Did American Astronauts land on the moon 1969?

[APerno]

maybe that's just the brilliance of it

[Robert]

I think if it was fake they'd have made sure they didn't fluff their lines.

[APerno]

What always bothered me about the moon conspiracy theory was the booster rockets.

No one actually believes we fake our rocket launches (our phones work), only that we faked the moon landing.

This doesn't ring logically for me.

When you look at the short history involved you find (other than the three who died on the ground in Apollo 1) all the astronauts and cosmonauts who died, either died on take-off or re-entry; getting in and out Earth's gravitational pull and atmosphere is a bitch, and dangerous.

The actual transit to the moon from near space has proven much less precarious (save for Apollo 13); and while the actual touch down on the moon was unique, it was still easier to achieve than escaping Earth's gravity.

My point being, if they were going to fail in their effort to gain the moon, (and would then be Cold War motivated to fake it with the public,) that failure would have come with the booster rockets.

Once in near space all the remaining challenges to the moon became predominately navigational, and the guys who put that Saturn V in orbit, they could do all those other lesser things well; IMHO they didn't need to fake the second half of the project.

Space is pretty easy to move in . . . the Saturn V was the accomplishment.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Don’t do it Wick. It’ll drive you nuts.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Eight Days to the Moon and Back, starts soon on BBC2. Maybe we should all watch and make up our own minds.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0006p5f

I think that if they actually took a moon landing conspiracy theorist to the moon they’d still think that it was a conspiracy. Someone could start a conspiracy saying that Texas didn’t really exist and people would jump on board with it by poking around for evidence.

[Wickerman]

Well, it was a good post, but hardly persuasive. Whatever his motivation, I'd say that Oswald certainly found his own place in history.

For the longest time I've seen just as much circumstantial evidence for a conspiracy, as there is for the lone assassin.
What I found significant was the extent of cooperation between certain members of the CIA, organized crime, Castro's lot and anti-Castro rebels. It became a spiders web of intrigue. Oswald's complicated movements leading up to Nov. 1963 are consistent with him working in coordination with someone, somewhere.

[Joshua Rogan]

A very well thought out post, one of the best on this subject I've read in a long, long time. Makes me almost want to go back over all those JFK books again.... what have we missed?

Well, it was a good post, but hardly persuasive. Whatever his motivation, I'd say that Oswald certainly found his own place in history.

[Wickerman]

Here to me lies the rub. The Warren Commission Report offers (as one of Oswald's possible motives) "(c) His urge to try to find a place in history and despair at times over failures in his various undertakings;".......

A very well thought out post, one of the best on this subject I've read in a long, long time. Makes me almost want to go back over all those JFK books again.... what have we missed?

[Joshua Rogan]

Eight Days to the Moon and Back, starts soon on BBC2. Maybe we should all watch and make up our own minds.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0006p5f

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here to me lies the rub. The Warren Commission Report offers (as one of Oswald's possible motives) "(c) His urge to try to find a place in history and despair at times over failures in his various undertakings;"

The problem I have with this is well expressed by you in the narrative above; Oswald killed, ran, evaded, kill again, and hid. When captured he then denied.

At prima facie that might seem a normal reaction but we have a deep historical record of presidential assassination attempts and successes where the motive is already attributed to the phrase "to try to find a place in history . . ." but the problem is that none of those participants acted like Oswald.

They all killed up-close and personal, and wanted recognition; Oswald killed at a distance, ran and denied.

Booth shot Lincoln in the head with a hand gun and then jumped to center stage to virtually take a bow before fleeing, a stage he repeatedly acted on and where the audience knew him well.

Guiteau (Garfield) killed up close and personal and then ran around the train platform yelling "Now Chester Arthur is president." Guiteau was so bent on getting caught (recognition) that he delayed his attack until he could afford a pearl handle revolver because he wanted his assassination weapon, when displayed for the public, to be of a higher quality than the wooden handle gun he originally purchased. (BTW To this day, for that reason The Smithsonian will not display the weapon to the public.);

Czolgosz (McKinley) stood on a damn platform before a crowd and shook hands as he pulled the trigger and of course made no attempt to flee, only concerned that his political complaints be aired.

Schrank (T. Roosevelt) stood amidst a crowd and fired a hand gun; made no attempt to flee.

Sirhan (Robert Kennedy) firing a hand gun stood amidst a crowd making no attempt to escape. At home he had notebooks filled with rants against RFK.

Bremer (George Wallace) firing a hand gun stood amidst a crowd making no attempt to escape. Bremer admitted that he spent a week practicing a "cool" phrase to say when he shot Wallace, but got too excited and said nothing. Disappointed with himself he made sure the press knew what he forgot to say: "A penny for your thoughts." (Personally I don't think he should have bragged about that phrase, he had a week to come up with something better.)

"Squeaky" Fromme (Ford) the dumb Manson child who forget to put the bullet in the chamber, stood amidst a crowd and announced "He is not a public servant" just to make sure everyone was looking at her, and then "click." She made no attempt to flee, wanted Charlie to know she was still with him.

Moore (Ford) standing amidst a crowd made loud pro feminist remarks drawing attention to herself before letting loose with a hand gun. Her political statements caused the man next to her to notice her and interfere with her aim. She made no attempt to run.

Hinckley Jr. (Reagan) was so excited when apprehended that the Secret Service found that if they praised Hinckley for getting off so many shots before they wrestled him to the ground (which is all he wanted) he would cooperate and confess everything. Hinckley made no effort to run all he wanted was the Secret Service's praise and Jodie Foster's attention.

All killed or attempted to kill up-close and very personal. All wanted to be captured and wanted the recognition that goes along with that infamous phrase "to try to find a place in history . . ."

But not Oswald, he killed at a distance like a professional, he sought to get away, killed again, then hid, and then denied.

If he was so driven by the same motive as all the others why did he act so differently? One has to think Oswald expected to get praise from someone, somewhere, but who?

You called him a disgruntled little nobody. OK, so what do you envision him doing after the kill? Was he going to get away, run home to a dingy little apartment, so he could sit in front of his TV with a chicken pot pie, and NOT watch himself on the news? Can't find a place in history like that, that just keeps you a disgruntled little man.

Oswald wanted to get away, and had he gotten away, any praise he might have hoped to get, had to come from someone who knew what he did, and that says conspiracy.

What we do know about Oswald, was that he was a 'big mouth' and people like that need praise. Oswald expected to get it from someone.

This post puts me in the very worrying position of actually agreeing with Fishy on something.

A very good post

My point would be that we have no way of knowing Oswald’s thought processes or motivations. From what we know of him it appears that he was the kind of man that felt that society had dealt him a raw deal. That he hadn’t gotten the respect or the results that he felt that he deserved. A string of mediocre jobs and a separation from his wife. No real prospects. As we know, people that kill often feel that they are showing the world how clever they are. We know of killers leaving taunting messages or insinuating themselves in some way into the investigation.

Oswald tried not to get caught but he did. Perhaps if he hadn’t have gotten caught he would have had the satisfaction; the ego boost of knowing that he was the man that had killed the President and fooled all of the law enforcement agencies? It turned out though that he was nowhere near as clever as he’d thought he was.

[etenguy]

Oswald wanted to get away, and had he gotten away, any praise he might have hoped to get, had to come from someone who knew what he did, and that says conspiracy.

What we do know about Oswald, was that he was a 'big mouth' and people like that need praise. Oswald expected to get it from someone.

A well argued and convincing post, APerno. I know too little of this event to hold an opinion but to play devil's advocate, it is possible he wanted a manhunt before being caught to ratchet up his feeling of achievement and self worth. I wonder if it is also possible he wanted to be the man that got away with killing the President. I have no idea, but your arguments are compelling.

Back to moon landings - just registering that I think it is a conspiracy theory too far to suggest they were faked.

[FISHY1118]

In fact its probably the best reply to a post ive seen,, well done

[FISHY1118]

WOW very comprehensive post im a big fan

[APerno]

No one disputes that Gargarin was the first man in space.

And as for Oswald. When I see bullets and shell casings matching that gun to the exclusion of all other guns. And that the gun and the revolver were bought by Alex Hidell, a person that no one has ever found except that Oswald had a library card in that name. When I see that the gun had Oswald’s prints on it and that he was actually in possession of the gun that killed Tippit he was arrested. And that people ID’d him as the man that shot Tippit. That he avoided catching the bus from the Book Depository that would have taken him straight to his boarding house in favour of a bus that dropped him a considerable distance away and that he jumped off that bus into a taxi and got it to drop him a distance away from his door. And what did the innocent Oswald pick up at his boarding house? Oh yeah...a gun.The fact that he got the job at the Book Depository way before anyone knew that the President would pass that way. The ludicrous curtain rods story when he was obviously carrying a rifle. The fact that no evidence of a gunman on the grassy knoll was ever found. No footprints, shell casings...nothing. Then you have the mistaken a lying witnesses like the guy who said that he hit the deck then had his camera film taken by a secret service man. Only problem was that at the exact time this was happening a woman took a photo from the other side of the road and oops he wasn’t there. Shots reproduced, trajectories lined up. No missing bullet as there’d have to have been if the second bullet had missed Connolly.

And after 56 years years not one remotely creditable person has broken ranks and shown this conspiracy to have been real. A conspiracy so wide reaching I can’t imagine how many must have been involved.

So yes, I’d say the overwhelming weight of likelihood is that Oswald killed Kennedy alone. A disgruntled little nobody. It happens.

Here to me lies the rub. The Warren Commission Report offers (as one of Oswald's possible motives) "(c) His urge to try to find a place in history and despair at times over failures in his various undertakings;"

The problem I have with this is well expressed by you in the narrative above; Oswald killed, ran, evaded, kill again, and hid. When captured he then denied.

At prima facie that might seem a normal reaction but we have a deep historical record of presidential assassination attempts and successes where the motive is already attributed to the phrase "to try to find a place in history . . ." but the problem is that none of those participants acted like Oswald.

They all killed up-close and personal, and wanted recognition; Oswald killed at a distance, ran and denied.

Booth shot Lincoln in the head with a hand gun and then jumped to center stage to virtually take a bow before fleeing, a stage he repeatedly acted on and where the audience knew him well.

Guiteau (Garfield) killed up close and personal and then ran around the train platform yelling "Now Chester Arthur is president." Guiteau was so bent on getting caught (recognition) that he delayed his attack until he could afford a pearl handle revolver because he wanted his assassination weapon, when displayed for the public, to be of a higher quality than the wooden handle gun he originally purchased. (BTW To this day, for that reason The Smithsonian will not display the weapon to the public.);

Czolgosz (McKinley) stood on a damn platform before a crowd and shook hands as he pulled the trigger and of course made no attempt to flee, only concerned that his political complaints be aired.

Schrank (T. Roosevelt) stood amidst a crowd and fired a hand gun; made no attempt to flee.

Sirhan (Robert Kennedy) firing a hand gun stood amidst a crowd making no attempt to escape. At home he had notebooks filled with rants against RFK.

Bremer (George Wallace) firing a hand gun stood amidst a crowd making no attempt to escape. Bremer admitted that he spent a week practicing a "cool" phrase to say when he shot Wallace, but got too excited and said nothing. Disappointed with himself he made sure the press knew what he forgot to say: "A penny for your thoughts." (Personally I don't think he should have bragged about that phrase, he had a week to come up with something better.)

"Squeaky" Fromme (Ford) the dumb Manson child who forget to put the bullet in the chamber, stood amidst a crowd and announced "He is not a public servant" just to make sure everyone was looking at her, and then "click." She made no attempt to flee, wanted Charlie to know she was still with him.

Moore (Ford) standing amidst a crowd made loud pro feminist remarks drawing attention to herself before letting loose with a hand gun. Her political statements caused the man next to her to notice her and interfere with her aim. She made no attempt to run.

Hinckley Jr. (Reagan) was so excited when apprehended that the Secret Service found that if they praised Hinckley for getting off so many shots before they wrestled him to the ground (which is all he wanted) he would cooperate and confess everything. Hinckley made no effort to run all he wanted was the Secret Service's praise and Jodie Foster's attention.

All killed or attempted to kill up-close and very personal. All wanted to be captured and wanted the recognition that goes along with that infamous phrase "to try to find a place in history . . ."

But not Oswald, he killed at a distance like a professional, he sought to get away, killed again, then hid, and then denied.

If he was so driven by the same motive as all the others why did he act so differently? One has to think Oswald expected to get praise from someone, somewhere, but who?

You called him a disgruntled little nobody. OK, so what do you envision him doing after the kill? Was he going to get away, run home to a dingy little apartment, so he could sit in front of his TV with a chicken pot pie, and NOT watch himself on the news? Can't find a place in history like that, that just keeps you a disgruntled little man.

Oswald wanted to get away, and had he gotten away, any praise he might have hoped to get, had to come from someone who knew what he did, and that says conspiracy.

What we do know about Oswald, was that he was a 'big mouth' and people like that need praise. Oswald expected to get it from someone.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just being honest.

Try it.

Joseph Sickert was a liar. So was Knight. The theory has be thoroughly trashed. How else can you describe someone that’s still desperate enough to believe it?