Did we really go to the Moon?

[Billy]

Posted by Billy (here)
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

Bumping the above Jay Weidner videos, which are worth listening to if you haven't already.
This is the most recent one with returned guest Jim Nichols. Jay has spent many many years researching the moon landings footage, as you will see, his body language becomes very animated when he shares his research, It is a passion for him, in my opinion there is great value within Jay's input.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ajqd_mD8WtY

[xylo]

I find it hard to believe a vessel could descend and then land perfectly, without having a lot of trial, error and trial again practice.

[Sunny-side-up]

So, just adding some Masonic content for Apollo

Freemasons have been involved since the beginnings of NASA. If there was a group who could pull of a great hoax to fool nearly the entire planet, it would be possible through the Freemasons.

By declaring that Scottish Right Freemasons planted a flag on the moon the Freemasons gained many members in their secret society, whether they actually went or not.

https://aplanetruth.info/space-trave...nd-freemasons/

An inordinate number of NASA astronauts, the current propagators of the globalist heliocentric doctrine, are/were admitted Freemasons as well. John Glenn, two-time US senator and one of NASA’s first astronauts is a known Mason.

Buzz Aldrin Jr., the second man to lie about walking on the moon is an admitted, ring-wearing, hand-sign flashing 33rd degree Mason from Montclair Lodge No. 144 in New Jersey.

Edgar Mitchell, another supposed moon-walker aboard Apollo 14 is an Order of Demolay Mason at Artesta Lodge No. 29 in New Mexico. James Irwin of Apollo 15, the last man to lie about walking on the moon, was a Tejon Lodge No. 104 member in Colorado Springs.

Donn Eisele on Apollo 7 was a member of the Luther B. Turner Lodge No. 732 in Ohio. Gordon Cooper aboard Mercury 9 and Gemini 5 was a Master Mason in Carbondale Lodge No. 82 in Colorado.

Virgil Grissom on Apollo 1 and 15, Mercury 5 and Gemini 3 was a Master Mason from Mitchell Lodge No. 228 in Indiana.

Walter Schirra Jr. on Apollo 7, Sigma 7, Gemini 6 and Mercury 8 was a 33rd degree Mason at Canaveral Lodge No. 339 in Florida. Thomas Stafford on Apollo 10 and 18, Gemini 7 and 9 is a Mason at Western Star Lodge No. 138 in Oklahoma.

Paul Weitz on Skylab 2 and Challenger is from Lawrence Lodge No. 708 in Pennsylvania.

NASA astronauts Neil Armstrong, Allen Sheppard, William Pogue, Vance Brand, and Anthony England all had fathers who were Freemasons too!

The amount of astronauts known to be Freemasons or from Freemasonic families is astonishing. It is likely that more astronauts and people of key importance in NASA are affiliated with the brotherhood as well, but not so open about their membership. For there to be this many Masons, members of the world’s largest and oldest secret society, involved with the promotion and propagation of this globalist heliocentric doctrine from its outset to today should raise some serious suspicion!

“C. Fred Kleinknecht, head of NASA at the time of the Apollo Space Program, is now the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Council of the 33rd Degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction. It was his reward for pulling it off!

All of the first astronauts were Freemasons. There is a photograph in the House of the Temple in Washington DC of Neil Armstrong supposedly on the moon’s surface in his spacesuit holding his Masonic Apron in front of his groin.” -William Cooper

It is said, they set up a Masonic temple and so a claim on the moon in the name of the Masons.

If you look at the lunar lander, it is pretty much the same shape as the Mason emblem but without the cone/pyramidion on top, just a coincidence off course.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Of course, the moon landing is one issue, what of the moon taking-off?

I always thought this footage was quite interesting (this one from Apollo 15).



As a side note, this wasn't filmed by anyone, as they would've been left behind on the moon. It was taken by a camera on the lunar rover, set to automatically tilt up (controlled from Earth apparently), as the LEM ascended. Well-timed and coordinated if that is the case.

The propulsion for the LEM involved a fixed-thrust (non gimballed in other words) hypergolic (spontaneously ignited) rocket engine, using Aerozine 50 propellant, delivering 16 kN of thrust to achieve 2,000mps from lunar launch. In other words, that's a big ass flame. But, in the footage, no flame is visible. There is a brief 'detonation' underneath the vehicle, which may or not have been the rocket firing. We see a disturbance of dust on the surface too, and a concussion wave sending material outwards. It could be from explosive bolts initiating separation from the lower stage, but after that we don't see ANY exhaust plume, which one would expect to see in the taking-off of a large, heavy, static, object like the LEM. Bearing in mind that it weighed 4,700kg (sans payload), which is about 5 tons. Even at 1/6 of normal gravity, it's going to need some significant, and one would think visible, propulsion to get it off the ground. But no big-ass flames here. It simply rises.

Evidence perhaps that some "other" technology was employed here (something anti-grav maybe).

Same lift-off filmed inside the LEM

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=FrjYJ1rioyY

At approximately 25 seconds, you see chunks of debris (from the descent stage) spinning away towards the top of the picture. Notice how at least one large piece remains airborne, a few meters (I assume) off, and parallel, to the ground, but never dipping towards the ground. That's evidence, perhaps even proof, of a low-gravity environment.

This is one continuous shot, from lunar surface to high altitude. I believe it was shot in situ, was not a miniature, not a model, and not the Nevada desert (not a fake shot on Earth).

So they went to the moon. Some footage is real. Some is not. However the key question that arises here is:
Was technology used in the Apollo missions that were not of the conventional "rocket" variety? I believe the answer is a resounding yes.

I don't believe this cut-out of the LEM's internal systems is entirely accurate.



But I suspect Mark McCandlish could cook up a more accurate version

[mountain_jim]

In the second video comments, the conspiracy refuter says this:

Any chance that a moonhoaxer will ever say something clever? I don't think so. Descent and ascent stages propellant was aerozine 50 , which is completely transparent when it ignites and makes no visible plume. And there's also no trail, since there's no air or water vapor on the moon.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Yes that is an 'excuse' I've heard before, but isn't without its issues. Let's examine.

Whereas the LEM ascent thrusters using this hypergolic propellant would normally give off a visible plume in an atmosphere, the anti-conspiracy [experts] on this insist the plume is and would be virtually "invisible" owing to the lack of air.

Moreover, the Apollo LM used a mix of Aerozine 50 (50% hydrazine, 50% unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine) and dinitrogen tetroxide, which are hypergolic, i.e., they react spontaneously as soon as they come into mutual contact. This allowed a simple and highly reliable engine design. The product of the reaction of these substances is colorless and transparent.

The Guardian confidently echoes the same soundbite.

The Saturn V rocket burnt liquid oxygen and kerosene on blast-off, which provides a fiery plume. The lunar lander ran on nitrogen tetroxide and Aerozine 50, which doesn't. Its exhaust gases were transparent.

I would humbly concede this, if it was simply the end of the matter. But it doesn't seem to be (it never is).

Because wholly different explanations have been put forward. Often they throw up more questions than answers.

This video explains the real chemistry of that exact fuel, and the lunar take-off, with N204 (Dinitrogen tetroxide) as the oxidizer.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=JLCrZGgKD-k

The exhaust is definitely not invisible, at least in an atmosphere.

An explanation for this inconsistency can be found in lengthy analyses at Clavius, the so-called experts on these matters, whose site "addresses specific arguments...dealing primarily with conspiracy theories relating to the United States' Apollo project which landed men on the lunar surface"

They mention a lack of smoke in the plume, which wasn't even brought up in the concerns I related (it was more lack of a flame). But they state:

"To ignite an Aerozine 50 engine, you typically first begin injecting nitrogen tetroxide into the combustion chamber, followed a split second later by the fuel. In an atmosphere, the nitrogen tetroxide will immediately begin to react with the atmosphere and produce a cloud. In a vacuum this does not happen. [hence no smoke]

As to a lack of a fiery plume, it isn't simply that its colourless/transparent in a vacuum. They offer up a completely different explanation:

"Some conspiracists point out that the film of the lunar module ascending from the lunar surface to meet the command module doesn't show any visible exhaust products. That's because by the time it comes into view of the command module the engine has stopped firing. Just as a baseball thrown upward will continue to rise after it has left the propulsive effect of your hand, the lunar module continues to rise after its engine stops firing."[link]

In zero g I'd understand that completely. But not a few meters off the moon, where gravity still has a hold..

Anyway, what is the real truth? It's hard to pin-point. And you do find a lot of that when scouring the many counter-arguments of the moon hoax/conspiracy. Same for 9/11. Same for anything of this ilk.

Again, I'm willing to concede the lack of an exhaust plume is down purely to chemistry, if that is where the evidence unequivocally points. But I haven't reached that point yet.

NASA - Never A Straight Answer. And isn't that the truth (and probably the only real truth we can all agree on!).

[ichingcarpenter]

Dear Bill Ryan............ Please post the moon photos that you said are fake........ thanks

[DaveToo]

Posted by Spaceball Ricochet (here)
DaveToo..

