Anyone else think the moon landing was a fake?

I'm sure he'll get you, but I'll get your "challenge" too.

They had the guy they wanted, and fucking lied about his degree of cure.

Or they over-estimated the problem from the start.

 

Not a very strong effort there Roorshack. Then again, to be fair, it's not a challenge anyone can handle. Apollo was indeed fraudulent, and as such, how can one be expected to show the truth to be false? Or the false true? It's rather well well well beyond the possible.................

Did you know that when Shepard was alleged to be in cislunar space, the Mission Control Boys called up House in the middle of the evening, something like 3 am or what have you, and had Shepard talk to House with the spaceship "phone's" speaker to Shepard's LEFT/BAD ear, or so the silly story is told by the NASA folks.

Let's see how KeithBC makes out with his challenge.

Another one you can try Roorshack, how about Slayton, they claimed his atrial fib just went away, BOOM, just like that? Then as now, they knew, we know, the propensity to flip into, and then back out of, atrial fibrilation does not just "go away". Slayton himself says it was his taking vitamins which affected the cure, which of course makes the thing sound all the more ridiculous, preposterous, flat out silly, and goes to show how arrogant the NASA boys were back then, understandably so. They could say just about anything and it wasn't critically looked at. I would imagine really no one was paying any attention at all to the story that a-fib is what put Slayton in charge of the astronauts to begin with.

At any rate, the Slayton a-fib cure story is just as fake/medically nonsensical as the phony Shepard Meniere's cure story. Care to provide us with counter examples there Roorshack, a study of a cohort of a-fibbers that enjoyed a reprive in the same sense Slayton did, men and/or women confidently pronounced "cured", said to never be at risk forever more of flipping into said rhythm again, this, based on the findings of a routine physical exam, blood work and cardiac cath data. This is what happened for Slayton in the context of his Mayo Clinic evaluation. Cured by virtue of an evaluation. Now that is some mighty interesting medicine my friend. Small wonder why present day NASA flight surgeons have never worked up the courage to debate those in my group, nor will they ever agree. It would be the height of preserving the phony official Apollo story folly. We, my fellow Apollo docs of San Francisco and I, we'd cut 'em to ribbons in half a nanosecond.

 

You have convinced NO ONE fattydish. You're a joke. Something to be laughed at, nothing more. You're not even entertaining.

If you're group is so intelligent why not do something useful for mankind, like ending wars and world hunger, or how about curing cancer.

Or how about getting a life even.

 

We have been to the moon.

 

There are children starving in Africa.
There are wars being fought using depleted uranium.
There are crack dealers in our schools and our children are illiterate morons.

Sorry but the fuck cares what's happening on other planets? We've got tons to keep us occupied here.

 

You too?

 

Shameless one,

It seems to me he’s raised enough reasonable doubt that we should question the entire apollo program and the supposed manned missions to the moon. If NASA is willing to lie to cover-up medical inconsistencies who knows just how far they’re willing to go.


Hotwater

 

If I'm willing to J Walk who knows how many other crimes I'd be willing to commit.

 

fixed it for ya

 

What the hell has that got to do with whether or not the Apollo astronauts landed on the moon? He got a bum diagnosis. Or the problem wasn't as bad as they figured. Or he flew with it anyway. None of that proves that he or the other astronauts didn't walk on the moon.

You have published reams of logorhea that express your unreasonable doubt. Even if your doubt were reasonable, it would not be enough to stand up in a criminal court. Courts require proof that is beyond a reasonable doubt. And I require a logical proof.

So, I say again, show some evidence. Something simple, like a flag waving in the wind.

 

sorry,fatty-I still don't get it:
are you saying ALL [that's SIX,btw] the manned missions to the moon are false?
Or are you saying just the original 1969 one was faked?

Because,if I'd just pulled off a fraud that had the whole planet revering and applauding me,I'm totally certain I wouldn't THEN do it for real and risk the differences in coverage.Because genuine footage would very quickly show the falsity of fake 'studio' footage of things like take-off,being in orbit,jettisoning and heading out,in-module footage of lunar approach,Earth as seen from Moon orbit,module landing,the mother vessel footage as it records the landing,exiting the module to stand on the surface,with shadows,flag...and kicked up moondust. I would actually EXPECT later moonshots to expose my fraud in just about every area.
So,I'd say "Right,let's do something else;not going there again. Been there,done that. . I know,let's put a DECENT and modern sea-defence wall around New Orleans-it'd be a bloody lot more useful than another handful of moonrock-if we MUST find stuff to spend our national income on"....and thus,no-one would ever know I'd faked it.
However:
If I had just got men onto the Moon under MY flag,AND got them safely home,you're completely right thinking I'd trumpet that fact from the highest point and bathe in the applause. That's it-we went,you all saw it,now I'm to try something else. I'm going back,and this time we're going DRIVING on the moon! Yeah! Never have to worry about any GENUINE mission,subsequent to the initial history-making accomplishment,means I can bathe in the incoming congratulations with never a worry that I may be exposed-there's nothing to expose.
So,in the light of that;
ALL moon landings are fake,or just that one?

 

The Meniere's disease illness was contrived as it civilianized Shepard and so placed him at Slayton's side to administer to the Gemini and Apollo ain'tstronauts. But once with Meniere's , always with Meniere's, at least in this typical context, and so for Shepard to fly, they would have to affect a miracle cure.

It would be no different/is no different than a seizure disorder diagnosis under the same circumstances(space flight). If one had a seizure disorder, even if that individual were to go years without a seizure, regardless of treatment(surgeries, meds, whatever), said individual would not be allowed to pilot/command a spacecraft that was actually going to traverse cislular space and then land upon the moon. The situation would be no different in the case of an individual sufrfering bouts of vertigo due to Meniere's disease.

If Shepard really had Meniere's disease he would not be allowed to fly period. He would endanger the lives of everyone, his crewmates included. As he is allowed to fly, one may conclude with utter certitude, Apollo 14, and indeed all of the Apollo flights, were fraudulent.

Catching on ?

 

The lying on the part of astronauts and other principals is very solid evidence of fraud. All the evidence you need. Lying=Apollo fraudulence.

And the lying per se, the lying in and of itself, is as solid, if not more so, than a mass spec analysis of an Apollo 11 moon rock showing said rock was/is made of terrestrial playdough.

Let's take the Apollo 12 phony lightning pad strike as an example. We could use one of the medical issues and demonstrate a phony Apollo medical story instance of the contradiction=LIE=Apollo fraudulence equation, but the medical stuff seems to be a stumbling block for you KeithBC. As such, I propose to present a non medical and very straight forward example of this, the Tom Stafford lying about lightning example.

When Tom Stafford said in his role as NASA's point man at the Apollo 12 post launch press conference that he did not see lightning strike the launchpad, we believed him. Afterall, he is Tom Stafford, and his story was so clear. He was not even looking up from his console and so there was no question, there could have been a mistake. No way that he could have seen lightning even if the lightning existed. Stafford claimed he wasn't even looking up. One cannot see what one is not looking at.

Here below are NASA's own audio recordings from the Apollo 12 post flight press/news conference. Note the video, is not "synched" with the audio, though the video scenes are from that day; November 14, 1969.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z7mYxLxpZc"]Apollo 12 Post Launch News Conference, Tom Stafford Contradicts Himself , PART ONE - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eeqiy1Va1SY"]Apollo 12 Post Lauch Press Conference Audio, PART TWO, Proves Apollo Inauthenticity - YouTube

So right after the launch, there was this press/news conference, and at that press/news conference, the claim was made that no one in the firing room saw the lightning hit the Apollo 12 launch pad, not just Stafford, NO ONE in the firing room saw lightning. Listen to the NASA audio provided to convince yourself this is correct. (Later, McDivitt, who was not present at the conference, would claim he saw lightning. The McDivitt story, bogus though it was/is, does not materially affect this presentstion of mine having to do with Stafford.)

Now then, from Tom Stafford's book WE HAVE CAPTURE(coauthor Michael Cassutt, Smithsonian Books, 2002)

Stafford describes the Apollo 12 launch in that book, and I QUOTE;

"Everything went perfectly for the first 36 seconds, with Pete reporting with his usual enthusiasm, that they were "really going,". After the call "tower clear", I looked up from my console and watched the giant Saturn V as it rose. Suddenly, as it entered the clouds, two parallel lightning bolts crackled out of the clouds and hit the launch pad, BANG!"


END QUOTE


'Stafford has changed his story, and not as regards something about which he could have possibly been mistaken or confused, even in the slightest. In other words, if Stafford's head really was down at the time of the launch as he claimed at the post launch news conference, it is not something he could have misremembered. One does not forget and then remember a lightning strike on one of the most important work datys of one's life.

But sure enough, years later, when Stafford wrote his book, he then RECALLED SEEING LIGHTNING STRIKE THE PAD, VIVIDLY . "BANG", THE LIGHTNING HIT THE PAD HE CLAIMED IN HIS BOOK. BUT HOW COULD THAT BE??? HE SAID AT THE POST LAUNCH CONFERENCE 11/14/1969 THAT HE NEVER SAW LIGHTNING AS HIS HEAD WAS DOWN TO BEGIN WITH. It is not a seeing or a not seeing about which he could be mistaken, even with the passage of 33 years. One simply does not "remember" lightning which was never seen 33 years prior.

Stafford could not have both had his head down and not seen the lightning as he reported at the Apollo 12 post launch conference, and also at the same time had an experience in which he looked up from his console to see the lightning strike the pad as he wrote in the book WE HAVE CAPTURE.

All considered, there is but ione solution to draw, one may conclude, AND ONLY CONCLUDE, the man, Tom Stafford, is lying. This is not something about which Stafford or anyone for that matter might be mistaken, seeing lightning, or not seeing lightning, hit the pad just after the launch of Apollo 12.

Additionally, how is it that not a single journalist reported the event similarly? Not a ONE, NOT A SINGLE SOLITARY ONE!!! Not a single print journalist from any major publication reported seeing lightning himself/herself on a first person basis..... (Note carefully the specifics of my qualification here. There were of course second hand accounts of the strike.)

How come not a single non NASA person claimed to have seen the lightning by way of a first person account? McDivitt said he saw it, Stafford denied lightning initially at the news conference but later acknowledged seeing lightning in his book, Conrad allegedly saw lightning right from his cat bird seat. I thought there were 500,000 people present at the Apollo 12 launch ? How come there were not wide spread 1st person reports of this lightning?

How come the lightning was not captured on tv by a major network's team ? I have the NBC film of the launch. They followed the Saturn V up, camera on the pad the whole time. NO LIGHTNING. Pursuit craft denied seeing lightning.

As Patrick once wrote so eloquently,

"one of the more outrageous scams of the whole Apollo ruse. 500,000 people present, no one sees lightning, no one photographs it, no one films it, no one even describes it, says they saw it, except for a couple, three, four NASA dudes and a scattered few folks we'll get to later, along with their incriminating stories.

This is one of the most amazing stories in American history, all of history really, distilled down to this one breathtakingly bogus moment, the Apollo 12 launch. There was absolutely no reason to think there was lightning, none. Not even the weather service reported anything, not a hint from them. The only thing there was at all was this claim of NASA's; McDivitt, Stafford, Conrad. Later, NASA produced some photos from automatic cameras, but keep in mind, real-time wise; no photos, no film/tv images, no journalist descriptions, no NOTHING, just ONE BIG FAT HORRENDOUS LIE.

