Author Topic: Apollo XIII-inconsistences  (Read 160178 times)

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3122
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #330 on: October 17, 2015, 04:35:50 PM »
by the way, Ockham's razor says that Apollo 13 was a HOAX, for considering that a total of 8 missions to the Moon (Apollo 10 is included because it reached the lunar orbit) had just 1/8 chance that you Apollo 13 happen to "bad luck".

Then we have 1/30 chance that unfortunately happen on the day No. 13, April 13, 1970.

Then there was 1/1440 of the Apollo 13 took off at 13:13 in Houston.



NASA encourages superstition and ignorance to make as many 13 match for what is supposed was just bad luck.
NASA = black magicians Kabbalists after all.
the launch time is correct but it was 14:13 local at launch.  so you statement dies, Luck had nothing to to  do with OTHER MIssions Just hard work by eground technicians formulating work around fo rel time issues that cropped up.

EDIT to correct horrible spelling
"Apollo 13 was the seventh manned mission in the American Apollo space program and the third intended to land on the Moon. The craft was launched on April 11, 1970, at 13:13 CST from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13
Yes and it has been pointed out to you that is was 14:13 at KSC at launch. So what's unlucky about that?  What time was it where you lived?
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline frenat

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 460
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #331 on: October 17, 2015, 04:38:30 PM »
by the way, Ockham's razor says that Apollo 13 was a HOAX, for considering that a total of 8 missions to the Moon (Apollo 10 is included because it reached the lunar orbit) had just 1/8 chance that you Apollo 13 happen to "bad luck".

Then we have 1/30 chance that unfortunately happen on the day No. 13, April 13, 1970.

Then there was 1/1440 of the Apollo 13 took off at 13:13 in Houston.



NASA encourages superstition and ignorance to make as many 13 match for what is supposed was just bad luck.
NASA = black magicians Kabbalists after all.
the launch time is correct but it was 14:13 local at launch.  so you statement dies, Luck had nothing to to  do with OTHER MIssions Just hard work by eground technicians formulating work around fo rel time issues that cropped up.

EDIT to correct horrible spelling
"Apollo 13 was the seventh manned mission in the American Apollo space program and the third intended to land on the Moon. The craft was launched on April 11, 1970, at 13:13 CST from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13
The launch site is in EST.  And they likely would have referred to everything in Zulu.  But that doesn't fit you bogus numerology, right?
-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
 -Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
 -There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1648
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #332 on: October 17, 2015, 05:01:12 PM »
The launch site is in EST.  And they likely would have referred to everything in Zulu.  But that doesn't fit you bogus numerology, right?
'Zulu'? I know that's zed in the NATO phonetic alphabet and, obviously, the people and language, but I do not know the meaning in this context.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2015, 05:02:43 PM by raven »

Offline tarkus

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #333 on: October 17, 2015, 05:12:10 PM »
tarkus.

The Apollo programme is a FACT
That they sent men to the moon and landed on it is a FACT
That they brought back hundreds of pounds of rocks and soil samples that could only have come from the moon... is a FACT

These FACTS are backed up by mountains of documentary evidence, engineering drawings, photographs, films and video, eyewitness accounts and personal testimonies at every stage of the programme, from the X-15 and X-1 programmes, through Mercury and Gemini to Apollo itself. These achievements are accepted as FACT by all of the world's leading astrophysicists, aerospace engineers, geologists, biologists and other scientists.

Therefore, Apollo has been proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, to have taken place exactly as stated by NASA, and that is THE most important aspect in all of this. NASA explained exactly how they were going to do each part of the programme, and then did it in the full glare of the public eye; failures and all. Therefore, in order to disprove these established facts, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON THE HOAX BELIEVER!!!

So lets look at what the few hoax believers out there have done to prove their case.

NOT ONE HOAX BELIEVER, not Jack White, not Sibrel, not Fetzer, not Rene, not Kaysing, and not certainly not The Blunder from Down Under, has ever put forward a comprehensive, documented account of how the hoax was perpetrated. Yes, we hear spurious comments about shadow anomalies and waving flags and film studios in the Nevada desert and starless skies and c-rocks and slow motion cameras and other such ignorant, multiply debunked rantings but where is the comprehensive documentary account of exactly how it was all done?

Where exactly was the film studio located?

What types of movie cameras did they use?

Exactly how were the scenes lit?

What happened to the camera crews and other production staff?

What type of film did they use and where and how was it processed?

Who was responsible for all the alterations to the photos (given there was no "Photoshop" in 1969)?

Where did the Apollo rockets go if not to the moon?

How were they able to fake the signals coming from the direction of the moon as established by independent witnesses?

How were they able to fake lunar gravity in a vacuum?

How were they able to store hours upon hours of continuous video?

How do they account for all the new lunar surface photos showing human activity at the sites?

How do they account for LLR which actually required someone to go to the moon to install and align the equipment?

How do they account for hundreds of pounds of rocks and samples brought back that can only have come from the Moon?

How can they explain that of over 400,000 people involved, NOT ONE has ever blown the whistle?

Where is the money coming from to pay for this ongoing conspiracy (even Black Project budgets have Congressional oversight!)?

How do they reconcile the apparent cleverness and brilliance of NASA in perpetrating a the lunar landing hoax on the world for over 40 years, with them being too careless to notice the C-Rock, waving flags and other alleged photographic anomalies?

All of these questions need to be answered by hoax believers, WITH PROOF, before anyone can begin to take anything they say seriously. It is not enough for them to say that they "think" the lunar gravity and vacuum was faked in a vacuum chamber with slow motion filming.... you have to PROVE which vacuum chamber was used, PROVE where it is located, PROVE how the filming was actually done. In other words , they will be held to the same standard of proof that NASA hold themselves to; no more, and no less.
I can not answer so many topics together, but one by one have no problem in doing so, such as moonstones, which could come from fallen meteorites on Earth, like Martian meteorites, which would prove nothing if stones will bring Mars.
As for the landings, but the media coverage was terrible, reaches us to know that no space module landed on the moon, we need only observe the landing site, there is no dust on the legs of LM, but what you say as a pretext? "engine turned off a few seconds before touching the ground" ... lie exposed for the same films.
Apollo 14, and still on the floor but it keeps blowing and blowing ...


Offline tarkus

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 86
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #334 on: October 17, 2015, 05:15:49 PM »
by the way, Ockham's razor says that Apollo 13 was a HOAX, for considering that a total of 8 missions to the Moon (Apollo 10 is included because it reached the lunar orbit) had just 1/8 chance that you Apollo 13 happen to "bad luck".

Then we have 1/30 chance that unfortunately happen on the day No. 13, April 13, 1970.

Then there was 1/1440 of the Apollo 13 took off at 13:13 in Houston.



NASA encourages superstition and ignorance to make as many 13 match for what is supposed was just bad luck.
NASA = black magicians Kabbalists after all.
the launch time is correct but it was 14:13 local at launch.  so you statement dies, Luck had nothing to to  do with OTHER MIssions Just hard work by eground technicians formulating work around fo rel time issues that cropped up.

EDIT to correct horrible spelling
"Apollo 13 was the seventh manned mission in the American Apollo space program and the third intended to land on the Moon. The craft was launched on April 11, 1970, at 13:13 CST from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13
The launch site is in EST.  And they likely would have referred to everything in Zulu.  But that doesn't fit you bogus numerology, right?
aaah ok, Now go with your complaint to the wikipedia, numerologists are NASA, as I just demonstrated

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #335 on: October 17, 2015, 05:17:19 PM »
I can not answer so many topics together, but one by one have no problem in doing so, such as moonstones, which could come from fallen meteorites on Earth, like Martian meteorites, which would prove nothing if stones will bring Mars.

How so could the moon rocks come from fallen meteorites? Please present your evidence.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline frenat

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 460
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #336 on: October 17, 2015, 05:20:23 PM »
The launch site is in EST.  And they likely would have referred to everything in Zulu.  But that doesn't fit you bogus numerology, right?
'Zulu'? I know that's zed in the NATO phonetic alphabet and, obviously, the people and language, but I do not know the meaning in this context.
Also known as UTC
-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
 -Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
 -There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.

Offline frenat

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 460
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #337 on: October 17, 2015, 05:21:06 PM »
by the way, Ockham's razor says that Apollo 13 was a HOAX, for considering that a total of 8 missions to the Moon (Apollo 10 is included because it reached the lunar orbit) had just 1/8 chance that you Apollo 13 happen to "bad luck".

Then we have 1/30 chance that unfortunately happen on the day No. 13, April 13, 1970.

Then there was 1/1440 of the Apollo 13 took off at 13:13 in Houston.



NASA encourages superstition and ignorance to make as many 13 match for what is supposed was just bad luck.
NASA = black magicians Kabbalists after all.
the launch time is correct but it was 14:13 local at launch.  so you statement dies, Luck had nothing to to  do with OTHER MIssions Just hard work by eground technicians formulating work around fo rel time issues that cropped up.

EDIT to correct horrible spelling
"Apollo 13 was the seventh manned mission in the American Apollo space program and the third intended to land on the Moon. The craft was launched on April 11, 1970, at 13:13 CST from the Kennedy Space Center, Florida"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13
The launch site is in EST.  And they likely would have referred to everything in Zulu.  But that doesn't fit you bogus numerology, right?
aaah ok, Now go with your complaint to the wikipedia, numerologists are NASA, as I just demonstrated
No, you didn't.
-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
 -Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
 -There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #338 on: October 17, 2015, 05:21:17 PM »
I see no reason to be prohibitive today it was so easy to do almost 50 years ago Mr Windley, right now we have neither one nor robot spacecraft TV broadcasting from space, but we are asked to accept by faith that filmed ago so long.

It is you who applies the condition we have to accept everything as faith. Why do you project this condition on to us when it is you who presents faith and numerology based arguments. There is an obvious hypocrisy to your position.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline frenat

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 460
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #339 on: October 17, 2015, 05:21:42 PM »
I can not answer so many topics together, but one by one have no problem in doing so, such as moonstones, which could come from fallen meteorites on Earth, like Martian meteorites, which would prove nothing if stones will bring Mars.

How so could the moon rocks come from fallen meteorites? Please present your evidence.
His evidence is he's completely ignorant of geology and assumes everyone else is too.
-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
 -Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
 -There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.

Offline raven

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1648
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #340 on: October 17, 2015, 05:28:56 PM »
'Zulu'? I know that's zed in the NATO phonetic alphabet and, obviously, the people and language, but I do not know the meaning in this context.
Also known as UTC
Thank you very much for the swift reply.  :)
As I mentioned earlier, tarkus,  celestial mechanics gave NASA a specific launch window. So, are you not only claiming the moon is fake, despite evidence of lunar tides at least 800 million years old, but NASA has it under remote control?! :o

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3797
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #341 on: October 17, 2015, 05:40:50 PM »
I see no reason to be prohibitive today it was so easy to do almost 50 years ago Mr Windley, right now we have neither one nor robot spacecraft TV broadcasting from space, but we are asked to accept by faith that filmed ago so long.

I gave you the reasons.  Address them.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Allan F

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1010
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #342 on: October 17, 2015, 05:41:33 PM »
The launch site is in EST.  And they likely would have referred to everything in Zulu.  But that doesn't fit you bogus numerology, right?
'Zulu'? I know that's zed in the NATO phonetic alphabet and, obviously, the people and language, but I do not know the meaning in this context.

= GMT
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3797
    • Clavius
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #343 on: October 17, 2015, 05:43:38 PM »
aaah ok, Now go with your complaint to the wikipedia, numerologists are NASA, as I just demonstrated

No, you just conducted a pointless numerological exercise and insinuated on that basis that NASA is somehow governed by the occult.  Your numerology was exposed as being, well, numerology, but also as being based upon cherry-picked data.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3122
Re: Apollo XIII-inconsistences
« Reply #344 on: October 17, 2015, 05:46:44 PM »
tarkus.

The Apollo programme is a FACT
That they sent men to the moon and landed on it is a FACT
That they brought back hundreds of pounds of rocks and soil samples that could only have come from the moon... is a FACT

These FACTS are backed up by mountains of documentary evidence, engineering drawings, photographs, films and video, eyewitness accounts and personal testimonies at every stage of the programme, from the X-15 and X-1 programmes, through Mercury and Gemini to Apollo itself. These achievements are accepted as FACT by all of the world's leading astrophysicists, aerospace engineers, geologists, biologists and other scientists.

Therefore, Apollo has been proved beyond any doubt whatsoever, to have taken place exactly as stated by NASA, and that is THE most important aspect in all of this. NASA explained exactly how they were going to do each part of the programme, and then did it in the full glare of the public eye; failures and all. Therefore, in order to disprove these established facts, THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS UPON THE HOAX BELIEVER!!!

So lets look at what the few hoax believers out there have done to prove their case.

NOT ONE HOAX BELIEVER, not Jack White, not Sibrel, not Fetzer, not Rene, not Kaysing, and not certainly not The Blunder from Down Under, has ever put forward a comprehensive, documented account of how the hoax was perpetrated. Yes, we hear spurious comments about shadow anomalies and waving flags and film studios in the Nevada desert and starless skies and c-rocks and slow motion cameras and other such ignorant, multiply debunked rantings but where is the comprehensive documentary account of exactly how it was all done?

Where exactly was the film studio located?

What types of movie cameras did they use?

Exactly how were the scenes lit?

What happened to the camera crews and other production staff?

What type of film did they use and where and how was it processed?

Who was responsible for all the alterations to the photos (given there was no "Photoshop" in 1969)?

Where did the Apollo rockets go if not to the moon?

How were they able to fake the signals coming from the direction of the moon as established by independent witnesses?

How were they able to fake lunar gravity in a vacuum?

How were they able to store hours upon hours of continuous video?

How do they account for all the new lunar surface photos showing human activity at the sites?

How do they account for LLR which actually required someone to go to the moon to install and align the equipment?

How do they account for hundreds of pounds of rocks and samples brought back that can only have come from the Moon?

How can they explain that of over 400,000 people involved, NOT ONE has ever blown the whistle?

Where is the money coming from to pay for this ongoing conspiracy (even Black Project budgets have Congressional oversight!)?

How do they reconcile the apparent cleverness and brilliance of NASA in perpetrating a the lunar landing hoax on the world for over 40 years, with them being too careless to notice the C-Rock, waving flags and other alleged photographic anomalies?

All of these questions need to be answered by hoax believers, WITH PROOF, before anyone can begin to take anything they say seriously. It is not enough for them to say that they "think" the lunar gravity and vacuum was faked in a vacuum chamber with slow motion filming.... you have to PROVE which vacuum chamber was used, PROVE where it is located, PROVE how the filming was actually done. In other words , they will be held to the same standard of proof that NASA hold themselves to; no more, and no less.
I can not answer so many topics together, but one by one have no problem in doing so, such as moonstones, which could come from fallen meteorites on Earth, like Martian meteorites, which would prove nothing if stones will bring Mars.
As for the landings, but the media coverage was terrible, reaches us to know that no space module landed on the moon, we need only observe the landing site, there is no dust on the legs of LM, but what you say as a pretext? "engine turned off a few seconds before touching the ground" ... lie exposed for the same films.
Apollo 14, and still on the floor but it keeps blowing and blowing ...


Martian meteorites have a different oxygen isotope than those from the moon and therefore could not be mistaken.  Also I believe that the3 number of lunar meteorites
http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan