I don't know if this has been discussed here before so I thought I'd bring it up. It's a memo regarding Apollo 11 from the National Archives. I guess this means they forgot to let the Nixon Administration in on the hoax. Check it out...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/apollo1.html

Nah - you've jumped to the wrong conclusion. My brother knows a guy whose sister used to date a guy whose father knew someone in the Nixon administration. My brother says he heard that they just faked the letter to add more "realism" to the hoax. I can't give the names of any of these people because they would be killed. Honest! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

And you're risking your life even telling us this....

That just means they were willing to kill them rather than let them "return" and spill the beans.

They can probably say that Apollo 13 had its accident because one of the astronaut was beginning to crack, so the powers that be demonstrated that they could kill them if they didn't play along.

Considering the number of times I have seen in some conspiracy documentary, Roswell, JFK, with the witness stating that they were visited by mysterious officials who warned them never to speak about the incident to anyone or else they, their family, neighbors, pets, their pet's family, etc will be killed, yet they go ahead and tell all.

It would be interesting to see how many of say, the Roswell eyewitnesses who have claimed that the government would kill them are still alive, or how long after they talked, they died. However, even if none of them are dead, it would still be proof of the conspiracy, since, by killing them the government would be, in effect, admitting that it was true, so, in order to maintain the conspiracy, they do not kill them to make their story appear false.

Killing the witnesses and whistle-blowers is a staple of conspiracy theories.

Alan

Yes, the contingency speech surfaced about a year ago. It is authentic. Since we're dealing with a conjectural hoax argument, the hoax can simply be explained away in the same unsubstantiated, conjectural way that all the other evidence is handled. You could, for example, speculate that Nixon himself knew the landings were falsified, but his speechwriters didn't know. And if he'd not asked them to prepare a contingency speech, they would have been suspicious.

If you mind is unfettered by actually having to prove anything, you can be quite creative.

Killing the witnesses and whistle-blowers is a staple of conspiracy theories.

As is the comparative robustness of the conspiracy theorists.

"And you're risking your life even telling us this...."

Fortunately I live in Canada at an isolated location (I tell people it's Toronto) and THEY haven't been able to find me. When I revealed the truth about JFK and Marilyn Monroe THEY tried to find me and couldn't, so I think I'm ....... argh .........

Pretty good that you managed to type all those dots, plus "argh," and hit the "Submit" button.

Of course, maybe THEY did all that, just wanting us to think that you're dead, but we're too clever for ....... argh .........

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

"Pretty good that you managed to type all those dots, plus "argh," and hit the "Submit" button.

Of course, maybe THEY did all that, just wanting us to think that you're dead, but we're too clever for ....... argh ......... "

All the dots and "argh" were a whistle blow. You correctly figured out that if THEY really existed and had killed me as required, I could not have continued to work at a keyboard. So what I was trying subtly to tell you is that THEY don't exist. Unfortunately, when THEY found out that you had figured out my hidden message, THEY had to kill you - but slowly enough that you could submit your final post as a warning to others.
I am now ready to collect my diploma in HB logic.

Rather than puzzle out this explanation, I think I'll try to take on something comparatively simple, like one of HUb''s posts. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I aspire to be more like HUb'. Sounds like I'm getting there. Thanks

No, you should have responded like this:

1 I aspire to be more like HUb'
2 Sounds like I'm getting there
3 Thanks

Preferably quoting my message and putting your response in the quote area.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

2Sikh said

No, you should have responded like this:

1 I aspire to be more like HUb'
2 Sounds like I'm getting there
3 Thanks

Preferably quoting my message and putting your response in the quote area.

1 try my 386
2 hide from THEM
3 I 'poise THEY exist
4 only in mind
5 therefore
6 out of space

How's that? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

It's very good, but somehow it still fails to capture HUb's ineffable je ne sais quoi essence, the feeling that somehow he's making perfect sense but you're just too slow to understand. Perhaps we ordinary mortals can only aspire to such a level.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I usually DO assume I'm too slow to understand. You are right that HUb''s abilities probably do far exceed what we mortals can achieve. I shouldn't have been so presumptuous to try to mimic his style. I knew before I hit the submit button (even without the time to reflect had I typed ....argh....) that it fell far short of HUb''s standards. I may give up even aspiring to be more like he/she/it is.

Is "HUb''s" the correct way to show the possessive for a noun that ends in '?

A question I am struggling with myself (as you can tell from my posts).

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I'll just use Hub''s until someone tells me otherwise.
Back to the original subject of this thread, I would assume there were different versions of the speech depending on whether the astronauts died on the moon or in space. The version posted here is clearly targeted at a lunar surface disaster. Where are the other versions? Or is it likely that such other versions would have been created earlier than Apollo to deal with any other astronaut deaths in space should they occur.

I suppose David Percy would have used the draft of this speech as proof that astronauts died on the moon and that NASA or some other conspiracist decided just before Nixon was to give the speech that they should cover the whole thing up.

In reading the text, I would have to assume it was one of many contingency speeches written. This on is specifically written for a situation in which Armstrong and Aldrin landed successfully on the moon, where still alive at the time of the speech but could not come back. Safire was probably given a whole list of different scenarios for which to write brief announcements for the President to give immediately, which could then be elaborated upon once all of the facts were in. Personally, it reads less of a smoking gun and more of evidence that Haldeman wanted to be prepared, which is perfectly reasonable.

I agree with you completely that it was a reasonable contingency plan. I'd like to see what other speeches were drafted, though, to get a sense of what eventualities they foresaw.

Presumably, if the HBs are right, there will be a speech somewhere in the archives dealing with "what if the Russians find out?" or "what if anyone finds out?". Haven't seen those speeches yet. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I hadn’t thought about the hoax angle - you’re absolutely right - now THAT would be a smoking gun.

I also wondered how many “canned” disasters they had thought about beforehand. I can come up with at least a dozen.