Did we really go to the Moon?

[Orph]

Due to the low gravity and lack of atmosphere, it takes very little thrust blast off from the surface of the moon. There's very little resistance to overcome. There's no need for a full blown rocket like they use here on earth.

[WhiteFeather]

A gem of a movie. A must watch. You just gotta love the sarcasm's towards the Government, Astronauts and NASA. A 5 Star Video IMO. Well worth the 46 minutes.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4

[Nick Matkin]

Posted by WhiteFeather (here)
Interesting points so far on the video Turiya posted previously.
1. They had real time Communications at 240,000 Miles. Highly Doubtful.
2. The batteries running all the power on the LEM, supporting all electronics, Oxygen, Air Condition Ventilation Systems etc etc. Highly Doubtful.

1) The Apollo VHF communications were independently received by well-equipped radio amateurs, mostly in the US, but also elsewhere. Nothing particularly hard doing that. Earth-Moon-Earth Moon-bounce signals (with about 250 dB path loss!) were first achieved by amateurs in 1953, so amateur reception of Moon-based transmitters was comparatively easy.

The signals received by amateurs from the Apollo missions had the Doppler shift, polarization, delay and path loss all consistent with the Apollo equipment transmitting from the Moon. (Apollo 'deniers' are unaware of these documented facts.)

2) The Apollo fuel-cell power sources are well documented.

Hopes this helps.

[Operator]

Posted by Nick Matkin (here)

Posted by WhiteFeather (here)
Interesting points so far on the video Turiya posted previously.
1. They had real time Communications at 240,000 Miles. Highly Doubtful.
2. The batteries running all the power on the LEM, supporting all electronics, Oxygen, Air Condition Ventilation Systems etc etc. Highly Doubtful.

1) The Apollo VHF communications were independently received by well-equipped radio amateurs, mostly in the US, but also elsewhere. Nothing particularly hard doing that. Earth-Moon-Earth Moon-bounce signals (with about 250 dB path loss!) were first achieved by amateurs in 1953, so amateur reception of Moon-based transmitters was comparatively easy.

The signals received by amateurs from the Apollo missions had the Doppler shift, polarization, delay and path loss all consistent with the Apollo equipment transmitting from the Moon. (Apollo 'deniers' are unaware of these documented facts.)

2) The Apollo fuel-cell power sources are well documented.

Hopes this helps.

I think after all the posts the discussion goes back and forth ... and should perhaps be focussed differently.
When I look at the Apollo pictures I have strong doubts that this was it. I have a strong feeling that
this is the mock-up version of what is shown to the public. After all the Israelis crashed their vehicle on the
moon just days ago. That's how difficult it is. Would any authority like to have spectators when such risky
endeavours are undertaken? I guess not.

But it does not rule out that succesful missions were undertaken in a different way. So both views
can be true and defended at the same time. If we take both views as a composite possibility a new view
arises. Why the secrecy and what is really happening on the moon?

[Intranuclear]

The Israeli craft had a minor glitch and because there was no human, the glitch was not caught in time. When the descent engines reignited, it was too late.
As for other successful moon landings, the Russian Lunakhod program (started in Jan 1969) predated the American's landing and in fact NASA consulted Russia on dealing with automation and how to navigate with a time lag of several seconds (no AI at that time).

NASA does and did heavily doctor their publicly released pictures as does EVERY single publication. Also, perhaps people are confusing the numerous sets that NASA uses for handling emergencies and path planning. They try to duplicate the alien environment on the sets accurately for assisting either the AI or the humans.
Could this be the source of the confusion?

The biggest problem is that NASA is NOT a public organization as most of the equipment used is of military origin or related. There is massive secrecy regarding most aspects of missions as they are paranoid about spying.

Regardless, all of this will be moot in the coming years as humans return to the moon.

Oh and the silliness regarding the killer Van Allen Belts .... the moon shots specifically took a longer polar route to escape most of the radiation. But I think no amount of evidence will convince those who were not intimately involved in the program.

Oh and one more thing, the Israeli mission I think cost about 100 million which is one thousand times less that what Apollo cost.

[RaiseMachine]

Posted by latte (here)
One thing that has always intrigued me is rockets. I have never seen anything about NASA having a rocket that can take off, land, then take off again. How did they land a rocket on the moon and take off again? Why could they not land that rocket back on Earth after returning from the moon instead of splashing down into the ocean. That would include the space shuttle landing like an airplane rather than a rocket. I've never seen anything, but please let me know if you have.

So you've not done any basic research on rockets even though they've always intrigued you. OK.

They didn't land a rocket on the moon.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=8dpkmUjJ8xU

[WhiteFeather]

Sorry Nick. I'm truly not convinced we have been to the moon, as I'm more convinced we have not, this is how i see it. Has anyone physically looked at the integrity of the Apollo 11 LEM with respect to its design and construction? It seriously looks like it was put together by a small group of 6th grade students at an elementary school science fair (Photo Below). So many other questions that boggles me, How did they actually fit the 3 supposedly 4 wheeled moon rovers on that thing including themselves and all the gear etc. I'm still highly skeptical about the whole mission, call me crazy, I've been called worse. How about passing through The Intense Van Allen Radiation Belts. And with regards to its landing and taking off, There were no burn markings from the propulsion systems left on the surface of the moon. There were no stars in the background of the photo shoots. How did they attempt such an unbelievable mission in its first try? Way too many inconsistencies in my opinion. Have you watched any of the very recent youtube videos that were posted? Im more convinced we haven't been to the moon.
Sorry, that's just my opinion.

Again, an interesting perspective here.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4

And seriously, does this LEM look like it's capable of space travel? Sheet Metal with Rivets, PVC Piping, Curtain Rods, Gold Aluminum Foil wrapped around the landing gear. And what part of the module did they occupy? Was It The lower part of the LEM?
Does this LEM look shanty to anyone else, or is it just me?

[Wind]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Zrekz05fZYU

[petra]

I got a box of trivia slash propaganda for Christmas, and each day of the year has a new piece of trivia.

Yesterdays trivia was "Neil Armstrong's first step on the moon was with his left foot"

Assuming for a moment that he did not in fact walk on the moon, isn't that kind of offensive? Just a thought. I really dislike my Trivia calendar, in case it's not obviously apparent

[Sunny-side-up]

Some more content for the ongoing ddebate: did we land on the moon?
Haven't seen this content before.

Most shockingly, Sibrel claims to have documents from a former security guard who says he watched while NASA and the CIA filmed the faked moon landing of 1969 at a military base.

A FILMMAKER who was punched in the face by astronaut Buzz Aldrin for saying he lied about walking on the moon - says he has undeniable proof that the lunar landings were fake.

Bart Sibrel, who has been assaulted and bombarded with death threats over his research into the Apollo missions, shared photos and video footage with Sun Online which, unbelievably, he claims prove man has never walked on the moon.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/953014...andings-faked/

[Denise/Dizi]

I have seen the "Reporter" and the ensuing drama. And I have seen much of the fake footage, including the astronauts in low Earth orbit covering the window to give the appearance they're further away.. My opinions are just that.. Opinions. (I also saw the moon mountains on the crater rim at the Nasa training ground in Hawaii, with later images of Buzz returning to that site during the daytime in photos. )

With Nasa now suggesting the Moon is in our atmosphere, and the space shuttles being grounded, I am guessing the Moon isn't as far away as they claim it is, nor it is what we believe it to be, forcing them to fake those landings. I have yet to decide what I believe it all to mean but yes, many things have been faked. Does that mean that we have yet to check it out? I don't think so, I do think that they really don't feel like they can show us what they found though.

I don't know what we don't know, But I wish I did :D..

[justntime2learn]

Personally, I think Bill is right.

We went to the moon, but the footage is faked.

To me, it seems like a matter of national security so to speak. Why would the United States offer high resolution video of the Moon while there was a race? If the Moon video was real wouldn't that help competitors make discoveries they haven't paid for?

I'm sorry I only have a few minutes left on my lunch and wanted to offer my thought. Hope it makes sense...

[Sunny-side-up]

Yes I think we got there but not without help.

[Forest Denizen]

It has also been explained as film done in the event that something went wrong and Apollo 11 didn't make it to the moon. The film would then be used as a sort of failsafe..

[justntime2learn]

Posted by Ken (here)
It has also been explained as film done in the event that something went wrong and Apollo 11 didn't make it to the moon. The film would then be used as a sort of failsafe..

I believe this to be true.

We were going to get there one way or the other. Seems there must always be a contingency plan.

IMHO, the moon shots were a success though.

[ichingcarpenter]

How many here ever saw a Saturn V launch let alone a shuttle launch? I'm willing to bet zero. I saw the only night launch Apollo 17 and more than a half dozen shuttle launches. My Dad who live in Titusville saw the shuttle blow up from his backyard. We knew people in the Space race, including scientists, astronauts, engineers, technicians. etc. It wasn't fake

How many here know who Nvidia is? Well if you ever used a graphic card in your computer or replaced one for better gaming you used Nvidia card and tech. They know what they are talking about . So if you take an amateurs opinion on film graphics rather than a graphic engineers take so be it but you need to watch this.




Nvidia Debunks Conspiracy Theories About Moon Landing

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=syVP6zDZN7I

[yelik]

Personally I can't see why we did not go to the moon. I think too many people were involved to fake it. Afterall we were likely on Mars in the mid 60's

[DaveToo]

Posted by yelik (here)
Personally I can't see why we did not go to the moon. I think too many people were involved to fake it. Afterall we were likely on Mars in the mid 60's

Yeah and there were too many people involved to 'fake' 9/11, JFK, MLK, RFK etc.

[thepainterdoug]

as with all so called conspiracy theories, they exist exactly because good sensible and aware people see discrepancies, inconsistencies , and illogical info that demands them to question it. and no proper adequate counterpoint ever seems to be offered to put out the question and explain and clear up the situation.

i recently again saw Paul Craig Robert add his suspicion to the Sandy Hook event. a picture shown of the school children allegedly being ushered out in a spontaneous moment, and then a second picture impossible to exist if the story to be true, emerges showing the kids in another shot being re arranged, with casual onlookers. AND WE ARE THE CONSPIRACY NUTS?

I believe the answer is correct that we went to the moon but the footage was massaged and fake. same w S Hook things don't add up and could be easily cleared up if authentic. but they aren't. they are just covered up the truth is somewhere in the middle

[DaveToo]

Posted by thepainterdoug (here)
I believe the answer is correct that we went to the moon but the footage was massaged and fake....

I consider myself a 9/11 expert. A 9/11 conspiracy authority. This is because I have spent literally years researching the subject, full-time.

With the limited research I have done on the moon landings, there's good evidence showing the photos/video were faked.

So my first question to you Doug, if we went to the moon, why would the footage have been massaged/faked?
And second question for now. How did they navigate through the Van Allen belts?