It does seem ambiguous to say that the photos and videos "were faked" when the Moon landing itself was genuine. Does this mean that the photos/videos were "dressed-up" before being put on display for the benefit of the public..although this would imply that they were not so much "faked" as "tarted-up"?

They did use many of the original photos and videos but would only have shown the "pick of the bunch". Out of the hundreds of shots taken many of the 'warts and all' ones would have been discarded due to their poor quality, showing nothing but a disappointing mish-mash of light and shadows. Their gloved hands must have made the task of taking photographs very awkward.

When you think of the Moon and how reflective it is in the night sky it's easy to imagine how the light must bounce around up there on the lunar surface, striking objects at unusual angles and imbuing any videos or photos with an unreal or "staged" quality.

Perhaps this in itself helps contribute to the sceptical mind on a subliminal level the notion that the whole Moon landing thing was 'rigged-up'..

Thanks for your reply Spaceball. You have been the only one so far who is attempting to answer my question.
Unfortunately you didn't quite explain what I am asking about.

You said they did use many of the original photos. Which were the original ones and which were the fake ones?
Why add fake ones? Please give me a really good reason that my logical thinking brain could understand and accept?

Surely the "many of the original photos" were sufficient to show they were there?
Why take a chance and introduce fake photos with so many glaring boo-boos that almost anyone could see they were fake?
I mean how stupid does NASA really think we are?

[Sunny-side-up]

I read this 'NASA, National Academy of Space Actors' In one of the above vids.
It made me laugh but then, to near the truth to be funny ha.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by ichingcarpenter (here)
Dear Bill Ryan............ Please post the moon photos that you said are fake........ thanks

Really? There are many, easily found: shadows non-aligned, examples of double lighting and/or fill-in lighting, images where the cross-hairs of the Hassleblad camera are behind the image, not in front of it, and more where film of scenes from different Apollo missions has the same background and/or horizon.

See this excellent 2014 thread, with 270 posts. Just search for my own posts there. (Search thread > Advanced Search, and you can search in the thread.) But many others posted fascinating and detailed material, too.

• Have we ever been on the Moon?

[Bill Ryan]

This is an excellent thread, packed with detailed information, to accompany the newer one here. (They both cover similar ground)

• ‘Undeniable’ proof' the Moon Landings were faked?

[RunningDeer]

Posted by ichingcarpenter (here)
Dear Bill Ryan............ Please post the moon photos that you said are fake........ thanks

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Really? There are many, easily found: shadows non-aligned, examples of double lighting and/or fill-in lighting, images where the cross-hairs of the Hassleblad camera are behind the image, not in front of it, and more where film of scenes from different Apollo missions has the same background and/or horizon.

Here’s one example of cross-hairs.

A lot of sites come up when you type into your search engine:

Dave McGowan Wagging The Moondoggie+pdf. - You'll see many photos and explanations of them.

Lots of vids to choose from here: Wagging the Moondoggie.

[Bill Ryan]

Yep. Here's just one example of a photo that certainly looks to have been faked.

[Hughe]

Too much cool-aid or delusional or completely ignorant man do believe in the Apollo Moon landing.
International Space Station is not in space. It's circling around low Earth orbit few hundred kilometers above the surface.
Space Shuttle? It was a low Earth orbit craft.
NASA destroyed all the technical data that proves the Apollo Moon landing was real historic event.
There were real fake videos and photos taken on secret indoor/outdoor studios under NASA's operation though.
NASA will not be able to send manned probe to Moon by the end of 2024. It will proves the Apollo Moon landing was complete fake ironically. Time will tell.

Even if NASA or a nation has faster than light propulsion tomorrow, sending human to other planet is impossible until we have technical advancement to simulate other planet's environment on Earth.
Each planet has unique electromagnetic environment. All life forms on Earth are like fishes in the localized electromagnetic ocean. We live at the bottom of electromagnetic ocean.
When people goes to high altitude mountains, due to the low density of air some develops illness that might trigger death.

Average distance from Moon and Earth is 384,402 km. Did NASA figure out all physiological change of human body caused by different electromagnetic environment of space and Moon?
No, they couldn't. EM effect on life recognized by EU folks lately. There has been pioneers but their works completely ignored by mainstream science.
This itself insults average intelligence. Also to send and bring back astronauts NASA required at least three Saturn V rockets, which were impossible for them to build and maintain.

To withstand in hard vaccum in space, the suit has hard shell.