All of Apollo right there distilled down to that one moment, that one lie. Says it all boy does it ever. No reason to buy in and everyone did just cuz' some clown like Tom Stafford said it happened ..... "

The important issue here to focus on for the pupose of this post KeithBC is the CONTRADICTION. Stafford denied lightning initially because there was no lightning and he was in the firing room/launching room with everyone else, essentially all honest Apollo workers but a few. He could not admit to seeing what no one else saw, and didn't se BECAUSE IT NEVER WAS THERE TO BEGIN WITH. If he claimed to have seen lightning at the post flight conference, he would have incriminated himself as not a single one of his peers, not a single person present in the firing room with the exception of McDivitt(NASA big shot and Apollo fraud perpetrator), claimed to have witnessed lightning.

But 33 years later, Stafford can have his cake AND HIS LIGHTNING TOO. Now three decades plus separate him from his colleagues and the events of that morning. So we easily see the reality now. Stafford lies to substantiate, bogusly validate, the phony story, and bogusly authenticate the phony photos that were made, but were never available in real time mind you. People only saw the phony photos long after the real time staged event.




FAKE

 

Yes, I'm catching on that you don't understand the concept of evidence. To you it's all about he-said-she-said, parsing out reminiscences, and bullshit like that. The closest you can come to evidence is "It couldn't be true because I don't believe it."

I know it's heresy to say so on this site, but you are obviously smoking way too much dope.

 

WHY are you incapable of understanding that individual people making individual statements does NOT invalidate anything but their own credibility?

With the lightening it's pretty obvious what happened: nobody in a position to have said anything in time for the statement saw the lightening, but when the picture was developed (no, they wouldn't have had it in time for a conference, they used to use this stuff called film...) and whatnot, this douchebag decided that he actually did "see" the lightening, once he thought no one would call him on that years later, as the lightening had come to be known to have happened.

"first he said he didn't, then he said he did, so obviously, the only logical explanation is NEITHER, and a multi-million dollar conspiracy of thousands of people"

^^^this is not logic, or debate, or anything remotely worthwhile.

 

Not he said she said, Tom Stafford said.

He's another one that realized tremendous kick backs from his Apollo fraud participation. He is on the boadrd of soemthing like 9 major corporations. Why? No credentials really other than being able to lie well 'bout space ships.

 

fattydash = :beatdeadhorse5:

hotwater, dude111, psychedelicpiper = :iamwithstupid:


rational members of Hipforums = :banghead:

 

It could be for the sole reason to further their veil they have over our eyes, but I really, I thinkit seems stupid. I'm sure they went to the moon , why not,curiosity could be a scam too right. Idk all myths come from nonfiction

 

Pure blasphemy.

 

As a physician, you should learn to temper your language. Many on this forum have a poor opinion of our profession to begin with.

My understanding of the case is that all three astronauts suffered from vertigo due to the effects of microgravity. The onset of this coincided with their passage through the Van Allen belts. Although you probably do not deal with it regularly in your practice, nausea is a symptom of radiation poisoning. In order to rule this potentially lethal scenario out, a differential diagnosis needed to be performed. Without access to laboratory facilities, Borman took a small sample of Seconal to confirm his sensitivity to it. Surely you would have recommended the same procedure.

As a doctor, you must understand the need for doctor-patient confidentiality. "Meniere's Syndrome" is clearly a euphemism to mask the underlying etiology, which I am certain you can deduce from the presenting symptoms of Meniere's. Why does this discretion prove Apollo "fraudulent?"

Slayton was never pronounced "cured." Slayton's heart condition was a barrier to his being one of the early test subjects, as they were interested in establishing a baseline of "normal" reactions to the new environment. By the time of the Apollo-Soyuz mission, this baseline had been established, and his flight status was upgraded.

Rubella? You mean German Measles? Rubella, though inconvenient, poses no real danger. It can cause complications in pregnancy, of course, but I highly doubt Ken Mattingly was pregnant.

None of the points you have raised show any logical connection to the matter of Apollo's veracity. If anything, they cast doubt on your claim to practice medicine. Now chill out, you're harshing everyone's buzz.