Did we really go to the Moon?

[Cosmored]

There are still people who won't listen to alternative info. If they see that the government is capable of telling big lies, they might be more open to alternative info. That's the main reason I still talk about Apollo.

I talk about the pandemic scam too.
https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=287508
https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=286342

I'm Scott on this thread.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index....ndmade.571125/

I'm FatFreddy here.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the...autism.163277/
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/an-...-today.163275/

[Ratszinger]

I find it interesting that some that have been to Antarctica say the moon is extraordinarily close to the earth from there. Supposedly it is a well kept secret that at certain times the moon is so close they can literally hop over to it much much faster than when it's out of that position.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Ratszinger (here)
I find it interesting that some that have been to Antarctica say the moon is extraordinarily close to the earth from there. Supposedly it is a well kept secret that at certain times the moon is so close they can literally hop over to it much much faster than when it's out of that position.

References?? This makes zero physical sense from the standpoint of orbital mechanics. (Or any other standpoint! )

If the moon sometimes comes "close", and therefore appears much bigger, then everyone would see that, no matter where their location was on the planet.

[aoibhghaire]

Hi Ratszinger,

WOW!, I also would be extremely interested in some references. I'm amazed to hear this as I have never heard of this information before now.

Even when the Moon is at Perigee (closest to the Earth) the distance from the mean is 0.3 per cent.

There has been a history of measurements of the Moon for over a 100 years from many locations on the Earth both northern and southern hemispheres at extreme distances apart show the same distance.

Many methods of determining the distance from the early parallax measurements, to Lunar eclipses, Meridian crossings, occultations and ground radar leading into the most accurate Lunar laser ranging when the Apollo experiments installed by a number of Apollo missions on the Moon using the well tested Laser Ranging Retroreflector have produced many important measurements that make the accuracy to 2 cms

Recent times hundreds citizen science experiments using their own tools have determined the distance.

Amateur radio ham enthusiasts from all over the world using project Moonbounce have got identical distant recordings that confirms the true distant that were measured over the century using different tools have got the same distant measurement to the Moon.

Look forward eagerly to your references.

Aoibhghaire

[Cosmored]

Buhbuh...but I saw it wif my own Too eyes on my wabbit ear TV, so it must've happened!!!

I think you'll get a kick out of this.
https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...1#post10305748

[Cosmored]

Here's something I just came across.
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Apollo_program


edit
-------------------

I just checked this link and some more of Steve the Chemist's videos that had disappeared from the internet have come back.

https://www.brighteon.com/channels/stevedachemist

[Lunesoleil]

According to Edgar Cayce the soul would have made planetary stays, readings have been listed.
The stay on the Moon can be verified by the strong position of the Moon at the time of birth. Outside the body, the soul travels in the solar system and why not beyond what is possible ...
This reminds me of the Onnouschachetout forum, which no longer exists, there was a discussion on the deception of the Moon ...

[Cosmored]

I haven't looked at all the threads in this section but all of the ones I've looked at that refer to the Apollo moon missions assume that Apollo really happened.

I don't know what kind of classified stuff is going on but the Apollo footage was definitely taken in a studio. Here are some of the anomalies that show this.


Proof of Air in the Footage
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Apollo 15 Rover Traverse Issue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPzG_4H0anU
(Be sure to watch at the 3:13 time mark)

The bumpy ride causes the flaps to go up but air is keeping them from coming back down.

This would explain why it looks like they're on the moon.
http://apollofake.atspace.co.uk/


Air Makes the Flag Move
---------------------------------------------------------------

Start watching this at the 2:35 time mark.

Apollo 15 flag, facing air resistance; proving the fraud of alleged manned moon landings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn6MTrin5eU

The astronaut trots by the flag without touching it and the air movement his passing creates causes the flag to move.


These two videos show that the flag had started to move before he got close enough to touch it.

Initial Apollo 15 Flag Movement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg

The flag that moved
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0


This video shows that the flag movement is consistent with atmosphere.

windyz.wmv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
(00:50 and 1:50 time marks)


Physics of the Moon Flag
https://www.brighteon.com/5545a13a-1...3-050bac22b91d

Physics of the Moon Flag 2
https://www.brighteon.com/27efc538-c...a-f425eb9ccc8c


https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...lags+Are+Alive
https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...he+Dead+Horses


AMERICAN MOON, 2017
https://www.bitchute.com/video/eZramDBFkXRU/
(2:07:26 time mark)

Moonfaker: LRO, Flag or no Flag?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRXretl0amQ

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

Here's some more stuff.

https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1145.0

https://www.brighteon.com/channels/stevedachemist

http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.c...arth-ENGL.html
(excerpt)
------------------------------
"Moonstones" have no possibility to be compared on moon itself, because there is no possibility of a neutral control on the "moon". So, it's permitted for anybody to claim this or that stone would come from the "moon". Also when certain "moon probes" are said having landed on the moon also this is not controllable. And it's not possible to control if these "moon probes" have brought stones or dust from the "moon" to the Earth or not either. At the end the super powers "USA" and "SU" claim together to the public that "moonstones" would be "very similar" to "Earth stones". This "similarity" brings up some new questions (Wisnewski, p.209).
-----------------------------

http://epiphanyoftruth.com/the-hawai...icture-frenzy/

http://www.moonfaker.com/videos.php

Lunar rover on the moon. Was it a RC model? (Extended Edition)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK3R2en4p_8

The proof that the LRO photos are photoshopped
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRE7grId3sI

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/loos...20.html#p10451


The reason for the fakery might have been space radiation. Here's a link to some info on that.

Van Allen on Space Radiation.
https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1147.0

If this turns out to be true, the idea that a human can walk around on the moon or Mars in a space suit is a lie. According to the hoax-believer research it's only possible to spacewalk in low Earth orbit under the Van Allen belts which shield astronauts against space radiation. Once an astronaut is inside or beyond the belts, he or she would need two meters of lead to be protected from space radiation.


edit
--------------------------------------------

This was post #1 of a thread I started in the Space Flight section which got moved to this thread.

[BETAMAX101]

Posted by mojo (here)
Hi,
Didn't see it posted... Marcus Allen examines the photographic evidence....very interesting.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LVR2WTK20Ig

Who is this person to "examine" anything. The video in the OP is gone, but I watched it many years past and every point he makes is proof that he is most certainly not qualified to make any of his claims. I like this response video to two of his ramblings:-

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=coMGccvTK6g

[BETAMAX101]

Posted by Cosmored (here)
I haven't looked at all the threads in this section but all of the ones I've looked at that refer to the Apollo moon missions assume that Apollo really happened.

They assume nothing. The landings have extensive proof mainly ignored by hoax people in favour of outrageous and ridiculous claims.

I don't know what kind of classified stuff is going on but the Apollo footage was definitely taken in a studio. Here are some of the anomalies that show this.

You had me at "I don't know" and that perfectly sums up your 17 year contribution to this subject on hundreds of internet forums with virtually identical claims. You have been totally slaughtered over the years and all you have left is to hop from one forum to another to influence people who haven't seen the many, oh so many times where I have destroyed all of your claims.

Proof of Air in the Footage
Apollo 15 Rover Traverse Issue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPzG_4H0anU
(Be sure to watch at the 3:13 time mark)

A breathtakingly ignorant and ludicrous observation. The rover travelling at 10kph is being "blasted" with enough wind to keep a flap raised, but the same wind makes not the slightest puff of dust movement on any single portion of the miles wide terrain. Terrain evenly lit, single crisp and dark shadows, mountains that never get any nearer and all in pitch black sky. You observe the ridiculous and ignore the obvious.

The bumpy ride causes the flaps to go up but air is keeping them from coming back down.

A momentary synchronisity with an upward bump on the ground by the wheels.

This would explain why it looks like they're on the moon.
http://apollofake.atspace.co.uk/

This explains how one single image has been manipulated using modern software NOT including areas that overlap the sky! It is even more ridiculous to suggest that cine film shot in 1971 with thousands and thousands of images used this unfeasible "technique".

The explanation for why it looks like they were on the Moon is that it was shot on location.

Air Makes the Flag Move

Start watching this at the 2:35 time mark.

Apollo 15 flag, facing air resistance; proving the fraud of alleged manned moon landings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn6MTrin5eU

The astronaut trots by the flag without touching it and the air movement his passing creates causes the flag to move.

These two videos show that the flag had started to move before he got close enough to touch it.

Initial Apollo 15 Flag Movement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg

The flag that moved
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0

I addressed this on my blog and have done so on possibly 2 dozen occasions directly to you. You continue as always to ignore every point raised in favour of total denial.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co...o-15-flag.html

This video shows that the flag movement is consistent with atmosphere.

windyz.wmv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
(00:50 and 1:50 time marks)

It shows nothing of the sort. Cernan simply gave the pole a counter twist. You have ignored numerous times where I presented counter evidence to show how the tiny cherry picked segment you use is surrounded by clear evidence it was shot in low gravity.

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co...o-17-flag.html

Physics of the Moon Flag
https://www.brighteon.com/5545a13a-1...3-050bac22b91d

Physics of the Moon Flag 2
https://www.brighteon.com/27efc538-c...a-f425eb9ccc8c

A physics claim made by "Steve the Chemist" - a blundering cacophony of fail. The simple debunk of most of his useless observations is that the the flag is a complex pendulum, NOT pivoted across the top, but across the diagonal! This gives it a whole variety of interchanging periodic motion from the fabric exchanging movements and the variable distances from the angled diagonal to the bottom of the flag.

AMERICAN MOON, 2017
https://www.bitchute.com/video/eZramDBFkXRU/
(2:07:26 time mark)

Spammed many times on another forum where you deny the most blatantly obvious. A falling flat surface would blast dust everywhere in the direction of fall, especially when pushed shut. There is zero disturbance.

This one tiny segment of film actually proves the footage was shot in a vacuum.

I have not the time or inclination to address the repeated spam that followed. All covered here, as is your previous behaviour:-

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com

The reason for the fakery might have been space radiation. Here's a link to some info on that.

Van Allen on Space Radiation.
https://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1147.0

If this turns out to be true, the idea that a human can walk around on the moon or Mars in a space suit is a lie. According to the hoax-believer research it's only possible to spacewalk in low Earth orbit under the Van Allen belts which shield astronauts against space radiation. Once an astronaut is inside or beyond the belts, he or she would need two meters of lead to be protected from space radiation.

Yet the ISS routinely flies through the South Atlantic Anomaly with no issues. Satellites that populate the area of high density radiation would simply fail if the data were not as reported. Apollo missions were designed with Van Allen's assistance to take elevated trajectories through the weaker areas of the belts. These were timed to coincide with the magnetic tilt of the Earth in a more favorable position.

Regarding the lead, I have no idea where moon hoaxers drag this stupid claim from. Any use of lead will cause secondary and more damaging x-rays. The use of steel and aluminium works perfectly for short stays in space. Cosmic rays are not stopped by the magnetosphere and have little effect on ISS crew.

My prediction for a response is one of the options found on my blog.

[BETAMAX101]

Posted by Cosmored (here)
Check this out. I've got a shill* checkmated in a debate.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index....519410/page-10

When the shills are losing badly, the moderators usually close the thread on forums such as that one. I'm surprised this has gone on this long. Let's see how this ends.

I'm Scott on that forum.

You are a pigeon attempting chess. Not only did you spend the entire time on that subject attempting to divert the exchange to a "which bit struck" and how YOU thought I had failed to answer this irrelevant question, you then blatantly avoided the most obvious of obvious things.

From the video we can see a number of things:-
There is a plethora of dust. It is clearly and obviously covering most of the visible area. This is not up for debate, the film maker actually insists on it.
The lid for the sample container box is pushed shut. Again not up for debate, clearly visible.
It impacts the box and there is a small disturbance in the near corner. Again not up for debate, clearly visible.
A descending flat surface displaces air as it falls. Mainly in the direction of fall, but also to the sides. Similar to the draft from a closing door. Irrefutable and obvious.
There is not the slightest movement or displacement of any of the dust opposite to the direction the lid is falling. Nothing whatsoever!
In a vacuum, there would be no displaced air and subsequently no displaced dust. This is what is observed.
In a vacuum and low gravity, any impact vibrations would exaggerate the movements observed.
It is completely and irrefutably irrelevant which part of the lid impacts the box. We know it does impact because it stops!
Any lid falling onto a box must cause an impact force and it must be from the underside.
Now from the responses being received from Scott/ Cosmored we can also see a number of things:-
Clearly he is diverting attention from the obvious lack of frontal air disturbance that is 100% unavoidable.
He keeps referring to the underneath impact point not being highlighted when it is 100% obvious this is how the collision works. It must be the underneath striking!
This person will never concede the absolute obvious, he will obfuscate and divert but will never admit his errors.
The footage presented has now 100% irrefutably shown that the small segment highlighted must be in a vacuum. It almost certainly must also be in low gravity from the absurdly unnatural way the dust moves. He has shot down in flames his own 17 years spammed claim!

Further, since we now have proven that this sequence is in a vacuum, so must be the footage before and after this section. It's on the Moon.

[syrwong]

I remember watching some years ago a news clip from China showing the space center when the first picture from Chang'e of the moon was being sent back. On the big screen was just a cover picture. Then the announcement that the first picture of landing would arrive in 30 seconds. There was the count down. Then the picture appeared and everyone clapped for a long time. I think a top leader was also present. At this digital age sending a picture from an unmanned craft was something. I don't know how the US could achieve live broadcast of man on the moon in the 60s.

[mojo]

Please consider the Van Allen Belt. Scientist during the Apollo era did. They sent a robotic flight to the moon. We have hidden tech multiple generations ahead of the public. A robotic flight would be a safe way to go from radiation and injury. The NASA space craft currently being built will have the ability to go through the Van Allen Belt. Even though the early computers were terrible they had the tech to do it based on the secret tech.

[Lunesoleil]

Posted by Cosmored (here)

The "moonstones" have no possibility of being compared on the moon itself, for there is no possibility of neutral control over the "moon". So, it is permissible for anyone to claim that this or that stone came from the "moon". Likewise, when certain "lunar probes" are said to have landed on the moon, this is also not controllable. And it is not possible to control whether these "lunar probes" brought stones or dust from the "moon" to Earth or not. In the end, the superpowers "USA" and "SU" together assert to the public that "moonstones" are "very similar" to "earth stones". This "similarity" raises new questions (Wisnewski, p.209)..

It must be understood at the level of the symbol otherwise you will be completely cut off from the resonance at the level of lunar energy.
We do not share information by chance or unconsciously.
I really like the Moon stone which really embodies the Moon symbol by its color.
The Moon stone allows you to connect to the Moon, to his etheric consciousness.

And you, why did you choose this extract? Do you have a Moonstone?
I love this stone, but do not have this stone materially, but energetically it speaks to me ...

[Hughe]

@BETAMAX101

Please leave your posts as is for future reference by guests and members. Do not delete! Thank you.

[BETAMAX101]

Posted by syrwong (here)
At this digital age sending a picture from an unmanned craft was something.

Not so. What was something was the craft landing on the Moon from a nation in relative space travel infancy.

I don't know how the US could achieve live broadcast of man on the moon in the 60s.

Simple. Transmitter of high frequency s-band and an extremely large focused dish to receive it. The problem is not how they did it but in you not knowing how they did it.

[BETAMAX101]

Posted by mojo (here)
Please consider the Van Allen Belt.

On what basis do you present such consideration? Hoax claimants conflate the dangers and cherry pick quotes pertaining to them.

Scientist during the Apollo era did.

They did to the extent of designing a trajectory to fly around weaker areas. This wasn't a must in terms of exposure, just an added precaution.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=YuH4rxda3Z4

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=z4gSRy1tHls

They sent a robotic flight to the moon.

They sent several before Apollo, then we had Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 before the main landing missions.

We have hidden tech multiple generations ahead of the public.

This is something only conspiracy theorists "know". I await your evidence for this claim.

A robotic flight would be a safe way to go from radiation and injury.

Not very practical for achieving a human landing though. Perhaps you wish to discuss exposure on the routes the crafts took. Or perhaps how any exposure would be lethal.

The NASA space craft currently being built will have the ability to go through the Van Allen Belt.

With micro circuitry, charged particles have more chance to disrupt than pre-digital methods. Apollo had quite a comfortable ability to pass through these belts.

Even though the early computers were terrible they had the tech to do it based on the secret tech.

Early computers were massive and plenty good enough. The onboard ones merely had to perform guidance with all the leg-work performed on the ground. Again with the "secret tech" that only conspiracy theorists know about.

[Cosmored]

This guy Betamax is a paid sophist* who knows the moon missions were faked.

He maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real which totally exposes him.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index....-faked.578673/

This was a pretty lame attempt of his to obfuscate and manipulate an anomaly.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index....e-moon.580330/


I'm Scott on that forum.



*
https://www.clubconspiracy.com/count...ues-t4702.html

[The Moss Trooper]

One of the things that I've always wondered about, with regard to the Moon and the Apollo missions, was the "live" telephone call from the astronauts' to President Nixon:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=U_8tawnlwr8

And this was in July, 1969........... !

[BETAMAX101]

Posted by The Moss Trooper (here)
One of the things that I've always wondered about, with regard to the Moon and the Apollo missions, was the "live" telephone call from the astronauts' to President Nixon:

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=U_8tawnlwr8

And this was in July, 1969........... !

In July 1969 radio was firmly established. The Nixon side of the call was clearest because the telephone signal was pre-transmission. The radio was sent via s-band transmission. Vox doesn't take much bandwidth so something like this was relatively easy to do. What exactly do you think the limitation was? Radio travels at light speed, s-band is very efficient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_S-band