The fake space suit by NASA


A fake Moon's surface photo by NASA
(The film camera was supposedly operating at minus 100 or plus 100 Celsius degrees without thermal protection device.)

[Sunny-side-up]

Just re-showing this vid from past posts.
It says it all, give the conversation a listen to.
Dave McGowan blows the Apollo lies to shreds with simple logic

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=t7T5qa-iEUg

[silvanelf]

Clear evidence that the Apollo astronauts placed these retroreflectors on the moon:

Lunar Laser Ranging experiment

The ongoing Lunar Laser Ranging experiment or Apollo landing mirror measures the distance between surfaces of Earth and the Moon using laser ranging. Lasers at observatories on Earth are aimed at retroreflectors planted on the Moon during the Apollo program (11, 14, and 15), and the two Lunokhod missions.[1] Laser light pulses are transmitted and reflected back to Earth, and the round-trip duration is measured. The lunar distance is calculated from this value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_...ing_experiment

Posted by DaveToo (here)
And second question for now. How did they navigate through the Van Allen belts?

All these claims that the astronauts could not have passed through the Van Allen radiation belts is just a conspiracy theory without any solid evidence -- in other words, these claims are based on pure hearsay. If you think that it was impossible to navigate through the Van Allen belts, then you have to substantiate your allegation and not the other way around.

[Hughe]

Scientists discovered Moon's surface reflects laser beams in early 1960s already.

https://the60sat50.blogspot.com/2012...-luna-see.html

Wednesday, May 9, 1962: Project Luna See
Louis Smullin and Giorgio Fiocco of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology aimed a ruby laser beam toward the moon's surface and Albategnius became the first lunar feature to reflect laser light from Earth. (From the book "Moonwalk with Your Eyes" by Tammy Plotner, 2010.)

From a New York Times article dated May 10:

Last night, for the first time, man illuminated another celestial body.
Had someone been standing in the mountainous region southeast of the crater Albategnius on the moon, the stark and darkened lunar landscape about him would have been lighted by a succession of dim red flashes.
The effect is thought to have been limited to a circular area of the moon's surface only one mile in radius. The light beam was produced by engineers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, using a device known as a laser or optical maser.
It produces a beam of extreme intensity and narrowness. The reflected light could be detected on earth only by electronic means. However, according to Dr. Charles H. Townes, inventor of the maser of now provost of M.I.T., the illumination on the moon's surface was comparable to that produced on the walls of a large room by a flashlight bulb. ...
He and many others believe such devices will play a key role in communications with and between space vehicles. ... Ultimately, Dr. Townes believes, the laser principle may provide an efficient means for transmitting energy long distances. It could be used to provide power to expeditions on the moon or other planets, using sources on the earth. It is also being tested as surgical knife and may be useful for delicate welding jobs.

The link contains the original experment.
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/han...pdf?sequence=1

D. PROJECT LUNA SEE

In order to determine some of the possibilities of optical maser radar we conducted experiments with the Moon as a target.
These experiments were made at Lexington, Massachusetts, on the evenings of May 9, 10, and 11, 1962

https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=...omy%22&f=false

[Hughe]

NASA claimed that one Saturn V rocket was used to send lunar lander to Moon.
To escape Earth, the rocket used the bottom two rockets. The third stage rocket was used to set the orbit to Moon carefully.

The Apollo astronauts had to navigate facing Earth on the way to the Moon with the third stage rocket.

But the problem is the third stage did not have enough thrust to slow down lunar lander's speed which was traveling over speed of Mach 55 (19,000 m/s divided by 340 m/s) . The orbital speed of Earth in space is around 30 km/s. So the lunar lander's speed right after escaping Earth would be between 41 km/s and 19 km/s. Moon is traveling at 31 km/s or 29 km/s in space.

So NASA had to set the lunar lander's orbit for being slow down by Earth and Moon's gravity pull with incredible precision. Every 1/1000th second the lunar lander was moving 19 m in space. However it's a speculation because NASA destroyed all telemetry data of the lunar landers during Apollo Project.





How they came back safely without another Saturn V rocket to Earth?
It's absurd.

[Hughe]

In the main part of the show Andrew Johnson talks about his research into the secret space programme. Is it true that exotic propulsion technologies have been successfully developed and deployed, and hidden from public view? Is it true that silent spacecraft, which would make rockets look like a horse and cart, are being flown from Earth in a secret space fleet? When you consider all of the evidence in Andrew Johnson’s book the answer is affirmative.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=mBQjlQs3ZIw

[xylo]

NASA says it also ‘destroyed the technology which got us to the moon and it would cost to much money and time to recreate it now.’ Right?