ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, December 13, 2018

No one went to the Moon


Owen Benjamin makes the case. Feel free to criticize it, if you are a Moonie, but don't bother with either the fainting or shaming routines. Because if there is one thing that has become eminently clear over the last 20 years, the one and only thing we can be ABSOLUTELY SURE did not happen is the Official Story.

As with all things for which there is no clear historical consensus, I remain entirely agnostic on the issue. To the extent that I lean one way or the other, I tend to assume that the landings were faked due to the means, motive, and opportunity heuristic and because I am a confirmed cynic when it comes to Official Stories narrated by the U.S. government.

Labels: ,

298 Comments:

1 – 200 of 298 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Colonel Blimp December 13, 2018 6:54 PM  

Love you to death but this has always been silly. Not only are there far greater fish to fry than toppling a truly great American acheivement but the sheer numbers of people who would have remain silent is ludicrous. Take all the people in the movie making industry that say its barely possible now to fake film it, much less in the 60s and its just not worth tin foiling it.

Finally if buzz aldrin says he went to the moon, that squar jawed hero's word is good enough for me

Blogger Felix Krull December 13, 2018 6:55 PM  

Then why did Armstrong bungle his famous quote?

Blogger doctrev December 13, 2018 6:56 PM  

Me five minutes ago: Will you just stop with the conspiracy nonsense, Owen? It's landing on the goddamn moon, it would be documented to hell and back as one of humanity's greatest achievements, with video feeds that can be scrutinized by any interested American.

Later:

Those fucking IDIOTS taped over the moon landings? Then blamed it on not having a historian, or a single non-Aspie on staff?

Say anything you have to! Say you sold the tapes to some rich douche in exchange for two years of funding! Say aliens demanded the tapes because a glint of light revealed their homeworld to a rival interstellar empire! But when you treat the public like they're completely gormless idiots, it puts even the most trusting dude into a state of suspicion.

Blogger theartistformerlyknownasgeorge December 13, 2018 6:57 PM  

I concur with your bent and agnosticism about such things.

I do find it insane how quick people are to scream that THEY are the rational ones based entirely on them buying a narrative and Owen's narrative being the conspiracy theory.

"Conspiracy" is the new "racist". It is just there to shut down arguments.

Sure there are tin foil hat people out there, but there are also tons of gullible blue pillers too.

Being the latter costs nothing.

Blogger Rocklea Marina December 13, 2018 6:57 PM  

What better way to test the most advanced propaganda technological delivery system ever devised?

Blogger Felix Krull December 13, 2018 6:57 PM  

What Colonel Blimp said. At the top of the Apollo missions, almost 400,000 people were working for the Apollo program.

Blogger doctrev December 13, 2018 7:00 PM  

No, that's stupid. A lie is a lie, not a great achievement. If the argument is "well no one spoke up at the time and it would take too many people to stay silent" you would have more justification to deny the Holocaust, especially if you're relying on the honesty of Hollywood to buttress your argument.

Blogger Felix Krull December 13, 2018 7:03 PM  

#7
Nobody even used the world Holocaust at the time.

Blogger Evan Schulz December 13, 2018 7:08 PM  

Dinosaurs and astronauts must be pushed at a very young age. Ever ask yourself why?

Satan loves convincing man that God doesn't exist.

Blogger Verne December 13, 2018 7:10 PM  

My knowledge of the subject came right from NASA by way of the major media. I want to defend the Status quo. But I know better. I have seen NASA lie repeatedly I will not defend Them with information that came from them

Blogger Rocklea Marina December 13, 2018 7:11 PM  

I'm pretty sure Colonel Blimp's comment was boilerplate enough to be sarcasm.

Half the country believes Russia won us election.

Blogger Evan Schulz December 13, 2018 7:12 PM  

How many of them "went to the Moon"?

How many people worked on the Manhattan Project?

It's called compartmentalization.

Blogger Amos Bellomy December 13, 2018 7:13 PM  

Yeah I can't buy this one. I've watched and read too much on this to think otherwise. The preponderance of evidence for the moon landing is overwhelming.

Blogger Crew December 13, 2018 7:14 PM  

Never believe anything until the government officially denies it.

Corollary: Always believe what the government officially affirms!

Blogger J Van Stry December 13, 2018 7:18 PM  

So if we never went to the moon, how did all that stuff they left behind get up there? What about the people who went there?

Blogger BobsYerUncle December 13, 2018 7:23 PM  

You are now Unfollowed from my Feedly. There will never be enough time to follow nutjobs, even if I live to 1,000,000.

Blogger J Van Stry December 13, 2018 7:28 PM  

Just watched the video. Wow. This guy is dumb.

Blogger blue collar dave December 13, 2018 7:28 PM  

Wait till you you check out the ISS bubble and NASA green screen videos.
"A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" shows they were willing to fake imagery at least once.

We are lied to more often than we are told the truth.

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey December 13, 2018 7:32 PM  

One (out of several) of the reasons the Boomers are Boomers is their amazing faith in the US government. This overwhelming faith in them really warped them in my view. They rejected "Father Knows Best" for "Uncle Sam Knows Better".

Those moonshots were a yuge reinforcing factor for all this misplaced faith. How many times in your life have you heard one say, "Well, they can put a man on the moon, but ..."? The moonshots were a daily go-to reinforcement of the amazing, almost all-powerful might of the US government.

It's good to see people questioning that Boomer mythos, even as the Boomers themselves recoil in amazed horror that anybody could question it. Ever!

Blogger Pierre Truc December 13, 2018 7:35 PM  

doctrev wrote:Those fucking IDIOTS taped over the moon landings?

Honey, they're civil servants, and that rhymes with incompetents! The only reason Urban Planning didn't build a daycare center on top of land heavily polluted with plutonium is we don't have that much land that is oozing plutonium. But if we did, they would.

Blogger SamuraiJack December 13, 2018 7:38 PM  

If the government says X happened, I'm inclined to disbelieve it.

Blogger Rule of Wrist December 13, 2018 7:40 PM  

The Mythbusters moon conspiracy episode thoroughly debunked this. What's that? The annoying gay looking one is now a full-on SJW cuck, and likely always was one?

Fuck

Blogger Nathan Housley December 13, 2018 7:40 PM  

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter overflew the landing sites and photographed the rover tracks and shadows from the flags that varied over time.

Blogger Ingot9455 December 13, 2018 7:41 PM  

The whole thing about the moon shot is that it was doable. We knew full well we had the technology to do it before it was stated as a goal. It just took resources.

I find it easier to believe that it was cover for all kinds of absurd money spending than faked stem to stern.

Blogger Random #57 December 13, 2018 7:42 PM  

Somebody, using some instrumentality, left some optical reflectors on the Moon, which you can bounce light off of. Or so I was told, haven't tested it myself....

Blogger Ominous Cowherd December 13, 2018 7:43 PM  

If it was anyone but Uncle Sammy saying it, I'd never doubt it.

Blogger Matt December 13, 2018 7:43 PM  

It would be easier to actually go to the Moon than fake it by building and launching billions of dollars of hardware that certainly had the technical capability of going without actually going. I mean it's not *that* hard to go. Lots of different countries and organizations have put hardware on the moon. It's just a matter of money to put enough up there to keep a couple dudes alive there for a couple days.

Blogger Dwight House December 13, 2018 7:48 PM  

The moon landings did occur. The evidence support that is quite strong. Notably:

1. There are retroreflectors on the moon placed there by several Apollo missions. Anyone with a sufficient telescope and laser emitter can send a laser signal to the moon and have it bounce back, but only if pointed to the specific points on the moon where those reflectors are placed. http://infogalactic.com/info/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

2. In 1969, the technology to fake a lunar landing on film didn't exist, whereas the technical knowledge and skill necessary to build a manned rocket and send it to the moon did exist. While most historical clips of the moon landings are relatively short, during the original broadcasts that were watched live by millions of people, were hours long. Even if you grant every single other supposed artifact and falsifying video effect, the technology necessary to simply slow down that amount of footage for a sufficient amount of times would have put NASA's secret advanced video technology at a point 90 times better than the state of the art electronics ever used anywhere else at the time. This gentleman goes over all the physical impossibilities of faking the video at the time in considerable detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs

Blogger NO GOOGLES December 13, 2018 7:50 PM  

I believe we went to the moon. There are laser reflectors that were left there that are used to determine the exact distance between the Earth and the Moon - I've seen them actually dial in on the reflectors to take a distance measurement.

Furthermore, China and Russia both have lunar missions (not manned obviously) that have taken pictures of the equipment left by the landers and have multiple unmanned vehicles for exploration on the lunar surface. While I don't trust the US government, I can't see a situation where if China and Russia found no evidence of the US having been on the moon and found that we faked it that they wouldn't find some way to definitely out the fakery - even if by leaking it by a third party.

Plus, there were so many people involved that keeping them all quiet would have been impossible - our government is just not that competent. Kind of like the 9/11 attacks - I believe that our government didn't orchestrate the attacks themselves - just the massive incompetence to allow it to happen.

Blogger Crew December 13, 2018 7:53 PM  

@29: Pics or it didn't happen!

Also, you know the people at Bletchley park kept that shit secret until the British Government declassified it.

It is amusing that until recently it was only the Russians who could send people to the space station. Maybe they are still the only ones who can.

Blogger Julian Kowalczyk December 13, 2018 7:54 PM  

Why don't you read the book "APOLLO The Race to The Moon" by Charles Murray. Yea the same one who co-authored "The Bell Curve". Maybe that's fake too?

Blogger Nathan Housley December 13, 2018 7:59 PM  

"It is amusing that until recently it was only the Russians who could send people to the space station. Maybe they are still the only ones who can."

If Elon Musk's Dragon can't start taking manned crew to the ISS by then end of 2019, America loses the ability to hitch-hike to the ISS on Russian rockets.

Blogger Julian Kowalczyk December 13, 2018 8:03 PM  

Yea maybe "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" are fake too.
Ask Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Blogger grendel December 13, 2018 8:03 PM  

"SUCCESS COMES MOST SWIFTLY AND COMPLETELY NOT TO THE GREATEST OR PERHAPS EVEN TO THE ABLEST MEN, BUT TO THOSE WHOSE GIFTS ARE MOST COMPLETELY IN HARMONY WITH THE TASTE OF THEIR TIMES."

I remember when that said zeitgeist.

Vox this is no moon landing crap full retard. Posting this stuff and saying "IDK, but I just don't trust the government." is as tired an act as John Stewart or Jimmy Kimmel doing political lobbying on their "Comedy" shows and then, when confronted, saying "I'm just a clown."

Blogger Unranked Chevron December 13, 2018 8:04 PM  

I've heard it suggested that the reason we haven't been back to the moon is that we simply have gotten dumber since the mid 70s and are thus incapable of doing now what we were able to do then.

Blogger maniacprovost December 13, 2018 8:04 PM  

Why were we in a space race with the Russians? To control the ultimate high ground and weaponize space.

We successfully beat them to the moon, and they never attempted to one up us? Obviously we emplaced weapons on the moon.

ICBMs would be logical, but very difficult to do and hide. I don't know what other weapon system would make sense.

Blogger Damelon Brinn December 13, 2018 8:05 PM  

The more I look into it, the more ridiculous it seems that we went in a decade from chasing the Soviets to leaping ahead to the moon, from rockets exploding on the launch pad to flawless landings and takeoffs in untested conditions. It's the kind of story only post-WWII America could believe about itself. "What? Of course we went to the Moon! We're Americans, we can do anything we set our minds to."

On the other hand, the hoax story raises some hard-to-answer questions too. So I dunno. If we did go with 1960s tech, repeatedly and successfully, we should be able to do it now quite easily just to settle everyone's doubts.

Blogger VD December 13, 2018 8:05 PM  

the sheer numbers of people who would have remain silent is ludicrous.

That argument is a non-starter. They kept the Manhattan Project secret.

There are laser reflectors that were left there that are used to determine the exact distance between the Earth and the Moon - I've seen them actually dial in on the reflectors to take a distance measurement.

Irrelevant. That did not require manned missions.

I can't see a situation where if China and Russia found no evidence of the US having been on the moon and found that we faked it that they wouldn't find some way to definitely out the fakery - even if by leaking it by a third party.

