We know that Silverstein wouldn't have said to pull it because he wouldn't have given any kind of command - that would be organised by the demolition professionals and, of course, they couldn't have pulled it without it all being set up first - clear case of Revelation of the Method (RoM).
We know that Silverstein wouldn't have said to pull it because he wouldn't have given any kind of command - that would be organised by the demolition professionals and, of course, they couldn't have pulled it without it all being set up first - clear case of Revelation of the Method (RoM).
This is the explanation given for Nixon talking to the astronauts - in fact, he didn't talk directly to them from the White House, his call was routed via NASA. I cannot vouch that the technology could have worked because I don't understand it well enough. There are many things I cannot vouch for to do with the Apollo missions because I don't understand them, however, I can vouch for a number of things I can perceive and understand, eg, I can perceive that images show a faint radial exhaust pattern underneath the LEM - exactly what would be expected according to the thrust and lack of atmosphere and the kind of subtlety absolutely not expected from fakery. Fakery is not about subtlety, certainly not the fakery in psyops because in psyops they ALWAYS overegg the omelette with their RoM. A faint radial exhaust pattern and minute amounts of regolith particles on the landing pads only visible in high res photos (not NO dust, just minute amounts of particles) are absolutely ANTITHETICAL to PSYOP MO and 100% consistent with what is expected of the subtlety of reality.
Nixon spoke into a telephone at the White House. This phone was connected physically by telephone wires and switches to a telephone at NASA, where the signal was then plugged into a radio unit and transmitted to the Moon. The returning radio signal from the Moon was then plugged back into the telephone line and sent back to the White House. This was essentially the same technology that was used to send phone calls to and from Air Force One in 1969 while Nixon was President.
Analog telephone signals are remarkably similar to analog voice transmissions over radio. In fact, they're practically the same thing. The technology to plug a radio into a phone existed in World War Two in the early 1940s. It was called a “squawk box.” The signal in the wire just goes into an antenna. Even in the 1960s a radio host could put a caller on the air.
It's really not that complicated.
OP: “How did Nixon communicate with the crew of Apollo 11 while they were on the Moon?”
It makes no difference what Buzz Aldrin said about the moon landings, the evidence speaks louder. Supposedly, he was a 33 degree Mason so perhaps his ambiguous statement to the 8 year old girl was just part of the anti-moon landing propaganda campaign started by Bill Kaysing and continued by Dave McGowan, Massimo Mazzucco and Bart Sibrel - among others.
Instead of confining your research to the anti-moonlanding propaganda, take a proper look.
"There are many things I cannot vouch for to do with the Apollo missions because I don't understand them..."
Unfortunately for you there are a lot of things related to this that you do not understand. I have neither the time nor the inclination to attempt to override your ignorance in the matter. When you're ready, if ever you get to that point, you'll figure it out as long as you do it before Trump's censorship and clamping down on truth campaign haven't shortcircuited your ability to do so, which will likely be sooner than later.
Sure, there are lots of things I don't understand but my way of determining reality is to treat it like a jigsaw puzzle. You can work out the image of a jigsaw without having every piece of the puzzle. If I thought that a very good understanding of physics was required, eg, how rockets work (or don't work), etc I'd leave the moon landings alone - I'd recognise my knowledge was too limited to determine whether they happened or not ... but the thing is there are many pieces of the puzzle that don't require a high level of scientific understanding and they very much align with the reality of the landings so I have no problem determining they happened.
These are two irrefutable facts that disbelievers gloss over but, in fact, are extremely significant:
--- Prominent anti-moonlanding proponents including Bill Kaysing, Dave McGowan, Massimo Mazzucco and Bart Sibrel are agents - they're the shills not me - who between them have not put forward a single fact that refutes the reality of the moon landings. If you think they have, please let me know just one.
--- No disbeliever has picked up their being shills (in fact, some disbelievers DO pick up that Dave McGowan IS a shill in relation to other subjects but they think what he says in Wagging the Moondoggie is correct when, in fact, it is all false, distortion or irrelevancy).
In your claim about Nixon's phone call, you gave zero indication that you had done any due diligence on what the explanation is for how the call was made. Like most disbelievers of the moon landings you simply confine yourself to the anti-moon landing propaganda bubble and don't bother checking what you believe to be true against what others have to say on the subject.
Right now you're in a gun fight with a plastic butter knife.
Come back when you have some more of your jigsaw puzzle pieces, because those of us that have those pieces are reading this scratching our heads asking what the reasons are why you don't or worse, cannot get them.
It's not complex. And BTW, you are clearly controlled by narratives created for the express purpose of having you believe them amongst lies.
Sorry, this is your issue and problem to figure out. No one can do it for you. But right now you're pretty lost.
Anyway, I think we're finished here. Your mind is not open. The question is why not. Again, I hardly rule out any notions that you get paid to do this
I can see we're making no progress here. I'll leave you to your beliefs as you must leave me to mine.
Just to point out that I worked out that Operation Northwoods was a fake false flag proposal - no one else has that I can see. My special interest is the targeting of those of us with a strong willingness to recognise the many false narratives we are bombarded with. Obviously, those in power don't simply target those willing to believe them, they also put great efforts into targeting those willing to disbelieve them, hence the controlled opposition that abounds. And when a rare, superficially implausible event such as the moon landings happens you can bet your bottom dollar they will exploit that to misdirect the disbelievers ... which they have so clearly done with Bill Kaysing et al ... and they no doubt predicted that when one of the disbeliever ilk - namely yours truly - pointed out these agents that this glaring fact would simply be ignored ... in exactly the same way that the believers ignore the massive discrepancies in official narratives.
Nixon and Silverstein have ZERO in common.
We know that Silverstein wouldn't have said to pull it because he wouldn't have given any kind of command - that would be organised by the demolition professionals and, of course, they couldn't have pulled it without it all being set up first - clear case of Revelation of the Method (RoM).
This is the explanation given for Nixon talking to the astronauts - in fact, he didn't talk directly to them from the White House, his call was routed via NASA. I cannot vouch that the technology could have worked because I don't understand it well enough. There are many things I cannot vouch for to do with the Apollo missions because I don't understand them, however, I can vouch for a number of things I can perceive and understand, eg, I can perceive that images show a faint radial exhaust pattern underneath the LEM - exactly what would be expected according to the thrust and lack of atmosphere and the kind of subtlety absolutely not expected from fakery. Fakery is not about subtlety, certainly not the fakery in psyops because in psyops they ALWAYS overegg the omelette with their RoM. A faint radial exhaust pattern and minute amounts of regolith particles on the landing pads only visible in high res photos (not NO dust, just minute amounts of particles) are absolutely ANTITHETICAL to PSYOP MO and 100% consistent with what is expected of the subtlety of reality.
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Nixon-communicate-with-the-crew-of-Apollo-11-while-they-were-on-the-Moon
It's not complicated, Quora robot.
Nixon spoke into a telephone at the White House. This phone was connected physically by telephone wires and switches to a telephone at NASA, where the signal was then plugged into a radio unit and transmitted to the Moon. The returning radio signal from the Moon was then plugged back into the telephone line and sent back to the White House. This was essentially the same technology that was used to send phone calls to and from Air Force One in 1969 while Nixon was President.
Analog telephone signals are remarkably similar to analog voice transmissions over radio. In fact, they're practically the same thing. The technology to plug a radio into a phone existed in World War Two in the early 1940s. It was called a “squawk box.” The signal in the wire just goes into an antenna. Even in the 1960s a radio host could put a caller on the air.
It's really not that complicated.
OP: “How did Nixon communicate with the crew of Apollo 11 while they were on the Moon?”
It makes no difference what Buzz Aldrin said about the moon landings, the evidence speaks louder. Supposedly, he was a 33 degree Mason so perhaps his ambiguous statement to the 8 year old girl was just part of the anti-moon landing propaganda campaign started by Bill Kaysing and continued by Dave McGowan, Massimo Mazzucco and Bart Sibrel - among others.
Instead of confining your research to the anti-moonlanding propaganda, take a proper look.
You're a shill.
"There are many things I cannot vouch for to do with the Apollo missions because I don't understand them..."
Unfortunately for you there are a lot of things related to this that you do not understand. I have neither the time nor the inclination to attempt to override your ignorance in the matter. When you're ready, if ever you get to that point, you'll figure it out as long as you do it before Trump's censorship and clamping down on truth campaign haven't shortcircuited your ability to do so, which will likely be sooner than later.
Sure, there are lots of things I don't understand but my way of determining reality is to treat it like a jigsaw puzzle. You can work out the image of a jigsaw without having every piece of the puzzle. If I thought that a very good understanding of physics was required, eg, how rockets work (or don't work), etc I'd leave the moon landings alone - I'd recognise my knowledge was too limited to determine whether they happened or not ... but the thing is there are many pieces of the puzzle that don't require a high level of scientific understanding and they very much align with the reality of the landings so I have no problem determining they happened.
These are two irrefutable facts that disbelievers gloss over but, in fact, are extremely significant:
--- Prominent anti-moonlanding proponents including Bill Kaysing, Dave McGowan, Massimo Mazzucco and Bart Sibrel are agents - they're the shills not me - who between them have not put forward a single fact that refutes the reality of the moon landings. If you think they have, please let me know just one.
--- No disbeliever has picked up their being shills (in fact, some disbelievers DO pick up that Dave McGowan IS a shill in relation to other subjects but they think what he says in Wagging the Moondoggie is correct when, in fact, it is all false, distortion or irrelevancy).
In your claim about Nixon's phone call, you gave zero indication that you had done any due diligence on what the explanation is for how the call was made. Like most disbelievers of the moon landings you simply confine yourself to the anti-moon landing propaganda bubble and don't bother checking what you believe to be true against what others have to say on the subject.
Right now you're in a gun fight with a plastic butter knife.
Come back when you have some more of your jigsaw puzzle pieces, because those of us that have those pieces are reading this scratching our heads asking what the reasons are why you don't or worse, cannot get them.
It's not complex. And BTW, you are clearly controlled by narratives created for the express purpose of having you believe them amongst lies.
Sorry, this is your issue and problem to figure out. No one can do it for you. But right now you're pretty lost.
Anyway, I think we're finished here. Your mind is not open. The question is why not. Again, I hardly rule out any notions that you get paid to do this
I can see we're making no progress here. I'll leave you to your beliefs as you must leave me to mine.
Just to point out that I worked out that Operation Northwoods was a fake false flag proposal - no one else has that I can see. My special interest is the targeting of those of us with a strong willingness to recognise the many false narratives we are bombarded with. Obviously, those in power don't simply target those willing to believe them, they also put great efforts into targeting those willing to disbelieve them, hence the controlled opposition that abounds. And when a rare, superficially implausible event such as the moon landings happens you can bet your bottom dollar they will exploit that to misdirect the disbelievers ... which they have so clearly done with Bill Kaysing et al ... and they no doubt predicted that when one of the disbeliever ilk - namely yours truly - pointed out these agents that this glaring fact would simply be ignored ... in exactly the same way that the believers ignore the massive discrepancies in official narratives.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/operation-northwoods-false-flag-proposal
OK Chief. Thanks for the relatively civil discourse, for that I am grateful in disagreement. : )
I do hope he gets paid for putting all that energy and time into shilling for NASA's endless hoaxes.