Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > The Universe / UFOs / IFOs / Crop Circles

View Poll Results: Do you believe that men walked on the Moon in 1969
Yes i believe NASA has told us the truth 79 30.38%
No i dont believe men walked on the Moon in 1969 181 69.62%
Voters: 260. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 25-02-2012, 12:38 PM   #2001
moving finger
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Down in the basement, working for the government
Posts: 3,721
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
hello MF, good day to you,

i was emphasising the point that inconsistances amongst the apollo bed spread fraternity are overlooked when supporting the "official scripted version of history",
yet anyone who questions this "official version of scripted history" is branded as "fool", even though the "official supporters" are far from "perfect".


"It's a dramatisation of factual events, not a documentary"
are you sure ?
Questioners of 'official versions of history' are not automatically branded as fools, they usually manage to do that for themselves by the manner in which they do it.

What the 'questioners of official versions' usually do is decide in advance that the official version is wrong, which is their downfall. Nothing wrong with questioning things, but there is a need to accept that the answer you started out with could actually be correct, rather than decide ahead of things that is wrong and bend the facts to fit your chosen alternative.

And yes, the Apollo 13 mission happened: it launched, they had a problem, they went round the moon, took photos of it and came home. The Apollo 13 movie is a very good film depicting the events in the mission. It is not 100% accurate.
moving finger is offline  
Old 25-02-2012, 12:43 PM   #2002
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
hello MF, good day to you,

i was emphasising the point that inconsistances amongst the apollo bed spread fraternity are overlooked when supporting the "official scripted version of history",
yet anyone who questions this "official version of scripted history" is branded as "fool", even though the "official supporters" are far from "perfect".
No you weren't, you were concentrating on piffling 'inconsistencies' between an historical event and a movie


Quote:
"It's a dramatisation of factual events, not a documentary"
are you sure ?
Well gee ooooooooooo, had you bothered to take your Hblinkered head out of the sand and actually read that MF weather document, you may have seen some pretty stunning proof.


Here is a post from AH before the doc was put together....
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/inde...2&page=2#90134


http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/msfn..._re-entry.html
truegroup is offline  
Old 25-02-2012, 02:17 PM   #2003
oooooooooo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: in the cover of a smoke grenade.
Posts: 3,014
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

A 13,

NASA isn't superstitious, and Apollo 13 commander Jim Lovell dismissed worries about the number 13 as superstitious claptrap. But the number 13 abounded during the mission:

The mission was called Apollo 13.

It was launched at 1:13 p.m. CST - which is 1313 in military time - as measured in Houston at Mission Control, Johnson Space Center.
 

The flight lifted off on 4/11/70 - and if you add 4+1+1+7+0, you get 13.

On April 13, the ship fell under the influence of the moon's gravitational field - and an oxygen tank exploded..

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/ap13acc.html
The oxygen tanks had originally been designed to run off the 28 volt DC power of the command and service modules. However, the tanks were redesigned to also run off the 65 volt DC ground power at Kennedy Space Center. All components were upgraded to accept 65 volts except the heater thermostatic switches, which were overlooked. These switches were designed to open and turn off the heater when the tank temperature reached 80 degrees F. (Normal temperatures in the tank were -300 to -100 F.)
oooooooooo is offline  
Old 25-02-2012, 02:26 PM   #2004
oooooooooo
Inactive
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: in the cover of a smoke grenade.
Posts: 3,014
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
No you weren't, you were concentrating on piffling 'inconsistencies' between an historical event and a movie
no, i was not.

i was setting a test for a certain poster accusing other posters of been "fools", but of course now he would be wise to it,
team "apollo bed spread" really are a team arnt they.
oooooooooo is offline  
Old 25-02-2012, 02:43 PM   #2005
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
A 13,

NASA isn't superstitious, and Apollo 13 commander Jim Lovell dismissed worries about the number 13 as superstitious claptrap. But the number 13 abounded during the mission:

The mission was called Apollo 13.

It was launched at 1:13 p.m. CST - which is 1313 in military time - as measured in Houston at Mission Control, Johnson Space Center.

The flight lifted off on 4/11/70 - and if you add 4+1+1+7+0, you get 13.

On April 13, the ship fell under the influence of the moon's gravitational field - and an oxygen tank exploded..

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/ap13acc.html
The oxygen tanks had originally been designed to run off the 28 volt DC power of the command and service modules. However, the tanks were redesigned to also run off the 65 volt DC ground power at Kennedy Space Center. All components were upgraded to accept 65 volts except the heater thermostatic switches, which were overlooked. These switches were designed to open and turn off the heater when the tank temperature reached 80 degrees F. (Normal temperatures in the tank were -300 to -100 F.)
If you add 4/11/1970 you get 23 and 2+3=5. I do love this numerology crap.

4/13/1970 accident date is 25 and 2+5=7

or your contrived way of dropping the 19

4/13/70 we get 15. Dahn dahn daaaaaaaaaahn

The accident time was 21:08 why didn't they make it 22:09 to make ze magic 13?

If we add the voltages together 2+8+6+5 we get 21 - zomg!!

Why don't you add the time together, ahhhhh because it is already the 13 The launch site was in EST 14:13, so that kind of fucks that up. Houston is where they tracked it from hence CST.

http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apollo13.htm


Is this all you've got


YOU IGNORED THE EVIDENCE - as usual.
truegroup is offline  
Old 25-02-2012, 02:49 PM   #2006
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
no, i was not.
Yeah you were.

Quote:
i was setting a test for a certain poster accusing other posters of been "fools", but of course now he would be wise to it,
Wise to HBs being fools? I expect you could be right there.

Quote:
team "apollo bed spread" really are a team arnt they.
Getting your butt kicked wherever you present this on the internet should lead you to the conclusion that you are wrong, not that people are ganging up on you.
truegroup is offline  
Old 25-02-2012, 03:12 PM   #2007
moving finger
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Down in the basement, working for the government
Posts: 3,721
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
If you add 4/11/1970 you get 23 and 2+3=5. I do love this numerology crap.

4/13/1970 accident date is 25 and 2+5=7

or your contrived way of dropping the 19

4/13/70 we get 15. Dahn dahn daaaaaaaaaahn

The accident time was 21:08 why didn't they make it 22:09 to make ze magic 13?

If we add the voltages together 2+8+6+5 we get 21 - zomg!!

Why don't you add the time together, ahhhhh because it is already the 13 The launch site was in EST 14:13, so that kind of fucks that up. Houston is where they tracked it from hence CST.

http://www.astronautix.com/flights/apollo13.htm


Is this all you've got


YOU IGNORED THE EVIDENCE - as usual.
It's a pity he just copied & pasted that from somewhere else:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...ell/featured/3

Quote:
Unlucky 13? Coincidence? You Decide
By Seth Borenstein, April 11, 1995
NASA isn't superstitious, and Apollo 13 commander Jim Lovell dismissed worries about the number 13 as superstitious claptrap. But the number 13 abounded during the dangerous mission 25 years ago this week:The mission was called Apollo 13.It was launched at 1:13 p.m. CST - which is 1313 in military time - as measured in Houston at Mission Control, Johnson Space Center.The flight lifted off on 4/11/70 - and if you add 4+1+1+7+0, you get 13.On April 13, the ship fell under the influence of the moon's gravitational field - and an oxygen tank exploded, placing the astronauts' lives in jeopardy.
ooh, and another link to a NASA Apollo site to prove Apollo didn't happen!
moving finger is offline  
Old 25-02-2012, 04:14 PM   #2008
phrased eyebrow
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,095
Likes: 30 (29 Posts)
Default

It's true, several of the spaceflight history books mentioned the coincidental 13 13's. It's hardly new, and was a part of the story we all absorbed same as everything else. Sure it's an interesting coincidence, but it couldn't possibly mean anything, could it?

Probably not. Still, it was used by time life and nasa for a human interest headline.
But seriously. Can anyone believe that an entity could actually, possibly, direct something extraordinary like that, down to the moment, merely for significance sake?

From what I understand, they've got timing events across deep space* down to the split second.


*your term, not mine.
phrased eyebrow is offline  
Old 25-02-2012, 05:31 PM   #2009
mandelbrot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,949
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by phrased eyebrow
Well you've got your feet rooted in regalith, so I wouldn't expect you to take my notions in good faith.
Yes. The regolith, which is sticky and glass like stuff, or is it like cocoa powder? Anyways, a real mess for equipment, so, I guess the Apollo astronauts wiped their feet very well before climbing back in the LM.

The short duration that seanc has been here reveals he is not very exacting. He is confusing the fact that the sock puppet comment I implied was referring to Truegroup, not Apollo_Gnomon. Oh well, fair to say that most of the Apollogists respond the same, so perhaps it was unfair of me to imply what I did. I mean, when the Apollogists start throwing regolith around, they don't carry who it sticks to.

Headlikearock,

I read through your research paper, and it does prove interesting. I would suggest reading Technical Evaluation of the NASA Model for Cancer Risk to
Astronauts Due to Space Radiation.
by Committee for Evaluation of Space Radiation Cancer Risk Model; National Research Council of the National Academies

That report suggests and recommends that NASA review and in some cases use another set of criteria for measuring the biological aspects of radiation on the astronauts body:

Quote:
Conclusion: Although the proposed NASA approach describes a number of limitations in these newer epidemiological studies and in the BEIR VII DDREF methodology, the justification given for preferring the older approach taken by the National Institutes of Health in 2003 is that it is close to the average of various recommended values of slightly less than 2. The use of this average value is somewhat problematic, given that the recommended values used to derive this average are not independent and applying equal weights to these is not justifiable.

Recommendation: The committee agrees with the use of an uncertainty approach for estimating DDREF, but it recommends that NASA use a central value and distribution that takes more account of the recent epidemiological and laboratory animal data. p. 15 of pdf file
Quote:
Recommendation: The committee recommends that NASA make a detailed comparison of the relative biological effectiveness versus Z*2/β2 dependence of the experimental data with the proposed form and parameters of the quality factor, QF, equation in order to improve the transparency of the basis for the selection of the proposed parameter values for the model and to provide guidance for future research to test, validate, modify, and/or extend the parameterization. This analysis needs to include the defined selection of different values for parameters κ and Σ0/αγ for ions of Z ≤ 4 compared to all ions of higher charge.

Conclusion: Different maximum values of quality factors, QF, are assumed for leukemia (maximum 10) and for solid tumors (maximum 40). This is a change from the previous NASA risk model. The committee agrees that it is reasonable to make such a distinction on the basis of the limited animal and human data available. p. 17 of pdf file
Arguably, this is for consideration of longer duration missions, but apparently, they were not even aware that the Apollo missions landed on the radiation hot spots until 1998 - 1999.
__________________
An object is cut off fom its name,
habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only
the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration
into pure existence is at last achieved, the object
is free to become endlessly anything.
~ James Douglas Morrison
mandelbrot is offline  
Old 25-02-2012, 08:07 PM   #2010
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup View Post
For long term missions. But what the hell, let's look at that academic paper for a yearly table....



p.s. That applies to cislunar space but without the secondary radiation.


NEXT!!
All this trolling hides the facts - you must have 'missed' this post. So, how about you telling us how much hotter the hotspots are? Ten times, 100 times, what, don't have a clue?

Spamming with the regolith on the suits. So what do you think happens to it when they get back inside? Floats about, falls to the ground. Pick one.

It gets on the gloves that they take off and put down, or do they keep the gloves on? Or do they have a massive shake when they get in and it weasels its way into the electrics?

Or maybe you're just quote mining a long term study, that uses the account of Apollo astronauts on the frickin' Moon to evidence how 'sticky' the stuff is in the first place??? Then suggesting that numerous excursions over weeks and weeks or months, are somehow the same as say the one off eva for Apollo 11, or the 3 for Apollo 17.


Last edited by truegroup; 25-02-2012 at 08:15 PM.
truegroup is offline  
Old 25-02-2012, 08:29 PM   #2011
mandelbrot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,949
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
All this trolling hides the facts - you must have 'missed' this post. So, how about you telling us how much hotter the hotspots are? Ten times, 100 times, what, don't have a clue?
Huh? Compared to what? You didn't really have anything to offer this time around, but only to make sure you have the final word in an attempt to derail the topic. Next time your pager goes off letting you know someone has posted on this topic, it would help if you submit a post that is somewhat cogent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
Spamming with the regolith on the suits. So what do you think happens to it when they get back inside? Floats about, falls to the ground. Pick one.
Gets inside the equipment.

