Why did NASA let Nazis run their program?

Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on April 12, 2017, 07:41:14 AM

Quote from: Shifter on April 11, 2017, 05:36:34 PM

Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on April 11, 2017, 05:18:32 PM

Shifters a big boy, he can point out what I was deflecting.

Your thread title for one.... Its a loaded question based on a falsehood that your opening post presented no evidence but ramblings of magic fairy dust

But the evidence is in my signature.

Click the link! Read the info!

Would a .gov website host nonsense?

No, what is in your signature is a book review. It contains the opinion of the book reviewer. I have the book.

Nice try, Mr. Deception

It contains facts from a non fiction history book.

The "book reviewer" is a CIA agent.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on April 12, 2017, 09:58:29 AM

Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on April 12, 2017, 07:41:14 AM

Quote from: Shifter on April 11, 2017, 05:36:34 PM

Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on April 11, 2017, 05:18:32 PM

Shifters a big boy, he can point out what I was deflecting.

Your thread title for one.... Its a loaded question based on a falsehood that your opening post presented no evidence but ramblings of magic fairy dust

But the evidence is in my signature.

Click the link! Read the info!

Would a .gov website host nonsense?

No, what is in your signature is a book review. It contains the opinion of the book reviewer. I have the book.

Nice try, Mr. Deception

It contains facts from a non fiction history book.

The "book reviewer" is a CIA agent.

All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed in this journal are those of the authors. Nothing in any of the articles should be construed as asserting or implying US government endorsement of their factual statements and interpretations. Articles by non-US government employees are copyrighted.

All he does in that review is repeat pretty much verbatim allegations made in the book - he says nothing that implies that it is the CIA or US Government stance.

e2a:

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol-58-no-3/index.html

Jay Watkins is an officer in CIA’s Directorate of Science and Technology. He is also a member of the Studies Editorial Board.

So are you saying that information is false?

What about the sources?

Jacobsen compiled extensive primary and secondary sources, duly annotated in over 100 pages of notes and bibliography.

(From the link in my signature)

So are you saying that information is false?

What about the sources?

Quote

Jacobsen compiled extensive primary and secondary sources, duly annotated in over 100 pages of notes and bibliography.

(From the link in my signature)

I'm saying your interpretation of what the link in your signature represents is false. It may be a CIA website, but all it is doing is hosting a book review. The allegation in the book is based on hearsay testimony and is open to interpretation.

Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on April 12, 2017, 03:18:56 PM

So are you saying that information is false?

What about the sources?

Quote

Jacobsen compiled extensive primary and secondary sources, duly annotated in over 100 pages of notes and bibliography.

(From the link in my signature)

I'm saying your interpretation of what the link in your signature represents is false. It may be a CIA website, but all it is doing is hosting a book review. The allegation in the book is based on hearsay testimony and is open to interpretation.

So are you saying that information is false?

Quote from: onebigmonkey on April 12, 2017, 09:19:28 PM

Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on April 12, 2017, 03:18:56 PM

So are you saying that information is false?

What about the sources?

Quote

Jacobsen compiled extensive primary and secondary sources, duly annotated in over 100 pages of notes and bibliography.

(From the link in my signature)

I'm saying your interpretation of what the link in your signature represents is false. It may be a CIA website, but all it is doing is hosting a book review. The allegation in the book is based on hearsay testimony and is open to interpretation.

So are you saying that information is false?

I'm saying your interpretation of what the link in your signature represents is false.

This:

Nazis started and run NASA.

is false.

Because nazis built nasa. NASA is the continuation of the nazis.

The ONLY evidence given for the claim that "NASA let Nazis run their program" is the existence of one person, Werner von Braun, the genius rocket scientist.

Yes, von Braun was, once upon a time, a Nazi and a member of the SS - and then he was prisoner of the Nazis and used by them as a slave laborer.  He was liberated by the US Army and brought to the US ... a lot of other Nazi rocket scientists were taken by the Soviets.

NASA was established in 1958, by Eisenhower, who had crushed the Nazis.  It wasn't until two years later that von Braun transferred from the US Army to NASA, and only on condition that he could pursue his dream of manned exploration of outer space.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun#NASA_career 

The NASA program, leading to non-militaristic manned exploration of outer space, including landings on the moon and a manned space station, was foreseen by von Braun but approved by the White House.  There was no Nazi-like exclusion of Jews from NASA, nor any plans to use the space program as a means of global conquest.

The ONLY evidence given for the claim that "NASA let Nazis run their program" is the existence of one person, Werner von Braun, the genius rocket scientist.

Less well known is that another 120 fellow German scientists, engineers, and technicians developed the Saturn V launch vehicle, or that the Launch Operations Center at Cape Canaveral, Florida, was headed by Kurt Debus, an ardent Nazi.

(From the link in my signature)

"Strughold has been accused of participating in extensive human experimentation under the Third Reich..."
"At NASA, Strughold also played a central role..."

(From link below.)

(https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/nazi-scientists-space-program-2014-2)

Heading the Launch Operations Center is not the same as running NASA or the space program.

Heading the Launch Operations Center is not the same as running NASA or the space program.

When someone designs, builds, and launches something all without exterior input, (because they know best), I would call that running the show. So, Nazis ran and probably run NASA.

Quote from: markjo on April 13, 2017, 07:47:01 PM

Heading the Launch Operations Center is not the same as running NASA or the space program.

When someone designs, builds, and launches something all without exterior input, (because they know best), I would call that running the show. So, Nazis ran and probably run NASA.

Who said that there was no exterior input?  I'm sure that the various contractors building the rockets had quite a lot of input.

Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on April 19, 2017, 09:42:19 AM

Quote from: markjo on April 13, 2017, 07:47:01 PM

Heading the Launch Operations Center is not the same as running NASA or the space program.

When someone designs, builds, and launches something all without exterior input, (because they know best), I would call that running the show. So, Nazis ran and probably run NASA.

Who said that there was no exterior input?  I'm sure that the various contractors building the rockets had quite a lot of input.

If thats true, then why didnt the Nazis just let the American contractors build the rockets on their own?

Sites showing the contractors involved:

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4206/app-e.htm

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4205/app-f.html

http://www.ehartwell.com/LM/SCATOrganization.htm

Quote from: markjo on April 19, 2017, 09:52:56 AM

Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on April 19, 2017, 09:42:19 AM

Quote from: markjo on April 13, 2017, 07:47:01 PM

Heading the Launch Operations Center is not the same as running NASA or the space program.

When someone designs, builds, and launches something all without exterior input, (because they know best), I would call that running the show. So, Nazis ran and probably run NASA.

Who said that there was no exterior input?  I'm sure that the various contractors building the rockets had quite a lot of input.

If thats true, then why didnt the Nazis just let the American contractors build the rockets on their own?

You have no idea how government contracts work, do you?

Same question as in my last post.

Thanks for the links Onebigmonkey.

It examplifies how many able and willing companies there were already institued in America.

And yet, our leaders decided to bypass democracy and sneak Nazi war criminals into America by hiding their identities and then letting them roam free to build a space toy.

Yeah, a post about nazis running NASA on a forum about how the Earth is flat basically sums up how done I am with the entire internet

Why did Werner von Braun wrote psalms 19:1 on his tombestone ?

Just in case there was a slim chance of a wrathfull God who didn't liked his nazi past ?
He was a deluded old man who turned to biblical habits of his childhood in Germany ?

Or did he truly mean what the verse says ?

How can a modern rocket scienctist put the most glaring and contradicting bible verse against the current cosmological model on his tombestone for all to see ?

Why did Werner von Braun wrote psalms 19:1 on his tombestone ?

Did he write it, or did someone else?

Maybe to befuddle some people?

Because he thought it was fitting?

I can think of several other reasons why it's there.

Just in case there was a slim chance of a wrathfull God who didn't liked his nazi past ?
He was a deluded old man who turned to biblical habits of his childhood in Germany ?

Could be.

Or did he truly mean what the verse says ?

No clue.

How can a modern rocket scienctist put the most glaring and contradicting bible verse against the current cosmological model on his tombestone for all to see ?

Did he write it, or did someone else?

Maybe to befuddle some people?

Because he thought it was fitting?

Etc.

How can a modern rocket scienctist put the most glaring and contradicting bible verse against the current cosmological model on his tombestone for all to see ?

Why is it contradictory to "the current cosmological model"?

Maybe your interpretation of Psalm 19:1 is contradictory to your interpretation of the current cosmological model.
But not everyone agrees with what appears to be your interpretations.

In any case, what does it have to do with the question of the flat earth vs. the Globe?
The Globe shape of the earth and even the heliocentric Globe do not depend in any way on the current Cosmological model.

The heliocentric Globe was first proposed over two millennia ago, and developed more in India well before even the time of Copernicus,
so blaming modern cosmologists is a bit late.

While Apollo 8 was floating above the moon they recited the opening verses of Genesis. So, erm, yeah.

Quote from: dutchy on April 22, 2017, 03:46:41 PM

How can a modern rocket scienctist put the most glaring and contradicting bible verse against the current cosmological model on his tombestone for all to see ?

Why is it contradictory to "the current cosmological model"?

Maybe your interpretation of Psalm 19:1 is contradictory to your interpretation of the current cosmological model.
But not everyone agrees with what appears to be your interpretations.

In any case, what does it have to do with the question of the flat earth vs. the Globe?
The Globe shape of the earth and even the heliocentric Globe do not depend in any way on the current Cosmological model.

The heliocentric Globe was first proposed over two millennia ago, and developed more in India well before even the time of Copernicus,
so blaming modern cosmologists is a bit late.

psalms 19:1  The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Is there anything at all in the visible realm of space that declares (makes known clearly/OFFICIALLY) that ''the heavens'' are a glorifying testimony towards God ?
According to the ''Dawkinses'' and ''Krauses'' of this world there is absolutely nothing visible that hints in the direction of a God.

So why is it on Werner's tombestone ? There is a whole bible to write down bits and bytes, but this specific verse is the most controversial phrase i can think of that debunks the current idea of our universe, it's origins and it's purpose.

Yes i think it can't be more obvious than anything,.....Werner decided to give credit to Him who deserves all credits for creation instaed of believing in a random cosmic accident, dishonouring the creator and artist who made everything that is,....both seen and unseen.

Of course it is not in your interrest to even consider this possibilty, because the implications are huge.....not only because there is a God, but also the possibilty that NASA did fake most of space because there really is a firmament/plasma boundary that prevents us from going any further.

While Apollo 8 was floating above the moon they recited the opening verses of Genesis. So, erm, yeah.

Sorry but any manmade journey above low earth orbit is as fake as can be.
It's a pitty that we will pobably find out in 2069 when we still can't go anywhere beyond LEO and this extremely brainwashed ''moonlanding generation'' has finally passed away and a new generation without the patriotic imprintings of uncle Sam does some neutral and objective study about the achievements of the Apollo program.

It's much more likely that when the current 'moonlanding generation' has passed that the moon hoax crows will actually find out what dicks they were being. Many astronauts hold spiritual beliefs, some of which have inspired or reinforced by their experiences in space.

As far as Von Braun's grave goes there is no contradiction for someone who spent his life exploring the heavens quoting a biblical passage that mentions the sky and the stars therein. It's entirely apt.

It's much more likely that when the current 'moonlanding generation' has passed that the moon hoax crows will actually find out what dicks they were being. Many astronauts hold spiritual beliefs, some of which have inspired or reinforced by their experiences in space.

As far as Von Braun's grave goes there is no contradiction for someone who spent his life exploring the heavens quoting a biblical passage that mentions the sky and the stars therein. It's entirely apt.

No....i allready found out what dicks the lying scumbag astronauts were......but just like you did with the obvious proclaimation of Werner von Braun (psalms 19:1)
you will probably dismiss the following too.

This is for me the most unbelievable apollo bogus till date.....
But nobody seems to care,......nobody seems to notice.....this is THE smoking gun.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
20 seconds into the video !!!
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
35 seconds into the video.

To spell it out for you.

Neil Armstrong could only see the earth, moon and the sun on the surface of the moon and DURING THEIR JOURNEY.......some astronauts claimed to see other planets too (incl. Neil's ''scientific'' explaination)

Edgar Mitchell could see the ''whole universe'' with tens of thousends of the brightest stars imaginable.....on the same spot and trip as Neil took (incl. Edgar's scientific explainations)

It is these kind of autrocities that make me give up on cosmology and their ''apollo'' support.
If they can't acknowledge the glaring failures of astronauts during interviews, making up stuff as to go,.....then i don't really trust any cosmoligist anymore.
And some tried to explain this away as if Neil was ONLY talking about standing on the bright moon surface, while he clearly speaks about suslander space too !!
That is what is so agonizing,...cosmologists taking things out of context and claiming on the moon surface it is to bright to see stars but in space it isn't.
Neil clearly testifies he couldn't see stars, not on the moon and not on their journey to the moon and back to earth in the vacuum of space.......Edgar claims the opposite !!!
What more could i possible wish for to dismiss any testimony made by an Apollo astronaut ?

So please answer what you think about this groce inconsistancy !!

Quote from: onebigmonkey on April 23, 2017, 05:14:20 AM

It's much more likely that when the current 'moonlanding generation' has passed that the moon hoax crows will actually find out what dicks they were being. Many astronauts hold spiritual beliefs, some of which have inspired or reinforced by their experiences in space.

As far as Von Braun's grave goes there is no contradiction for someone who spent his life exploring the heavens quoting a biblical passage that mentions the sky and the stars therein. It's entirely apt.

No....i allready found out what dicks the lying scumbag astronauts were......but just like you did with the obvious proclaimation of Werner von Braun (psalms 19:1)
you will probably dismiss the following too.

This is for me the most unbelievable apollo bogus till date.....
But nobody seems to care,......nobody seems to notice.....this is THE smoking gun.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
20 seconds into the video !!!
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
35 seconds into the video.

To spell it out for you.

Neil Armstrong could only see the earth, moon and the sun on the surface of the moon and DURING THEIR JOURNEY.......some astronauts claimed to see other planets too (incl. Neil's ''scientific'' explaination)

Armstrong's description of what he could see specifically relates to what he could see from the lunar surface. Here's a quote from him taken during the mission itself:

Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns.

That was made en route to the moon. His 'scientific explanation' is perfectly valid given that when they were on the lunar surface they were in bright sunlight the entire time. Buzz Aldrin did used the sextant in the lunar module to get a position fix using stars, so in the right conditions (ie shaded out from the sun) they could see them.

Edgar Mitchell could see the ''whole universe'' with tens of thousends of the brightest stars imaginable.....on the same spot and trip as Neil took (incl. Edgar's scientific explainations)

Ed Mitchell is just one of many astronauts who describe seeing many many stars, and many astronauts identified and photographed planets.

It is these kind of autrocities that make me give up on cosmology and their ''apollo'' support.
If they can't acknowledge the glaring failures of astronauts during interviews, making up stuff as to go,.....then i don't really trust any cosmoligist anymore.
And some tried to explain this away as if Neil was ONLY talking about standing on the bright moon surface, while he clearly speaks about suslander space too !!
That is what is so agonizing,...cosmologists taking things out of context and claiming on the moon surface it is to bright to see stars but in space it isn't.
Neil clearly testifies he couldn't see stars, not on the moon and not on their journey to the moon and back to earth in the vacuum of space.......Edgar claims the opposite !!!
What more could i possible wish for to dismiss any testimony made by an Apollo astronaut ?

So please answer what you think about this groce inconsistancy !!

There is no inconsistency. Go out on a moonlit night and see how many stars you can see in the vicinity of the moon. You will see none. Neil makes no reference in that interview with Patrick Moore about being unable to see stars in cislunar space, only from the lunar surface. This is entirely correct. You would no more expect to see a sky full of stars on the lunar surface in daylight than you would on Earth.

Here is a list of quotes made by astronauts during and after the missions referring to seeing stars and planets:

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/staquotes.html

and here is my page where I go through the missions where stars and planets were photographed:

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/starryskies.html

...and while I think about it, you seem to be posting a link to an astronaut (a class of person you describe as a lying scumbag) as a way of proving a point about another astronaut. That same astronaut is describing an experience he had in space, a place you claim is impossible to get to.

So can they go or not? One of them must be telling the truth, which is it? And wtf has this got to do with the topic?

That was made en route to the moon. His 'scientific explanation' is perfectly valid given that when they were on the lunar surface they were in bright sunlight the entire time. Buzz Aldrin did used the sextant in the lunar module to get a position fix using stars, so in the right conditions (ie shaded out from the sun) they could see them.

No, Armstrong said.....the sky is deep black as when viewed from the moon AS IT IS WHEN VIEWED FROM SUSLANDER SPACE, THE SPACE BETWEEN THE EARTH AND THE MOON, UH,EH...THE EARTH IS THE ONLY VISIBLE OBJECT OTHER THAN THE SUN.
So you appearently did not watch the video or think i will not notice this subtle change of direction !

Ed Mitchell is just one of many astronauts who describe seeing many many stars, and many astronauts identified and photographed planets.

Both Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins orbiting the moon did not recall seeing any stars at all. The latter wasn't on the moon's surface.
Again it entirely proofs my point !
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
0.18 into the video
Michael Collins quote : DON'T REMEMBER SEEING ANY (STARS THAT IS !!!!!)
From the man who wasn't even on the bright lunar surface

There is no inconsistency. Go out on a moonlit night and see how many stars you can see in the vicinity of the moon. You will see none. Neil makes no reference in that interview with Patrick Moore about being unable to see stars in cislunar space, only from the lunar surface. This is entirely correct. You would no more expect to see a sky full of stars on the lunar surface in daylight than you would on Earth.

The sun reflects on earth's atmosphere forming a blue haze,......there is no atmosphere in space,the vacuum cannot reflect sunlight or moonlight for that matter,....so why everyone always brings up bright city light and dimm stars is beyond me,...or like you ''no stars next to the bright moon''.......yes earth's atmosphere surrounding the moon is  blocking the dimmer stars next to it. But is that what happens in a vacuum too ? I don't know,....do you ?
When it is convinient all earthlike setting will be considered proof for dimm or bright stars, but we are dealing with a vacuum without dust particles, clouds or anything for the light to reflect on.
the only option for the astronauts blocked view on the moon would be a bright sunlight reflecting of the moon rigolet blocking the stars, but how would you and i know if this is the case ?
Again apples and oranges, but the main argument is that some astronauts saw no stars in their capsule cabine, while others saw them as bright as ever before.

This error is conflicting info on behave of the astronauts, i am simply the messenger, nothing more and this has nithin to do with you personally, because you are simply a victom of NASA space propaganda.

And this has to do with the topic, because the nazi's were pro's in mass indoctrination.
Many ''scientist'' took part in proving the sculls and other physicall marks of Jewish specimen were clearly proof of their wicked nature and everyone in Germany bought into that.
NASA has used this technique to fool the masses into believing we can go safely to the moon and back without anyone noticing they did not.

If you payed attention to many aspects of the moonlandings the testimonies exclude one another about

1 Seeing extremely bright stars in the capsule or not ?
2 Being aware of  ''extraterrestrial stuff'' or not (the biggest liar of them all ...Buzz Alldrin....made everyone believe they were followed by something all the way to the moon and back, but he later in time took it back proclaiming it was a loose capsule ''flap'' reflecting sunlight.
Edgar Mitchell took it a few steps further babbling about aliens on each and every conference he attended, supported by what he had ''seen/experienced'' on his moon mission.
3 Not knowing if they went through the Van Allen belts or not.......(Alan Bean)

The list is endless, but successfull for the indoctrination program of NASA, because you and others will defend their lies till the end.
If in any other field other than space exploration these kind of errors would occur, everyone would be all over it, but we want to keep our fantasy legacy preserved.
''In 1969 three brave Americans went on a journey defying all odds and safely landed and returned from the moon with barely tested equipment'',....''but they did it'' !!!

The amount of hogwash i've read at Clavius.com is extremely disturbing, because it makes clear that just about every ''space event'' will stand the scrunity test, because there is absolutely nothing that can expose what ever they want to make us believe. They went, we didn't, so take every explaination the pro's give us.

Alien contact and life in outerspace is next up their agenda.....i am ''preaching'' this for years ,because the pattern indicates this will be their next step.
And with the latest ''photoshop''/cgi accomplishments we are bound to be fooled even bigger than in 1969 !

Quote from: onebigmonkey on April 23, 2017, 09:20:49 AM

That was made en route to the moon. His 'scientific explanation' is perfectly valid given that when they were on the lunar surface they were in bright sunlight the entire time. Buzz Aldrin did used the sextant in the lunar module to get a position fix using stars, so in the right conditions (ie shaded out from the sun) they could see them.

No, Armstrong said.....the sky is deep black as when viewed from the moon AS IT IS WHEN VIEWED FROM SUSLANDER SPACE, THE SPACE BETWEEN THE EARTH AND THE MOON, UH,EH...THE EARTH IS THE ONLY VISIBLE OBJECT OTHER THAN THE SUN.
So you appearently did not watch the video or think i will not notice this subtle change of direction !

I have seen the interview many many times because it is trotted out with tedious regularity by people who know nothing about the subject. When he says "the space between the Earth and the moon" he is explaining what he means by cislunar space. He is specifically asked about the view from the moon. He specifically refers to not seeing planets "from the surface". He does not say he could not see stars or planets from cislunar space. You might also want to think about the implications of his statement about "The glare from the sun on the helmet visor" in terms of being able to see stars in bright sunlight (including from cislunar space when they are in the sun's direct light).

Quote

Ed Mitchell is just one of many astronauts who describe seeing many many stars, and many astronauts identified and photographed planets.

Both Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins orbiting the moon did not recall seeing any stars at all. The latter wasn't on the moon's surface.
Again it entirely proofs my point !

It entirely proves nothing. The Collins quote to which you are referring is specifically in response (again to a question from Patrick Moore) about seeing stars in the Solar Corona in lunar orbit. Collins has also said this in his autobiography:

"Outside my window I can see stars - and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void; the moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars."

Quote

There is no inconsistency. Go out on a moonlit night and see how many stars you can see in the vicinity of the moon. You will see none. Neil makes no reference in that interview with Patrick Moore about being unable to see stars in cislunar space, only from the lunar surface. This is entirely correct. You would no more expect to see a sky full of stars on the lunar surface in daylight than you would on Earth.

The sun reflects on earth's atmosphere forming a blue haze,......there is no atmosphere in space,the vacuum cannot reflect sunlight or moonlight for that matter,....so why everyone always brings up bright city light and dimm stars is beyond me,...or like you ''no stars next to the bright moon''.......yes earth's atmosphere surrounding the moon is  blocking the dimmer stars next to it. But is that what happens in a vacuum too ? I don't know,....do you ?

The lack of stars visible around a bright moon has nothing to do with the Earth's atmosphere and everything to do with the bright moon blocking out much dimmer, smaller objects. If it was to do with the atmosphere then why can we see stars at all?

When it is convinient all earthlike setting will be considered proof for dimm or bright stars, but we are dealing with a vacuum without dust particles, clouds or anything for the light to reflect on.
the only option for the astronauts blocked view on the moon would be a bright sunlight reflecting of the moon rigolet blocking the stars, but how would you and i know if this is the case ?
Again apples and oranges, but the main argument is that some astronauts saw no stars in their capsule cabine, while others saw them as bright as ever before.

It entirely depends on where they were. Astronaut's describe stars being at their most vivid from behind the moon when no sun is visible. Did you bother to look at the quotes on the page I linked to?

I suspect not. Have a picture of Venus, Mars and Saturn taken by Apollo 16:

This error is conflicting info on behave of the astronauts, i am simply the messenger, nothing more.

And this has to do with the topic, because the nazi's were pro's in mass indoctrination.
Many ''scientist'' took part in proving the sculls and other physicall marks of Jewish specimen were clearly proof of their wicked nature and everyone in Germany bought into that.
NASA has used this technique to fool the masses into believing we can go safely to the moon and back without anyone noticing they did not.

Nazis were bad people. This does not mean no-one went to the moon.

If you payed attention to many aspects of the moonlandings the testimonies exclude one another about

1 Seeing extremely bright stars in the capsule or not ?

See the link I supplied earlier and the photo above.

2 Being aware of  ''extraterrestrial stuff'' or not (the biggest liar of them all ...Buzz Alldrin....made everyone believe they were followed by something all the way to the moon and back, but he later in time took it back proclaiming it was a loose capsule ''flap'' reflecting sunlight.
Edgar Mitchell took it a few steps further babbling about aliens on each and every conference he attended, supported by what he had ''seen/experienced'' on his moon mission.

Buzz Aldrin made no-one believe any such thing. The crew identified something in the distance that was part of the Saturn V rocket. It did not follow them all the way there or back. Ed Mitchell did indeed speak very often about UFOs and aliens. He never once claimed he had seen a UFO or met an alien.

3 Not knowing if they went through the Van Allen belts or not.......(Alan Bean)

Convicted violent thug Bart Sibrel dishonestly edited an interview piece about Bean's time on Skylab to make it appear he was discussing Apollo.

The list is endless,

No it isn't.

but successfull for the indoctrination program of NASA, because you and others will defend their lies till the end.
If in any other field other than space exploration these kind of errors would occur, everyone would be all over it, but we want to keep our fantasy legacy preserved.
''In 1969 three brave Americans went on a journey defying all odds and safely landed and returned from the moon with barely tested equipment'',....''but they did it'' !!!

The equipment was thoroughly and repeatedly tested. There are no errors to find, just people not understanding what they are looking at.

The amount of hogwash i've read at Clavius.com is extremely disturbing, because it makes clear that just about every ''space event'' will stand the scrunity test, because there is absolutely nothing that can expose what ever they want to make us believe. They went, we didn't, so take every explaination the pro's give us.

Nothing will expose it because it's true. Absolutely every single piece of evidence is entirely consistent with documented history. Every. Single. Piece. Have another picture. This one is from Apollo 17 taken in lunar orbit. The brightest object is Jupiter.