If you believe we put a man on the Moon ...

[greencrow0]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Now if there is anyone debating this who was also around and thought differently then, or thinks differently now, I'd like to know, not just for the moon hoax reasons but to re-examine the processes of evaluation of events.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>I was around then. In August of 1969 I was living in Halifax, Nova Scotia. I remember the night the astronauts landed on the moon because the people I was living with had a female boxer dog and it gave birth to puppies that night...so me and the children I was looking after [I was a live in babysitter] ran between the basement where the dog was giving birth, to the upstairs where the black and white TV was showing the lunar landing.<br><br>Plus, the father of the household, who was a complete and utter drunk, was getting boozed to the rafters and ended up in a tyranical rage screaming at everyone, including threatening to kill the dog--and me. I quit my 'job' and left the home the next morning, before anyone was up...I got into a taxi and left.<br><br>In any case, the lunar landing was BIG. There was a big build-up to it for weeks, as the rocket blasted off and then the shuttle got closer and closer to the moon. We all sucked it in, there were no naysayers... <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>It never occurred to any of us to doubt what was going on for a single second</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->. You had to be around in those times. We still believed the Warren Commission about Kennedy and the official version about the deaths of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy. The United States was just having an incredible spate of 'bad luck' with those events...so the luner landing was a welcome respite from all that. It was such a 'good news' thing, we all just lapped it up. We very much bought into the idea that the white hats [the west] had scored a knock out punch against the black hats [the soviets].<br><br>I remember, however, I was personally much more excited about Woodstock, which also took place that summer. We saw the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Life Magazine</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> aerial shots of the huge 500,000 crowd in the field all celebrating 'the summer of love' peacefully. It was a coming of age for the boomers.<br><br>It was only many years later that I revisited the lunar landing through the prism of the cynicism born of the revelations about the Kennedy Assassination, the napalming of the Vietnamese, the Mei Lai Incident and other stuff that happened later, like Watergate. All these combined to cast doubt on successive US governments. <br><br>I started to wonder about why we never, ever saw the space capsule flying through the air and landing in the water. We only ever saw it bobbing around in the waves AFTER it landed in the remote Pacific Ocean. I began to think no parachute on earth could stop it from landing so hard in the water that the impact would have killed the astronauts inside. Another thing I wondered about was why the astronauts all sunk beneath the celebrity radar. You rarely saw them giving talks or being on talk shows about their exploits. Sure Neil Armstrong did run for government, didn't he? or at least one of them perhaps more did seek out public life. But that was another chapter in their careers, none of them ever taught space aeronautics or lectured on TV or anything like that...most of them just faded beneath the radar. Years later I heard that some of them were getting pissed off at lunar landing disbelievers who pursued them around the country trying to get answers.<br><br>Now, with the advent of 9/11, it all falls into place. It all makes sense. In a sense it is a relief that all the loose ends are being tied up, even if it is so ominous for the future. The United States government is based on a history of lies, each one bigger, more brazen and more harmful than the one before. It's all based on an effort to install a fascist government that will dominate the world. That is why it is so important to debunk 9/11 and to debunk the so-called Lunar Landings, because [and I feel somewhat sheepish that I never saw this coming so many years ago] all the lies beginning right after the second world war [and including Hiroshima and Nagasaki] are but prelude to something unspeakably horrible that will likely finush us off as a species... if we don't put a stop to the lies and, more importantly, the liars.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>GC <p></p><i></i>

[thoughtographer]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Years later I heard that some of them were getting pissed off at lunar landing disbelievers who pursued them around the country trying to get answers.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>And you wonder why they "all sank beneath the celebrity radar"... <p><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></p><i></i>

[greencrow0]

thought<br><br>you missed the point.<br><br>they were <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>trying to get answers</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>just like we're still trying to get today.<br><br>some people don't need or like answers.<br><br>personally, I think thOse kind of people do not as a whole benefit humanity.<br><br>but that's me<br><br>GC <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

And now...the suspense ends. Can Dreams End (or anyone with half an hour to kill) find a view of an astroanaut, on the moon with the earth also in the shot?<br><br>How about astronaut, moon, earth, and the fucking U.S. flag?<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20387.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>I think I speak for everyone here when I say that the research skills of the pro-hoax people leave a little to be desired. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 4/19/06 9:01 pm<br></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

(Nice, DE. Now it takes about an hour to load this page. Nice photos, though.)<br><br>Not all astronauts went over the event horizen never to return.Anyone remember Senator John Glenn?<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.glenninstitute.org/glenn/index.asp">www.glenninstitute.org/glenn/index.asp</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>And the moon landings certainly were a major un-Vietnam War propaganda event.<br><br>It was so much cheaper to have a winning American hockey team knock out the Soviet team in 1980 (?) or a series of Rambo movies.<br><br>But NASA is first and foremost a weapons program that uses ooh-aah Mr. Science cover as a way to imbue 'optimism' into otherwise utterly toxic National inSecurity State budgets. <br><br>Portraying Space as "the final frontier," as Star Trek's Captain Kirk intoned at the beginning of every show, remains a way to manufacture a psychic 'West' for young men towards which young men can Go in the pursuit of capitalism. We primates must have a healthy Optimism Imperative complex to be productive little monkeys.<br><br>So NASA serves the purpose of post-WWII post-mystery religion much the same way as the idea that UFO ETs are going to rescue us from our bad selves like angels. I think Jung actually wrote a book about the psychology of UFOs. Well, NASA is tapping the same stream of consciousness in kids who don't think about missiles, the unauthorized spy satellite system the Pentagon bought in 1999, and jet fuel in all our drinking water.<br><br>Now new weapons are tested in space when it would be impossible to get away with testing them on poor foreigners. <br><br>On July 4th, no coincidence, of last year NASA did a classic Star Wars test by trying to hit a meteor with a missile. <br><br>Last week NASA made "two new craters" on the moon by way of testing and demonstrating 'bunker buster' technology to those oh-so-dangerous Iranians but with off-planet plausible deniability.<br><br>One of my favorite 'Get Your War On' cartoons is of a desk jockey bitching about the waste of money spent on NASA projects while Earth goes to pieces inspired by W's bizarre misState of the Union rhetoric about going to Mars a couple of years ago.<br> <br>Desk jocky #1 says-<br>"Sometimes I think the the two noblest words in the English language are FUCK NASA."<br><br>"Seriously, why are we still going into space? To find out if broccoli can grow upside down in zero gravity? WHO FUCKING CARES! EVERYONE IN AFRICA IS DYING OF AIDS, GODDAMN IT! I don't give a fuck if albino snails can have sex in a fucking space shuttle! You need to shut down Cape Canaveral and FIX EARTH, GODDAMMIT!"<br><br>His co-worker now wearing a space helmet retorts-<br>"Great. So now you hate Mars." <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 4/19/06 9:17 pm<br></i>

[Dreams End]

Another one:<br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20466.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I started to wonder about why we never, ever saw the space capsule flying through the air and landing in the water. We only ever saw it bobbing around in the waves AFTER it landed in the remote Pacific Ocean. I began to think no parachute on earth could stop it from landing so hard in the water that the impact would have killed the astronauts inside.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>There are pics of every single splashdown. You are truly shameless. This one is Apollo 17.<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/ap17-s72-55834.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>I'll admit I couldn't find one of Apollo 11. Here's one of Apollo 12<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a12/ap12-KSC-69PC-717.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p></p><i></i>

[PeterofLoneTree]

What If...<br>There really were Moon landings beginning in 1969 but the "hoax" is in trying to get us to believe that it was for the <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>first</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> time??? <p></p><i></i>

[greencrow0]

I don't ever remember seeing the parachutes on TV. <br><br>Obviously there were photographs, but I don't remember live or video TV of the ocean landings.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>GC<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[stickdog99]

Let me be more clear when I ask for photos <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>released at the time of the event</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, and not after the first geek set mouse on photoshop.<br><br>I went through all of the original Apollo press kits before I started posting and only saw a couple of fakey looking "Earths with astronauts" in the photos of the final Apollo mission.<br><br>The Earth photo that I asked "Why doesn't it show the other stars of planets?" about did not contain the lunar surface or anything on the lunar surface. That's specifically why I picked it to ask this question about. The traditional debunking rhetoric does not apply to this specfic photo.<br><br>If you look at this link:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html">www.apolloarchive.com/apo...llery.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>then choose "Apollo 11-pg2", and search for the term "AS11-40-5863-69" you'll see that this photo has the same number as an original photo (minus the 69) that does NOT include "the nearest star" and the description of this phot reads "Lunar Module 'Eagle' composite by Ed Hengeveld."<br><br>Here is AS11-40-5863 from the actual roll of film:<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/as11-40-5863.jpg"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>Here is the AS11-40-5863-69 Ed Hengeveld composite:<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5863-69.jpg"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>And now we have an Apollo 12 photo that does show what at least appear to be blue stars (along with the Moon's surface and an American flag) quite clearly. So what happened with this photo -- unlike the others -- that allowed the stars to appear without overexposing the Moon's surface? Just wondering as usual ... <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=stickdog99>stickdog99</A> at: 4/19/06 11:14 pm<br></i>

[Dreams End]

Hugh, though I'm flattered, have you noticed that you post almost immediately after every post I make? Just curious.<br><br>As to this:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>On July 4th, no coincidence, of last year NASA did a classic Star Wars test by trying to hit a meteor with a missile.<br><br>Last week NASA made "two new craters" on the moon by way of testing and demonstrating 'bunker buster' technology to those oh-so-dangerous Iranians but with off-planet plausible deniability.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>What are you talking about? <br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2970205.stm">Here's</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> a link to a proposed test in 2007 of a very small missile to penetrate the moon's surface. Here's a pic:<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39130000/jpg/_39130123_p203cr.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>This is before a test of the device in New Mexico.<br><br>As for the "star wars technology" missile into an "asteroid", it was a missile but fired from the "Deep Impact" spacecraft... and we must but hope that a comet was not anywhere near enough to make this test relevant for "Star wars" type tests.(It was, in fact, 83 million miles away and Deep Impact took 6 and a half months to get there. IN addition, there were no explosives to speak of...the blast came strictly from the energy of the projectile, traveling at around 10 m/s. You make it sound like a missile was launched from earth and hit an asteroid. This is simply not correct.<br><br>Here's info on that mission:<br><br><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://deepimpact.jpl.nasa.gov/science/cratering.html">Deep Impact</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[woodratherread]

greencrow0- I do remember at least one of the "return flights" using parachutes. <p></p><i></i>

[woodratherread]

greencrow0- You earlier comments were right-on! It has all been a pack of lies.<br><br>I, like you, was sucked into the lies, manipulations and resulting patriotic ferver which has prevaled since J.F.K. was brutaly murdered. <br><br>It is the worst kick in the gut to realise how badly we have been played and how willingly we have gone along. <br><br>My eyes have been opened and I no longer feel that I have the luxury of believing (or pretending to believe) their lies. The stakes are too high! Each one of us has to face reality at their own pace and hopefully it will happen in time to save some of us. <br><br>I have to ask- Dreams-End did you find your last set of photos from a mock site? It's funny how they make the astronaut look like he is standing on a large ball. That slope of the horizon is impossibly cartoonish.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

speaking of wood...the woodwork must be rather empty these days.<br><br>GO TO THE SITE AND LOOK AT ALL THE PICS IN A SERIES. IT IS REALLY EASY. <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Here is a 1997 poll of Americans on their attitudes towards 'their own' (hah!) government.<br><br><br>This polling group is working out of the University of Maryland and for the Council On Excellence, a CFR-CIA military industrial project, so consider it to be skewed 'for the house.'<br>The Council On Excellence corporate allies are the cream of the Council on Foreign Relations crop-<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.excelgov.org/index.php?keyword=a43291e3dd6d93">www.excelgov.org/index.ph...91e3dd6d93</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Back to the 'What Do the Masses Think' pollsters-<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.msu.edu/course/prr/371/Odd%20and%20Ends%20References/hart.htm">www.msu.edu/course/prr/37...s/hart.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>The survey research firms of <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Peter D. Hart and Robert M. Teeter</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> conducted a nationwide survey among a cross section of 1,003 American adults. All the interviews were conducted <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>by telephone between February 20 and 24, 1997</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. The primary focus of the survey was to determine Americans' attitudes toward government, its successes and failures, and how it could work better. In addition, <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>two focus groups-one among women and one among men-were conducted on March 11, 1997, in Raleigh, NC.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br>This is the second survey <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>conducted for the Council for Excellence in Government by the research firms of Peter D. Hart and Robert M. Teeter.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> In March 1995, the Council commissioned a survey to determine Americans' attitudes toward the role of government in society. The following is a summary of the central findings from the 1995 study.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>When asked to name a major accomplishment of the government over the last 30 years, no one can name anything.<br>(Destroying education and pouring TV disinfo into young minds works. Our sense of history has finally been cured!)<br><br>The few things the government can do that were named were a strong military (ugh) and <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>the SPACE PROGRAM.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>So this really does appear to me to be a pr tool for the nationalist government that just eats up huge budgets and makes weapons.<br>Fuck NASA, indeed.<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Asked to name two or three of the most important successes of the federal government over the past 30 years, a plurality (42%) of Americans cannot volunteer even one.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> Among those who are able to give an example of government success, the most frequent responses include a strong military (8%), <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>the space program (7%)</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->, welfare (7%), foreign policy (6%), and education (6%).<br>....<br>Americans perceive the federal government as having the greatest success on those issues that are commonly considered to be in the domain of the national government. Adults see the federal government as least successful on a number of non-economic domestic issues that are perennial problems for the nation. Americans were asked to rate a series of goals according to how successful the government has been in working toward them over the years. The goals fall into four categories.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Tier 1: The National Domain.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> <br>This set of goals is <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>characterized by a high level of central control</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> by or constitutional responsibility lodged in the federal government. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Americans think that the federal government has been most successful working toward the goals of promoting space exploration, providing for the national defense, and keeping the nation at peace.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> To a lesser degree, they see it as successful at maintaining a growing economy. Large majorities of Americans think that the federal government has been very or fairly successful in working toward each of these goals.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Promoting space exploration is the only item of the 16 tested about which a plurality of Americans say the federal government has been very successful. This result is consistent across all groups, with men rating it slightly higher than other groups.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Let me be more clear when I ask for photos released at the time of the event, and not after the first geek set mouse on photoshop.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Yeah, keep raising that bar. I guess you'll need to prove that some were NOT released at the time of the event...and then provide a list. Just because they didn't all go into press releases doesn't mean they weren't released for inspection.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The Earth photo that I asked "Why doesn't it show the other stars of planets?" about did not contain the lunar surface or anything on the lunar surface. That's specifically why I picked it to ask this question about. The traditional debunking rhetoric does not apply to this specfic photo.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>It had a bright white lunar module right in the middle of the shot, where, most likely, the light meter was most focused on. Seriously, you're just messing with us, aren't you? <br><br>But let me repeat, "Stick dog doesn't know how" does not equal "It didn't happen."<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>then choose "Apollo 11-pg2", and search for the term "AS11-40-5863-69" you'll see that this photo has the same number as an original photo (minus the 69) that does NOT include "the nearest star" and the description of this phot reads "Lunar Module 'Eagle' composite by Ed Hengeveld."<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>You've lost me there. "nearest star"? You mean alpha centauri? I don't see the difference in the photos except the cropping. Why don't you give those straws a break...they are tired of being grasped. <p></p><i></i>