wspaceport 3 years ago
"Don't vandalize the site; we'll know who did it and will report it."
Care to emphasize what you mean by "vandalizing" the site? You better come back with good hard evidence for your accusation.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
WJ:"Care to emphasize what you mean by "vandalizing" the site? You better come back with good hard evidence for your accusation."
--I made no accusation; I just placed you on fair warning. A sudden spike of entries with malicious intent is going to look very suspicious for those who made the posting.
I noticed you've managed to avoid, and haven't answered "The Question": What evidence would it take to prove to you that we really went to, landed on, and returned from the Moon?
wspaceport 3 years ago
I ignored your question because the evidence for the Moon landing is nil.
First, you'd have to explain the clearly edited Apollo 10 telecasts that were purported by NASA to be live.
Second, you'd have to provide solid evidence that proves astronauts could have survived the 10GeV cislunar space radiation, knowing that Eugene Parker proposes 5meters of water shielding against deadly radiation at 2GeV.
Now I ask you, what would it take you to prove the moon missions were faked?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
WJ:"Now I ask you, what would it take you to prove the moon missions were faked?"
--I don't understand your question. Are you asking me what I would need to prove that Apollo was faked, or are you asking me what compelling evidence do I need to have in order to have my knowledge that Apollo occurred to be changed by you?
wspaceport 3 years ago
"I don't understand your question."
Well I'll ask again: what would it take to convince you the missions were hoaxes?
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
WJ:"Well I'll ask again: what would it take to convince you the missions were hoaxes?"
--The executive management teams of U.S. Gov't, aerospace contractor and subcontractor corporations, the Russians, the Aussie gov't, the Manned Spaceflight Tracking Network, 400,000+ aerospace workers, the Int'l mainstream press, the top College and University research teams and the World's scientific community who inspected the lunar samples (and continue to do so today) all saying they were faked.
wspaceport 3 years ago
In case you didn't understand that, virtually everybody else in the world, except you and a handful of other kooks, cranks, slackers, disaffected/disallusioned youth and crackpots in your cult following who believe in sad, misguided folly.
wspaceport 3 years ago
lololololololol
Oh don't worry, I've a VERY special segment for the radio tracking stations and the Apollo soil samples. It'll all be clear soon. Stay tuned. :D
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
WJ:"Oh don't worry, I've a VERY special segment for the radio tracking stations and the Apollo soil samples. It'll all be clear soon."
--And I'm sure it will be punched full of holes like a collander by those who personally, visually and electronically tracked the spacecraft.
astr. ua. edu/ keel/ space/ apollo. html
amazon. com/ Tracking-Apollo-Moon-Hamish-Lindsay/ dp/ 1852332123
amazon. com/ Shadow-Moon-Challenging-Tranquility-1965-1969/ dp/ 0803211287/ ref=pd_sim_b_title_3
wspaceport 3 years ago
WJ:"First, you'd have to explain the clearly edited Apollo 10 telecasts that were purported by NASA to be live."
--First, I'll have to see all the tapes of Apollo 10.
It could simply be that the major networks themselves delayed NASA's broadcast as "live on tape" -- just as the NBC network (the parent company of the affiliate I once worked for) did for the 2000 Sydney Games.
wspaceport 3 years ago
"--First, I'll have to see all the tapes of Apollo 10."
Allow me to help: Live Video, Flagging The Gems, search
I have all the raw footage that has been sold to the public as complete and unedited. And these 'live' and 'unedited' videos are quite clearly riddled with camera cuts.
WhiteJarrah 3 years ago
AWSOME, we never went to th moon!!!!
stretchboy2000 4 years ago
this video shud have more views than this, goog job!!
james12251 4 years ago
Very cool cuke! Tie me kangaroo down sport!
EGMAG 4 years ago
What a great job we have here Jarrah !!! Very nice music .Congratulations again
PARTICA 4 years ago