__________________
An object is cut off fom its name,
habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only
the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration
into pure existence is at last achieved, the object
is free to become endlessly anything.
~ James Douglas Morrison
mandelbrot is offline  
Old 25-02-2012, 08:41 PM   #2012
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mandelbrot View Post
Huh? Compared to what? You didn't really have anything to offer this time around, but only to make sure you have the final word in an attempt to derail the topic.
Compared to the yearly dose on the big frickin' table in my post!

That would be 30 Rem a year. Your radiation pish is cooked.

Quote:
Next time your pager goes off letting you know someone has posted on this topic, it would help if you submit a post that is somewhat cogent.
Oh shutup with your stupid comments - what with your response 20 minutes after mine and my response 2hrs 30 minutes after yours!

The report YOU said you read, detailed quite specific yearly doses. I suspect ever so slightly lower when wearing a space suit

Oh, and that big table. It's from that document, so try reading a bit more carefully. Instead of looking for bits you can quote mine with, read the bits that prove you are completely wrong.



Quote:
Gets inside the equipment.
CAN get inside the equipment, the equipment used on a day to day basis, certainly none of the critical stuff sealed behind instrument panels.

Is it my imagination, or is he avoiding the points made in my post

Last edited by truegroup; 25-02-2012 at 08:46 PM.
truegroup is offline  
Old 25-02-2012, 08:55 PM   #2013
mandelbrot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,949
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
Compared to the yearly dose on the big frickin' table in my post!
I already posted: Technical Evaluation of the NASA Model for Cancer Risk to Astronauts Due to Space Radiation. by Committee for Evaluation of Space Radiation Cancer Risk Model; National Research Council of the National Academies

As for you making points, you're just throwing anything out there, as usual, in the hopes there isn't a need for anyone bothering to process the information. Hey, what else do you have, since we're not going to the moon with a manned expedition any time soon.
__________________
An object is cut off fom its name,
habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only
the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration
into pure existence is at last achieved, the object
is free to become endlessly anything.
~ James Douglas Morrison
mandelbrot is offline  
Old 25-02-2012, 09:17 PM   #2014
truegroup
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Conspiracy research is all about proof, not assumption!
Posts: 17,117
Likes: 1,316 (1,030 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mandelbrot View Post
I already posted: Technical Evaluation of the NASA Model for Cancer Risk to Astronauts Due to Space Radiation. by Committee for Evaluation of Space Radiation Cancer Risk Model; National Research Council of the National Academies
AND??????

Quote:
As for you making points, you're just throwing anything out there, as usual, in the hopes there isn't a need for anyone bothering to process the information.
Hahahah what a comedian. I'm throwing things out there like academic papers(provided by HLR) written on the subject you have been quote mining since you got here, showing a yearly dose of 30 rem on the surface of the Moon, including secondary radiation.

You avoided the question, how much percentage wise is the hotspot compared to the non hotspot. Come on, can't find it?

Let's guess at 100 times stronger but it ain't, that's 3000 rem a year, 8 and a bit rem a day, and that unprotected. You're cooked and you know it. But, like the classic HB, you simply cannot admit it.

Quote:
Hey, what else do you have, since we're not going to the moon with a manned expedition any time soon.
I have the entire ALSJ record, with lunar gravity in videos, 840lbs of rocks, weather patterns matching and not one single witness account of any hoax, or one single piece of evidence that stands scrutiny.

What have you got apart from lots of toys to eject from your pram?

Last edited by truegroup; 25-02-2012 at 09:22 PM.
truegroup is offline  
Old 26-02-2012, 07:19 PM   #2015
apollo_gnomon
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,392
Likes: 6 (4 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by truegroup
Spamming with the regolith on the suits. So what do you think happens to it when they get back inside? Floats about, falls to the ground. Pick one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandelbrot View Post

Gets inside the equipment.

Q: How do you know the regolith particles would get inside the equipment?

A: Because the Apollo program collected regolith and the Mission Reports, written after each one of the Apollo missions, detail the various astronauts' experiences with the regolith dust both during EVA and in the spacecraft after EVA.

The "suitport" image above represents an interesting idea for allowing astronauts EVA access while keeping the dirty surface of the suit outside. The equipment above would be excellent for long term missions, where lunar astronauts would have EVA duty cycles similar to the ISS missions, going outside all day long to build, install or repair equipment.

I wish the Apollo missions would have brought back more of the EVA gear such as the cameras. It would be very instructive to future manufacturers to see the actual dust intrusion into the seals. Another good thing to have brought back would have been one of the harmonic drive wheel motors from a lunar rover, but that would have required some pretty involved labor to remove. Or a .

In the meantime designers and manufacturers have to make do with regolith simulant to test equipment seals and drive systems traction.

Last edited by apollo_gnomon; 26-02-2012 at 07:21 PM.
apollo_gnomon is offline  
Old 26-02-2012, 07:23 PM   #2016
apollo_gnomon
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,392
Likes: 6 (4 Posts)
Default

Interesting. The new BB code automatically changed my wiki link. It's supposed to have read "Sawzall" with the word in blue and linking to the recip saw page, just like the "simulant " link further down the post. Not sure I like that.
apollo_gnomon is offline  
Old 26-02-2012, 11:48 PM   #2017
seanc
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: South West England
Posts: 105
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oooooooooo View Post
they are strong words my friend,
i wonder if you will admit that probably the most famous phrase from the whole era of space flight (apollo 13 )were not said and were simply changed by Ron Howard the movie director.
people swallowing re written history fed to them by the movie makers, sounds about right.
I believe in 'strong words', and if I say them, I stand by them.

Strong words are needed in the face of lies and deception.

If I speak out of turn, or acuse someone falsely, I hope I am enough of a man to take back my words (however strong) and apologise.

I see a hell of a lot of words here, and the words of the HBs mostly sound disingenuous to me.

Last edited by seanc; 26-02-2012 at 11:49 PM. Reason: typos
seanc is offline  
Old 27-02-2012, 12:13 AM   #2018
macros72
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 92
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Soz to change the flow from Apollo 13 but theres a pic of the moons surface which appears to show some feint traces of what are described as structures.

The pic is from Richard C. Hoaglands book. My first opinon of this image was that its a set or studio in which we see traces of rigging, scaffolding and the like. I`m left believing that NASA did film some footage on Earth and not on the Moon.
macros72 is offline  
Old 27-02-2012, 12:17 AM   #2019
seanc
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: South West England
Posts: 105
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by macros72 View Post
Soz to change the flow from Apollo 13 but theres a pic of the moons surface which appears to show some feint traces of what are described as structures.

The pic is from Richard C. Hoaglands book. My first opinon of this image was that its a set or studio in which we see traces of rigging, scaffolding and the like. I`m left believing that NASA did film some footage on Earth and not on the Moon.
Link to photo please?
seanc is offline  
Old 27-02-2012, 07:17 AM   #2020
apollo_gnomon
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,392
Likes: 6 (4 Posts)
Default

I took a break from the Icke forum for sanity reasons and only came back because a reader here took exception to a particular user's "theory" that radio signals would not be able to cross the Van Allen belts, thus any radio-transmitted imagery from Mars (ie, the "face on Mars") would be faked. The reader tracked me down on another forum (I use this name in several places) and requested I come back and debunk the VAB "theory." By the time I bothered to contact a 3rd party and ask them to ask a mod to reactivate my account the "theorist" had disappeared from the Icke forum. I have heard by rumor that the "theorist" in question still posts at Pravda. I'm not interested enough to track the individual down.

Anyway, this relates to macros72's post as a question about Hoagland.

In my opinion*
Hoagland is a nonsensical pseudo-scientist and not worthy of serious intellectual effort. His image interpretation lacks scientific rigor and relies on "OMG!" interpretation of intensely manipulated digital scans of originally analog (film) photos.










*You are not required to agree with my opinion, but if you disagree I might insist you present supporting citations. If you bother, and insist I present my contradictory citations, please be prepared for elongated discussion.

Last edited by apollo_gnomon; 27-02-2012 at 07:21 AM. Reason: persnicketyness
apollo_gnomon is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
apollo hoax, moon landing

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:05 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.