Did we really go to the Moon?

[CurEus]

I agree with Justintime and Sunny Side up.

We faked it as an insurance policy in case something went wrong.

We still cannot get past the Van Allen belt as NASA freely admits they "lost" that technology. I believe we did go eventually but some assistance was at play be it single use ancient technology we found....or help from "others"

[thepainterdoug]

Hi Dave Too, only some theories. one, being we couldn't chance anything going wrong on the world stage.it was far too important to be a success.
so It had to all work.
2 that we didn't want anything being seen that we needed to be kept unseen.

and as for the van allen belts, I was told that the short exposure was a survivable exposure. but in all honesty it doesn't seem to wash and I m not an expert enough on the van allen belts to say . so perhaps a scientist can weigh in.

[Sunny-side-up]

The van Allen belt issue I think comes from them having lied and not covering their tracks.
The lie being:
The equipment that took them to the moon was actually very advanced (secret) and a head of our knowledge, not the tin can capsule.
It had other tech init I think.

A slightly related question:

How many here have seen footage of rockets going wrong on take off.
It lifts then fails, then comes back down and before it explodes and you see the top cone falls off? o.0
Only way I can be justified is that it was a mock rocket

[Tintin]

Posted by justntime2learn (here)
Personally, I think Bill is right.

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

Yes, I drew that conclusion too really quite a long time ago It's an observation that's bang on the money.

There was a real moon landing, for sure, (and there are likely many more going on even as I type) but back-up footage was created to help tell the story, for a multitude of reasons of course. The landings happened, the landings weren't fake. But a lot of the images created weren't made on the moon; weren't made in lunar situ.
.
All the attendant beautiful imagery to colour the story aren't proof of any landing being faked. They are proof of a slick marketing machine creating sensational media professional shots to (certainly) entertain and enthrall.

Disney have been doing that for decades too

(I'm gonna go top up my moon tan )

[justntime2learn]

Exactly Tintin!

Likely many of these 'conspiracy theories' on how we didn't get to the moon are perpetuated by our own government. How long do you think they have they been doing that?

I wish I was a more gifted writer, but Tintin sums it up pretty well.

Anyone watch Science Channel, “Truth Behind The Moon Landing” yet? It's really silly but there is some truth in it. I think they explained how to get through the Van Allen belt best. There isn't much else I can recommend on the show though.

Allow me to reiterate? The show is silly but it is laced with truth.

[DaveToo]

Posted by Tintin (here)

Posted by justntime2learn (here)
Personally, I think Bill is right.

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

Yes, I drew that conclusion too really quite a long time ago It's an observation that's bang on the money.

There was a real moon landing, for sure, (and there are likely many more going on even as I type) but back-up footage was created to help tell the story, for a multitude of reasons of course. The landings happened, the landings weren't fake. But a lot of the images created weren't made on the moon; weren't made in lunar situ.
.
All the attendant beautiful imagery to colour the story aren't proof of any landing being faked. They are proof of a slick marketing machine creating sensational media professional shots to (certainly) entertain and enthrall.

Disney have been doing that for decades too

(I'm gonna go top up my moon tan )

Tin Tin of course I respect your view, but for myself, there are just too many issues you raised that plainly and simply don't make sense to me.
I am an extremely critical thinker.

So you are saying the fake footage was made as a back-up, in case there were problems.
I'm assuming you believe there weren't any problems. That they landed on the moon and returned safely.
So why not use footage that they created on the moon? Surely it would look more authentic and wouldn't cause the scrutiny we have now?

True, fake images of a moon landing by themselves, don't prove that a landing didn't take place.
So what compelling reasons/proof do you have to believe we went to the moon?

Proof that I could really sink my teeth into?

[justntime2learn]

Hi Dave Too,

I completely understand where you're coming from and it's always healthy to question everything.

Anything I provide will pale in comparison to what Bill will, so I'll leave it at that. I'm sure Tintin will be able to put it into words better than I.

What helped me most was listening to every interview I could with every astronaut, flight director and support crew I could. They were all alive and most still are.

You'll know when your teeth "sink in". For me, it was after decades of reading and watching everything I could get my hands on. 35 years ago I lived in Corvallis, Oregon, a college town and read every book on the subject in their library. I started forming my opinion in the early 70s and arrived at my truth after being on Avalon 2 or 3 years. All in all, 40 years for my teeth to sink in. I too, think critically. You'll know, when you arrive at your truth.

Hope that helps~J

[DaveToo]

Posted by justntime2learn (here)
Hi Dave Too,

I completely understand where you're coming from and it's always healthy to question everything.

Anything I provide will pale in comparison to what Bill will, so I'll leave it at that. I'm sure Tintin will be able to put it into words better than I.

What helped me most was listening to every interview I could with every astronaut, flight director and support crew I could. They were all alive and most still are.

You'll know when your teeth "sink in". For me, it was after decades of reading and watching everything I could get my hands on. 35 years ago I lived in Corvallis, Oregon, a college town and read every book on the subject in their library. I started forming my opinion in the early 70s and arrived at my truth after being on Avalon 2 or 3 years. All in all, 40 years for my teeth to sink in. I too, think critically. You'll know, when you arrive at your truth.

Hope that helps~J

Thanks for your input Justn.

I certainly can appreciate the amount of information you had to have processed if you studied this subject for 40 years.

I have a science background and so my brain is wired for 'scientific proof' type evidence.

I don't mean to put you or TinTin on the spot about this.
The way I see it basically is that if you are asking us to dismiss the video/photo evidence as untrustworthy/fake,
by default we have to rely on hearsay evidence.

I must say the astronaut interview just after they 'returned to earth' was highly unconvincing.
It would be one thing to have one astronaut a little burned out/down, but to have all three looking and sounding absolutely depressed
and demoralized after returning from one of the most famous journeys of mankind is, shall we say, shocking!

I hope someone can really give me something tangible, that I can sink my teeth into.
Something that would make me say, "there is absolutely no question, WE WENT TO THE MOON!"

To me, your asking me to believe we went to the moon is like someone asking me to believe Oswald killed JFK.

[prc]

I was reading an article at https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/953014...andings-faked/ and someone on the comment section said: My Smartphone is several times more powerful than the 1960´s Computers and I don´t think it could land me on the Moon.

[justntime2learn]

Posted by prc (here)
I was reading an article at https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/953014...andings-faked/ and someone on the comment section said: My Smartphone is several times more powerful than the 1960´s Computers and I don´t think it could land me on the Moon.

Your smartphone is much more powerful than that. I believe they landed on the moon with 5K of memory, slide rules and a sextant. Of course, there was much more than that, but those were some of the main tools.

Have you noticed that some people will do anything for money or notoriety? Some people are always right. I wouldn't put much stock in the less than gentle man who was punched by Buzz Aldrin.

@Davetoo

I know what you mean about the interview because that had me on the fence for a while too.

I don't feel like you're putting me on the spot at all. I enjoy sharing knowledge that was passed on to me in hopes that it will help another. Discernment is up to you

[Sunny-side-up]

50 years ago.

50 years ago, NASA’s Apollo 11 mission changed our world and ideas of what is possible by successfully landing humans on the surface of the moon⁠—and bringing them home safely⁠—for the first time in history. Today’s video Doodle celebrates this moment of human achievement by taking us through the journey to the moon and back, narrated by someone with firsthand knowledge of the epic event: former astronaut and Apollo 11 command module pilot Michael Collins.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=t6VpHyKXHBM

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9HvG6ZlpLrI

[Sunny-side-up]

The Real Story Behind the Apollo 11 Computer Error | WSJ

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=z4cn93H6sM0

Apollo’s Most Important Discovery (Inside NASA’s Moon Rock Vault!)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Qr28zMXQ3bU

So why didn’t Russia put a man on the moon?

At the time the soviets were leading the space race, they had already started with the launch of Sputnik, then launched several probes to the moon, including one in 1959 that orbited and taken photos of the far side and By 1961 they were the first to put a man in to space.

So when Kennedy made his now famous “We choose to go to the moon” speech in 1962 to rally public support, Khrushchev’s response was silence, neither confirming nor denying that they had a plan for a manned moon mission.

But at the time Khrushchev wasn’t really interested in competing with the US over the moon, he was more interested ICBM’s the Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles for the strategic rocket forces.
But there were others that had harboured plans for manned mission for a long time, these included the man whose name was a state secret and the most powerful man outside the Kremlin when it came to space.

He was Sergei Pavlovich Korolev, outside the inner circle of the top space scientists he was known only as the “Chief Designer” or by his first 2 initials SP, because the Soviet leadership feared that the western powers would send agents to assassinate him........

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Vi6fjs_8Yx8

[sms]

.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=USaoG3T2JBk

[Tintin]

Posted by DaveToo (here)

Posted by Tintin (here)

Posted by justntime2learn (here)
Personally, I think Bill is right.

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

Yes, I drew that conclusion too really quite a long time ago It's an observation that's bang on the money.

There was a real moon landing, for sure, (and there are likely many more going on even as I type) but back-up footage was created to help tell the story, for a multitude of reasons of course. The landings happened, the landings weren't fake. But a lot of the images created weren't made on the moon; weren't made in lunar situ.
.
All the attendant beautiful imagery to colour the story aren't proof of any landing being faked. They are proof of a slick marketing machine creating sensational media professional shots to (certainly) entertain and enthrall.

Disney have been doing that for decades too

(I'm gonna go top up my moon tan )

Tin Tin of course I respect your view, but for myself, there are just too many issues you raised that plainly and simply don't make sense to me.
I am an extremely critical thinker.

So you are saying the fake footage was made as a back-up, in case there were problems.
I'm assuming you believe there weren't any problems. That they landed on the moon and returned safely.
So why not use footage that they created on the moon? Surely it would look more authentic and wouldn't cause the scrutiny we have now?

True, fake images of a moon landing by themselves, don't prove that a landing didn't take place.
So what compelling reasons/proof do you have to believe we went to the moon?

Proof that I could really sink my teeth into?

DaveToo

From my point of view, you do ask perfectly reasonable questions here.

There is also a reasonable supposition that could be made in suggesting that humankind had possibly already been there before, but there isn't to my knowledge any concrete evidence, at least to hand, that could prove that, at all.

That doesn't mean to say there isn't any

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Based upon what I've studied reasonably intently, and where there seems, on the surface similarly reasonable evidence in circulation to support it, I suggest the following:

• The moon landings were authentic events. There were way way too many people involved in the program, despite closely managed information compartmentalisation, for it to have been a complete fabrication, and it happened more than once.

• The actual purpose for going there is probably way above 'Top Secret', known only to a very few - we may never know the real reasons for going there, at least not at this time.

• The means for getting there that everybody has been told was 'how' is a likely decoy to help 'brand' the story after the fact - there's money to be made from merch ( ) - hence the super-professional studio'd imagery we see created to enforce a narrative, whether or not Stanley Kubrick was involved - I personally think he was. Very useful to have stock imagery to hand - yes - in the event of anything going awry, although, I am certain they knew nothing would, or could, go awry.

• The actual means for getting to the moon are I suspect super highly classified and involve technology that would be too sensitive to make public. Deep projects have doubtless been going on for a few decades longer than may generally be known, or accepted. That information, again, really only known to an elite few.

• There do appear to be anomalous objects/structures that have been observed by amateur astronomers over the years that would suggest inhabitation of some sort. Human, and/or non-human entities? Probably the reason why precious little, to, next-to-no genuine moon footage may exist in general circulation.

• The moon is most certainly likely not a natural Earth satellite - it appears from artefacts brought back to be much older - but placed in orbit, somehow, by something/s. Descendants of the Dogon and their tradition speak of a 'time before the moon' and ancient cultures' traditions usually remain very consistent over time and tend to withstand quite well a certain amount of scrutiny.

But of course, none of this necessarily constitutes irrefutable proof does it, and it is frustrating.

But mine may still be a reasonable synopsis, all the same

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Okay, a personal note, and I'm having to take really extraordinary care here as this is pretty sensitive information - you'll appreciate the need for that approach:

Two weeks ago a trusted friend and 100% rock solid person shared with me, quite out of the blue, that a good friend, a former MoD operative with two levels above top secret clearance had attended many highly classified meetings, and was told, absolutely, and highly confidentially, that:

"...those astronauts were being observed."

As is usually the case with such sensitive meetings there was a missive to absolutely not divulge what was discussed, with anyone. So, as we would have suspected already quite a long time ago, the MoD is, and always has been, fully in the loop - it's on record - and has goodness knows how much more information under wraps.

That's all I'm really comfortable about sharing publicly, but the source is impeccable. I have one or two questions to ask of them as well, and that's going to have to be handled with the utmost discretion.

[conk]

Posted by ichingcarpenter (here)
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

Perhaps I should not post without the evidence itself, but there is a well done analysis of a Saturn V launch that clearly shows steam/smoke and extraneous, brilliant light below the rocket motors. The smoke and light are clearly not from the rocket motors themselves. Everyone has a personal first hand account of some event. Not all of them are proof. Eye witness testimony is often suspect.

Why did Von Braun state that in order to launch a huge rocket into space it would take one the size of the Empire State building? Did they realize incredibly fast advances in technology that quickly afterward?

We will likely never know whether anyone went to the moon, but what is irrefutably and incontrovertibly true is that NASA has perpetuated false images purported to be from the moon. Obviously doctored photos in the hundreds. And what of the many lighting anomalies? The only source of light was the Sun, yet it is apparent light was coming from multiple sources. Stage lights likely. What of the wires seen holding up the astronauts, light pinging off the thin steel wires? The questions just go on and on and on. There is obvious, unassailable proof of some level of fraud. If they actually went to the moon, why the deceit?

Did you know that the lunar lander was never successfully tested on Earth? The one test was a miserable failure. Why would the sent men out on such a mission without adequate testing? No one else does that, no one! With men's lives at risk most technological equipment is tested repeatedly. Have you seen the analysis of how the lunar rover might have fit into the larger craft? It could not, period.

To say there were too many people involved to successfully pull of such a stunt is to ignore where they have indeed done that. One example can serve well. 9/11. They've pretty well convinced most people of that fairy tale.

[thepainterdoug]

Dave Too/ agree with you on the astronaut interviews. those guys looked mind controlled or under orders to lie. Also, anyone see Richplanet , when they brought on a forensics analysis expert regarding testimony to analysis the astronauts ? this guy claimed to be a total believer in the moon landing until he analyzed these interviews.

[OopsWrongPlanet?]

Tintin: none of this necessarily constitutes irrefutable proof does it,

No. At the risk of stating the obvious, there is a chasm of a difference between 'irrefutable proof' at the one end of the scale and opinions at the other (with plenty of 'he said', 'she said' in between).

Wouldn't it be lovely if we could colour-code, something like red for 'take it to the bank' evidence, orange for 'quite a normally-reliable source has testified ABC', and yellow for opinions ie yellow for 'opinions', possibly another colour entirely for poorly vetted wannabe 'witnesses', fearmongers and those on the make, making all sorts of unverifiable claims?

x

M

[Spaceball Ricochet]

Posted by Sunny-side-up (here)
Yes I think we got there but not without help.

Do you mean without extraterrestrial help?
I could be wrong but I think we made it to the Moon unaided and there was no billion-dollar cover-up to take the shine off one of mankind's greatest achievements.
The sceptics should be applauding the Chinese for surviving the Van Allen belts unscathed and if the landings were hoaxed in beating NASA and the soviets to the punch..

[Sunny-side-up]

hi conk

Why did Von Braun state that in order to launch a huge rocket into space it would take one the size of the Empire State building? Did they realize incredibly fast advances in technology that quickly afterward?

His first calculations probably made for a very safe, well shielded craft.
Then NASA cut corners and wen't for a unsafe rushed job.

Did you know that the lunar lander was never successfully tested on Earth? The one test was a miserable failure. Why would the sent men out on such a mission without adequate testing? No one else does that, no one! With men's lives at risk most technological equipment is tested repeatedly. Have you seen the analysis of how the lunar rover might have fit into the larger craft? It could not, period.

That is the main purpose for the fake films, they would roll them out if it all wen't boom.
Then they would say 'disaster' on re-entry.

Spaceball Ricochet

Do you mean without extraterrestrial help?

yes, at least going through the VA belts, some help with the radiation maybe.

[Billy]

Jay Weidner talks to Groovie Bean about the moon landings. Jay goes into some great details from a film makers point of view with some convincing evidence that what we saw on TV was faked.

but he does think the landings actually took place with technology that we were never allowed to see.
A 3 part series.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GgtWSK9zdq0

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=BDKukDek3yQ

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=eqCCO9bqv9Q