Belief in Apollo hoax conspiracy could grow

[Obviousman]

And more:

Jim Webb was worried about the proposed mission. He had borne heaps of criticism regarding the Apollo 1 fire, and now he was being asked to approve a mission that - if it failed - would result in three dead US astronauts circling around the Moon.... at Christmas. Even if it went well, it would not add anything significant to Webb's experience with NASA. And he already knew he would be out of a job by 20 Jan 69 (see ChrLzs post).

Webb was politically astute. He knew that if anything went wrong with the mission, he wanted to be able to aggressively defend NASA and the engineers. If he did that as the Administrator, it would sound self-serving. A successful mission would not do much for him. A failure would make him the target of recriminations.... and he'd have to respond without the resources of the NASA Administrator's office. For Webb, staying with NASA as of the fall of 1968 was a high risk, low gain proposition.

On 16 Sep 68, he went to the White House and suggested to LBJ that based on circumstances, perhaps it was time for him (Webb) to retire. LBJ surprised him and suggested he resign immediately. So, knowing he had approval, he resigned on 7 Oct 68, four days before the launch of Apollo 7. He was replaced by Tom Paine.

Webb's resignation surprised a lot of people at NASA but upon hearing the news, Low turned to GEN Phillips and said "This makes C-Prime possible".

Once more, a logical sequence of events with no need to assign hoax conspiracies or massive cover-ups.

[bknight]

4 hours ago, Obviousman said:

Re: Apollo 8. The reason for the flight even being considered was that:

1. The LM would not be ready for it's planned mission; and

2. The CIA reported that the Soviet N-1 was being tested, and the USSR might attempt a manned lunar fly-by mission.

Low and Kraft had already been discussing turning the 'E' mission into a lunar orbit instead of high Earth orbit. On 24 May Low states this in his daily 'Apollo Notes' to Gilruth. At the end of July, Low took a small vacation and when he returned on 5 Aug, he discretely started canvassing key personnel as to the viability of Apollo 8 being a lunar mission. They couldn't test the LM but the new 'C Prime' mission could test items such as trans-lunar navigation, communications, thermal conditions, etc - all which could be obtained with the CSM.

Scott Simpkinson, the assistant manager for the Apollo Spacecraft Program Office, believed it could be done without violating any of the safety rules. Bill Tindall was enthusiastic about the mission and said navigation would be "... a piece of cake...". Low talked it over with Chris Kraft, who believed that he could have the flight controllers ready. Kraft met with the computer programmers, who believed the software could be ready in time.

After all this, Low flew to KSC for a meeting on work schedules on 8 Aug. There, Rocco Petrone, the Director of Launch Operations, who didn't know about the proposed mission, told all concerned that there was no way that the LM was going to be ready for flight before Feb 1969. With this gap in the flight schedule, Low returned to Houston and on 9 Aug and, along with Kraft and Deke Slayton, briefed in Gilruth as to their proposal. he thought it was a great idea" "It took me all of 10 seconds to decide!". They then contacted GEN Sam Phillips and Werner Von Braun, who also gave the plan their approval. By 2.30 that afternoon, they had brought in representatives from Marshall, Kennedy, Houston and the Office of Manned Space Flight. They were all guardedly positive that the mission could be safely achieved.

Mueller and Webb had not yet been told, and the 'plotters' all agreed that there was no point in bothering them with the idea of a new mission, until they could take a closer look at the proposal.

So a majority of the key personnel agreed that it was feasible. Paine was briefed in as to the proposal. On 13 Aug, Mueller was briefed in. He was "skeptical and cool"; the risks were obvious but he said he would consider it. On 15 Aug, they told Webb.

So there is a logical sequence of events, not some cabal deliberately withholding information until they knew Webb was out of the country. In any case, the C Prime mission was not approved until 12 Nov.

The truth sounds so much better, doesn't it.

[bknight]

2 hours ago, Obviousman said:

And more:

Jim Webb was worried about the proposed mission. He had borne heaps of criticism regarding the Apollo 1 fire, and now he was being asked to approve a mission that - if it failed - would result in three dead US astronauts circling around the Moon.... at Christmas. Even if it went well, it would not add anything significant to Webb's experience with NASA. And he already knew he would be out of a job by 20 Jan 69 (see ChrLzs post).

Webb was politically astute. He knew that if anything went wrong with the mission, he wanted to be able to aggressively defend NASA and the engineers. If he did that as the Administrator, it would sound self-serving. A successful mission would not do much for him. A failure would make him the target of recriminations.... and he'd have to respond without the resources of the NASA Administrator's office. For Webb, staying with NASA as of the fall of 1968 was a high risk, low gain proposition.

On 16 Sep 68, he went to the White House and suggested to LBJ that based on circumstances, perhaps it was time for him (Webb) to retire. LBJ surprised him and suggested he resign immediately. So, knowing he had approval, he resigned on 7 Oct 68, four days before the launch of Apollo 7. He was replaced by Tom Paine.

Webb's resignation surprised a lot of people at NASA but upon hearing the news, Low turned to GEN Phillips and said "This makes C-Prime possible".

Once more, a logical sequence of events with no need to assign hoax conspiracies or massive cover-ups.

The part concerning the an inquiry concerning the deaths of astronauts is what I remember.

[ChrLzs]

2 hours ago, bknight said:

The part concerning the an inquiry concerning the deaths of astronauts is what I remember.

As I've said on other threads, I honestly believe that incident made Apollo into the huge success it then was - NASA were so shaken to the core that all of their systems and management were completely re-designed, introducing best practices that are as good or better than anything you will see today in even the best organisations.  It's tragic that it required the loss of three very fine astronauts, but their loss was certainly not in vain.

 

What I *now* find tragic is the way that such an amazingly well-executed technical achievement, incredibly well-documented, and including such engineering masterpieces as the Saturn V, LM, AGC etc etc (I won't include the LRV's, sorry!)  - is questioned by people with the research skills of a garden slug and a desire to either make a buck, go viral or just get their 15 mins of fame. 

[Derek Willis]

You can all comfort and reassure yourselves as much as you want by churning out the official version of subjects such as why James Webb resigned from NASA. But like I mentioned earlier, were it not for the "break in" at Watergate Richard Nixon would have continued in office. Watergate was just one example of how the official version of events rarely corresponds with what really went on.

 

[ChrLzs]

And that demeaningly prefixed handwave, which doesn't even relate to the issues, is exactly what I mean.

 

This thread is now a testament to Logical Fallacies.

[Derek Willis]

Just now, ChrLzs said:

And that demeaningly prefixed handwave, which doesn't even relate to the issues, is exactly what I mean.

 

This thread is now a testament to Logical Fallacies.

Well the thread is certainly a testament to the ad infinitum application of ad hominems. Fortunately, I have a thick skin.

And don't be so sure Watergate wasn't related to the Apollo cover-up ...

And before you say something, yes, I know the break-in occurred before the final mission.

[Obviousman]

36 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

You can all comfort and reassure yourselves as much as you want by churning out the official version of subjects such as why James Webb resigned from NASA. But like I mentioned earlier, were it not for the "break in" at Watergate Richard Nixon would have continued in office. Watergate was just one example of how the official version of events rarely corresponds with what really went on.

So funny how all the people who were involved all agree... but because it doesn't fit your narrative, you say they are lying.

[Obviousman]

37 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

Well the thread is certainly a testament to the ad infinitum application of ad hominems. Fortunately, I have a thick skin.

And don't be so sure Watergate wasn't related to the Apollo cover-up ...

And before you say something, yes, I know the break-in occurred before the final mission.

Hahahahaahaha! I'm a member of a premier forum that focuses heavily on things like Watergate and yet no-one has ever suggested that the two are related.

Seems like you are much smarter than everyone else.

Edited May 24, 2019 by Obviousman

[Derek Willis]

10 hours ago, bknight said:

Work with the CIA in the past and a big harbor in So. California are not the issue as these are Red Herrings.   What is the issue is Howard could not be  Facilitator, since all his dealings where handled by two individuals, by your own post.  Now it is possible that he would indicate t them that he might wasn't to fake the missions, but it was his money that would get the job done.  And yes would might have done a lot to stay away from Congressional hearings, he looked out of sorts from the film of his last hearing.

Have you ever heard of a telephone? Perhaps you should look at some of the books about Hughes which describe the mountains of hand-written pages he produced full of instructions to his employees. He may have been a recluse, but he was in constant contact with the people who were involved in his projects. 

[Derek Willis]

1 minute ago, Obviousman said:

Hahahahaahaha! I'm a member of a premier forum focuses heavily on things like Watergate and yet no-one has ever suggested that the two are related.

Seems like you are much smarter than everyone else.

Well in the coming weeks you are about to learn how they were related. You can be first to tell the members of your premier forum.

[Derek Willis]

9 minutes ago, Obviousman said:

So funny how all the people who were involved all agree... but because it doesn't fit your narrative, you say they are lying.

No, the vast majority of the people weren't lying. They were innocently passing on what they didn't know were lies. That is how these things work. You get someone who is known to be honest to unknowingly repeat a lie, and then everyone else believes them. Surely members of your premier forum have discussed this sort of thing?

[Obviousman]

4 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

Well in the coming weeks you are about to learn how they were related. You can be first to tell the members of your premier forum.

Let me put the question to them; exactly what should I say / ask? I am NOT an expert in this field (Watergate); it is just through some circumstances I happen to be involved with them.

[Obviousman]

Just now, Derek Willis said:

No, the vast majority of the people weren't lying. They were innocently passing on what they didn't know were lies. That is how these things work. You get someone who is known to be honest to unknowingly repeat a lie, and then everyone else believes them. Surely members of your premier forum have discussed this sort of thing?

How can people that compute trajectories be fooled? How can people that write the computer code be fooled? How can the people that make the hardware be fooled?

They all said "Yes, we can do this".

[Derek Willis]

Just now, Obviousman said:

Let me put the question to them; exactly what should I say / ask? I am NOT an expert in this field (Watergate); it is just through some circumstances I happen to be involved with them.

Basically, just about everything to do with Watergate was in fact a cover-up of the Apollo cover-up.  

[Derek Willis]

3 minutes ago, Obviousman said:

How can people that compute trajectories be fooled? How can people that write the computer code be fooled? How can the people that make the hardware be fooled?

They all said "Yes, we can do this".

The trajectories - as far as I know - were correct. It's just that it wasn't the three astronauts that followed the trajectories to the Moon and back. But we are going over old ground here. Like I have said, if you choose, you can read the details in my book.

Edit: When I was referring to people unknowingly passing on lies, I was talking about the discussion regarding the reasons why James Webb resigned.

Edited May 24, 2019 by Derek Willis

[Obviousman]

3 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

The trajectories - as far as I know - were correct. It's just that it wasn't the three astronauts that followed the trajectories to the Moon and back. But we are going over old ground here. Like I have said, if you choose, you can read the details in my book.

No, they were all experts in their respective areas, and all said their part of the programme could carry out the task. Would you like me to quote each individual - with references - and detail their expertise and how they were not just parroting something they were told? I'll gladly do it just to further embarrass you.

Edited to add: And stop with your book nonsense; it's a tired tune which many of us have heard before. If you have evidence, present it. Otherwise admit you are wrong.

Edited May 24, 2019 by Obviousman

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

41 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

Basically, just about everything to do with Watergate was in fact a cover-up of the Apollo cover-up.  

At least you are no longer pretending to be "just asking questions".  

The thing about the Apollo missions are that they are so well documented that once you have decided that they were fake you have to invent a lot of new conspiracies in order to make it work. 

[Derek Willis]

56 minutes ago, Obviousman said:

No, they were all experts in their respective areas, and all said their part of the programme could carry out the task. Would you like me to quote each individual - with references - and detail their expertise and how they were not just parroting something they were told? I'll gladly do it just to further embarrass you.

Edited to add: And stop with your book nonsense; it's a tired tune which many of us have heard before. If you have evidence, present it. Otherwise admit you are wrong.

Of course they were all experts - if they hadn't of been, America wouldn't have landed men on the Moon. But being an expert in something doesn't make a person immune from having wool pulled over their eyes by experts in that particular profession.

And by the way, stop telling me what to do. The UM forums aren't just for people like you. There are many people who don't believe the official narrative of Project Apollo, and they have a right to question what they are being told was the truth. 

[Derek Willis]

10 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

At least you are no longer pretending to be "just asking questions".  

The thing about the Apollo missions are that they are so well documented that once you have decided that they were fake you have to invent a lot of new conspiracies in order to make it work. 

No, I am still asking questions. I mentioned in a previous reply to you that I don't always remember to include my caveat: "If what John Kelly is telling me is true".

As I have also said, what went on wasn't a "conspiracy" with the meaning that you attach to it. NASA's objective was to land men on the Moon - which they did. If they had to take a different route than the one officially declared, then I see no problem in that. Just as I see no problem in some of the tactics required to win the Second World War.

[Obviousman]

9 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

Of course they were all experts - if they hadn't of been, America wouldn't have landed men on the Moon. But being an expert in something doesn't make a person immune from having wool pulled over their eyes by experts in that particular profession.

Yet you continuously fail to show HOW they were - as you claim - deceived.

 

Quote

And by the way, stop telling me what to do. The UM forums aren't just for people like you. There are many people who don't believe the official narrative of Project Apollo, and they have a right to question what they are being told was the truth. 

It's very easy to stop me: just show some evidence to back up your claims. Right now, your claims are just as believable as "The Royal family are shape-shifting reptilians".

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

@Derek Willisbasically you have written a book about what "John Kelly" told you, but you don't know if it is true. Isn't it a bit weird to spend time writing a book about a claim before making sure that the claim is valid ? 

Edited May 24, 2019 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

[Obviousman]

23 minutes ago, Derek Willis said:

Of course they were all experts - if they hadn't of been, America wouldn't have landed men on the Moon. But being an expert in something doesn't make a person immune from having wool pulled over their eyes by experts in that particular profession.

Oh - and I forgot to mention - now you are claiming that literally thousands of technical experts were "fooled". If you were to ask me, I think I can point to the fool in this case.

[Derek Willis]

9 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

So basically you have written a book about what "John Kelly" told you, but you don't know if it is true. Isn't it a bit weird to spend time writing a book about a claim before making sure that the claim is valid ? 

I checked out as much as was possible. Believe me, the people who did the covering-up fifty years ago - and those who continue with it - did a good job!

Edited May 24, 2019 by Derek Willis

[Habitat]

Just now, Derek Willis said:

Believe me

Mission impossible.