Then you simply don't know much about China or Russia. I wouldn't say a word about it either; the ability to shred the credibility of the US government at will is much more valuable than actually playing that card for the sake of playing it.

Blogger Doktor Jeep December 13, 2018 8:07 PM  

I tend to avoid this argument like I avoid 911. That is, it's pointless trying to argue that which cannot be proven.
Also keep in mind that NASA is run by satanists. Who's the king of lies?

One thing I always found fishy is that the moon's gravity is 17 percent that of Earth. We have seen what it takes to escape the earth's gravity. But it's not like the moon has zero gravity. From a web search:
"In the case of the earth, the escape velocity is 11.2kps/6.9mps; the moon, 2.4kps/1.5mps; Mars, 5kps/3.1mps; and Jupiter, 59.6kps/37mps."

So you still need to go 5400 Miles per hour to escape the moon as compared to over 23000 to get away from Earth. Fair enough. But did that moon lander and it's little rockets really have enough push to do that? I would assume it would take a rocket that is only 17 percent the size of what it takes to get off Earth and that's still much bigger than the moon lander.
Of course, Americans think getting a Prius saves the earth when in reality the carbon footprint of making a new car with their alloys far exceeds that of say taking an old car, putting in a rebuilt engine and upgrading the ignition to electronic and installing effecient fuel injection (something that would cost roughly 5-6 thousand dollars by my experience including the overhaul of the engine and all new components).
So of course when it comes to technology and appearances, people are dumb enough to demonstrate why democracy is a suicide pact.

Blogger VD December 13, 2018 8:08 PM  

Vox this is no moon landing crap full retard.

As I said in the recent Darkstream, it is responses like this from Moonies like you that are the second-most convincing evidence that the narrative is false.

Every single Official Story into which I have ever looked deeply has turned out to be at least moderately false. I don't know how the official Moon Landing story is false, but I am certain that it is at least moderately false in some way. Because all Official Stories are.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums December 13, 2018 8:12 PM  

Inevitably the flat-earthers always get brought up but most people don't get it. It's top-tier epistemological trolling.

Obviously the Earth is round, we figured this out thousands of years ago. However people are such NPC's they confuse their programming with actual knowledge. So when they're faced with having to prove something that's obvious to them they draw blanks. Even our favorite melenated scientistician, NDT, couldn't disprove a flat-earther without resorting to strawmen on Joe Rogan's podcast.

Naturally you can do this with any sort of "fact" however the US faking the moon-landing is too plausible. Therefore the trolls picked something as absurd as the flat-Earth.

Whether we went to the Moon or not is not the issue. The real issue is that there's enough evidence to credibly back either side but only one of them is asking for ridiculous sums of money. I mean, who would pay billions and billions of $ in order to continuously prove over and over again that the Earth is round?

Blogger nbfdmd December 13, 2018 8:14 PM  

This is disappointing, VD. Be objective:

Do the math: did the Saturn V have enough thrust and delta-V to put a LEM on the Moon? It's a simple calculation to do if you know the size of the fuel tanks and the ISP of the engines. If you don't show that calculation, you are admitting that it was capable of doing the job.

You can find footage of the LEM being tested, performing the necessary maneuvers. So the LEM existed.

Did the Saturn V exist? You can fake a lot of things, but the existence of the rocket? Nope.

Did it launch on the specified dates? There were live audiences to each launch, both live tv and in person at the Cape.

So your only refuge is that the Saturn V made it to orbit. We know it made it to orbit because the capsule landed on the other side of the planet, a couple of weeks later. We also know from the earlier calculation that once in orbit it had enough fuel in the tank to go to the Moon. Again, if you dispute the fuel requirements, SHOW YOUR MATH. So if they were in orbit with enough fuel in the tank, why wouldn't they just go the Moon?

Blogger Nate December 13, 2018 8:15 PM  

so... ask NASA for proof that they went to the moon...and they will show you a bunch of "moon rocks" that they claim they brought back from the moon. Of course they gave some of those moon rocks away to other countries as gifts. and some of those other countries tested those moon rocks.. and found they were in fact petrified wood.

Oh... and we don't have the original tapes... because you know... its not like its super important or anything.

Oh and... sure.. you can recreate the Apollo program with 15 rednecks 100 thousand dollars and couple tons of barn metal and rivets... but... no no no… we somehow need billions of dollars to get back to the moon? Even though we supposedly went so much that we stopped because we got bored with it?

Look... maybe you can look at one of those piece of shit barn metal and rivet rockets and believe it landed on the moon... but do yourself a favor and don't look to hard at the payload capacity or storage. you may realize that there was no room on the rockets for their little space car. Which is just one of tons of issues that come up if you cast even a remotely skeptical eye at the moon landings.

Blogger flyingtiger December 13, 2018 8:15 PM  

The Nazis who have been living at the moon base on the dark side of the moon since 1945 are laughing at us. They cannot believe how naive we are.

Blogger Damelon Brinn December 13, 2018 8:15 PM  

Furthermore, China and Russia both have lunar missions (not manned obviously)

Why not? We sent six manned missions with technology that looks primitive today. Only one had a problem, which American ingenuity solved in movie-worthy fashion, but all missions came home safely. The Chinese and Russians don't care more about their people than the US government does, and it's apparently a pretty safe trip anyway, so why haven't they sent someone up there to piss on our left-behind rover's tires?

Blogger VD December 13, 2018 8:17 PM  

This is disappointing, VD. Be objective.

I am objective. I know the pattern of false narratives when I see one. The Moon Landing story fits it very well. And the astronauts were definitely lying about the stars. Why, I don't know. Doesn't prove they didn't land on the Moon, but they were lying.

How many times do you guys need to learn that I am very, very good at pattern recognition anyhow? Remember, more than four out of five of you initially said I was wrong about Jordan Peterson too.

Blogger DJT December 13, 2018 8:18 PM  

Gay. The landing sites have been photographed from lunar orbit.

I hope this is just a meme that I'm too autistic to understand.

Blogger nbfdmd December 13, 2018 8:20 PM  

VD, lot of conspiracies were happening back then. Not one of them required building a massive Moon rocket and employing thousands of people.

But, respectfully, I made an argument vis a vis the Rocket Equation:

https://infogalactic.com/info/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation

Do you care to address it? If not, you must admit that the astronauts at least made it to orbit with enough fuel to get the LEM to the Moon.

Blogger Verne December 13, 2018 8:26 PM  

The argument isn’t that the equipment couldn’t do it. the argument is that we haven’t found a way Pass through the radiation belt and survive. There’s also an argument of heat. It’s a well-made argument. I don’t know that it’s true but I don’t know it isn’t

Blogger Silly but True December 13, 2018 8:27 PM  

As an aside, when did “Moonies” start being used to refer to people other than the lunatic Unification followers of Sun Myung Moon?

Blogger nbfdmd December 13, 2018 8:29 PM  

The radiation argument is based on a misunderstanding of how radiation works. It's all about dose x time. Short time means small dose. The astronauts simply weren't in the Van Allen belts long enough to get a lethal dose. Now, a solar flare might have killed them, but they got lucky and there weren't any during the missions. They're not that common.

Blogger rekrapt December 13, 2018 8:32 PM  

While I believe that we have sent unmanned vehicles to the moon, I'm not convinced we actually put feet on the ground. My grandfather was adamant that the moon landings were fake - and that was when I was a kid in the 1970s. I've been reading Vox long enough to know that if he says there is reason to be skeptical, you can bet there is.

Blogger ADU December 13, 2018 8:36 PM  

What a pathetic dummy.

Blogger Arthur Isaac December 13, 2018 8:36 PM  

Never
A
Straight
Answer

Blogger Johnny December 13, 2018 8:41 PM  

>> I would assume it would take a rocket that is only 17 percent the size of what it takes to get off Earth and that's still much bigger than the moon lander...

The problem with your logic is that most of the energy needed to put something into earth orbit is actually burned up accelerating the fuel that is used in the later part of the flight.

From a math standpoint energy is the square of velocity. If you want to compare the energy difference needed to accelerate an object to escape velocity, the ratio would be (moon velocity squared)/(earth velocity squared). Much, much easier to get off the moon. Hence the surprisingly small rocket needed. Surprised me also when I first saw the thing. It didn't look adequate.

Setting aside relativity which is an additional hindrance, that energy is the square of velocity is also why our ability to explore interstellar space is close to nothing. The cost in energy that goes with accelerating an object to some significant fraction of light speed is stupendous. Lacking dilithium crystals and warp speed, we can't get it done.

Blogger Manuel December 13, 2018 8:41 PM  

We went. But not for the reasons they say. Perhaps there were even more missions than the official ones.

Blogger DJT December 13, 2018 8:42 PM  

The Chinese and Russians don't care more about their people than the US government does, and it's apparently a pretty safe trip anyway, so why haven't they sent someone up there to piss on our left-behind rover's tires?

Because the Russians were never that good at space. They also built a Space Shuttle clone that barely saw the light of day. (I guess that means the SLS was also faked.)

The US has been far ahead in space, and would have remained if not for the detour of the ISS and Space Shuttle. Then the 56% took everything over, and because of gibs, Congress was no longer willing to fund anything useful.

Our universities are not churning out rocket scientists to the level they were in the 50s.

If anything seems impossible today which was possible in the 60s, it is due to demographics. No exceptions.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums December 13, 2018 8:45 PM  

nbfdmd wrote:VD, lot of conspiracies were happening back then. Not one of them required building a massive Moon rocket and employing thousands of people.



The LHC costs 1 billion $ per year (ongoing) reaching a total cost presently of 13 billion +.
What has the LHC brought us? The Moon-landing at least inspired generations around the world, true or not. The LHC employs about 10 000 people and we didn't even get an over the top Hollywood movie out of it.

It's all a big scam. Elon Musk is doing the same thing with his whole Space-X hustle. He even pushed the idea that he needs money in order to save us for the inevitable AI uprising. It's the same thing with Climate Change.

Give $$$ so we can go to the Moon. Why? To defeat the russians, of course!
Give $$$ so we can build electric cars and flame-throwers. Why? To defeat the T-800, of course!
Give $$$ so we can make documentaries, raise taxes, and measure the air. Why? So the Earth doesn't explode, of course!

Blogger One Deplorable DT December 13, 2018 8:46 PM  

Do the people who point out the erased tapes as something suspicious realize we have a ton of 6x6 film frames shot on Hasselblad cameras and scanned at high resolution for public view? There are 14,500 4k frames published on Flickr. Those are "low" resolution. You can get 6k color and 12k B&W scans directly from NASA's online archive.

In 1969 you could not build a moon movie set that would withstand the scrutiny of 6x6 film even if you controlled every shot and angle. I'm not sure you could do it today. NASA told those guys to shoot pictures like an Asian family at Disney World, and it shows in the archives. If that was a movie set there should be thousands of frames revealing construction details and mistakes that even the most meticulous director and crew would miss.

While I'm at it: I've never heard someone who denies the moon landings openly deny that we were putting satellites into orbit in the 1960s. I find that curious because building a rocket to reach Earth orbit is everything. At that point orbiting the moon and returning is trivial. Even landing, walking around, and returning is relatively simple compared to the rocket that got you off Earth in the first place.

In my mind you can't deny the moon landings unless you also claim the Saturn V was fake and couldn't get off the pad. If that rocket was real why fake anything? You might as well just go after spending that much money, time, and effort.

Now I am open to conspiracy theories about landing and discovering aliens, Transformers, or Nazi moon bases. No one said all the film was published.

Blogger Scott Birch December 13, 2018 8:49 PM  

The footage was fake, but landings took place.

Blogger rumpole5 December 13, 2018 8:50 PM  

It is quite possible that the astronauts did go to the moon, but that the whole thing was duplicated in a studio because it looked better.

Blogger Teleros December 13, 2018 8:51 PM  

VD wrote:I am objective. I know the pattern of false narratives when I see one. The Moon Landing story fits it very well.

In this case I think you're getting a false positive, though I can understand why. The tech to get there certainly existed back before NASA got into Mohammedan outreach programs etc, so on balance I'm inclined to believe the Moon landings happened.

Tech issues aside, what pro-hoax arguments are there?

1. Astronauts lying over seeing stars.
2. Tapes getting wiped.
3. Means & motive, probably opportunity too.

The first one I just don't know about. The second one can be explained by civil servants being themselves. The third by the Soviet response, which was that it happened, and the silence of the generally anti-American US film industry.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a hoax, but on balance it seems more probable that the US landed 12 men than not.

Blogger theartistformerlyknownasgeorge December 13, 2018 8:55 PM  

"It is quite possible that the astronauts did go to the moon, but that the whole thing was duplicated in a studio because it looked better."

But6 why bother?

The rewards are exactly the same and the risks are significantly different.

The lowest risk that gives you the same exact reward would be to send unmanned rockets and film the "landing" on earth on earth.

Blogger S1AL December 13, 2018 8:55 PM  

As others have pointed out, the strongest evidence is that it's both easier and less expensive to actually go to the Moon than to fake going to the Moon.

If we hadn't gone to the Moon, any country with halfway decent tech would have figured it out by now and exposed it.

How we supposedly put reflectors on the surface without manned missions I have no idea. We didn't have the tech necessary to do that in the 60's. Or 70's. Putting people into space is easy compared to designing robots - as the Russians proved.

Blogger Damelon Brinn December 13, 2018 8:56 PM  

Because the Russians were never that good at space.

The Soviets were beating us into space at every step: first satellite, first dog in orbit, first man, first full day in space, first woman, first space walk. Until Apollo, when we leapfrogged them by 250,000 miles because a charismatic president gave a great pep talk. America, fuck yeah!

Of course, the Soviets could have been lying about those achievements. But surely no government could pull off lies that big and not get found out after all these years.

Blogger DJT December 13, 2018 8:58 PM  

Inb4 "muh space odyssey", "muh it was possible to fake it"

I watched 2001 last weekend on a 4K TV. No disrespect to Kubrick but it doesn't hold up. It was incredible for 1968 but it doesn't hold a candle in any detail to the tens of thousands of photos and hours of film and video from the nine lunar missions, which are manifestly real. Then there are the dozens of hours of training and flight recordings. I guess every single detail of all 17 Apollo missions-all the training, all the development-were real, except the actual flights? Again: gay.

The only dissent I've ever seen about the vast photographic library is from morons who don't even understand basic photographic concepts like exposure and parallax. Maybe take Photography 101 instead of Gender Studies next time.

Blogger Al Du Clur December 13, 2018 8:59 PM  

After watching this video, the biggest stumbling block I have in continuing to believe we walked on the moon is the claim that we no longer have the technology that we had then; we destroyed it.

What is another example of us no longer having as advanced technology as we did less than a century ago? That may have happened after the fall of Rome but there are still people alive who were involved in the Space Race with the Russians. They all have Alzheimer's? We erased all the tapes? I can believe that with Johnny Carson's old shows but the moon landing? None of our hotshot scientists can recreate something that happened over a half century ago? If true, doesn't that call for firing everyone involved with the current space program and staying from scratch on our science education?

This begins to sound like the claims that aliens came to earth and performed technical wonders centuries ago but didn't leave us with their advanced technology.

Blogger DJT December 13, 2018 9:01 PM  

None of those things were difficult. Doing them safely enough for US standards was the problem.

Your skepticism is not an argument.

Blogger Silly but True December 13, 2018 9:02 PM  

The “Funny Thing Happened...” film was the only interesting part. It doesn’t mean they faked the moon landing, although it certainly is covering up something.

Blogger nbfdmd December 13, 2018 9:03 PM  

@67:

Your response is funny because even VD has spoken about the massive drop in IQ that's been happening for the past few decades.

Also, the Apollo program consumed 5% of the federal budget. Nowadays NASA gets 0.4%. Maybe if we spent less on handouts, we could rebuild the Apollo program.

Blogger Jon Mollison December 13, 2018 9:03 PM  

Something else is going on here. I can't quite put my finger on it. This feels like an exercise or maybe a test. That said...

If everything they've ever told you, from vaccines to AIDS to free trade to climate change is a lie, why would you believe this story? That's a valid question, and one well worth considering. Your gut probably screams that it's crazy talk, but if you've been here for any length of time you've learned to tamp down on that gut reaction, step back, and reassess.

My own Moonie Scale rating fell a good two points while watching today's video. Not ready to give up on the moon completely - it's a strong source of national pride, mind you - but there's no harm in shifting from True Believer to Curious Agnostic. Some independent third party verification would help alleviate my newborn doubts.

Anonymous Anonymous December 13, 2018 9:06 PM  

It’s sad how so many people who have never truly looked into the issue or herd the skeptics out can be so quick to KNOW the narrative is true. Maybe it is or maybe it isn’t. But let’s not forget this is the US government were talking about here.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch December 13, 2018 9:08 PM  

Damnit, Vox. Dread Ilk. You assholes. You're going to drag out this topic. You're going to question the fucking moon landing. I can't believe this.

I love astronomy. Love space. Love space news. The Pluto flyby was awesome. The GAIA data is incredible. I can't wait for the resulting image from the Event Horizon Telescope project. And now...you assholes are going to tell me the moon landing wasn't real.

But...I...I know. I can see how it is a lie. After seeing the government lie about monumental things throughout my life, I can see the pattern. I cannot deny this possibility. Okay. I will likely "be agnostic" about this issue, like Vox is. That said, it is now our country's duty to get their asses back up to the Moon--in a historical mission--in order to visit an old historical site and prove that they originally did it, carefully documenting EVERYTHING for the world. Otherwise, they should fess up.

(As an aside, I'm also learning about the Electric Universe from the Thunderbolt Project. It's incredible and very convincing. Not too sure about the Alien Sky theory, though.)

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums December 13, 2018 9:09 PM  

One Deplorable DT wrote:In 1969 you could not build a moon movie set that would withstand the scrutiny of 6x6 film even if you controlled every shot and angle. I'm not sure you could do it today.

Yes, we can do it today. It's far cheaper to "land on Mars" using CGI than to actually do it and nobody would even be able to tell the difference. Come to think about it, I don't know why they don't just CGI the whole Moon-tapes for kicks. They have the budget for it.

Blogger Rex Leroy King December 13, 2018 9:09 PM  

Well I been seeing a heckuva lot of commenter names I ain't never seen before.

Blogger SirHamster December 13, 2018 9:11 PM  

Silly but True wrote:As an aside, when did “Moonies” start being used to refer to people other than the lunatic Unification followers of Sun Myung Moon?

Good rhetoric to slap onto anyone who plays the "this is too outrageous to question!" card.

I'm finding more and more that it is never used in defense of something that is actually unquestionable. Probably because something unquestionable doesn't need a sputtering defense. You just point and laugh and demolish the claim.

Blogger D. December 13, 2018 9:13 PM  

"that I am very, very good at pattern recognition "

Here's a pattern: Mercury: establish the ability to get into earth's orbit;
Gemini: establish the ability to maneuver space craft and leave space craft;
Apollo: establish the ability to reach moon; establish ability to land on moon.
https://infogalactic.com/info/List_of_Apollo_missions

Anonymous Anonymous December 13, 2018 9:13 PM  

It’s also worth noting that VD didn’t say the landing didn’t happen. He said there are enough indicators to know that some aspect of the official narrative isn’t true which could or could not include the landing.

Blogger Maurice December 13, 2018 9:13 PM  

The thought that the landings were a lie is just too much cognitive dissonance for many to bear. Face the truth and deal with the pain of it, guys.

As how to how the landings could be covered up when so many people were involved, this has been addressed. Essentially, it is not the case that hundreds or thousands of people had high-level involvement. Most people were assigned highly specialized, micro-focused tasks and the whole thing was extremely compartmentalized. The number of people who would have known the whole thing was fake doesn't need to be that high.

The issues with the reflectors has been addressed. The beam still has to be so powerful, and it would become so wide, that it doesn't even work reliably when they use them and if you get a photon or two back you don't know it hit those reflectors or just bounced back off a rock.

What about addressing the radiation? No human beings would survive the radiation of the voyage. Once humans go beyond several hundred miles above the surface of the Earth, surviving a multi-day expedition through the radiation levels is totally unsurvivable. This is why nobody reading this will ever live to see a human expedition to Mars either.

Yes, people say there are good reasons the stars shouldn't be visible in the photos - fine, I agree. But what about all the other anomalies in the photos? For example, shadows that should be parallel, if the light source is a distant sun, rather converge after a shortish distance, as though the light source is close?

There are just too many anomalies and too many unexplained problems (insufficient radiation shielding, the tech used in the landers, impossible photos).

For those who don't like videos, I suggest trying to read Dave McGowan's book which is available for free in various places if you search for it, Wagging the Moondoggie. He makes you laugh a bit, too. That's the book that convinced me and two people with whom I shared it.

Blogger S1AL December 13, 2018 9:14 PM  

'Yes, we can do it today. It's far cheaper to "land on Mars" using CGI than to actually do it and nobody would even be able to tell the difference. Come to think about it, I don't know why they don't just CGI the whole Moon-tapes for kicks. They have the budget for it.'

Because you still have to actually launch the damn rocket into space, publicly, where it would be tracked by every developed country on the planet, as well as thousands of interested amateurs.

Blogger DJT December 13, 2018 9:17 PM  

the claim that we no longer have the technology that we had then; we destroyed it.

No, we moved on from it.

Apollo tech was primitive compared to what we have today. Today it's possible to make carbon fiber fuel tanks, which was not possible 20 years ago and doomed the Venture Star shuttle replacement. SpaceX is doing self-landing robotic booster stages. Not 100% reliably yet, but that was scifi only 5 years ago. We use different fuels today than with Apollo. The differences are endless.

The "lost tech" is a myth perpetrated by people who don't know what they're talking about, who grunt and say "why no big boom boom stick?" We have all the Apollo materials that we would need to recreate it. But why would we? Those things were built by hand, and no two engines were the same. We can't afford to do that today. That's like making a TV today using a spinning wheel to refresh the screen.

The challenge today is building a rocket with a reliable manufacturing process that doesn't require hand tooling because it's cheaper.

And yes, the reduced IQ of America is a factor too. We waste intelligence on spying on Americans and going to war for Israel. People don't want to be rocket scientists or engineers, probably because they're poisoned by idiots making them cynical and saying "moon landing fake because YouTube man said so."

It's as gay as 9/11 truthers who think the airplanes were superimposed on video feeds in real time in 2001.

Blogger Taignobias December 13, 2018 9:18 PM  

To weigh in on some common themes here:

- NASA is like scientism in that there are those who build and do shit and those who use the name and reputation to spread evil nonsense. It is not unreasonable to assume that this is why they keep NASA around...

- NASA is full of idiot bureaucrats who would murder their own children if their bosses said to. I fully believe this is why the tapes are gone.

- Spinning up manufacturing is the big cost of rocketry. Specialized parts built to demanding specs and rigorously tested aren't cheap. Plus, environmentalists say rockets pollute too much and Globalists don't seem to like US manufacturing.

- It is entirely possible that something on the tapes was damning enough to destroy. It's also mathematically possible and historically probable that we went to the moon. These are not incompatible.

Blogger Jeff aka Orville December 13, 2018 9:24 PM  

Oh and... sure.. you can recreate the Apollo program with 15 rednecks 100 thousand dollars and couple tons of barn metal and rivets... but... no no no… we somehow need billions of dollars to get back to the moon? Even though we supposedly went so much that we stopped because we got bored with it?

The whole moon shot program was a knee-jerk cold-war reaction to Sputnik. There was no intention of staying, and the Shuttle program was already getting designed when they shut Apollo down. It was just too expensive. And to Nate's point, why is it expensive? Because NASA is largely a federal pork barrel project, run by risk averse bureaucrats that don't like getting grilled in Congress and risking a shutdown of pork barrel money.

Say what you will about Musk, but he's developed a system that can easily return us to the moon for literally a tenth of what big Aerospace is charging for the SLS, nicknamed Senate Launch System. And yes, I freely concede that Musk bootstrapped SpaceX on federal money. That doesn't change the paradigm of much cheaper access to space. Hell, they'd be using a manned Dragon capsule now if it weren't for all the hoops NASA makes them go through. NASA, in all their brilliance, is even slowing down the Dragon program, for a colossal proctological safety exam simply because Musk had the bad sense to smoke a joint on a podcast.

Blogger Whitecloak December 13, 2018 9:25 PM  

Call me agnostic on the issue, I've no horse in this race.

I find the vehement response of the true believers far more interesting, however; it feels like a fervent zeal response far more than a reasoned one.

Blogger wEz December 13, 2018 9:27 PM  

Only stupid people such as yourself call people nutjobs for being agnostic on one particular issue that is pretty irrelevant overall. Good riddance loser.

Blogger Hammerli280 December 13, 2018 9:27 PM  

You want to know what wasn't true about the official narrative of the time? The fact that there were some very close calls. Which were downplayed.

@65: The early Soviet advantage came from the fact that they had a bigger ICBM than our Atlas...and a recon satellite design big enough to hold a man and an ejection seat. They could stuff a cosmonaut into the Vostok, launch him, and get him back in one piece. Once we went over to Gemini, they were eating our dust.

Not to mention that the Soviets never mastered liquid hydrogen. That LH/LOX reaction was the key to the Saturn V.

Blogger tz December 13, 2018 9:27 PM  

This is one thing which can objectively be determined. Send a drone with video to the retroreflector areas. Look for space-suit footprints, etc. and do a full video map of the area. Compare with the original videos.

Meanwhile the 9/11 WTC Building 7 and such is now a big issue.

Also on "manhattan project" 1. it was wartime, 2. it was remote, 3, it was compartmentalized.

I don't believe a "conspiracy of tens of thousands". Even Magicians with NDAs have leaks and they only have a 100 or less for the big illusions.

Note: that I don't believe in zero of what the government or mainstream story is doesn't mean I believe 100%. I only believe in a few key points. The context is often a damn lie.

Blogger DJT December 13, 2018 9:30 PM  

The beam still has to be so powerful, and it would become so wide, that it doesn't even work reliably when they use them and if you get a photon or two back you don't know it hit those reflectors or just bounced back off a rock.

The reflector measurements are precise enough to measure moon quakes caused by observed meteor collisions.

For example, shadows that should be parallel, if the light source is a distant sun, rather converge after a shortish distance, as though the light source is close?

If you took a photography class, and understood parallax and how focal length affects the projection of 3D space on a 2D surface (or if you took a 3D lighting and shading course), you would know how stupid this is.

What about addressing the radiation?

The time they spent in the Van Allen belts going 20,000 mph is a small fraction of time it would take for a lethal dose.

People also worked in the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown. They could only be exposed for 10 seconds a day, but that was not a lethal dose either.

As always, poorly informed views.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums December 13, 2018 9:30 PM  

S1AL wrote:Because you still have to actually launch the damn rocket into space, publicly, where it would be tracked by every developed country on the planet, as well as thousands of interested amateurs.

I don't get your argument. I was talking about present day. That they should fake the moon landing tapes using CGI in order to quiet the dissent. It's not as if NASA's doing anything else with the money. They could fix all those errors people say are evidence it was faked and nobody could prove it's CGI. Also I was joking.

DJT wrote:Then there are the dozens of hours of training and flight recordings. I guess every single detail of all 17 Apollo missions-all the training, all the development-were real, except the actual flights? Again: gay.

The argument is that they faked the moon landing not the whole mission. Maybe they had every intention to go but the astronauts died so they decided to fake the whole thing as a plan B in order to give us a happy ending. I heard Nixon had two speeches prepared in advance, one of them mourning the astronauts. Maybe they decided on the other just because it had better optics?

Blogger cmbaileytstc December 13, 2018 9:31 PM  

What’s this lying about the stars incident? I believe you, I’ve just never heard of it.

Blogger Tars Tarkusz December 13, 2018 9:33 PM  

The argument about us not having the ability to go back is best explained by what NASA has become. During the 60s, NASA had hired nothing but the best people, virtually all white men. NASA has since become a jobs program for "diversity" candidates in the schools. The Moon mission also had other hidden rationales which justified the gigantic price tag of the trip to the moon.

Not even billionaires could afford to go the Moon, even if we could fire all the diversity teams at NASA and do it again using only the best minds. NASA was supported by the most technically advanced society in the world. We don't have the industry to do it anymore. We would likely have to source parts from Japan, China and Germany.

Blogger wEz December 13, 2018 9:34 PM  

Damn! You woke the rabid sheep up with this post, Vox.
I think the moon landing happened, but I don't know for sure, and I could care less if anyone has an opinion and doesnt think that did. It's amazing that people get that upset over an agnostic opinion.
I laugh at losers that get their panties in over stuff like this. How dare you doubt!! Lol

Blogger Amos Bellomy December 13, 2018 9:35 PM  

This is not remotely surprising, considering we were in the middle of an escalating tech battle with a foreogn country. Of course you don't want to show your hand. But the preponderance of evidence for the moon landing just seems way too high.

Blogger DJT December 13, 2018 9:37 PM  

This is one thing which can objectively be determined. Send a drone with video to the retroreflector areas. Look for space-suit footprints, etc. and do a full video map of the area. Compare with the original videos.

JAXA's lunar orbiter took HD video of flyovers of several lunar sites, and the trails of human footprints and the LEM descent stages are clearly visible.

But as with flat earthers, everything is fake for moon landing deniers. Always a new goalpost.

Blogger camcleat December 13, 2018 9:38 PM  

One of the 16 Points is to be evidence based. Let's take a look at some evidence that is verifiable independent of NASA.

Here's a link to a 525 page PDF that analyzes the images taken from the Apollo missions and matches earth atmosphere weather features to those images.

https://history.nasa.gov/afj/pdf/clouds-across-the-moon.pdf

It is hosted on NASA, but I don't think was a NASA document. I recall reading a forum post by the author and unless I am just remembering wrong, he's just a dude that sought out to see what would happen if he tried to match up the Apollo imagery to other data.

Also, I've met Sy Liebergot; hung out with him for a few days. Cool guy. Aside from his historic role on Apollo 13, he was EECOM on Apollo 11 during the landing. There is no doubt in my mind that he believes they really went to the moon.

So, if the argument is that the men working on the project were also fooled by faking, that's a pretty ballsy claim.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums December 13, 2018 9:40 PM  

DJT wrote:JAXA's lunar orbiter took HD video of flyovers of several lunar sites, and the trails of human footprints and the LEM descent stages are clearly visible.

It's CGI.

Blogger Ransom Smith December 13, 2018 9:41 PM  

Also on "manhattan project" 1. it was wartime, 2. it was remote, 3, it was compartmentalized.
Because the Manhattan project was fake, a cover attempt.
It's significantly more likely the Nazis developed the A bomb and sold it to us in exchange for protection for ranking officers.
How else does a country with no major organized atomic research suddenly develop a perfect A bomb in three years.

Blogger The Lab Manager December 13, 2018 9:41 PM  

One aspect of the moon landings is how everything went off without a hitch all the time. Landings/takeoffs with no problems. No lost launches from the moon. No leaky spacesuits. And they all pooped and peed in that little capsule for days on end.

I did read Richard Hoagland's "Secret History of NASA". It is interesting that all the top leadership of NASA for a number of years during that time period were FreeMasons or Nazis of SS/Thule society. But hey, nothing to see here. There is also evidence every launch coincided with some aspect of Egyptian mythology or some other combination of stars in the sky.

Blogger CitizenOutkast December 13, 2018 9:42 PM  

BobsYerUncle wrote:You are now Unfollowed from my Feedly. There will never be enough time to follow nutjobs, even if I live to 1,000,000.

So, intellectual coward who has thus far seen value in VD's blog, but because you disagree with this one post are ready to chuck it all rather than simply ignore/debate it? Ok, gotcha.

Blogger Calven December 13, 2018 9:43 PM  

This is the best post here I've yet seen.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums December 13, 2018 9:43 PM  

Ransom Smith wrote:How else does a country with no major organized atomic research suddenly develop a perfect A bomb in three years.

Jews.

Blogger DJT December 13, 2018 9:43 PM  

Maybe they had every intention to go but the astronauts died so they decided to fake the whole thing as a plan B in order to give us a happy ending.

Which astronauts died? The ones that were publicly training for their missions for years, and were seen by the world before and after? Or the ones who were launched by the secret Saturn V from a site more remote than Cape Canaveral, like Southern California?

I heard Nixon had two speeches prepared in advance, one of them mourning the astronauts. Maybe they decided on the other just because it had better optics?

Or maybe, you know, they were prepared for both possibilities in a new an unpredictable situation.

Blogger Haxo Angmark December 13, 2018 9:44 PM  

generally speaking,

when the technology to do something exists,

it gets done. In 1969,

sufficient tech to put a man on the moon existed.

therefore, it got done. In addition,

Walter Cronkite said so, and it's just hard

to disbelieve Walter Cronkite.

Blogger DJT December 13, 2018 9:45 PM  

It's CGI.

Just the landing sites, or the whole mission?

Well it shows a round earth, so I guess the whole mission.

Blogger CitizenOutkast December 13, 2018 9:45 PM  

nbfdmd wrote:Also, the Apollo program consumed 5% of the federal budget. Nowadays NASA gets 0.4%. Maybe if we spent less on handouts...

Found the racist.

Blogger D. December 13, 2018 9:46 PM  

The moon landings happened. It was interesting tv programming for its time. The tv program "jumped the shark" when the astronauts went to the moon to hit golf balls.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums December 13, 2018 9:47 PM  

DJT wrote:Which astronauts died? The ones that were publicly training for their missions for years, and were seen by the world before and after? Or the ones who were launched by the secret Saturn V from a site more remote than Cape Canaveral, like Southern California?

They all had twin brothers.

DJT wrote:Or maybe, you know, they were prepared for both possibilities in a new an unpredictable situation.

Governments can barely prepare for the predictable let alone the unpredictable.

Blogger Cecil Henry December 13, 2018 9:48 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger D. December 13, 2018 9:49 PM  

"One aspect of the moon landings is how everything went off without a hitch all the time. "

Apollo 1 or 13?

Blogger Azimus December 13, 2018 9:49 PM  

If someone covered this I'm sorry. My biggest problem w/the moon landing is the Van Allen belt. How did they survive the radiation? I did a little math. The VAB is 5,000km deep. But Apollo 11 left earth at 11.1km/s. So that means they were in VAB for 450s - about 8 minutes. When you hold something in front of your face at a campfire, it is insufficient to shield you fully from the heat but blocks an impressive fraction of it. Could it be the thin-skinned Apollo acted the same way? Blocked enough for the 8 mins to keep them safe? I remember reading about radiological/neutron nukes that were supposed to kill humans but leave infrastructure intact, but they were abandoned because the dosage even at less than a mile airburst range was not sufficient to incapacitate enemy troops immediately and only knocked them out after several hours - and that was a fission weapon specifically designed to kill. Could it be the dangers of lassing through the VAB are overblown? We only got the most basic training in radiation energy in thermodynamics, and that was 17yrs ago for me...

Blogger Cecil Henry December 13, 2018 9:49 PM  

Well there is this succinct argument:

https://i.imgur.com/xONm43Z.jpg

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums December 13, 2018 9:49 PM  

DJT wrote:Just the landing sites, or the whole mission?

JAXA'S from 2007. We had CGI in 2007.

DJT wrote:Well it shows a round earth, so I guess the whole mission.

Sphere cuck.

Blogger Chris Lutz December 13, 2018 9:50 PM  

Damelon Brinn wrote:Because the Russians were never that good at space.

The Soviets were beating us into space at every step: first satellite, first dog in orbit, first man, first full day in space, first woman, first space walk. Until Apollo, when we leapfrogged them by 250,000 miles because a charismatic president gave a great pep talk. America, fuck yeah!

Of course, the Soviets could have been lying about those achievements. But surely no government could pull off lies that big and not get found out after all these years.


You might want to look at a timeline of events. Most of the stuff is happening within months of each other. Gagarin and Shepard were separated by less than a month. It wasn't like the Soviets were years ahead. Their lead was at times only a two or three weeks. Even not taking that into account, history is replete with examples of one side having an edge in something and then losing it.

Another issue, is that the Soviet spacecraft, especially early on, were controlled from the ground. The first woman was simply along for the ride. That's fine for orbital tasks. Going to the moon and landing on it, is something else.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums December 13, 2018 9:52 PM  

Cecil Henry wrote:Well there is this succinct argument:

https://i.imgur.com/xONm43Z.jpg


There are 86 people there, not 400 000. I counted.

Blogger Johnny December 13, 2018 9:52 PM  

@65: The early Soviet advantage came from the fact that they had a bigger ICBM than our Atlas...

We featured more compact nuclear weapons relative to power and generally we did not produce nukes as big as the Russians. Thus we didn't need as big a rocket, and got set behind for that reason. Plus the Russians surprised us with the level of their effort. PR stuff, prestige, was the major thing on both sides.

The Russians can do high tech now, more or less, in some areas. But I think it likely they still have quality issues. Also their economy is much smaller than ours. Thus what they can accomplish is always much more limited. They are building only a few of their high tech airplanes, tanks and stuff.

I take it as a a given that we went to the moon and I thought it was great. It was a stunt to some extent, but imagining you can do something is not the same as doing. But now? Over and over? Not by my lights. Way less expensive to send robots up. And any talk of colonies is nonsense. The right word is outpost.

Blogger DJT December 13, 2018 9:52 PM  

One aspect of the moon landings is how everything went off without a hitch all the time.

It's amazing how low our standards have become since the 56% have ascended. Believe it or not, there was a time when white men did great things.

But still, Armstrong saved the LEM from landing in a crater full of boulders, with 2 seconds of fuel to spare. He flew it horizontally way outside of spec to pull it off.

And there's this thing called Apollo 13, which was saved by, again, white male technology and a spacecraft that performed way outside of spec.

On one of the other missions, the landing computer had to be hacked on the fly to stop a faulty abort code.

Plenty of human errors happened, many could have been disasters, if not for top quality mission controllers and thousands of scientists.

Blogger Azimus December 13, 2018 9:54 PM  

The question I have about VAB radiation exposure is, how fast were they going on the return? The exposure must have been significantly higher.

Is the leeward side of the VAB significantly less intense than the sunward side?

Blogger Azimus December 13, 2018 9:57 PM  

Regarding the pictures - they are certainly fakes. But I would not be surprised if these were shot for propaganda purposes by a team of people who can make great propaganda, not air force majors struggling with awkward equipment that might not work.

Blogger DJT December 13, 2018 9:58 PM  

Governments can barely prepare for the predictable let alone the unpredictable.

I can't tell who is trolling anymore.

Having a speech prepared for the failure of a high risk, high stakes attempt is hardly amazing.

It's actually a beautiful speech btw. Google Nixon's lost moon speech.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums December 13, 2018 9:58 PM  

DJT wrote:with 2 seconds of fuel to spare

Fuel is measured in gallons/liters, not seconds.

DJT wrote:On one of the other missions, the landing computer had to be hacked on the fly to stop a faulty abort code.

Like unplugging it and plugging it back in?

DJT wrote:Plenty of human errors happened, many could have been disasters, if not for top quality mission controllers and thousands of scientists.

Plenty of human errors happened, many could have been disasters, if not for top quality mission controllers and thousands of scientists -- who managed to keep a big, big secret really, really well.

Blogger Wuzzums Fuzzums December 13, 2018 10:00 PM  

DJT wrote:It's actually a beautiful speech btw. Google Nixon's lost moon speech.

I know the speech and I agree. One of Kubrick's best works.

Blogger Unknown December 13, 2018 10:00 PM  

I agree with the sentiment as expressed by Vox that the Official Narrative is partially fraudulent.

That being said, I believe the omitted part of the official narrative is that all five landings were done so far out on the leading edge of what was possible, and with so minimal room for error, that the risks, and the foul ups that happened along the way, were totally omitted from the Official Story™.

Like, for example, the fact that Apollo 11 almost ran out of fuel doing the first landing. This did not come out until much later.

I expect that the other five landings also had similar close calls, of one sort of another, and that it was mostly blind luck that Apollo 1 was the only spacecraft of the series lost to accidents.

Do I believe humans landed there, and came back successfully? Yep. Do I believe it was a combination of American grit and know how, and being lucky enough to avoid having any catastrophic incidents we could not recover from that let us do it successfully five out of six times? Yup.

--Unknownsailor--

Blogger One Deplorable DT December 13, 2018 10:02 PM  

@46 - And the astronauts were definitely lying about the stars.

Is this in reference to 18:50 in the video?

There is about a 20 stop (1,000,000:1) difference between an exposure for a sunny day and an exposure which will capture bright stars. Our retinas have about a 10-14 stop range split between highlight and shadow. If your pupils are adjusted for bright daylight then your shadow range is 13-15 stops short of what would be required to perceive stars without an atmosphere.

If you're on the surface of the moon and you can exclude the sun, the lunar surface, and the Earth from your field of view, your pupils may open up enough to detect the very brightest stars. This would depend on how much flare is still getting in and influencing your pupil dilation. (Even without an atmosphere there are going to be sources of flare unless you look through a cardboard tube.) It would be a fun exercise but probably not one the astronauts were concerned with at the time.

If you're on the space station your eyes will be adjusted for artificial light. You probably can, at any given moment, pick a portal facing away from the Earth and Sun and see stars.

No one lied and there is no contradiction between reports from ISS crew members and Apollo astronauts.

Blogger DJT December 13, 2018 10:03 PM  

"The pictures were faked because they look good."

Because only the best 10-20 photos get memed info the history books. Go look at the other 20,000 badly framed photos. They're publicly availabld on NASA's website in full Hasselblad glory.

By your logic, everyone on earth uses 1970s Polaroid cameras because that's what Instagram looks like.

Blogger Tars Tarkusz December 13, 2018 10:03 PM  

DJT wrote:And there's this thing called Apollo 13, which was saved by, again, white male technology and a spacecraft that performed way outside of spec.



My point exactly. NASA cannot do the stuff it used to do because they function as a jobs program for diversity people.

The quality of the people at NASA has plummeted. Not only that, our economy is not what it once was. This is one of the consequences of the last 50 years of mass immigration and globalization.

Blogger CoolHand December 13, 2018 10:03 PM  

I can totally sympathize with folks who "question everything", because the .gov fucking lies like you or I breathe.

However, this is one of those rare instances where you can back up much of the official story with actual physical evidence.

Anyone with a sufficiently large telescope can see the landing sites and the hardware left behind. You can locate and interrogate the mirrors left behind to measure the earth-moon distance.

Hell, the brand new lunar mapping satellites have overflown and imaged every Apollo landing site and you see the lower LEM stages and the rovers and the flags and all the tracks left by both men and rovers.

The landings happened, and men went on those trips, we have sufficient physical evidence to make that case, and it can be verified by third parties not affiliated with the govt.

Again, I understand why you would just assume that it was a lie because the govt said it was true, but even a broken clock is right twice a day, and as you yourself have said VD, not even SJW's lie with every single utterance.

The reason we leapfrogged the Soviets is because they could not make the transition from the small rockets they were using for their low earth orbit missions (which were ALL of their early successful ones) to the larger heavy lift rockets that would have been required to get the hardware for a moon trip into orbit.

Continued...

Blogger CoolHand December 13, 2018 10:04 PM  

Continued from above.

We beat them to the moon because while NASA proper was fucking around with the RedStone rockets for Mercury on an almost ad-hoc basis, an entirely different set of engineers and manufacturers was designing, testing, and perfecting the Saturn series of rockets that would step our heavy lift capability up with every iteration until the design system was mature and able to produce the Saturn V with enough lift and reliability to do the deed.

The soviets floundered because instead of using the iterative approach as we did, that attempted to simply jump from the small rockets they'd flown before straight to the giant N1 rocket, which was far more complex and several orders of magnitude larger.

Not only did they try to do this in one jump, but they did it with the new design wholly untested, as they chose to test the rocket full up, all at once on the first flight instead of as separate systems (to save time).

As you can imagine, this went poorly. VERY poorly. So many things were blown up, and eventually even the engineers and designers themselves were killed in accidents as they desperately tried to make the N1 fly before the big wigs had them all gulag'd out of existence.

We outran them because our designs were developed and proven out iteratively over the course of seven or eight years, while they spent the four or five years they worked on the N1 building giant expensive rockets, watching them blow up, then building another one and trying again.

The powers that be in soviet Russia thought it would be faster to skip most of the development work. Turns out they were wrong.

"It's not possible to go back to the moon with today's tech!" is what people with no engineering knowledge say when they hear that some guy from Rocketdyne said that they (the rump remains of Rocketdyne) couldn't build an F1 main engine today because the skilled craftsmen and the prints are gone.

But if we had to or wanted badly enough to build a comparable engine today, we wouldn't do it like they did in the 60's anyway, because manufacturing and design has changed in a wholesale manner since then, so the lack of ability to remake the exact articles in the exact manner they did in the 60's is moot.

If there were no engineers capable of doing the work to go back to the moon, the supposedly impossible shit that SpaceX keeps doing on a routine basis would not keep getting done.

It's not a matter of technical know-how to go back to the moon, it's just a matter of finding the money and/or having a sufficiently compelling or profitable reason to go back (which would generate the money). And, of course, nothing says it has to be govt money anyhow.

Be as skeptical as you like about the official narrative from the govt, but you cannot simply dismiss physical evidence with a hand wave and a quip about not needing men to send hardware to the moon.

If they sent the hardware up there, that's already 99% of the effort and expense. Having three dudes tag along with the cargo would almost be an afterthought at that point.

Blogger Rick December 13, 2018 10:04 PM  

Some drunk narcissist with dead eyes, and a hockey fan hat, poor organizational skills, can’t read his own que cards, watched some low budget dramamemtories by Trekies for Trekies, with not even amateur actors pretending to be Nasau scientists says we didn’t go to the moon because Obama “57” states can’t remeber his lines... good enough for me.

Blogger DJT December 13, 2018 10:06 PM  

Fuel is measured in gallons/liters, not seconds

A fuel burn rate is measured in seconds.

Like unplugging it and plugging it back in?

ebic trole ;-D

Blogger Joseph Maroney December 13, 2018 10:07 PM  

Faked imagery wouldn't prove that an event never happened, it would just prove that the imagery was fake. NASA has doctored images of the earth in the past to make it more mesmerizing to the public. It's like the shenanigans that advertisers employ during food commercials - it proves they're dishonest but doesn't prove the food doesn't exist. News organizations caught interviewing actors in front of green screens pretending to be interviewing random people on the street doesn't prove that events are fake either, it just proves that they lie and have poor credibility.

Blogger CoolHand December 13, 2018 10:13 PM  

Jesus. Reading some of these replies.

When we win the day for Nationalism, none of you assholes are in charge of anything engineering related, got it?

This is why you never send a philosopher to do an engineer's job.

Blogger DJT December 13, 2018 10:15 PM  

The quality of the people at NASA has plummeted. Not only that, our economy is not what it once was. This is one of the consequences of the last 50 years of mass immigration and globalization.

This.

Clinton wasted eight years, Bush floundered for eight years, and Obama destroyed for eight years. The latter's stated primary goal was for NASA to empower Muslims.

We have had over 25 years of absolute shit space policy, and people wonder why we can't do shit? Look at the demographics of America if you want to know why America isn't great again.

I'm personally far more amazed on a technical basis by the Voyagers than by Apollo. Apollo's biggest hurdle was human-rating all this stuff. The Voyagers were playing interplanetary billiards and doing insane gravity assists with zero room for error. And taking the most incredible photos remotely. Are those also faked?

And now, 40+ years later, these spacecraft are in interstellar space, still broadcasting weakly until their nuclear fuel runs out. It's incredible.

Blogger CoolHand December 13, 2018 10:17 PM  

Also, the reverse of that is true as well.

I am fully content not being allowed to do any of the philosophizing because I'm a dirty grubby engineer.

You just might want to consult one of us before you go to designing your new utopias. Plumbing will work better that way.

Blogger Dire Badger December 13, 2018 10:19 PM  

Doktor Jeep wrote:So you still need to go 5400 Miles per hour to escape the moon as compared to over 23000 to get away from Earth. Fair enough. But did that moon lander and it's little rockets really have enough push to do that? I would assume it would take a rocket that is only 17 percent the size of what it takes to get off Earth and that's still much bigger than the moon lander.

You really need to read the details of the mission, and do the actual math. At 17% of earth's gravity, the 'gravity well' is nonexistent.

Plus, they did not land the recover pod. They landed the lander, and then LEFT most of the lander behind... One of the three astronauts was left behind in the orbiting pod until what was basically a large aluminum baggie containing two astronauts with a rocket strapped to their butt returned to orbit.

at .17 gravity, the restriction zone is so small that if there had been an atmosphere, the men could practically have flapped their arms and gotten back to orbit. the return motor was about 150 lbs of thrust...a miniscule amount. at that point the ascent stage left orbit, was picked up by the return module, then HALF the return module and all of the ascent stage were abandoned to crash into the moon while the return module took a long, slow, safe ride back to earth.


The Math, as you put it, bears it out easily... once you know the details. As does the fact that an inflation-adjusted 12 BILLION per lunar landing bears out the fact that though we could do it again easily enough, we do not have all that cash for an ego trip lying around... It's all being sucked up by bums and leeches with a vote.


Yeah, the moon landing happened. The return is the easiest part. The hard math was getting out of the EARTH's gravity well in one piece, as well as shooting a gun and hitting a target with a bullet 225,000 miles away.

Blogger braq December 13, 2018 10:21 PM  

It's very simple: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The only 'proof' of the alleged Moon landings is distant satellite photos showing tracks in the surface, NASA videos, and a laser reflector.

The Soviets placed a laser reflector and left some tracks, but never claimed to have landed astronauts.

There is no compelling evidence supporting any humans having walked on (and returned from) the Moon. On the contrary, there are innumerable holes in the narrative and a complete lack of objective reproducibility or photographic/satellite proof of the alleged events.

If I claim to have walked on Mars, it's on me to prove it. The "proof" the US government has provided over the past 50 years just isn't at all compelling or incontrovertible - which type of evidence would be easy to produce (high-definition satellite photos of the claimed landing areas - the sort of photos we can see of our own driveways on Google Maps).

Barring substantive evidence of an incredible claim, no rational being would accept the "Moon landings" narrative on its face.

Blogger Maurice December 13, 2018 10:21 PM  

Boy, this blog post really touched a nerve.

Why is it that so many people won't stop to consider the evidence? Same as with JBP, I guess their ego pride are invested in the narrative and that prevents people from looking at it dispassionately.

Here's an entertaining take: http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/Dave%20McGowan%20-%20Wagging%20The%20Moon%20Doggie.pdf

Blogger DJT December 13, 2018 10:23 PM  

However, this is one of those rare instances where you can back up much of the official story with actual physical evidence. ...

All very well said sir.

Blogger Blacksmith Zeke December 13, 2018 10:24 PM  

The official narrative of 9̶1̶1̶ ̶J̶F̶K̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶W̶o̶r̶l̶d̶ ̶T̶r̶a̶d̶e̶ ̶C̶e̶n̶t̶e̶r̶ ̶B̶o̶m̶b̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶R̶u̶s̶s̶i̶a̶n̶ ̶C̶o̶l̶l̶u̶s̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶H̶o̶l̶o̶c̶a̶u̶s̶t̶ ̶G̶a̶s̶ ̶C̶h̶a̶m̶b̶e̶r̶s̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶U̶S̶S̶ ̶L̶i̶b̶e̶r̶t̶y̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶G̶u̶l̶f̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶T̶o̶n̶k̶i̶n̶ ̶I̶n̶c̶i̶d̶e̶n̶t̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶i̶n̶k̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶L̶u̶s̶i̶t̶a̶n̶i̶a̶ ̶T̶h̶e̶ ̶W̶a̶r̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶N̶o̶r̶t̶h̶e̶r̶n̶ ̶A̶g̶g̶r̶e̶s̶s̶i̶o̶n̶ Moon Missions must be true because of the sheer number of people involved that would have to have been misled or forced to keep their mouths shut in order to become the dominant tale, and that’s just unrealistic.

Impeccable logic.

Blogger Krymneth December 13, 2018 10:25 PM  

"I tend to assume that the landings were faked due to the means, motive, and opportunity heuristic."

The means heuristic fails. 2018 could fake the 1969 moon landing, but 2018 couldn't fake a 2018 moon landing in HD and such. The video Dwight House links to is quite good, and matches my own understanding of the tech of the time. Plus if the moon landing was faked, then we've actually got multiple faked landings, faked images of the moon landing site, faked data from the reflectors left there, faked consistency of that data with everything around it, and, apparently, rockets that were launched and came back down, but faked, faked consistency with atmospheric conditions... we're getting perilously close to hypothesizing that, transitively, all of astronomy is faked.

Along with lack of motive, such a thing is certainly beyond human ability. Editors and writers know how hard it is to hold a story together between even just two or three writers, but this hypothesizes a massive cast of people faking gigabytes upon gigabytes of data over decades (putting the coherence of the Bible to shame) just to...

... hey... what's the motive of this fakery again? And what's the motive of every rival organization to go along with it?

Or are all these rival organizations secretly in league with each other?

You get perilously close to Decartes' Demon torturing a brain in vat if you're willing to hypothesize this level of deception. If this level of skill is being targeted at you, what makes you think you've seen through it? Why not equally say the claims that it's faked are a conspiracy to fake you out?

It isn't even that hard to back that up. Why wouldn't the powers that be see the Great Awakening occurring and stuff every channel they can with every bit of nonsense they can, as people's skeptical barriers come down? Because it pretty much seems they are.

Moon landing skepticism is at least skepticism about something you can't see yourself, but the Flat Earthers have suddenly appeared too in the last week, and I literally have seen the earth curved with my own eyes.

If the threshold is lowered to the point that I am not even permitted to trust the basic progression of scientific knowledge (including the bits I can back up in my real life), and this computer I'm typing on is the result of an alien conspiracy to somehow fool me and actually nothing in it works the way I think it does and there's some conspiracy to make all my programs do what I think they should do and there's a conspiracy to fake all data everywhere about everything, and all history is pure conspiracy with no basis in reality... then you've basically backed into the Scott Adams view that we're all just meat puppets with no ability at all to understand anything. And while I clearly can not understand everything, that doesn't match my experiences in life. My hat's off to the massive, massive team of conspirators conspiring to fake everything about my life; they're doing a literally super-human job.

(That said, do we have the full story? Heck no. Was there probably some sort of secret military stuff done with the landing too? Sure. It would be crazy to think otherwise. But if my adversary has the capability to so thoroughly fake everything, before I'm even born, then I've got no hope of thinking I've penetrated through anything.)

I am a Christian. Truth, rationality, logic, and true science are my heritage. None of these things are advanced by just shredding everything willy-nilly. If the old world is shaking down around us, I'm going to use more of these things, not less!

Blogger Slagenthor December 13, 2018 10:25 PM  

Owen doesn't know WTF he's talking about, and neither does anyone else who says that "we didn't/don't have the technology" or "muh radiation". Rank ignorance plain and simple.

Now Vox makes a good point that given the .gov's track record, it is certainly worth considering that the Official Narrative(TM) can be suspected of something...but the bottom line is that the only reasons for the landings being hoaxed aren't technical in nature. Though I would say that the .gov has gotten both more corrupt and incompetent over time, not less: so extrapolation backwards would suggest that there may have been a point where it was both sufficiently non-corrupt and non-incompetent to where we could expect it to have pulled the landings off.

@Doktor Jeep:

"5400 Miles per hour to escape the moon as compared to over 23000 to get away from Earth. Fair enough. But did that moon lander and it's little rockets really have enough push to do that? I would assume it would take a rocket that is only 17 percent the size of what it takes to get off Earth and that's still much bigger than the moon lander. "

You assume wrong. The size scaling is not linear, the total size explodes (no pun intended) with increasing weight and decreasing mass fraction.. The lunar lander and the command module split the escape velocity of ~5400 miles per hour. the CM stayed in lunar orbit at around 3600 MPH, the two-stage landing module made the descent needing a delta V of that plus overhead for maneuvering. On return the upper-stage lander crew module only needed to get back into lunar orbit to rendezvous with the CM: about 3600 MPH.

The CM entered and exited lunar orbit at around 6000 MPH (above lunar escape velocity) scrubbing 2400 MPH to insert into lunar orbit, and adding 2400 MPH to leave sans some fuel and the considerable weight of the lander lower stage.

Re: Radiation

Folks: not all radiation is created equal. This has got to be one of the tiredest of tired old saws. The charged particle radiation from the solar wind and the Van Allen belts is not the same thing nor has same the penetration and absorption characteristics as ionizing electromagnetic radiation. Do your homework. Seriously.

The trajectory of the Apollo missions skirted the hottest parts of the Van Allen belts and did so quickly to avoid soaking in them. That being said, an unprotected astronaut in nothing more than a space suit could traverse the hottest part of the Van Allen belt at those speeds and not take a lethal dose of radiation.

ISS astronauts accumulate larger dosages than the Apollo astronauts did...and they aren't coming back dead. Unless you are going to tell me the manned ISS is a hoax too.

Blogger Robert Pinkerton December 13, 2018 10:26 PM  

Circulating in the private universe of believers' discourse on Conspirative Theoretics, is the proposition that: Yes, we made it to the Moon, but on the Moon we were confronted by ETs who told us to stay the [bleep] out of space on pain of dire consequences.

Blogger braq December 13, 2018 10:26 PM  

I think it's a Boomer thing; non-Boomers have no problem considering the possibility that the US government faked the Moon landings, but Boomers - having bought into the mainstream brainwashing fully - are incapable of considering the actual evidence (or lack thereof).

Blogger Tars Tarkusz December 13, 2018 10:28 PM  

@113 Yeah. They blew up 1/2 the shuttles and even managed to blow an entire mission because someone didn't think of Metric vs imperial. The 90s were just one mistake after another.
By the time of the Voyagers, NASA was already in a downhill spiral, though the Voyager crafts themselves were the last great thing of NASA. Compare that to the rovers. Several were lost or blown up and the best one has lasted a number of years, but has only gone a few hundred feet on Mars.

Blogger DJT December 13, 2018 10:33 PM  

Reminder: If anything seems impossible today which was possible in the 60s, it is due to demographics. No exceptions.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash December 13, 2018 10:36 PM  

BobsYerUncle wrote:You are now Unfollowed from my Feedly.
Oh My GOD Vox! Did you read that!!!!! He UnFollowed you!
I want you to know, in this time of your greatest tribulation, that we're here for you, all 500 Vile Faceless Minions. If you need to lash out in anger, we await the sting of your lash. If you need a shoulder to cry on, those of us who have appendages approximating shoulders will proffer them. If you need sympathy, we will be there to imitate human emotion and simulate sympathy.
I'm sure that on this darkest of days when @BobsYerUncle abandoned you, destroying your life's work and bringing to nought all the grand schemes and villainous plans you had set in motion, your patient, relentless climb to the pinnacle of power become a freefall into the abyss, on this day of all days, we serve still.
Be brave, Supreme Dark Lord.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener December 13, 2018 10:42 PM  

The fact that men went to the moon is settled science. There's even a consensus about this.

The question is - who, or what, came back?

Blogger DJT December 13, 2018 10:42 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Blacksmith Zeke December 13, 2018 10:43 PM  

https://sputniknews.com/science/201807271066736384-russians-polled-on-moon-landings/

Blogger Slagenthor December 13, 2018 10:43 PM  

One thing that is for sure; getting into space is more difficult than it appears, and what's worse is that it is a hard engineering problem, not a pure science problem.

The payload capacity for certain missions is capable of being swallowed up by rounding errors in design and construction.

I personally know people that were trained in NASA "solder schools" to make uniform solder joints in electronic assemblies. This was necessary because the variability of the total weight of solder blobs in the electronics was large enough that it had to be considered or it could scotch the payload capacity.

Details such as this, combined with the decrease in average IQ's make for a much more depressing explanation of NASA's 90's era failures and the dim prognosis looking forward. There is a minimum average IQ necessary to maintain a technologically-advanced society...probably somewhere in the 90's; likewise there is probably a similar (slightly higher-valued) metric for a space-faring society. Both of which are simply out-of-reach for certain people.

Blogger One Deplorable DT December 13, 2018 10:45 PM  

@118 - Found the guy who has never once bothered looking through the archives. The film is high resolution but the shots are amateur hour. The shots the average person recognizes are the cherry picked ones.

Which is consistent with USAF majors struggling with awkward equipment. Not so much with a Hollywood production.

Blogger DJT December 13, 2018 10:46 PM  

"I think it's a Boomer thing; non-Boomers have no problem considering the possibility that the US government faked the Moon landings, but Boomers - having bought into the mainstream brainwashing fully - are incapable of considering the actual evidence (or lack thereof)."

^A real life smuggie meme.

Blogger StrongCoffee61 December 13, 2018 10:48 PM  

I'm 99.9999% certain the the Moon landings were real.

First of all, it would have been 10,000 times easier to execute these primitive Moon landings than to have a gigantic watertight conspiracy that lasts for decades.

Secondly, the Moon missions were, in fact, very primitive by present standards.
Essentially, NASA took advantage of the relatively low thrust necessary to get from the Earth to the Moon and the tiny amount required to get from the Moon into Earth orbit.

It was, basically, an Earth orbital mission +.
Nothing magical about it.

Blogger redsash December 13, 2018 10:48 PM  

Deep Purple on "Can't happen here" Sang, "people out of work but people on the moon". Has Ritchie Blackmore ever lied to you?

They left mirrors on the moon with which they lazered the moon's distance to an accuracy of inches.

Mass: 6.7 million pounds. Stage 1: 7.5 million pounds of thrust. Stage 2: 1.1 million pounds of thrust. Stage 3 J-2 engine used twice during mission for a 147 second burn for moon orbital and a 347 second burn to return to earth. It weighed 262,000 pounds fueled. This does not include the lunar Lander whose rockets set the craft down on the moon or the orbiters rockets which returned to the Apollo main craft. 24 men orbited the moon, 12 walked on it. Since Aldrin was an elder in a Presbyterian church, most appropriately, the first meal consumed on the moon was the body and blood of the Christ who created it.

A visit to Huntsville, AL and the Marshall Space Flight Center plus the thousands of stills made while on the moon and in moon orbit should convince anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together that Americans did in fact go there.

However, with von Braun dead, decreased wealth, rising debt, and now readily apparent falling IQs, I doubt Americans will ever go back.

Blogger DJT December 13, 2018 10:52 PM  

Since Aldrin was an elder in a Presbyterian church, most appropriately, the first meal consumed on the moon was the body and blood of the Christ who created it.

Beautiful.

Blogger Dangeresque December 13, 2018 10:54 PM  

CoolHand wrote:We beat them to the moon because while NASA proper was fucking around with the RedStone rockets for Mercury on an almost ad-hoc basis, an entirely different set of engineers and manufacturers was designing, testing, and perfecting the Saturn series of rockets that would step our heavy lift capability up with every iteration until the design system was mature and able to produce the Saturn V with enough lift and reliability to do the deed.

If my modern Hollywood understanding of history serves me right, most likely a team of all black woman engineers...

Blogger CoolHand December 13, 2018 10:55 PM  

@143 That's not true either.

They pancaked one lander, DRT. That part is true.

The next two were supposed to last for a year.

One, named Spirit, lasted for five years (landed in 2004, failed to revive after winter hibernation in early 2010) and drove ~4.8 miles.

The other, named Opportunity, lasted from 2004 all the way up until June of THIS year when it failed to wake back up again after a huge dust storm kept it out of direct sunlight for too long. In that ~14 years, it drove ~28 miles.

The last rover, the big one, has been in operation since 2012 and has driven ~12 miles. It is still operating at this time, chugging across Mars at a retired slug's pace.

The shuttles that were lost, were lost because bureaucrats had long since begun to ignore the serious engineers and in fact tended to weed them out of their teams altogether.

Can't have people bring up issues that may ground the fleet indefinitely while the problem is worked and solved. Besides, that shit costs money. Better to ignore it altogether and incinerate some folks on national television.

That part is all too true, mores the pitty.

The space shuttle was a stupid idea from the start, but there was no technical reason to kill as many of them folks as they did. Hubris and bureaucracy just did what it always does.

Blogger Jeff aka Orville December 13, 2018 10:57 PM  

Y'all are raciss as hell. Brothers first settled space https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxNAPqGDwCo

Blogger CoolHand December 13, 2018 10:59 PM  

@155 Touche', sir.

Blogger bobby December 13, 2018 11:00 PM  

Great. We send people here, people on the cusp of some important realizations and recognitions. We tell them "read, critically of course, but with an open mind."

And they come back and look at us pityingly and say "you mean read the guy who says the moon landings were faked?"

As a strategy of separation, this is not going to yield the group you want.

Blogger ZhukovG December 13, 2018 11:01 PM  

So, let me guess. Our esteemed, Dark Lord of the Sith, Darth Vox, was a bit bored and decided to torture a bunch of Gammas?

Indeed, I too treasure every scream.

Blogger nbfdmd December 13, 2018 11:03 PM  

@159:

I agree. This is all HORRIBLE rhetoric for VD and Owen. I don't know what the hell these guys are thinking. Not only does it make them look crazy to the normies AND the people with a science/engineering background, but it also shits all over the greatest achievement of European man, the one achievement that we know will have monuments lasting a million years.

What the hell?

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey December 13, 2018 11:06 PM  

wEz wrote:It's amazing that people get that upset over an agnostic opinion.

I laugh at losers that get their panties in over stuff like this. How dare you doubt!! Lol


It's a challenge on their identity and core assumptions, it speaks to how they perceive just about everything. They will potentially totally freak out on you.

They may be (and often are) the same people who'll delight in saying to a Christian that the Resurrection was a hoax, etc., without a second thought.

But you say something as earth-shaking that the moonshots are fishy? Well how dare you!!!!

Blogger Slagenthor December 13, 2018 11:06 PM  

"However, with von Braun dead, decreased wealth, rising debt, and now readily apparent falling IQs, I doubt Americans will ever go back."

Not only that...but there is a SJW racial political angle to this as well.

read Norman Mailer's Of a Fire On The Moon to hear a bunch of radical leftist identity horseshit about why it was a bad idea, including hatred, jealousy from leftist black intellectuals dismayed that 'whitey was on the moon". Sentiments expressed like those in Gil Scott-Heron's poem; "Whitey on the Moon", a segment shared:

A rat done bit my sister Nell
With whitey on the moon
Her face and arms began to swell
And whitey's on the moon
I can't pay no doctor bills
But whitey's on the moon
Ten years from now I'll be payin' still
While whitey's on the moon
The man just upped my rent last night
Cause whitey's on the moon

Blogger Thebrainfuggler December 13, 2018 11:07 PM  

Would the conspiracy include Apollo 8's orbit around the Moon as being fake?

Blogger D. December 13, 2018 11:17 PM  

Apollo 17 7 December 1972

Nixon won and turned off the tv show. That is all.

Blogger Johnny December 13, 2018 11:18 PM  

You people. You are son naive. You probably think that Vox Day actually wrote those comments. I have it on good authority that it was actually his evil twin brother who only recently escaped from the cage in the basement and is now on the lose. Rumor has it that Vox himself is being held prisoner in Vlad's cage and hoping against hope that the Dread Ilk will some day bust him out. But it can't be done until we decode the frequencies and Q has yet to release even one.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine December 13, 2018 11:22 PM  

Melt aluminum? Yes, well this is an aluminum alloy.

Can't see the stars in a vacuum or near-vacuum because they actually occupy very very little of an angle when their light isn't being dispersed through miles of atmosphere.

As for the thing with the sun/window/camera, the legitimate reason for wanting to block out the sun is you wouldn't be seeing jack if you didn't. The only way to disprove the assertion that it was taken from LEO, however, would be to recognize/compare the visible landmasses.

"Irregularly shaped circle" can also be caused by the sun not being directly behind the spacecraft... this isn't even difficult to think through. It could just be that the entire "visible" surface of the Earth isn't at that time illuminated by Sol.

Arm? Or he accidentally panned away from the window? Can't tell.

As for the whole radiation thing, it's possible the guy saying they can't do it now is exaggerating, or/and that NASA has turned into a parasite employment program since then (it's definitely a parasite employment program, the question is when it tipped over the edge) and is making excuses why they won't do it again.


The above would be the standard explanations.

As for me? I find that no part of my loyalty, psyche, identity, or sense of worth is wrapped up in whether we went or not. I wouldn't be particularly surprised if we didn't. Wouldn't that be a hell of a blow to scientmysts everywhere. Can't even get off the Earth, sounds potentially Biblical.

Blogger Lazarus December 13, 2018 11:22 PM  

nbfdmd wrote:the one achievement that we know will have monuments lasting a million years.

Unfortunately, the monuments will not have the telemetry tapes, that were erased to copy episodes of Friends.

A mere oversight of no consequence, hypnotized guy.

Blogger Krymneth December 13, 2018 11:22 PM  

Since a major point of contention seems to be the idea that "we lost the technology" is absurd, let me put it in terms anyone can understand: Imagine you just wrote a novel. Three years of your life and muse poured out into 500 pages of handwritten text containing your masterwork.

Now imagine that you accidentally set it on fire and it is completely destroyed.

It's gone. The fact that you know your alphabet is not relevant. That you know English is not relevant. That you how to write is not relevant. The fact that you vaguely remember how it went is not relevant. If you want to write it again, it will still take you a very significant fraction of how long it took to write in the first place, and it will probably change as it goes too as your life and experiences and thoughts move on. The value is not in the brute knowledge of word definitions and grammar, but the pages and pages of details that created a coherent whole.

Technology is a lot more like that than non-engineers understand. Knowing how things materially expand in various thermal regimes and knowing about elements and basically everything you learn in school is not what technology looks like. Computers are not "knowing how transistors work" or even "knowing how to make really small transisitors". Those are the bricks. But the cathedral is made up of years of effort, and exploing n-th degree consequences of those things, and finding little fiddly solutions to all sorts of problems.

Google, and the company I work for which is not Google and not evil, have a lot of "technology". But it's almost entirely just text. But... it's gigabytes of text, much of which was generated at a pace far, far slower than you could type, because it's quite hard and fiddly text. If you deleted it all tomorrow, and I went to work, the fact that we still pretty much know how it all worked still would not allow us to recover in one day. We'd long be out of business before we even had a prototype hack of our most critical systems up.

We've actually lost tons of technology, in a way verifiable by anybody here. Try ordering a million Bakelite analog phones. We literally can't produce them today, even though we could do it in the 1950s. We'd have to reconstruct the tech to do it. The development would go far more quickly nowadays, but we'd still have to develop it, and what we'd develop would still not be what they used in the 1950s to do it. The technology is gone.

Heck, anyone who's tried to repair a mechanical device from 30+ years ago has experienced this first hand. The parts are gone, and nobody has the technology to make them. It's not that humanity doesn't know "how" to make a engine head gasket for a 1955 Chrysler Windsor... it's just that nobody has the technology anymore, and modern tech still can't do it in a cost-effective manner for the several dozen people who need one.

The precise 1969 moon landing technology being lost is actually exactly what you'd expect. Even had we kept going to the moon routinely, by now, we would not be able to construct a 1969 moon lander. We'd be able to construct 2018 landers, and we'd probably still have everyone around who built the 2012 landers so we can fix them if we need to, and we'd have a back stock of 1998 lander parts, but once they're gone, they're gone. So if we did go to the moon, and then discovered there frankly wasn't much reason to keep going, losing the technology is not some mysterious conspiratorial mystery... it's the expected result of normal forces in operation.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd December 13, 2018 11:25 PM  

StrongCoffee61 wrote:I'm 99.9999% certain the the Moon landings were real.

You're probably right. That doesn't mean NASA didn't lie about it.

Consider the possibility that the whole ``moon landings were faked'' thing is a government disinformation program, with credible, false evidence of fake landings planted in NASA by NASA, to sidetrack and discredit conspiracy theorists who were onto something real somewhere else. Maybe there was some shred of truth behind Richard Hoagland's garbage?

We should probably also consider the possibility that Vox's pattern detector got a false positive, but really, Vox has a better track record than Uncle Sam, for being right, and for honesty.

Blogger Rhys December 13, 2018 11:29 PM  

Just look at how many people are bombing this post right now, people who I never see here normally, talking about how they lost all respect for Vox. This landing is truly the ultimate sacred cow of progressive orthodoxy and it's rather creepy how many "right wingers" seem to worship it.

Blogger Welsh Woodsman December 13, 2018 11:31 PM  

Very plausible...honestly wouldn't be surprising in the least.
Since 1865 we have been living in what I call the " Age of the Lie" .
It's pretty much reached it's peak over the last decade ...but there are enough dupes to keep it kicking for awhile more.

Blogger Allen Skeens December 13, 2018 11:31 PM  

Thanks to you we know retards exist.

Blogger Solaire Of Astora December 13, 2018 11:34 PM  

@159

It's great actually. People who flip out like autists over someone asking a question are terrible.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd December 13, 2018 11:38 PM  

Rhys wrote:Just look at how many people are bombing this post right now, people who I never see here normally, talking about how they lost all respect for Vox. This landing is truly the ultimate sacred cow of progressive orthodoxy and it's rather creepy how many "right wingers" seem to worship it.

The reactions are interesting.

Blogger AdognamedOp December 13, 2018 11:38 PM  

Fun thread. At least I don't have to see JP's name again.
Signed, Proud Moonie, but I don't sell roses.

Blogger D. December 13, 2018 11:42 PM  

Apollo 11 16 July 1969

Nixon won 1968

Apollo 13 11 April 1970

Apollo 17 7 December 1972

Nixon won 1972 Turn off tv show. No dead astronauts.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener December 13, 2018 11:45 PM  

The Holocaust is more of a sacred cow than the moon landing, but expressing certain unpopular beliefs about the Holocaust will get you a lengthy prison sentence in many countries. Questioning the moon landing is a refreshing way to go full heretic without all the risk.

Blogger Rhys December 13, 2018 11:48 PM  

Noah, for what it's worth, I'm willing to bet it's a lot more controversial to question the moon landings in America than in other countries, and likewise it's more controversial to question the holocaust in Europe than in the US.

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey December 13, 2018 11:49 PM  

Krymneth wrote:It's not that humanity doesn't know "how" to make a engine head gasket for a 1955 Chrysler Windsor... it's just that nobody has the technology anymore, and modern tech still can't do it in a cost-effective manner for the several dozen people who need one.

True, but what's not true is that nobody is saying we can't build cars anymore and "See the USA, in your Chevrolet!" just like Doris Day.

In that video Owen presented an astronaut -- in a NASA spokesman role in an interview at a fabrication shop -- who said, "We don't have the technology anymore. We destroyed it." And he had a NASA produced video about Orion with engineers who said they are trying to figure out how to leave low-earth orbit and how all this works.

So the origin of this idea that NASA has lost the technology comes from ... official NASA.

Plenty of us have been asked to do things like go back and help out maintaining old 25 year old code, only to ask white as sheet, "Holy Cow, that's not that old Perl project, is it?" So we understand the point about the difficulty of maintaining often stubborn techs and old, foggy synapse-paths. We full well might say, "It's going to take some time to get the chops back," and that's understandable.

What nobody ever says is, "I lost the technology. I destroyed it."

Never heard that one before.

Blogger Damelon Brinn December 13, 2018 11:49 PM  

So, let me guess. Our esteemed, Dark Lord of the Sith, Darth Vox, was a bit bored and decided to torture a bunch of Gammas?

The way they react, you'd think this was the first time Vox broached the topic.

Blogger PCA December 13, 2018 11:50 PM  

The moon landings are one of the main pillars of 20th century American patriotism. Take them away, and the snobby Europeans suddenly seem to have a point about America having gone from barbarism to decadence without ever reaching civilization.

Fake landings, fiat money, fake boobs, fake smiles, fake (zio-)christianity, fake suburban houses, zombie consumerism, shockingly little great art to speak of, ugly cities everywhere, constant warmongering for the Tribe...it's a grim picture.

Blogger Better Left Unsaid December 13, 2018 11:55 PM  

If we relied on NASA to get to the moon it would never have happened. NASA wrote the contracts and supplied the money but it was American private companies that did the work. The experts/scientist said it couldn't be done. The engineers said it could and Kennedy went with them.
Engineers, overwhelmingly white midwesterners, got us to the moon.

Blogger Tars Tarkusz December 13, 2018 11:55 PM  

CoolHand wrote:They pancaked one lander, DRT. That part is true.


I'm pretty sure it was 2. One blew up and the other one failed to wake up after the landing sequence was initiated while the craft was in orbit around Mars.

The rovers have been a total failure when compared to the Voyagers. These are decades beyond their design date.
CoolHand wrote:

The shuttles that were lost, were lost because bureaucrats had long since begun to ignore the serious engineers and in fact tended to weed them out of their teams altogether.

NASA was a bureaucracy in the 60s too.
Once NASA accomplished the Moon landing, they decided that it needed women and blacks. It's been downhill ever since.

Anonymous Anonymous December 13, 2018 11:56 PM  

It's always fun counting how many people in a thread think they're clever while starting their argument with "I believe ..."

Blogger Azure Amaranthine December 13, 2018 11:58 PM  

"Consider the possibility that the whole ``moon landings were faked'' thing is a government disinformation program, with credible, false evidence of fake landings planted in NASA by NASA, to sidetrack and discredit conspiracy theorists who were onto something real somewhere else. Maybe there was some shred of truth behind Richard Hoagland's garbage?"

This is good shit.

Also, the trees were definitely epileptic. You can see them shaking.

It's not that I find these ideas impossible, it's that we're at the point where I'd be willing to consider just about anything at least slightly seriously.

I need alcohol for this thread. No better use for it.

"Just look at how many people are bombing this post right now, people who I never see here normally, talking about how they lost all respect for Vox."

MPAI. Unfortunately that doesn't really prove anything either way, except that MPAI.

The same goes for rhetoric speakers' reactions when things they really, really want to believe are questioned. Doesn't prove anything either way.

Good shit regardless.

Blogger Were-Puppy December 13, 2018 11:59 PM  

@44 flyingtiger
The Nazis who have been living at the moon base on the dark side of the moon since 1945 are laughing at us. They cannot believe how naive we are.
---

This is false because everybody knows the moon is flat.

Blogger D. December 13, 2018 11:59 PM  

"Fake landings, fiat money, fake boobs, fake smiles, fake (zio-)christianity, fake suburban houses, zombie consumerism, shockingly little great art to speak of, ugly cities everywhere, constant warmongering for the Tribe...it's a grim picture."

I like living in America 1960-1988. White folks doing their thing.

Blogger One Deplorable DT December 13, 2018 11:59 PM  

@180 - What nobody ever says is, "I lost the technology. I destroyed it."

Never heard that one before.


And what do you think happens when a production line is closed down? You think they cover the equipment, seal up the building, and make sure everything is preserved to be used 50 years later if someone asks 'why can't we do this any more'?

No. It's scrapped. Often pretty quickly. If we were to try and make new F-22 Raptors today our startup costs would be a significant fraction of the original startup costs because despite spare parts production the line itself is gone. And we just finished the last Raptor in 2012.

Corporations don't leave useless stuff laying around. They repurpose it, scrap it, or trash it.

Blogger One Deplorable DT December 14, 2018 12:03 AM  

@184 - The rovers have been a total failure when compared to the Voyagers. These are decades beyond their design date.

In fairness the Voyagers are nuclear powered while most of the rovers have been solar powered. We'll see how long the nuclear powered Curiosity goes.

Blogger Thebrainfuggler December 14, 2018 12:08 AM  

If the Moon landing turns out to be a lie, can this be the flash point for America's Yellow Vest revolt?

Blogger Nate December 14, 2018 12:08 AM  

PT Barnum would be proud... proved right again...a sucker is born every minute.

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey December 14, 2018 12:09 AM  

I gotta say one more thing: remember Tang? Remember food-sticks? I used to insist on having Tang and food sticks in my lunchbox like a huge ton of other Gen-X boys because we were training to be astronauts.

As everybody knew, real astronauts drank Tang and ate food-sticks. These were but two of a huge body of what they called "spin-offs" from the space program. Just a yuge body of these spin-offs from the space program, and awe of this was regularly summoned in schools.

NASA used to come to Congress every year with a detailed list of all these spin-offs from the space program and how they were advancing American quality of life, American superiority of manufacturing, just about American everything. They had it all broken down, how this NASA need led to X which led to Y which led to Z which led to such things as Tang, and food-sticks, and better aluminum foil, and whatever.

NASA's official magazine for years was called, "Spin-Off", and besides whatever science they might put in it the important thing to know was what were the spin-offs and how the space program produced these amazing spin-offs.

So, they were tracking technologies and cataloging these technologies and never failing to claim as much credit as possible for as much as they possibly could. They were eagle-eyed hawks tracking down possible offshoot of NASA technology and reporting to Congress and to the American public how vital NASA technology was always on the move, always improving lives.

And these eagle-eyed hawks lost and destroyed their moonshot tech? Really?

Well much of it was a pile of lies anyway. You see, they lie. That Tang and the food-sticks? Yeah, they never were NASA technology at all. Double-check your Space Pens. What NASA wanted more than anything was money. Like any other bureaucracy. They'd easily lie to get it, and they did.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd December 14, 2018 12:11 AM  

Were-Puppy wrote:This is false because everybody knows the moon is flat.

Dude, the earth is flat, because I can see it's flat. The moon is round, because I can see it's round. If it comes down to you or my lyin' eyes, the eyes have it.

Blogger The Deplorable Podunk Ken Ramsey December 14, 2018 12:12 AM  

One Deplorable DT wrote:And what do you think happens when a production line is closed down?

As I said, it's customary to expect that to build again will take some time to get the chops back. What's unusual is to say you lost the technology.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd December 14, 2018 12:13 AM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:This is good shit.

That was a second glass of cheap wine.

Blogger bob kuk mando ( Maps are only Meaningful insofar as they correspond to Reality ) December 14, 2018 12:17 AM  

Owen is mad about the Thermosphere.

well, the International Space Station supposedly orbits WITHIN THE HEART of the Thermosphere, at 250 miles elevation, give or take.

and GeoSynch is WAAAAAAAAYYY up above that, at 22 thousand miles.

therefore, if the Thermosphere is *supposed* to be a significant issue
THEN
you're also claiming that the ISS has never been manned.

and you're also raising serious questions about what is supposed to be serving all of our GeoSynch communications tech.


so far as Bill Whittle is concerned, just ask Bill why he's spraying poison on innocent civilians every time he flies his piston pusher airplane.

AvGas / 100 octane Low Lead means that Bill is dusting innocent school children with the equivalent of lead paint chips every time he flies.

the purpose of this question is that Chemtrails are another conspiracy that drive Bill nuts.

Blogger Greg December 14, 2018 12:21 AM  

And that's how you get someone to stop reading the Bible and change the channel to Red Ice TV.

Blogger bob kuk mando ( Maps are only Meaningful insofar as they correspond to Reality ) December 14, 2018 12:21 AM  

so far as deleting old records is concerned, almost all of the Buick production records before 1975 are gone.

GM seems to have either lost them or destroyed them.

now, i'll grant you, the Moon Landing would seem to be just a teensy bit more important than whether or not a particular VIN number was produced with a certain number...

and the whole idea that they've destroyed the technical drawings for the Apollo engines simply boggles the mind.

Blogger Jack Low December 14, 2018 12:23 AM  

Hi Vox,

You and Owen have both brought up "why didn't we go back?"

But if they did, can you explain why they would tell you? Especially if they did so with black budget funds and/or technology.

Also, if you could control the most strategically important and ultimate high ground do you think it might make sense to conceal that?

Additionally, there's $21 trillion missing from the HUD and the Army. About as much as the whole national debt. Look up Skidmore and Fitts and their documentation on the matter.

Here's the most vanilla source I could find:

https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/msu-scholars-find-21-trillion-in-unauthorized-government-spending-defense-department-to-conduct/

Where does one even begin to put that amount of money? It's too much for black jack and hookers. It's more than every pleasure yacht on the planet.

I bet it would buy a pretty sweet moon base though.

1 – 200 of 298 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts