ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, April 01, 2019

One giant hoax for mankind

Most people around the world do not believe the US government ever landed anyone on the Moon. A Moon Landing skeptic summarizes his reasons for skepticism concerning one giant hoax for mankind:
I am not going to discuss all the evidence presented in these sources. I can only recommend them and a few others on the way. I will simply sort what I see as the most convincing arguments, add a few recent developments, give my best conclusion, place the issue in the broader historical perspective, and draw some lessons from it all about the Matrix we have been living in.

First of all, we need to be clear about the aim of such an inquiry. We should not expect any conclusive proof that Neil Armstrong, or any other Apollo moon-walker, didn’t walk on the moon. That cannot be proven, absent some indisputable evidence that he was somewhere else (orbiting around the earth, for example) at the precise time he claimed to have spent on the moon. In most cases, you cannot prove that something didn’t happen, just like you cannot prove that something doesn’t exist. You cannot prove, for example, that unicorns don’t exist. That is why the burden of proof rests on anyone who claims they do exist. If I say to you I walked on the moon, you will ask me to prove it, and you will not take as an answer: “No, you prove that I’m didn’t go.” Does it make a difference if I am the NASA? It does, because calling the NASA a liar will inevitably lead you to question everything you have been led to believe by your government and mainstream media. It is a giant leap indeed! Just like children of abusive parents, decent citizens of abusive governments will tend to repress evidence of their government’s malevolence. And so, people choose to believe in the moon landings, without even asking for proofs, simply because: “They wouldn’t have lied to us for more than 50 years, would they? The media would have exposed the lie long ago (remember the Watergate)! And what about the 250,000 people involved with the project? Someone would have talked.” I can actually hear myself speaking like that just 10 years ago. All these objections must indeed be addressed.

But before that, the scientific thing to do is to start with the question: can the NASA prove they sent men to the moon? If the answer is no, the next step is to decide if we take their word for it or not. That requires pondering what could have been the reasons for such a massive lie. We will get to that.

But, first of all, can the NASA provide hard evidence of the moon landings?
As for those who resort to the logical argument that the Russians would have disputed the Moon landings if they were faked, they should probably keep in mind that most Russians don't believe that the US ever landed anyone on the Moon.
Decades since 1969, many Russians are still unable to believe in that "small step" that Armstrong took on the Moon. True, the so-called 'lunar conspiracy' was invented in the U.S., but no other country in the world has so fully embraced this indestructible conspiracy theory as Russia. Many Russians believe that the U.S. government staged a complex hoax, and that the alleged Moon landing was in fact filmed in Hollywood. At the moment, this myth is NOT believed by - brace yourself - only 24 percent of Russians!
I haven't believed in the veracity of the Moon landings ever since seeing the interview with the Apollo astronauts. And, of course, I always reject every Official Story endorsed by the U.S. government on principle, because it has always - ALWAYS - proven to be less than entirely true for one reason or another.

Labels: ,

177 Comments:

Blogger matveidaniilovich April 01, 2019 8:05 AM  

I’ve been saying it for a while, and this article suggests it; the real reason people doubt the moon landing isn’t because of evidence, but they’ve lost faith in America. As more people lose faith these hoax theories will gain more and more traction.

Blogger Lisa Merkel April 01, 2019 8:11 AM  

Do people disbelieve probes on Mars? I realize that putting a human on the Moon and more importantly getting him back is not the same engineering problem, but I would think there is a great deal of overlap.

Blogger Nathan Bruno April 01, 2019 8:15 AM  

I only believe that there's some truth to the story since Buzz Aldrin is one of ours, and he says he took communion on the moon.

Blogger Daniele Grech Pereira April 01, 2019 8:15 AM  

The way the writer refers to, "the NASA" lets me know how precise he is with logos.

Blogger McChuck April 01, 2019 8:21 AM  

And the Flat Earthers had a conference last year. MPAI.

Blogger Seredusc April 01, 2019 8:21 AM  

Yes the astronauts look and act like beaten and sleep deprived dogs at the press conference, after just landing on the freaking moon! (allegedly) The youtube comments seem to be in agreement that is was fake as well.

Blogger Taze Roiu April 01, 2019 8:22 AM  

It was Les Operatione Lunar See ;()

Blogger Blunt Force April 01, 2019 8:42 AM  

I'll only believe man walked on the moon when Israel goes there.

Blogger Salt April 01, 2019 8:44 AM  

If Apollo 11 didn't land on the Moon, then what also of missions 12 to 17?

That's a lot of people to keep a hoax quiet for so long.

Happy April Fools Day.

Blogger Aracuru April 01, 2019 8:50 AM  

For the moon landing skeptics: what specifically is needed to reach the threshold of "proof"?

Blogger Jez April 01, 2019 8:51 AM  

April fools.

Blogger JG April 01, 2019 8:51 AM  

Apollo 11 landed on the moon when I was nine. I lived and breathed the Apollo missions leading up to the moon landing, watching and reading every bit of information I could find, and building models of the rocket and lander. I watched the broadcast from the moon when Neil Armstrong stepped out onto the moon's surface. I watched all the subsequent missions as well, even though most everyone else ignored the rest apart from Apollo 13.

Could the whole thing have been a hoax? Maybe, but I doubt it.

Blogger The Gaelic Lands April 01, 2019 8:52 AM  

Jay Weidner made two great videos on Stanley Kubrick and what he was working to reveal in his films. To me it's now obvious that Kubrick was involved in filming the supposed moon footage, and was eventually killed for revealing too much of their inner workings in Eyes Wide Shut.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan April 01, 2019 8:52 AM  

Problem with conspiracy theorizing is that is always quickly taken over by nutters "who know" and that is that.

Friend of mine was like that, I actually was asking and trying to answer questions about the OKC bombing and my friend just knew it was a bomb planted by the ATF and that was that no sense of inquiry.

So asking questions about the Van Allen radiation belt is great but lo and behold someone will just "know" that the VA belt is death incarnate and that is that. So on our side instead of people learning the sciences of space travel we get a quasi religion order of Knowers.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd April 01, 2019 8:56 AM  

Nathan Bruno wrote:I only believe that there's some truth to the story since Buzz Aldrin is one of ours, and he says he took communion on the moon.

The best lies have a big core of truth in them. Just for a start, ``the Apollo 11 moon landing videos were faked'' and ``Apollo 11 landed on the moon'' are not mutually exclusive statements.

Vox keeps saying that whatever happened, it wasn't the official story. I gather he's basing that on the government's exemplary record of commitment to truth.

Blogger Jez April 01, 2019 9:00 AM  

In all seriousness, the chances of it having been a hoax get slimmer every year. The Soviets sent numerous probes and landers to the moon well after the Apollo missions. The Indians have sent at least one, the Chinese and Japanese several each. A Japanese probe even photographed a number of the Apollo landing sites; the equipment and rover tracks are clearly visible.

The Soviets and Chinese in particular, and to a lesser extent the Indians, had the vested interest *and* the radar and radio capabilities during the time of the Apollo missions to have determined if the launches had remained in Earth orbit. None have ever called BS or come close to it.

Blogger dc.sunsets April 01, 2019 9:03 AM  

Soaring stories of humans conquering impossible odds are heartwarming, as were once stories of soldiers courageously vanquishing foes.

These are the tales spun by shamans to enthrall the tribe's members who surround the campfire. They are the Public Relations media packets people exchange to confirm their wild-eyed optimism about an endlessly rising trend of wonder on which they ride.

Borrow-to-Spend.
Open Borders/Magic Dirt/Race-and-Sex equalism.
Open-armed embrace of intolerable sex practices.
Forever-rising asset markets and prosperity.
Utter complacency toward the panopticon erected around us.

These are symptoms of a population of people caught-up in a social mania that exceeds the wildest conjecture of how large the amplitude or duration of such a thing could be.

The shared "map" of reality by which people today navigate their lives and actions is entirely cut free from the territory it claims to represent. Belief that men traversed an environment (space beyond Earth's magnetic field) multiple times more hazardous than the bottom of the Marianas Trench, and belief that it's but a matter of time before men (and, of course, WOMEN---because Affirmative Action applies most to prestigious positions) spend months in that hazard, with no possible hope of rescue or problem-remediation, on the way to Mars) are just additional symptoms of a mass delusion larger than Jupiter.

Blogger Sam Gem April 01, 2019 9:05 AM  

@Lisa Merkel

There is sufficient evidence to doubt the Mars Rover as well.

NASA: Never A Straight Answer.

Blogger dc.sunsets April 01, 2019 9:08 AM  

For those who think no conspiracy involving tens of thousands of people could ever exist in "secret," I only observe that the masses of men can only "see" what their minds already accept.

How many "see" that when the price of a stock or bond rises, the market-clearing quantity of it literally INVERTS the supply-demand prediction of Econ 101?

Turn on CNBC and watch our modern shamans "explain" why today's rationalization for a rally is a literal inversion of yesterday's.

It is (to me) simply ASTONISHING what exists in plain sight yet remains utterly invisible to essentially everyone. The truth may be "out there," and it can often be accessed with little effort, but that doesn't change One Damn Thing.

Blogger Lazarus April 01, 2019 9:15 AM  

Jez wrote:In all seriousness, the chances of it having been a hoax get slimmer every year. The Soviets sent numerous probes and landers to the moon well after the Apollo missions. The Indians have sent at least one, the Chinese and Japanese several each. A Japanese probe even photographed a number of the Apollo landing sites; the equipment and rover tracks are clearly visible.

The Soviets and Chinese in particular, and to a lesser extent the Indians, had the vested interest *and* the radar and radio capabilities during the time of the Apollo missions to have determined if the launches had remained in Earth orbit. None have ever called BS or come close to it.


None of your evidence is relevant to successfully sending living beings through the Van Allen belt.

Blogger Cataline Sergius April 01, 2019 9:18 AM  

My preferred interpretation is that Apollo 11 did land on the moon but there was something ELSE going on up there when they did it.

I came up with that after I read Inherit the Stars by James Hogan.

Blogger flyingtiger April 01, 2019 9:20 AM  

You mean the moon landing was not filmed in the Arizona desert by Stanley Kubrick? In those days NASA always hire the best.
#16 is right. If other nations had proof that it was a fake, they would not hesitate to reveal it.

Blogger Unknown April 01, 2019 9:25 AM  

I suspect that POTUS is "putting a man back on the moon" to put NASA to the test. We'll all get to see NASA make or break with our own eyes.

Blogger Colin Flaherty's baby momma April 01, 2019 9:27 AM  

It's all fake, and you know why? Africans were going to be the first in space, but they were held down by White Supremacy.

One great aspect of the official story is: only White Christian men went to the moon.
At some point they will rewrite it as black transwomen, but for now beLievers have to admit: White racists are superior, or gov/media deceives & hoaxes the public on a massive scale.

Only White men invented rockets, airplanes, computers, internet, telecommunications, and over 99% of all major technological advancements.
However, you may never consider that better than achievements of other types of primates who, despite obsessing over all these toys, couldn't develop the wheel. Because that's breedism & subspeciesism, which is the real evil in our world today.

Blogger Jez April 01, 2019 9:27 AM  

Lazarus, do you know what the Van Allen Belts are?

Blogger PragmaticTroll April 01, 2019 9:29 AM  

Could not any claim of the Moon Landing being fake also be applied to WWII? There's old hardware lying around, witness testimony, motive, missing evidence, etc.

It mostly wasn't government as well. Lots of private contractors. And most importantly, lots of WASPs.

Blogger 1st Earl Hardwicke April 01, 2019 9:35 AM  

There's still something transcendental to me about just the idea of going to the moon, or even into outer space. Although much of the Earth, still isn't inhabited in places. With enough heavy equipment, intelligence and lack of Ego; the depths of the oceans and of the Earth could be colonised.

It's a pity how much is wasted in the consumer society. White goods and E-Waste especially; with built in obsolescence, design flaws or just plain unnecessary. Even mass produced clothes and shoes. The quality of American or British made clothing, compared to the 2nd or 3rd world is massive, considering how long the goods have lasted. Is it something like 80% of purchase are controlled by women in the market place? I heard that from Jordan Peterson... But when you think of things like perfumes Malls and raising children, I can believe it. Plunder!

As long as there's water and available energy, what's to stop expansion. There's often a big fuss made about the microorganisms that can survive almost next to lava.

Blogger Harry Spitz April 01, 2019 9:35 AM  

We can see the descent stages and tracks from the lunar rover for some of the landing sites on the moon through telescopes on Earth.
The moon landings were not a hoax.

Blogger Aracuru April 01, 2019 9:36 AM  

Lazarus wrote:None of your evidence is relevant to successfully sending living beings through the Van Allen belt.

They didn't go directly through the Van Allen belt. Perhaps you should read up on how they accomplished the task. It's stunning how many people how such strong opinions about topics they know so little about.

Blogger Callmebluesummers April 01, 2019 9:38 AM  

The moon landing was real
A moon landing was faked.

Both could be true. I believe we got there with anti gravity and zero point energy, and the moon may of had earth like conditions. The no moon landing theory was created as misdirection.

Blogger Warunicorn April 01, 2019 9:38 AM  

Fake or not, I still don't like overarching, overreaching, nanny government and its ability to screw over its citizens carte blanche. That is the truth and will never change.

Blogger Weak April 01, 2019 9:40 AM  

Citing as relevant the percentages of common people believing in something sciency is a fallacy. 1) MPAI. 2) that's the same bullshit climate hoaxers use. 3) whether or not random Russians believe something happened or not doesn't have any bearing on if it actually did

Blogger Damelon Brinn April 01, 2019 9:43 AM  

I don't suppose most Americans would have believed it if the USSR had claimed to have gone to the Moon, even though they were ahead of us in the space race up to that point. But post-WWII America is awesome and can do anything, so why not?

Blogger pnq8787 April 01, 2019 9:45 AM  

If the Holohoax is symbolic of man's original sin of nationalism. Then the Moon Hoax is symbolic of man's redemption through the multicultural ideals of America. Both myths were popularized in the 60's.

Blogger Cataline Sergius April 01, 2019 9:47 AM  

For those that are interested. This nerd came up with a CG verion of the unrealized Soviet Manned Lunar Expedition.

Like I said, "for those that are interested."

Although it does raise the question, if Apollo 11 was faked, why didn't the Russians do it first?

Blogger Andrew Brown April 01, 2019 9:52 AM  

They claim their indisputable proof is in the pictures they took. Apparently the lighting was too 'advanced' back then, so the picture couldn't have been created.
Yet I've never heard any explanation to why there was no dust on the landing gear after landing and how the camera moved up as the left? Did they leave a camera dude up there?
Also can't you prove a negative? We can provide sufficient evidence mammoths or T-Rexes are all dead but does that count as not existing?

Blogger SemiSpook37 April 01, 2019 9:53 AM  

@21

I'm in agreement with this interpretation. Granted, I haven't read the book referenced, but it's more of the inference that something unexpected happened amongst those involved that leads me to that conclusion, and somebody wants folks to keep quiet about it because reasons.

@22

"If other nations had proof that it was a fake, they would not hesitate to reveal it.

I think that's what gives the "Official" story that plausible deniability. Something tells me that if the inference is correct, then Nixon got on the Hotline with Brezhnev, let him know what was going on, and the two came to some sort of mutual agreement to not publicly discuss it.

That's my thoughts on this; however, I could most certainly be wrong.

Blogger grendel April 01, 2019 9:59 AM  

From the article: "The percentage rises to 69 percent among people with higher education: in other words, the more educated people are, and the more capable of rational reasoning, the less they believe in the moon landings."

Spending more time in higher education isn't an indicator of being able to think more logically, but of being more indoctrinated into leftist shibboleths. Changing some words yields "The percentage rises to 69 percent among people with higher education: in other words, the more educated people are, and the more capable of rational reasoning, the less they believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Blogger DraveckysHumerus April 01, 2019 10:03 AM  

It is "belts," plural, and over time they'll arrive, fluxuate and disappear. The Apollo missions did not transit the more energetically dense regions named for Van Allen. Travel through the less damaging regions was brief, and the astronauts received low doses, in fact, they were zapped with relatively more particles at distances farther from earth. Americans walked and even drove around on the moon. Gentlemen, may your April Fool's Day pranks bring you much laughter, traditionally I plan mine months in advance, they usually succeed, and I have survived retaliation.

Blogger One Deplorable DT April 01, 2019 10:03 AM  

I can't tell if the linked article is an April Fool's joke or not. The article is certainly a well constructed April Fool's joke if it is one. But a few of the claims are silly even by Apollo conspiracy standards.

In any case, this debate isn't going to last much longer. SpaceX is planning to orbit the moon in 2023. It's a given that they will attempt a landing soon after that. It's hard to say if the first landing will be near an Apollo site or somewhere else. But if a billionaire is willing to pay to orbit the moon, it's a sure bet someone will pay to land near an Apollo site.

Trump has also given NASA the goal of returning by 2024, and Pence has said if NASA's current favored contractors can't accomplish it, they will turn to someone who can (i.e. SpaceX).

Absent a major civilization setback we will see men on the moon...once again...this coming decade.

Blogger xevious2030 April 01, 2019 10:05 AM  

@10 We may have reached the threshold where there is not any. With technology today, we’ll probably start seeing and hearing dead actors in their new feature length roles. Potentially provided entirely by AI. In a movie filmed entirely in a computer, automatically generated by social media indicated trend interest, a few days after this interest is identified. Or instantly, based on archival recording of anticipated interest, tailored to each viewer we can only really enjoy talking with what we don’t realize are our online bot friends. Talked momentarily with a lady in line that said technology is probably getting to where people can not keep up. Told her she’s probably right, or will be soon if not. She smiled and nodded nicely in thoughtful recognition of her idea.

Blogger Damelon Brinn April 01, 2019 10:08 AM  

I watched the broadcast from the moon

Sort of. The signal from Apollo wasn't TV-broadcast-ready; it had to be converted from the much lower scan rate of the cameras used. NASA accomplished this by displaying the signal from Apollo on a kinescope, pointing a broadcast TV camera at it through a peephole, and recording and broadcasting that. (Details in NASA PDF here.)

So what everyone actually watched was the video capture of a series of images appearing on a kinescope. That means there's no way to know the images were "live" or where they were coming from, other than taking their word for it.

Blogger Dave Dave April 01, 2019 10:09 AM  

@22. Not necessarily. The opportunity cost of revealing their hand is very high. Dropping that information at a time when the US is vulnerable will cause the most damage. They can very easily recover from it at this point in time.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd April 01, 2019 10:17 AM  

You mean the moon landing was not filmed in the Arizona desert by Stanley Kubrick? In those days NASA always hire the best.

Of course not in Arizona. Kubrick insisted on filming on location.

Blogger DraveckysHumerus April 01, 2019 10:18 AM  

It is "belts," plural, and over time they'll arrive, fluxuate and disappear. The Apollo missions did not transit the more energetically dense regions named for Van Allen. Travel through the less damaging regions was brief, and the astronauts received low doses, in fact, they were zapped with relatively more particles at distances farther from earth. Americans walked and even drove around on the moon. Gentlemen, may your April Fool's Day pranks bring you much laughter, traditionally I plan mine months in advance, they usually succeed, and I have survived retaliation.

Blogger Jez April 01, 2019 10:20 AM  

Lazarus, do you know what the Van Allen Belts are?

Blogger LES April 01, 2019 10:25 AM  

My brother-in-law's brother was a mathematician hired by NASA to work on the computer programs for the Apollo 11. I believe he was telling me the truth.

Blogger Unknown April 01, 2019 10:30 AM  

My uncle is an electric engineer. He told me he worked on the electrical systems for the moon suits and for the LEM. Was he in on the conspiracy? He does not seem the type.

Blogger Matrick April 01, 2019 10:49 AM  

I don't know for sure whether Americans walked on the moon, but I do know that scepticism from the Russian public isn't nearly enough to counter the argument that the Russians would have spoken out about a hoaxed landing.

Blogger James April 01, 2019 10:50 AM  

For all the claims of high IQ in this comment section you dont seem to be a very inquisitive bunch. Stop BELIEVING, look into NASA and their claims, then their obfuscation, then their lies. It takes a few hours or so to research and see for yourself no one ever went to the moon. It aint that hard folks.

Blogger Unknown April 01, 2019 10:57 AM  

In science and such stuff we usually dont talk about proof. We talk about preponderance of evidence.

Blogger Daniel April 01, 2019 10:57 AM  

Maybe we can fuel the next manned mission to the moon entirely with this massive blast of Boomer tears.

Blogger Crew April 01, 2019 11:05 AM  

As someone pointed out in the comments on the article at the Unz site:

We will know that people have been to the moon when there is a Holocaust Museum there.

Blogger Avalanche April 01, 2019 11:06 AM  

The 'bit' Owen pointed out that really hit me was the "4-second delay" that should have been a 16-second delay in verbal transmissions. And the 13W power system with batteries on the lander that had to "push" a radio signal nearly 240,000 miles, as against your once-local AM radio station with its 50,000 WATTS OF POWER!!!! -- but which barely covered the entire county in tunes...

And then that 13W system had to also heat and cool the lander, recharge the suits, heat food, and etc. etc. ... Owen says the NASA paperwork shows just such a 13W system.

Blogger CM April 01, 2019 11:06 AM  

My uncle is an electric engineer. He told me he worked on the electrical systems for the moon suits and for the LEM. Was he in on the conspiracy? He does not seem the type.

I don't see why it's necessary for anyone to be in on it other than the astronauts themselves and the propaganda department (if it was, indeed, a hoax).

You need a faked tape with ET level effects, astronauts who fail the landing claiming they made it, and transmission of a tape.

Even those in control need not be in on it.

Certainly not the suit engineer.

Blogger Patrick Kelly April 01, 2019 11:06 AM  

I have read the blogs and watched the videos of many of the skeptics. I have read the blogs and watched the videos of many who answer the skeptics questions and doubts.

Neither can prove with any empirical certainty their conclusions. I find the case presented by those who claim the US did in fact land astronauts on the moon and return them safely to earth to be more compelling and convincing than the skeptics.

This does not in any way impact anything I might do or say today outside of such discussions in this or other blogs or YT video chat and comments. Not one tiny, significant bit.

Blogger Crew April 01, 2019 11:07 AM  

My black grandmother was a mathematician who did the critical equations that got those crackas to the moon.

I don't think she was telling lies!

Blogger CM April 01, 2019 11:07 AM  

And it's possible it was actually attempted and the hoax was in place in case of failure. (Propaganda)

Blogger Latigo3 April 01, 2019 11:10 AM  

Alright Vox, I read this and watched part of that video, but I am going to take this post with a grain of salt, because it is April 1st.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 April 01, 2019 11:12 AM  

Unknown wrote:My uncle is an electric engineer. He told me he worked on the electrical systems for the moon suits and for the LEM. Was he in on the conspiracy? He does not seem the type.

Here's the problem with that: the entire process of landing on the moon was accomplished by many different parties, all of whom were only involved in a small part of the project. Very few people were there to assemble the whole thing together.

If the moon landings were faked, then only a few people at the top and the astronauts needed to lie about it. The mathematics was there, the technology was there, and as far as ground control was concerned, they went to the moon. After all, these men were launched into space. It's more a question of how far they went.

Blogger Drake Stake April 01, 2019 11:22 AM  

Maybe someone can enlighten me, would the left behind moon car and flag be proof? Are this not things we could see with a telescope from earth?

Also is it that the moon landing never happened or that no human has ever been on the moon?

Blogger Ariadne Umbrella April 01, 2019 11:28 AM  

Well, I believe it pretty much the same way I believe about other historical things: people there at the time told me about it. I have been blessed to have met some of the people at NASA Houston. They were there. They were in the room.

I think, for all the usual reasons, other people are trying to erase this history.

Blogger Bert Head April 01, 2019 11:29 AM  

After NASA's involvement in the global warming delusion, I would consider them institutionally dishonest. I choose to disbelieve their claims as an act of profound disrespect.

Blogger 1st Earl Hardwicke April 01, 2019 11:35 AM  

So what if the Moon Landings were staged, 9/11 an entirely inside job, Princess Diana murdered, Dr David Kelly murdered, Seth Rich, Pearl Harbour a conspiracy, the Maine a False Flag etc etc. Yeah, one or more probably happened.

There's plenty of conspiracies that are openly admitted to or proven lies. Not focused on. Instead Focus on the edge cases, as truth can be a dangerous thing.

The Moon Landings were staged I KNOW THE TRUTH! Well, good for you. What about the deeper metaphysical issues and not the Technicalities?

What does it change?

Blogger FUBARwest April 01, 2019 11:36 AM  

"Also is it that the moon landing never happened or that no human has ever been on the moon?"

The latter. Which is a reasonable position to hold considering I've yet to hear anyone explain how we got through the Van Halen Belt in the 60's yet can't get through it today.

Blogger Balam April 01, 2019 11:42 AM  

Salt wrote:If Apollo 11 didn't land on the Moon, then what also of missions 12 to 17?

That's a lot of people to keep a hoax quiet for so long.


LES wrote:My brother-in-law's brother was a mathematician hired by NASA to work on the computer programs for the Apollo 11. I believe he was telling me the truth.

We just got done with the Russia-Trump hoax which held the country, and still holds many many Comedy Central viewers, minds and hearts in thrall for years. In the modern age where we have people on text and in some cases moving media saying that it's all bullshit. Even now, even now, if Soros manages to get a candidate into the office after Trump history will be rewritten so your children and grandchildren say that he colluded with Russians to win the election. Don't appeal to the 'It would be hard for people to be stupid or ignorant!' argument to save the moon landing because it should be demonstrably false. For example, with hard proof in your hands ie the Mueller report summary, you go to California and tell me, "Why don't they believe Trump's telling the truth, there aren't enough paid hoaxing employees to convince millions for long!". The appeal to people not being hoaxed as, say, a natural state just doesn't pass.

Similarly just people you know someone who 'worked on it' doesn't mean that it happened. I'm not saying that as a turn of phrase or to be cute, logically it doesn't follow. They could have blown up the space suits and the shuttle after construction in a private canyon for all your friends and relatives know. This ends up just being circumstantial evidence in favor of moon launching work.

Most of the appeals made such as 'I know someone', 'it's hard to trick people', 'we have broadcasting satellites don't we' are all circumstantial. Unfortunately for that there's just as much circumstantial evidence that it was faked or misrepresented. Destroyed tapes, shifty interviewee astronauts, fake moon rocks endorsed by the US government, 'we can't do it anymore', a government that had the political will to dose civilians with syphilis and LSD. Where's the hard proof? Something more convincing such as integration of moon economy into the US?

Blogger KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia April 01, 2019 11:46 AM  

Vox, I love you man, but why do you spend any bandwidth on this at all? Assuming that it even WERE true that this was a grand scheme to deceive -- emphasis on the word "GRAND" -- it strains credibility.

What about the other six landings? Were those faked too? So do we have a conspiracy to deceive SEVEN times, with 12 different astronauts who, we're told, walked on the moon? Did we just fake the first one? Half of them? All of them?

And what about Apollo 13? Did we fake a potentially disastrous failure in order to ensure credibility of all the previous fakeries and subsequent fakeries?

You are absolutely right to be skeptical about what government tells you. On the other hand, we should be very skeptical that the government is shrewd enough, clever enough, and competent enough to pull off such a gigantic hoax that has maintained secrecy for half a century.

Right. Sure. They can do it. No question.

Blogger Robert What? April 01, 2019 11:47 AM  

Was Neil Armstrong lying? Is Buzz Aldrin lying? If I am not mistaken Aldrin is the last living astronaut to (claim to) have walked on the Moon. I say we waterboard him until the truth comes out.

Blogger pyrrhus April 01, 2019 11:55 AM  

Well, we know for sure that the moonwalk video was shot in Hollywood by Kubrick because there are seams in the background landscape, and places where it doesn't quite match...Kubrick used a technique called front projection to fill in backgrounds, which is also visible in '2001'.

Blogger Teleros April 01, 2019 11:55 AM  

Ron Unz's comment (the first under the linked article) is an interesting response to the fake Moon landing position. Myself I think the US went to the Moon, though it would not surprise me at all if there are lies in the official story (eg Ron Unz talking about NASA touching up photos after the fact). From the technical side of things, nothing I've seen (and as I like my hard sci-fi, I've done a fair bit of reading into related stuff) says that it wasn't possible.

Lazarus wrote:None of your evidence is relevant to successfully sending living beings through the Van Allen belt.

Do you know much about the radiation levels and the types of radiation in the Van Allen belts? Because whilst you want nice thick lead to block gamma rays.. you can block alpha particles with a sheet of paper. The belts also change their position relative to Earth, such that the ISS (plus a lot of satellites) have to go through them on occasion, and unlike the Apollo missions they can't try and avoid the worst patches of radiation.

Avalanche wrote:The 'bit' Owen pointed out that really hit me was the "4-second delay" that should have been a 16-second delay in verbal transmissions.

A four second delay doesn't seem that bad for a transmission from almost a light-second away. Anyway, I do think people get too worked up about the "live transmission" bit though - you don't need much energy at all to transmit to Earth from the Moon, but without dedicated kit to pick up the signal, it'll obviously get swamped by all the other stuff bouncing around the atmosphere, like the 50kW TV or radio stations you mention. So whilst nobody could tune their TV into the signal from the Moon itself, all NASA had to do was pick up the transmission with their dedicated equipment, then broadcast it again using big, powerful, Earth-based transmitters. It's not technically live, but then again that's normal even on "live" TV shows today, which usually have a few seconds delay in case the TV station has to cut the feed for whatever reason.

Blogger Alexamenos April 01, 2019 12:00 PM  

I've yet to hear anyone explain how we got through the Van Halen Belt in the 60's yet can't get through it today.
--------------------
I can't even make it through an entire Van Halen album.

Blogger Richard Holmes April 01, 2019 12:01 PM  

For all the claims of high IQ in this comment section you dont seem to be a very inquisitive bunch. Stop BELIEVING, look into NASA and their claims, then their obfuscation, then their lies. It takes a few hours or so to research and see for yourself no one ever went to the moon. It aint that hard folks.

I have also seen people deny that 6 million jews were killed during the holocaust. They have all sorts of proof and logic to prove their claim. WWII was way before my time and it would be easy for me to have no connection to this event. I'm waiting for someone to "prove" to me that hollywood faked all of WWII. You wanna spend your time trying to prove that the moon landings never happened? Go ahead, I think it's fruitless but he, you go do you. As for the "official story" from the government, this is ridiculous. It was on the TV. There was such a huge national move on this space program that I really do find it hard to believe that the USA/NASA didn't do exactly what some people claim they didn't. Am i being foolish to believe this? Perhaps. I wasn't on the moon filming this. i was at home as a 6 year old watching it in utter fascination. I was also fascinated at how many adults were absolutely filled with pride at being an american. They did nothing but they talked as if they accomplished some huge thing just by being born in the USA. Until these people can prove in court that NASA is lying, well... I'm not going to believe it.

And if this is an April Fools joke, then well done VD. Your humor is special indeed!

Blogger Jim Androadie April 01, 2019 12:01 PM  

Infogalactic has info on how Apollo missions bypassed the Van Allen belts and how much radiation the astronauts received.

Blogger Joe Katzman April 01, 2019 12:04 PM  

I got through the Van Halen belt in the 80s. It can be done, people.

Blogger JG April 01, 2019 12:05 PM  

Avalanche, you obviously know NOTHING about radio wave propagation, so you would be best served by keeping your mouth shut about that subject, lest we all learn about your idiocy.

Blogger Borsabil April 01, 2019 12:07 PM  

I'm pretty sure NASA sent men to the moon. I'm also pretty sure that they produced plenty of faked images for public consumption. The moon landings were far more of a PR exercise than scientific endeavour. None of the issues raised in the article bother me, except.


NASA accidentally wiping all the telemetry. WTF? It was a 'cost saving' measure? Are you kidding me? When did NASA ever care about saving money??? Also Neil Armstrong stating he didn't see a single star on the voyage, presumably due to the Earth/Moon luminosity. He outright states in a BBC interview that there were no stars or planets visible at any time. However it's also true that the lunar astronauts used star sightings to calculate direction on the journey there and back. Again WTF?

Blogger chronoblip April 01, 2019 12:14 PM  

FUBARwest wrote:I've yet to hear anyone explain how we got through the Van Halen Belt in the 60's yet can't get through it today.

"Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as the total electric charge in these circuits is now small enough so as to be comparable with the charge of incoming ions."

https://infogalactic.com/info/Van_Allen_radiation_belt#Implications_for_space_travel

'Like tears in rain.'

Blogger LES April 01, 2019 12:15 PM  

Trying to prove the moon landing was a hoax seems kinda gamma to me.

For what purpose? A PR stunt?

On the other hand, 9-11 had a definite purpose.

Blogger S1AL April 01, 2019 12:17 PM  

"The latter. Which is a reasonable position to hold considering I've yet to hear anyone explain how we got through the Van Halen Belt in the 60's yet can't get through it today."

'Van Halen Belt'

This is why nobody takes you seriously.

Blogger ADS April 01, 2019 12:18 PM  

From previous threads we have established:

1)The Saturn V rockets used to lift off from the Earth's surface were demonstrably and provably created, and millions of people watched the successful launch of various Apollo missions, including Apollo 11.
2)The most difficult portion of a moon landing mission is achieving Earth orbit. Most of the fuel and effort was spent in this phase.
3)Man-made objects are presently on the Moon, including mirrors which are used to measure lunar distance from Earth via laser bounce. Also present on the Moon are items left behind by Apollo missions including rover vehicles and landing stages which are visible from Earth via telescope and so are therefore provable.
4)The Colombia command module re-entered the Earth's atmosphere carrying live humans and was recovered by the crew of the USS Hornet (2600 officers and enlisted)

Therefore, at a MINIMUM, with only evidence which you can see yourself, today, NASA built a rocket which transported live humans into orbit along with a module that successfully achieved lunar proximity and landed Earth-made items on the surface of the moon.

I do not have proof of the following, but given the rudimentary nature of computers and remotely controlled vehicles at the time of the Apollo 11 mission and the relatively simple task of keeping astronauts alive in a lunar module, it is far more likely that human astronauts in fact rode along with the proven lunar vehicle, landed on the moon, and deployed Earth made items there.

Was the official NASA account the whole and complete truth? Almost certainly not. I would be very surprised if there wasn't a military mission alongside the scientific and exploratory mission, given the Cold War. Such a mission would of course be omitted from the official story and only a handful of people would know about it. I also wouldn't be surprised if they found evidence of extraterrestrial life or some other fact that would cause great panic or consternation or strife on Earth and that knowledge was suppressed.

Claiming Man never walked on the moon is gay though.

Blogger Stryker4570 April 01, 2019 12:18 PM  

The problem I have with the whole conspiracy theory genre, especially things like the Moon Landing or 911, is the lack of people supposedly involved coming forth with testimony or rock solid proof. The Moon Landings involved thousands of the most intelligent scientists and engineers in the world and our best pilots. I don't buy the line of logic that only a few would have to know it's a hoax. If it was faked, one or more of the people involved would have eventually leaked and provided proof. Also, I question the value of such a large scale hoax. Why do it? National cred for the Cold War? Shore up sagging patriotic sentiment? Intimidate the Soviets? Seems to me we could have done a very successful morale psy op/propaganda op for a lot less time, money, and effort.
911 could have been pulled off with less people, but it would still number in the hundreds. The psychological weight of all those horrible deaths would lead some conspirators to crack and let the cat out of the bag. I can see that 911 would be much more utilitarian to any conspirators(especially those interested in war) than bogus Moon landings.

Blogger Northpal April 01, 2019 12:26 PM  

So, the"Russians" are now disputing the six manned U.S. landings?
Seems to me they and other governments would have made the argument in real time, back in the cold war/arms/space race.
Who exactly are these "Russians don't believe that the US ever landed anyone on the Moon"?
What have they stated.....oh wait a minute are they part of a government too?
There is NO foreign government/agency on the planet who's official position is the U.S. did not accomplish six manned moon landings between 1969 and 1972.
But the Flat Earth Society pushing the revised Bill Kaysing 1976 book 'We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle' along sure started a economic boom in the post internet 2000 conspiracy industry, I mean the JFK/UFO/Jesus was horus industry was losing steam.
But healthy skepticism is well, healthy and legal.
But Germans rounding up millions of jews in camps with swimming pools just to gas, strap to masturbating machines, pooping diamonds, cut off tattoos, shrink heads, have a bear kill and eat then a eagle strips bones, dig up previously murdered jews to burn then use remains a fertilizer, and many other as witnessed from survivor to the ear of God.
Six million to be exact, not one extra, not one less, because that kind of skepticism is not only unhealthy, immoral, but in most European countries against the law.
But moon landing hoaxes, UFOs, Elvis sightings are what affect Europeans lives and where the real fight against Tyranny lay.



Blogger S1AL April 01, 2019 12:26 PM  

"Was Neil Armstrong lying? Is Buzz Aldrin lying? If I am not mistaken Aldrin is the last living astronaut to (claim to) have walked on the Moon. I say we waterboard him until the truth comes out."

There are... I believe 8. There was recently a picture taken off all but one of the remaining astronauts from Apollo 11-18.

And I think Aldrin has made his position fairly clear:

https://youtu.be/vUE4VGWAap4

Blogger R Webfoot April 01, 2019 12:28 PM  

"Trying to prove the moon landing was a hoax seems kinda gamma to me.

For what purpose? A PR stunt?"

A PR stunt to boost credibility and thus support in the rest of the world.

And, as the Unz article notes, there is the possible motive of distracting American attention away from Cambodia atrocities. "Apollo 11 landed on the moon two months after the media revealed illegal bombardment in Cambodia, and the Apollo program stopped just after the official end of America’s involvement in Southeast Asia."

Blogger Laramie Hirsch April 01, 2019 12:33 PM  

For me, my default settings are set to "believe the moon landings." Probably because I'm rather invested in that narrative. But if tomorrow the moon landings are disproven, I won't be shattered.

Blogger boogeyman April 01, 2019 12:34 PM  

I tend to believe the moon landings were real. But then again, I suspect a much worse conspiracy; Nazi UFOs based out of the Antarctica, secret space program, NASA being a diversion from that, etc. When you read all the stuff on those theories and contemplate the ramifications you can't help but realize how depressing such a situation would be.

Blogger Apoliteia April 01, 2019 12:36 PM  

@65 You mean Van Allen Belt I take? Van Halen is something else completely.

Blogger Longtime Lurker April 01, 2019 12:39 PM  

If it was a hoax, it only cost $25.4 billion in non-inflation-adjusted dollars to pull off.

Blogger CM April 01, 2019 12:39 PM  

Good idea.

Blogger Tupla-J April 01, 2019 12:41 PM  

@78, IIRC there was this space race against the Soviets, which gives a pretty hefty motivation to lie.

Blogger Dave W. April 01, 2019 12:42 PM  

*looks at calendar*

Blogger tdcommenter April 01, 2019 12:43 PM  

Considering how far backwards NASA has gone (Challenger, astronauts having a love tiff while on meth, cancellation of space vehicles), it's become a lot easier to disbelieve former achievements.

We may not be that far away from having people looking agape at the Hoover Dam.

Blogger Doug Cranmer April 01, 2019 12:47 PM  

This just in:

Johnstone: Leaked '401'-Page Mueller Report Proves Barr Lied, Collusion Theorists Vindicated

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-01/johnstone-leaked-401-page-mueller-report-proves-barr-lied-collusion-theorists

Blogger Ominous Cowherd April 01, 2019 1:05 PM  

CM wrote:And it's possible it was actually attempted and the hoax was in place in case of failure. (Propaganda)

I would be shocked to learn that they did not have contingency plans for failure. I would not be at all shocked to learn that those plans included plans to lie.

FUBARwest wrote:... I've yet to hear anyone explain how we got through the Van Halen Belt in the 60's yet can't get through it today.

Dude, who told you we can't get through it today? It's just radiation.

KPKinSunnyPhiladelphia wrote:Vox, I love you man, but why do you spend any bandwidth on this at all?

Are you not amused? I am amused.

Blogger VFM #7634 April 01, 2019 1:15 PM  

Maybe Apollo 11 was faked but the others weren't? Are the other astronauts as cagey as Armstrong and Aldrin?

Blogger Nate73 April 01, 2019 1:18 PM  

What convinced me there's something wrong is Donald Trump trolling Buzz Aldrin at the SOTU. The expression on his face is just too off, if more manned missions are planned he should be smiling.

(Or maybe astronauts all suffer from severe autism...? Autistnauts?)

Blogger matveidaniilovich April 01, 2019 1:20 PM  

The Van Allen argument always irritates me because ppl use it as some sort of rhetorical kill shot. The NASA engineers claimed the astronauts went THROUGH the thinner parts and completely OVER the thick donut ring that’s closest to Earth. The present concern about the Belt is that they’ve not cracked the nut of building a ship that’s capable of being at rest within the belt. It would be dangerous to the humans & sensitive machinery on board.

Blogger OneWingedShark April 01, 2019 1:31 PM  

Borsabil wrote:NASA accidentally wiping all the telemetry. WTF? It was a 'cost saving' measure? Are you kidding me? When did NASA ever care about saving money???
Someone raised the possibility that the telemetry could have been stolen by foreign actors, and the "accidentally wiped" is a cover-story. Why would they need a cover-story? To avoid embarrassment? Or to protect the perpetrator? Perhaps (((perpetrator))).

After all, we know that the US's greatest ally does things,

LES wrote:On the other hand, 9-11 had a definite purpose.
Certainly; there are multiple things that instantly come to mind:
(1) The other buildings,
—(a) Building 7: IRS, EEOC, US Secret Service, SEC, CIA, Salomon Smith Barney, American Express Bank International, Standard Chartered Bank, Provident Financial Management, ITT Hartford Insurance Group, First State Management Group, Inc., Federal Home Loan Bank, and NAIC Securities. — IIUC the SEC had the Enron pyramid-scheme.
—(b) Building 6: US Customs House.
(2) The Pentagon attack, conveniently destroying financial records for a missing $2.3 Trillion. (Video)
(3) Passing the Patriot Act.
(4) Motivation to fight wars in the Middle East we wouldn't otherwise have fought; arguably on Israel's behalf.

That's a lot of money and power interest in 11 Sep right there, regardless of if it were a forced-event/false-flag, allowed to happen, or actual catastrophic failing on the part of US defense. This is to say, even IF 11 Sep were completely foreign/terrorist in implementation, which is highly unlikely, the subsequent chaos would have been perfect for destroying evidence.

Blogger Robert What? April 01, 2019 1:46 PM  

@Richard Holmes,

"I have also seen people deny that 6 million jews were killed during the holocaust"

As an aside, enormous claims require proof. It is not up to Holocaust questioners to prove it didn't happen. It is up to Holocaust claimers to prove it did happen. Unfortunately, even asking for evidence of the Holocaust is verboten. In some countries it can get you arrested. But ask yourself this: if the Holocaust happened as claimed, wouldn't inquiry be welcomed, instead of forbidden as it is now?

Blogger minority of one April 01, 2019 1:50 PM  

"Just like you cannot prove that something doesn’t exist..."

Yeah, try telling that to atheists.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd April 01, 2019 1:54 PM  

OneWingedShark wrote:That's a lot of money and power interest in 11 Sep right there, regardless of if it were a forced-event/false-flag, allowed to happen, or actual catastrophic failing on the part of US defense.

If the Left wasn't behind 9/11, I'm sure they are still kicking themselves for not thinking of it. It's been satan's gift to the Neocons and the totalitarians.

Blogger minority of one April 01, 2019 1:54 PM  

'Van Halen Belt'

Van Halen rocks! And the Van Halen belt has asteroids

Blogger Didas Kalos April 01, 2019 1:57 PM  

@80 ADS: i don't think you can see objects on the moon with a telescope. Anyone know for sure?

Blogger S1AL April 01, 2019 2:27 PM  

Atmospheric distortion combined with lens limitations means we can't see anything that small.

We can, however, use the laser reflectors that were left on the moon by both Russia and the United States.

Blogger SidVic April 01, 2019 2:50 PM  

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html

Looks convincing to me. If a hoax a sophisticated (implausibly)conspiracy is still ongoing.

Blogger Teleros April 01, 2019 2:59 PM  

OneWingedShark wrote:Someone raised the possibility that the telemetry could have been stolen by foreign actors, and the "accidentally wiped" is a cover-story. Why would they need a cover-story? To avoid embarrassment? Or to protect the perpetrator? Perhaps (((perpetrator))).

Just put yourself in the head of a small-minded, soulless bean-counter. Those tapes are just taking up space, could be re-used, and "everyone knows" we went to the Moon. You cannot imagine anyone needing to go over the telemetry data again, therefore nobody ever will, and even if you're not a typical anti-American bureaucrat, you certainly lack any sense of history. You'd probably have the original copy of the Declaration of Independence recycled if only there was (a) a way to do so, and (b) a way to avoid any bad publicity.

So, thanks to your new efficiency plan (ie scrapping a ton of "useless" stuff like the telemetry data), you've saved enough money in your departmental budget to award yourself a pay raise under the government cost-cutting scheme, and spent the money saved on a new initiative that'll cost lots more in the years to come, justifying a higher budget and more feathering of your nest.

Blogger Servant April 01, 2019 3:04 PM  

Why any of you would think vd would go in for a April fool's joke is beyond me. Unless I'm confusing my bloggers, he speaks contemptuously of April fools jokes on divers occasions, and has not once committed one.

Blogger Cloudbuster April 01, 2019 3:05 PM  

FUBARwest wrote:"Also is it that the moon landing never happened or that no human has ever been on the moon?"

The latter. Which is a reasonable position to hold considering I've yet to hear anyone explain how we got through the Van Halen Belt in the 60's yet can't get through it today.


The Van Halen Belt has been worthless since David Lee Roth left.

Blogger tz April 01, 2019 3:22 PM  

It seems to be rather elaborate for a hoax. And it can be simply though expensively falsified.

First, there is a difference between you saying you walked on the moon - but no tapes, you can't describe the details of the spacecraft, etc. and watching on National TV.

Second, there are retroreflectors at the moon landing sites where lasers can bounce off of, so they did send at least that.

Third, there were many missions including the failed Apollo 13 (how much of that is claimed to be a hoax?). So it was a series of hoaxes.

Now, there are either footprints, flags, the moon buggy and its tiretracks, etc. or not. I don't know what resolution camera or how to get it close enough on the moon (consider website satellite imagery).

So what would it take to send a hi-rez imaging satellite to the moon with centimeter resolution?

And would the unbelievers change their mind even if hi-rez photos confirmed every landing site?

Blogger One Deplorable DT April 01, 2019 3:39 PM  

@80 - Also present on the Moon are items left behind by Apollo missions including rover vehicles and landing stages which are visible from Earth via telescope and so are therefore provable.

Nothing left by Apollo is visible from Earth via telescope. Not even if we turn Hubble towards the moon. Everything we left is simply too small for the telescopes we possess, especially those within the atmosphere.

You might be thinking of photographs from a satellite which orbited the moon (@105 SidVic). Those exist, but skeptics will simply say they're fake to because it was a NASA mission.

Other than that I would add the following to your points:

* We have a large collection of rocks which are clearly of extra terrestrial origin and which are just as clearly not meteorites. This is strong evidence that we did indeed land on the moon, retrieve the rocks, and bring them back. (Unless you think we landed on a body much further away and more difficult to reach.) You could argue that robots collected them. But given the weight of material we collected it's clear that we were at least capable of landing and returning a human being.

At some point it becomes reasonable to ask if we could do X why not just go ahead and do Y? Neither the Van Allen belts nor the Van Halen belts would have stopped us.

* We have over 14,500 photographs from the missions. Most were made on 6x6 medium format film, and NASA has made 6k color and 12k B&W scans available. (4k versions of many can be found here.)

I've spent two decades of my life studying photography as a hobby. I don't know how to express the difficulty that would be involved in falsifying such a large and diverse body of images with today's technology. With 1960's technology it simply would not have been possible. I've personally found no trickery, and the common claims of trickery are all false. Ridiculous in fact to anyone who has studied photography.

Those who point to Hollywood seem to miss the rather glaring fact that photorealistic special effects weren't around until the CGI revolution of the mid 1990's, and even then the effects had telltale signs revealing their origin.

* We have telemetry and video tapes from all but the first mission. Mind you, we still have all the film from Apollo 11, we just lost the original analog video transmission. (It's amazing to me how the loss of one set of tapes gets exaggerated to OMG WE LOST EVERYTHING, HOW CONVENIENT, CONSPIRACY!!!)

I'm envious of whoever will be the first SpaceX tourist to land near an Apollo site. I also wonder what the skeptics will say after that happens.

Blogger Jim April 01, 2019 3:42 PM  

Flat Earthers have more cred than Moon Hoaxers.

You could take a Flat Earther into orbit, point him at a window, or let him get into a space suit that he put together himself and shove him out the airlock, and he'd admit that Earth is round. Their threshold for proof is impractical, but at least it exists.

Take a Moon Hoaxer to Tranquility Base, let him touch the remains of the landing module, put his foot in Neil Armstrong's boot print, and jiggle the flag, and he'd say something like "Just because it's here now, doesn't mean it was here then! You could have put this all here yesterday!"

At which point, the only option is to puncture his suit and leave him on the surface.

Blogger One Deplorable DT April 01, 2019 3:46 PM  

@107 - Why any of you would think vd would go in for a April fool's joke is beyond me. Unless I'm confusing my bloggers, he speaks contemptuously of April fools jokes on divers occasions, and has not once committed one.

That leaves me puzzled because the linked article is logical trash. It's riddled with fallacies and sleights of hand. I would be tempted to do a full critique of it, except whatever Vox's intentions were today in linking it, I'm still not convinced the article itself is genuine.

Blogger One Deplorable DT April 01, 2019 4:10 PM  

@109 - So what would it take to send a hi-rez imaging satellite to the moon with centimeter resolution?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/elon-musk-sending-japanese-billionaire-moon-and-hes-taking-group-artists-him-180970333/

I don't know if they will choose an orbit which passes over any Apollo sites, or if they do what their altitude and imaging capabilities will be. I'm simply linking to it as an example of the kind of money required.

Blogger Ryan G April 01, 2019 4:44 PM  

I'm curious as to just what would constitute "hard evidence" in the author's mind. We've hundreds of photos, hours of footage, dust and rock samples, the thousands of witnesses who saw the rocket go up, the live footage of the capsules' recoveries miles away from the launch sites, and a laser reflector astronomers can 'ping' to this day.

On the flip side, someone asserting that the landings were faked would have to explain how the hundreds of engineers and scientists involved with the project were tricked or coerced into silence for 50 years as well as the dozens of people involved with mission control. Every single person involved with the alleged conspiracy would have to be so fanatically devoted to its secrecy that not one of them would have made a death bed confession, or released compelling evidence for personal fame/money, or did it simply because they felt guilt over pulling the wool over everyone's eyes.

Blogger Crew April 01, 2019 4:55 PM  

Funny April Fools day joke:

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/leaked-mueller-report-proves-barr-lied-collusion-theorists-vindicated-2a9f52fda492

Blogger Mark Stoval April 01, 2019 4:58 PM  

Jez wrote:Lazarus, do you know what the Van Allen Belts are?

Are they the really expensive nice leather belts from a company in Holland?

Blogger ADS April 01, 2019 5:02 PM  

I stand corrected on the issue of seeing apollo items with an Earth telescope. I'm standing by with a manufacturing 101 lecture in case somebody rolls out the "we cant make saturn v rockets today" nonsense.

Blogger OneWingedShark April 01, 2019 5:28 PM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:OneWingedShark wrote:That's a lot of money and power interest in 11 Sep right there, regardless of if it were a forced-event/false-flag, allowed to happen, or actual catastrophic failing on the part of US defense.
If the Left wasn't behind 9/11, I'm sure they are still kicking themselves for not thinking of it. It's been satan's gift to the Neocons and the totalitarians.

I don't think that "left/right" offers a good lens for 9/11; "globalist/nationalist" is a better lens, as is "totalitarian/limited-government".

When I remember that the whole purpose of the Constitution (and republican-government) is anti-authoritarian in nature — and inherently nationalistic (which is why globalists both hate and undermine the NBC requirement) — it makes absolute sense that those who hate us should apply their Talmudic-thinking to it, undermining it with "tradition" (read 'precedent') and what usually boils down to a sort of "appeal-to-self-authority" as is readily displayed in such opinions as Schenck v. United States and the sleight-of-hand to ignore unqualified prohibition of Congress passing laws regarding speech in favor of not merely permission, but obligation to police speech.

Blogger FUBARwest April 01, 2019 5:38 PM  

I stand corrected

Blogger Jez April 01, 2019 6:47 PM  

There is no shame in having gone through the Van Halen Belt, at least pre-1984.

Blogger Rough Carrigan April 01, 2019 6:48 PM  

#62. More than once, mission control staff sitting behind displays at desks admitted that it was impossible for them to distinguish between actual operations and simulation data.

By their own admission the people in the room could be duped any time those higher up wanted to.

Blogger Geoarrge April 01, 2019 6:56 PM  

Considering what we've been able to accomplish with manned space missions since the Apollo program, it's no wonder people find it easier to believe it didn't really happen. It's not as painful as the thought that yes, we actually did that once, and then we gave it up.

I don't want to dismiss all grand conspiracy theories out of hand, but several of them do act to bolster the Official Story by setting up a false dichotomy with an incredible alternative, which is used as a strawman to smear all of the Official Story's critics.

Pizzagate is probably a good recent example. Compare the caricature everyone throws around now to what people were discussing before the gunman incident.

Blogger Nimgaladh April 01, 2019 7:04 PM  

Can an airplane take down a skyscraper? Obviously. We all saw it happen. Twice! Why should I doubt it? And then I saw the free-fall collapse of Building 7, and noticed that no-one is talking about it. Now I look for myself, and I see the lies in real-time. CNN is the new Baghdad Bob. I suppose Walter “and that’s the way it is” Cronkite was, too.

Obviously we walked on the Moon. We all saw it happen. Never mind that Nazi scientist Wernher von Braun said that a single-stage rocket would be “taller than the Empire State Building—and ten times the weight of the Queen Mary,” and proposed that we build an orbital launch station (see his 1955 Disney presentation, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXIDFx74aSY ).

Never mind that the space suit, sewn together by the fine ladies at Playtex, was tested in a large vacuum chamber, when a hose disconnected. “As I stumbled backwards, I could feel the saliva on my tongue starting to bubble just before I went unconscious and that’s the last thing I remember,” recalled the tester, LeBlanc. Surely nothing like that would happen when roving about on the Moon.

My question, which cannot be answered now by the missing telemetry data, regards the Lunar Orbiter. When the astronauts were done walking on the moon, they entered the module, launched straight up, and managed to not only met up with the orbiter, but dock nose-to-nose, so they could rejoin their waiting third astronaut. This is an amazing feat, done several times, without failure. Why have I never seen so much as a computer simulation of the event?

I’m not saying we didn’t go, but I am saying it seems flatly impossible with 1960’s tech. I don’t know what the whole truth is, but I sense that I am being lied to.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 01, 2019 7:05 PM  

"The way the writer refers to, "the NASA" lets me know how precise he is with logos."

It's irritating because you're not used to it, but it's not wrong. "The National Aeronautics and Space Administration."

"My preferred interpretation is that Apollo 11 did land on the moon but there was something ELSE going on up there when they did it."

Agreed. There's some massive omission going on.

"The 'bit' Owen pointed out that really hit me was the "4-second delay" that should have been a 16-second delay in verbal transmissions."

Owen's wrong if he said that. The distances involved are only ~225,600 miles at perigee and ~252,100 miles at apogee. At rate of 196,000 miles/second, that's less than two seconds of delay in each direction.

"And the 13W power system with batteries on the lander that had to "push" a radio signal nearly 240,000 miles, as against your once-local AM radio station with its 50,000 WATTS OF POWER!!!!"

Your local radio station has to broadcast omnidirectionally. A directional antenna can do a thousandth of each of those arcs for a minuscule fraction of the power at much longer ranges.

"Are they the really expensive nice leather belts from a company in Holland?"

Small disposable plastic belts you wrap around potatoes to ensure they don't explode from rapid heating in the microwave.

Happy April first.

Blogger Rough Carrigan April 01, 2019 7:08 PM  

#110. You didn't watch the linked video, did you?
As to the rocks supposedly clearly of extra terrestrial origin, they don't match at all moon soil analyzed by a Chinese moon rover, if that's what it should be called.

And on a good will tour conducted in 1969 by Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins they gave a supposed moon rock to the prime minister of Holland. It turns out to be a piece of petrified wood.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

Blogger Garuna April 01, 2019 7:22 PM  

Get over it, Moonies. The Hoax Landing never happened. And Neil Armstrong burns in hell for being a rotten deceiver. #FactsNotFeelings

Blogger red 3215 April 01, 2019 8:21 PM  


Folks, there already are images of the Apollo landing sites taken by later orbiting missions. If you have a good enough telescope and know the coordinates you can probably see them from earth.
Try that special tool called "Google" and the term "moon landing sites".
Of course, the really determined skeptics can write this off because the orbiting missions that took the photos are run by "the NASA".

Seriously...

Blogger Blacksmith Zeke April 01, 2019 8:44 PM  

tz wrote:Second, there are retroreflectors at the moon landing sites where lasers can bounce off of, so they did send at least that.

This kind of reasoning always gets me. "There are reflectors where lasers can bounce off." Really? How do you know? Because wikipedia says so, based upon information from NASA? The reflectors are supposedly such that if you use NASA's coordinates, you can hone in on them if you are at one of the 9 or so observatories on Earth that have powerful enough equipment to do so and are one of the few hundred people who know how to work the equipment. It's not as if you can verify them with a laser pen. But since the internet said they are there, I guess that's proof they are there.

Blogger SirHamster April 01, 2019 8:57 PM  

Jim wrote:At which point, the only option is to puncture his suit and leave him on the surface.

Fantasizing murder about someone who doesn't believe your moon religion.

Dissonance is active.

Blogger sammibandit April 01, 2019 8:58 PM  

Disney sure is wrapped up in this lie on a level I didn't think plausible until reading over the thread. Wehrner Von Braunn worked with NASA and Disney.I don't know how to frame it but it's obvious he was a bigger Disney player than NASA. If he were a bigger NASA player we would have gone to the moon. Weird. Another example of multi-generational marketing or something.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 01, 2019 9:06 PM  

"#FactsNotFeelings"

Irony. I'm undecided because there aren't enough facts either way.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 01, 2019 9:07 PM  

"This kind of reasoning always gets me. "There are reflectors where lasers can bounce off." Really? How do you know?"

Because I've done it myself, dumbass.

Blogger S1AL April 01, 2019 9:12 PM  

"And on a good will tour conducted in 1969 by Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins they gave a supposed moon rock to the prime minister of Holland. It turns out to be a piece of petrified wood.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html"

Read the article. Realize the headline is a blatant lie. Wonder why the Telegraph is lying so blatantly. Realize the Telegraph is Fake News (tm).

What actually happened is that a politician couried favor with a fake, then probably sold the real specimen in the black market.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd April 01, 2019 9:13 PM  

Nimgaladh wrote:stuff

You just put those last four paragraphs in there to make the landing deniers look like nuts, right?

Blogger Jez April 01, 2019 9:18 PM  

"Never mind that Nazi scientist Wernher von Braun said that a single-stage rocket would be “taller than the Empire State Building—and ten times the weight of the Queen Mary,”

A single-stage rocket would have been around that size. That's why they ended up using a three-stage design.

Never mind that the space suit, sewn together by the fine ladies at Playtex, was tested in a large vacuum chamber, when a hose disconnected. “As I stumbled backwards, I could feel the saliva on my tongue starting to bubble just before I went unconscious and that’s the last thing I remember,” recalled the tester, LeBlanc. Surely nothing like that would happen when roving about on the Moon."

Is it possible that the developers of the suit learned its potential failure points through rigorous testing, and had the bugs ironed out by the time it was deployed?

"My question, which cannot be answered now by the missing telemetry data, regards the Lunar Orbiter. When the astronauts were done walking on the moon, they entered the module, launched straight up, and managed to not only met up with the orbiter, but dock nose-to-nose, so they could rejoin their waiting third astronaut. This is an amazing feat, done several times, without failure. Why have I never seen so much as a computer simulation of the event?"

Have you ever looked for one? There's an abundance of videos, and quite a number of simulators wherein you can DIY. Orbital rendezvous and docking was already being theorized in the decades before the Apollo missions while the mathematics of orbital mechanics were being fleshed out, and was practiced extensively during the Gemini program, with a lot of trial and error.

Blogger Jim April 01, 2019 9:37 PM  

SirHamster wrote:Fantasizing murder about someone who doesn't believe your moon religion.

Dissonance is active.

I fantasize about murdering morons all the time. If I went through the effort of flying one out to the Moon, outside any national jurisdiction, they better damn well not make it a complete waste of time and resources if they wish to continue to share this mortal plane. At that point, it's not murder. It's addition through subtraction.

A half-way sapient hoaxer would at least recognize that his calls for evidence can never be satisfied, and refuse the invitation.

Blogger One Deplorable DT April 01, 2019 9:53 PM  

@125 - #110. You didn't watch the linked video, did you?

Nope. I don't have 45 minutes to waste on it. The 6,500 word article was bad enough. If the video contains a point you think should be discussed then post a time index.

As to the rocks supposedly clearly of extra terrestrial origin, they don't match at all moon soil analyzed by a Chinese moon rover, if that's what it should be called.

Citation needed. FYI, here's some background on lunar soil: http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm

And on a good will tour conducted in 1969 by Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins they gave a supposed moon rock to the prime minister of Holland. It turns out to be a piece of petrified wood.

A mistake or a bait-n-switch theft does not invalidate the whole body of material collected. Even the linked article conceded that point.

Blogger Rough Carrigan April 01, 2019 11:03 PM  

"What actually happened is that a politician couried favor with a fake, then probably sold the real specimen in the black market."

Ahh. So sometimes politically incorrect papers can never be believed when they disagree with you and you've cleverly dispatched this baleful conspiracy theory by explaining away this problematic fact by putting forth a vague theory of a conspiracy.

I feel less dubious of establishment story lines with each passing moment after reading your explanation.

Blogger Rough Carrigan April 01, 2019 11:06 PM  

The comparison of the Chinese soil analysis results to the NASA ones is at 1 hour 31 minutes into the video.

Someone is likely lying.

Blogger Garuna April 01, 2019 11:29 PM  

I fantasize about murdering morons all the time. If I went through the effort of flying one out to the Moon, outside any national jurisdiction, they better damn well not make it a complete waste of time and resources if they wish to continue to share this mortal plane. At that point, it's not murder. It's addition through subtraction.

Bro, Kubrick movies are good. But they're not worth killing someone over.

I'm undecided because there aren't enough facts either way.

Indecision is no good, Azure. You must submit to the truth, which we all know what it is. Take the Hoax Pill.

Blogger CM April 01, 2019 11:32 PM  

"Trying to prove the moon landing was a hoax seems kinda gamma to me.

For what purpose? A PR stunt?"

A PR stunt to boost credibility and thus support in the rest of the world.


It's way more than that.

I mean, a dirty game of Civ 5 should make something click in place, at least superficially, right?

The space race was an existential competition between the two greatest powers in the world at the time with diametrically opposed governing/economic ideologies.

If your goal is to create allies (and gain power through influence) by convincing other nations in the superiority of your system, then you have a lot riding on success.

Germany, in WWII, had already shown how fascist control of industry could create a technological powerhouse of war weaponry.

Now it was Russia's turn to show what communism could accomplish.

Why indeed would the US want to fake that?

I have enough skepticism of government to not buy into every story sold, and my worldview doesn't collapse over this.

Blogger P Glenrothes April 01, 2019 11:38 PM  

Key questions for non-believers: 1. Were you an adult at the time, who witnessed the complex build-up, landing and recovery in real time? 2. Were there industries manufacturing, delivering components, and employing thousands of employees? Was the massive, costly infrastructure in place at that time? Are the non-believer leaders biased against science?

Blogger MJ Meyers April 01, 2019 11:57 PM  

Musty Boomer Lunacy.

Evidence of Apollo 11 astronauts faking footage purporting to be 130K miles out by shutting the lights out in the spacecraft and putting shades on a circular window to mimic the Earth and its terminator line, 32 minutes into Bart Sibrel's film, footage leaked to him directly from NASA: https://youtu.be/xciCJfbTvE4?t=1920 . Time recorder on the video indicates they should've been on the moon but were in low-Earth orbit instead. The tape came from NASA and was marked "not for public distribution."

Have they done this again? Why, yes they have. You can see the color blue enveloping the whole window of the Apollo 13 spacecraft during their "escape" after the "accident" they had at 200,000 miles out on the way to the Moon. Dead giveaway they were in low-Earth orbit at the time (you're not going to see a blue ocean or sky at 200,000 miles out). It's in Mary Bennett and David Percy's Book, Dark Moon (location 9615-9620), which had a documentary release in the UK in 2000 that goes over the scene in question here: http://aulis.com/moon_pt2.htm

RE laser reflectors. We've been bouncing lasers off the moon since 1962. Here's a link to a paper casting serious doubt upon the claim that bouncing a laser at the moon at a specific spot can only be done by hand-placed reflectors. http://aulis.com/moon_pt2.htm

Books to read:
Mary Bennett and David Percy - Dark Moon (1999)
(about 600 pages and only 3/4 is about the moon landings, most comprehensive takedown)

Ralph Rene (RIP) - NASA Mooned America (1995, about 200 pages)
Search online for a free copy. Ex-MENSA member, patent holder and actual NASA contributor , complete annihilation of the lunar fantasy. Hilarious too! The guy was a libertarian nationalist too, definitely one of us.

Bill Kaysing (RIP) - We Never Went to the Moon (1976, about 200 pages)
The OG moon hoax guy. Rocketdyne contractor in charge of editing the memos b/w departments. Published the congressional testimony (among lots of other shocking evidence) of Thomas Ronald Baron (p. 133-161), a contractor in charge of testing where the Apollo 1 astronauts were incinerated in their capsule during a test where the pressure was cranked to 15 PSI in a 100% oxygen environment (creating a defacto calorimeter bomb) showing tragically laughable incompetence he would report and nobody would do anything about (e.g., using a cigarette lighter to read instruments). Here's a hilarious quote: "Immediately after disconnecting an N2Or line flex located on the seventh level of the gantry at pad 34, a technician walked about fifteen feet away and lit a cigarette. The line had liquid in it and the tech was wearing a splash suit." This was testimony under oath. They were literally as dumb as the gay models from Zoolander who died in a freak gasoline fight at the gas station after lighting a cigarette. Real "Rocket scientists." A few days after testifying, Baron was found dead with his wife and her kids via "suicide" by parking his car on the train tracks. In violation of FL law, no autopsy was done.

David McGowen (RIP) - Wagging the Moondoggie (2010)
Available for free online (about 130 pages or so). David is a leftist, but definitely a truth-seeker.

Documentaries I recommend (I've seen many others but these are the best)
Bart Sibrel (an Aristotelian perspective on the fakery)- A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the Moon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4&t=189s
See his follow-up, Astronauts Gone Wild, too!

Jet Wintzer (a Platonic perspective on the fakery, i.e. supporter of the "nobel lie")- Moon Hoax Now http://aulis.com/moon_hoax_now1.htm
An SJW of sorts (i.e. he did a prior film about why we should tear down statues of "racists" but a truth-seeker), but shows conclusive evidence of fakery.
Mary Bennett and David Percy - What Happened on the Moon: http://aulis.com/moon_pt1.htm

Blogger Blacksmith Zeke April 02, 2019 12:15 AM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:"This kind of reasoning always gets me. "There are reflectors where lasers can bounce off." Really? How do you know?"

Because I've done it myself, dumbass.


Unless you're an astronomer who has worked at Apache Point in Texas or Observatoire de la Côte d'Azure in France in the last 10 years, you're lying. No one else has the equipment.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/jun/21/mcdonald-observatory-space-laser-funding
Did you shine a flashlight at the moon?

Blogger Blacksmith Zeke April 02, 2019 12:25 AM  

P Glenrothes wrote:Key questions for non-believers: 1. Were you an adult at the time, who witnessed the complex build-up, landing and recovery in real time? 2. Were there industries manufacturing, delivering components, and employing thousands of employees? Was the massive, costly infrastructure in place at that time? Are the non-believer leaders biased against science?

Oh yes, the "huge amount of people involved" argument. By that rationale, 9/11 happened as the official story states, right?

Blogger Andrew April 02, 2019 1:52 AM  

Come on people wake the fuck up. Of course the moon landings were faked. You're living a lie, grow the fuck up and get a life. Your bullshit narrative is empty of facts, you've been listening to BS all your life.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 02, 2019 3:57 AM  

"Indecision is no good, Azure. You must submit to the truth, which we all know what it is. Take the Hoax Pill."

Now you're just being a dishonest douchebag.

Sure, there's almost certainly something fishy about it. Doesn't have to be the landing itself. Could be evidence of aliens or supernatural beings or something else paradigm-shifting. Could be many other things as well. Maybe they stole some of the tech from Russia or something. Who knows.

Maybe it is the manned landing. There's nowhere near enough evidence to prove it to a halfway decent standard though.

Blogger Mr. Bee April 02, 2019 4:01 AM  

I think the ADL is just about to send their hit squads out after Theodore and his minions so he needs to pop the "I'm just a harmless mentally ill crank" camo once again to keep the wolves at bay. Alternatively, this is a great way to knock off the rational fence sitters from "the movement" and leave only the pure of belief.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 02, 2019 4:01 AM  

I'll submit to the "truth" when I feel reasonably certain that it IS the truth. Until then you can f*** right off.

I can hold however many uncertainties in my mind. As many as I feel like and am comfortable with. This is just another one of many.

Blogger One Deplorable DT April 02, 2019 5:10 AM  

@138 - ...you've cleverly dispatched this baleful conspiracy theory by explaining away this problematic fact by putting forth a vague theory of a conspiracy.

Theft of valuable materials happens all the time. It's not a conspiracy and is a far, far more likely explanation than anything else. It also doesn't matter because even that ridiculous article acknowledged that neither mistake nor theft invalidate the whole body of material collected. Maybe Little Green Men teleported to Earth and stole that particular moon rock because it was their favorite. Who cares?

@139 - The comparison of the Chinese soil analysis results to the NASA ones is at 1 hour 31 minutes into the video.

Are you kidding me right now? I thought the video would mention a relevant difference, i.e. a difference that would indicate someone is incorrect about an atmosphere on the moon, water on the surface, level of cosmic ray bombardment, or something.

Nope. One spot happens to have more magnesium than another. Imagine that. A body in space the size of the moon, which is constantly pelted by other smaller bodies of various origins, having anything less than 100% identical soil across its entire surface.

I have two soil samples from two locations on Earth that also vary in magnesium. Ergo, Earth is a conspiracy and no one has ever been there.

Blogger ZhukovG April 02, 2019 5:47 AM  

Based on the evidence available; I am inclined to believe that we landed men on the moon.

However, given that our government has a seemingly pathological need to lie about everything. I do not deny that the landing of men on the moon could have been faked.

The space program provided a lovely diversion from a lot of unpleasantness that was going on during the 60's. For Boomers in particular, Men on the Moon, is the climax of their generation. To lose that would be difficult to take.

Blogger Stephen Davenport April 02, 2019 6:54 AM  

Step into the light Vox, you are getting more conspiratorial as the days go by..lol

Blogger CM April 02, 2019 7:06 AM  

Key questions for non-believers: 1. Were you an adult at the time, who witnessed the complex build-up, landing and recovery in real time? 2. Were there industries manufacturing, delivering components, and employing thousands of employees? Was the massive, costly infrastructure in place at that time? Are the non-believer leaders biased against science?

Not really a non-believer... just generally a skeptic of government...

I was not alive during the moon landing, but I cry during the presentations at KSC. My husband is employed out there, so I'm invested in the success of what's going on out there.

I am a bit of a luddite. Ironic, as I majored in CS, but there it is. I'm not a big fan of tech. It's not really rational, so don't ask me to justify it. I can't.

Blogger Amos Bellomy April 02, 2019 8:47 AM  

Guys, 9/11 did NOT have a huge amount of people involved in the conspiracy. 9/11 was, if the official story is fake, a collaboration between CERTAIN PARTS of the U.S. government and a small Afghani terrorist group. The moon landing involved multiple massive organizations and was widely publicized from start to finish. We have an enormous body of work explaining in detail exactly how it was accomplished. There is no comparison.

And now the conclusion that the entire thing is faked is based off of one awkward interview between NASA scientists and a ridiculous selective cherry-picking of evidence.

There is absolutely no doubt here. The moon landing happened. Certain details might have been faked - it was the cold war, after all - but there is simply no question at all that it occurred.

Blogger Rough Carrigan April 02, 2019 9:54 AM  

#154, you're leaving out the Israelis. Remember, shortly after being arrested and then released, group of Israelis appeared on Israeli TV and explained that they were there to document the event.

Of course a reasonable person might ask how they knew to be there when a supposedly unforseeable and unprecedented event was going to take place unless . . .

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 02, 2019 10:06 AM  

"Unless you're an astronomer who has worked at Apache Point in Texas or Observatoire de la Côte d'Azure in France in the last 10 years, you're lying. No one else has the equipment."

Might want to recheck the source you got that information from. Apache Point isn't in Texas. Only certain ranging experiments have been limited to approximately the last ten years. Haleakala high altitude is also capable of ranging them, and has been for decades.

Granted, you can't do it with a laser pointer and your hand, you need a solid state laser, ruby gain medium or better, mounted to track at exactly the right rate and calibrated very strenuously to the right angle besides. You won't be able to see it with your eye due to the short pulse length needed to generate the amount of power, the short wavelength you'll probably be using, and the low intensity of the reflection due to the divergence that STILL occurs.

If you want to argue that the moon landings are a hoax, you'd be much better off sticking to that claim for the manned landings, and claiming that the reflectors were ALL placed remotely instead of just some of them.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 02, 2019 10:10 AM  

"However, given that our government has a seemingly pathological need to lie about everything. I do not deny that the landing of men on the moon could have been faked."

This to me is the best evidence. So much lying goes on that even if it happened, they almost certainly lied about several different things to do with it.

Blogger Amos Bellomy April 02, 2019 10:14 AM  

Besides the fact that there are a billion and one plausible explanations as to how or why Israeli reporters were in NYC besides knowing about a terrorist attack, you act as if another small middle eastern government located thousands of miles away in a different continent is the same sort of conspiracy as a highly documented and publicized American endeavor involving thousands of government employees who actually lived in the U.S.A, where the hows and whys are publicly available and intentionally released, not hidden.

The differences between the two are staggering, and this is assuming there are even major discrepancies in the official 9/11 account and what really happened, which is far from proven itself despite what we'd like to believe.

Blogger inthebriarpatch April 02, 2019 10:48 AM  

Hoax theory.. lol.. They lost or recorded over thousands of tapes containing the telemetry data. The crowning achievement of human kind AND THEY DELETED THE EVIDENCE.

That's my reason for calling B.S.

Blogger inthebriarpatch April 02, 2019 10:49 AM  

Except he stated we didn't go to the moon.

Blogger inthebriarpatch April 02, 2019 10:58 AM  

Your comment is patently false.

"As you're well aware, no telescope on Earth can see the leftover descent stages of the Apollo Lunar Modules or anything else Apollo-related. Not even the Hubble Space Telescope can discern evidence of the Apollo landings. The laws of optics define its limits."

https://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon-landing-sites/

Blogger Garuna April 02, 2019 11:00 AM  

I'll submit to the "truth" when I feel reasonably certain that it IS the truth. Until then you can f*** right off.

Azure, please. Watch the language. This is a CHRISTIAN website. And give up on the silly moon landing meme. Just clinging to it still after such thorough debunking doesn't even look intelligent. It just looks silly. The moon landing was just a Stanley Kubrick MOVIE. Take the Hoax Pill.

Blogger MJ Meyers April 02, 2019 11:40 AM  

The Manhattan Project was kept a secret with about 130,000 people working for them; so much so, only a disguised top level of clearance even knew what they were creating. With NASA and its 400K contractors (one of whom was caught at ~'67 "[i]mmediately after disconnecting an N2Or line flex located on the seventh level of the gantry at pad 34, a technician walked about fifteen feet away and lit a cigarette. The line had liquid in it and the tech was wearing a splash suit.", Baron report published in Kaysing's book 1974), they at least knew what they were building toward. They also filmed many simulations and had a practice satellite for simulated moon missions at ground control. Per the government's promise at the time (people were weary about socializing such a large project), 90% of the 400,000 were contractors in private industry. Why would the CIA tell NASA, let alone over 300,000 working for private companies as contractors that they were faking it.

Riddle me this. The lander (Lunar Excursion Module, LEM) was about 30K pounds. The descent stage was 20K pounds (look it up). The ascent stage was 10K pounds and fit the astronauts, equipment, pressurized cabin, directional thrusters and engine with ignition mix and fuel to burn 75 miles up and accelerate to 4,000 mph to match the velocity of the command module in lunar orbit. The ascent engines were never tested, b/c the materials were so corrosive they'd destroy the engine (look it up). Apollo 11 was the first time the ascent engine was even test-fired. Vox talks about science versus engineering. Engineering involves tests to see if equipment works. The Apollo 11 ascent engine firing was pure scientistry, straight to the historical record as scientage (that we can't repeat 50 years later).

Musty Boomer Lunacy. We're not smart enough to repeat that feat 50 years later despite every president since announcing and the next one canceling a repeat lunar mission since 1972 (look it up). Only the greatest g-g-generation could pull that off!

Blogger Ominous Cowherd April 02, 2019 12:18 PM  

P Glenrothes wrote:Was the massive, costly infrastructure in place at that time?

Yes, it was. The official story is physically possible, and there is no doubt that we made the equipment and launched it into space. It's just rocket science, we understand the physics.

We doubt the official story because we know the reputation of the organizations that tell it, not because it is impossible.

Blogger Amos Bellomy April 02, 2019 12:28 PM  

The Manhattan Project was not announced to the public at large, but after the bomb was dropped nobody questioned that it happened. The moon landing was announced and widely publicized from conception to execution. We knew exactly who was involved in it and many people involved can and did speak freely after the fact, including the astronauts and scientists.

Again, the two aren't comparable. The Manhattan Project was not a massive conspiracy or hoax, it was a secret wartime weapons project.

Blogger inthebriarpatch April 02, 2019 1:18 PM  

This.

"NASA participated in only one hoax!"

When I was a kid, u had a friend who would lie about some things. Oh he often told the truth. When u realized discerning WHAT he was lying about was a crapshoot...

Blogger SirHamster April 02, 2019 2:13 PM  

Jim wrote:I fantasize about murdering morons all the time.

For the Moon Landing? Owen is sharp, this is a secular religion and a sacred cow that needs to be torn down.

What other dogmas are you willing to kill for?


Ominous Cowherd wrote:It's just rocket science, we understand the physics.

We doubt the official story because we know the reputation of the organizations that tell it, not because it is impossible.


And note that faked moon landing PR does not logically preclude actual moon landing.

Blogger One Deplorable DT April 02, 2019 2:58 PM  

@163 - The ascent engines were never tested, b/c the materials were so corrosive they'd destroy the engine (look it up). Apollo 11 was the first time the ascent engine was even test-fired.

This is a misrepresentation, much like the Van Allen belt claims and the "all tapes missing" claim.

The ascent engine design was thoroughly tested on Earth. But for each mission a new, never fired ascent engine was manufactured and used. Given the hypergolic design of the engine this makes sense.

There are a number of things which cannot be tested before being used due to their very nature. Any type of explosive fits this category. And a hypergolic rocket engine is practically an explosive, even more so than other rocket engine types. They chose this for the ascent stage to minimize the chance of astronauts being stranded on the moon due to a dead ascent rocket. With a hypergolic engine if you can flow fuel that fuel will burn, period.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine April 02, 2019 6:36 PM  

"Azure, please. Watch the language. This is a CHRISTIAN website."

April fools is over Garuna, you can give it up now.

Blogger Jez April 02, 2019 7:34 PM  

MJ Meyers

"Riddle me this. The lander (Lunar Excursion Module, LEM) was about 30K pounds. The descent stage was 20K pounds (look it up). The ascent stage was 10K pounds and fit the astronauts, equipment, pressurized cabin, directional thrusters and engine with ignition mix and fuel to burn 75 miles up and accelerate to 4,000 mph to match the velocity of the command module in lunar orbit. The ascent engines were never tested, b/c the materials were so corrosive they'd destroy the engine (look it up). Apollo 11 was the first time the ascent engine was even test-fired. Vox talks about science versus engineering. Engineering involves tests to see if equipment works. The Apollo 11 ascent engine firing was pure scientistry, straight to the historical record as scientage (that we can't repeat 50 years later)."

The ascent engine was developed from 1963 onwards and of course it was tested in development. Each *individual* engine, used in the actual ascent stage, didn't need to be tested because, yes, the propellants involved are extremely corrosive and we wouldn't want to trust a compromised engine to lift astronauts off the moon, and because the fuels instantly ignite upon contact with each other. That's what "hypergolic" means. If the injection system injects, it works; no static fire required.

You can look up the specs of the ascent module and the engine, and do the math to figure out if it had sufficient delta v to get into the LOR. I'll guide you through it if you wish.

Blogger ash April 02, 2019 8:49 PM  

I just saw this. This WAS an April Fools joke, right? Right?

Blogger admin@theamericanbulletin.com April 02, 2019 10:36 PM  

Many people work at Area 51 & the Skunkworks, yet they wont talk about it... Hoax silence on penalty of treason, death or prison is a no brainer.

Blogger MJ Meyers April 03, 2019 1:11 PM  

@Jez

My understanding was Grumman (contractor) no longer has the technical specs for the LM. Same is true for the Saturn V rocket. You can view a 100 page bid Grumman made for the LM, which is curious. Military craft contractors commonly do 10s of thousands of pages in a bid for multi-million dollar projects. But for the multi-billion dollar LM contract, 100 pages?

I'm not a rocket engineer and couldn't make sense of the full technical specs anyway. But I know engineers test engines before using them as a general heuristic. The fact that NASA et al. violated this rule and put the astronauts in peril with an untested engine (why not a remote test from lunar orbit of the ascent stage?) by using mathematics alone is a huge red flag for me.

Of course, if it weren't for the footage widely available of the Apollo 11 astronauts faking footage from low-Earth orbit by putting shades on a circular window of their spacecraft and using the Earthshine to produce a fake Earth and terminator lines, using the lights shut out in the spacecraft to simulate a backdrop of space with the camera pulled back, and a 3rd party being picked up communicating with Armstrong (most likely the CIA, saying "talk" timing for Armstrong when to respond to mission control) and the footage of the Apollo 13 astronauts "escaping" to the LM for their voyage back with the blue Earthshine enveloping the entire circular window when they were supposed to be 200,000 miles out on the way to the moon (indicating they were in low-earth orbit instead), perhaps I'd take another heuristic into account and let it slide. That is, nah, they couldn't possibly lie about something and get away with it for 50 years like this.

Blogger Jez April 03, 2019 8:42 PM  

@ MJ Meyers

"My understanding was Grumman (contractor) no longer has the technical specs for the LM. Same is true for the Saturn V rocket. You can view a 100 page bid Grumman made for the LM, which is curious. Military craft contractors commonly do 10s of thousands of pages in a bid for multi-million dollar projects. But for the multi-billion dollar LM contract, 100 pages?"

The technical specifications for the LM, at least regarding the mass, engine, thrust, specific impulse, fuel load, feed system, etc, are readily available. As to the full construction blueprints for the LM, I don't know, but they probably wouldn't be particularly illuminating. Only 15 of the things were built, and this in the era before CAD and robotic manufacturing. Each one was essentially hand-crafted, and blueprints interpreted by technicians and engineers as needed, and each unit retrofitted as deemed necessary by experience with prior uses.

The "loss" of the Saturn V plans is also a misrepresentation. The prints exist on microfiche at Marshall, but again, the actual items each differed from construction blueprints for myriad reasons. The F1 engines in particular were difficult because of combustion instability due to the large chamber size. Again, this is before the sorts of computer modelling we rely on today was available, the problems were analyzed and worked out largely intuitively by the engineers by installing baffles and drilling holes to control the rate of oxidizer and fuel flows under acceleration. What is "lost" due to time, company mergers and collapses, loss of technical and manufacturing techniques and skills pertaining to specific components, creeping entropy, etc., are the individual notes and persons' memories, of countless little mechanical details that made the whole stack go from blueprint to reality.

The comparative length of bid contracts should come as no surprise. In the early 60's, federal code was a small fraction of the size it is today. Administrative bloat.


"I'm not a rocket engineer and couldn't make sense of the full technical specs anyway. But I know engineers test engines before using them as a general heuristic. The fact that NASA et al. violated this rule and put the astronauts in peril with an untested engine (why not a remote test from lunar orbit of the ascent stage?) by using mathematics alone is a huge red flag for me."

The ascent engine was tested on the ground in the months and years before it flew; that's how they knew it would have to be rebuilt due to the corrosion. It was engineered to be extremely simple and lightweight; ie, no throttling ability, pressure-fed by helium, no complicated and heavy pumping systems. It was tested in flight in Earth orbit, with astronauts aboard, during Apollo 9. The LM undocked from the CSM, tested maneuvers with the descent stage, jettisoned the descent stage, re-docked to the CSM with the ascent stage engine, transferred crew, undocked from CSM, ascent stage engine fired again.

It was tested in lunar orbit during the Apollo 10 mission. The LM descended to nearly 14 miles of the lunar surface with the descent stage, separated, and used the ascent stage to rendezvous back with the CSM.

Your information on this particular matter is simply incorrect.

Blogger NietzscheanLandscape April 04, 2019 11:02 AM  

youtube.com/watch?v=Zz9Bzi_GyD0&t=137s ..we still havent figured out the hoax?

Blogger Kentucky Packrat April 05, 2019 9:05 PM  

Never attribute to intrigue what can be attributed to stupidity. NASA is notorious for losing large amounts of data. People were trying to figure out why the Pioneer probes weren't where they were "supposed to be", and a lot of the data they needed were rotting on tapes in a stairwell at JPL.

Also, the Saturn V rockets and their predecessors were basically built to develop the technology needed to build ICBMs. Of COURSE the public blueprints aren't really that useful; let's not give the Russians or the Chinese useful plans. Also, look at the history of US military projects, and how many planes had plans or molds, etc. destroyed so that we couldn't restart production....

The lesson of the space shuttle program was that NASA really got lucky through its whole career. We really should have had a casualty rate higher than the Russians, but our guys were good and God was with them.

Blogger Jez April 05, 2019 9:44 PM  

@ Kentucky Packrat

"We really should have had a casualty rate higher than the Russians,"

We did have a casualty rate higher than the Russians, unfortunately. Running the comparative numbers, Soyuz has proven to be the safest, most reliable, and most cost-effective manned launcher in the world. The space shuttle turned out to be the opposite on each count.

Space X's Falcon 9/Dragon 2 configuration has a great chance to flip the tables, but with something over a thousand launches with the Soyuz and extended R7 family with a near 97% success rate, they have a long way to go.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts