If Armstrong had done what he claimed to have done his hero status would have been far greater than that of Charles Lindbergh.  He'd probably be on par with Christopher Colombus.  But instead of one of mankind's greatest cult heros, he acts like the cat who ate the canary or the schoolboy called to the principal's office.  His emotions seem so flat as if he had been given some tranquilizing drug to help him lie with a straight face.

Too bad we couldn't have subjected all three of these individuals to the best polygraph experts in the country.  Not that the results would necessarily be perfect, but I bet they would be fairlly interesting.

You can only wonder why this "incredible hero"  goes off into semi-oblivion as a semi-recluse on a farm in Ohio.   Aside from all the other major problems in trying to prove a manned moon landing, just the human element alone seems so highly questionable.  And, of course, you may have seen the extreme negative reaction (and downright refusal) of these and other moon astronauts when asked to swear on a bible that they had landed on the moon.  Not a pretty sight!

THIS.

I was going to talk about this as well. The astronauts should have been transformed in a profound, philosophical way. Their transformation would NOT have resulted in the behavior you cite here, the "cat that ate the canary" as you put it. But that's precisely how most of them acted!

I guess people have no imagination, with which to imagine how astronauts SHOULD have behaved, how they would have been affected, if it had been real.

I do have a decent imagination, as well as a capability for deep thought, and I see a huge discrepancy so wide that you could drive a space shuttle through it.

Let's put it another way: If the Apollo missions HAD been faked, let's just consider for the sake of argument, how would the astronauts have behaved? Well, I think that hypothetical behavior and what we actually observed in the actual astronauts is virtually one and the same!

One video alone doesn't prove anything, however taken in a larger context the pieces that fit together just don't go with the official NASA story. Start with the freemasonic background of NASA, then look at the suspicious deaths of the astronauts and you will begin to see the big picture.

Well give me those other pieces. I don't see much of anything so far on this thread.

Neil must work for NASA since he's such a fangirl of Werner Von Braun.

Interesting that they could realistcally fake zero gravity several years before Kubricks moon landing films.


No doubt Neil thinks the moon footage in the video is real.

Probably one of the most glaring issues with the moon landings is the use of wires to lift the astronuts after tripping, or to recover them from a fall.  This 2 minute video shows many such occurrences to the point of embarrassment for NASA.  And the lyrics of the song fit perfectly with this compilation of official NASA video.    

Could some of you take a look at this video which claims to debunk Sibrel's smoking gun footage and let me know what you think?

I'll read up on this issue. What do you think about the suggestion here that the footage that shows what can be interpreted as wires is actually the antennae on their backpacks reflecting?

I'm not sure how one can blame the camera or angle of the camera, or quality of the video for guys clearly picked up by less than unnatural forces.  I appreciate your desire to hold the line regarding what you believe, but the video is pretty telling.  It's more about them hanging mid-air as they get up than it is about visual dynamics.  Back when they took the footage we might have been fooled, or missed stuff, but looking again, it doesn't hold up anymore.  

Thanks for the replies. I've seen the Bart Sibrel docuмentary a few times. I don't have an answer for that footage you mention. If the moon landings were faked why would they fake it 9 times? More funding? The Apollo astronauts would have to have been in on it, and yet they seem too low-level for the conspirators to trust them to not divulge things. They also must be master actors because I've seen many interviews with these astronauts and they seem honest. But perhaps I'm naive.

But to the question of the impossibility of humans surviving a pass throught the Van Allen Belts, is the following not a good explanation?

.
I've read through this whole thread and found several references to the Bart Sibrel "docuмentary" (singular) and several questions about the Van Allen belts (plural).
.
But Sibrel has published several "docuмentaries" (plural) and there are a lot more questions about the Van Allen belts.
.
Here is a unique interview done by Sibrel, featuring perhaps the earliest Apollo-hoax author of them all, Bill Kaysing, who wrote a book in 1974 under contract with Price, Stern, Sloan: We Never Went to the Moon. (See minute 10:, 44: ) Apparently filmed in 1996 (see min. 49)
.
Skip the first 2 minutes:

... 131,213 views today
.
This 1-hour interview was originally going to be included in Sibrel's "A Funny Thing Happened..." but was deleted out of time constraints. It seems odd that not even a few minutes of Kaysing were deemed relevant. Kaysing touches on many topics, most of which are not found otherwise here in this thread. I found it most interesting when he enumerates the conspicuously timed deaths of key witnesses in the years during and following Apollo. Kaysing himself died shortly after giving this interview.
.
Regarding Matthew's concern that the distance to the moon is far and away another ball game compared to 100% of the rest of manned space flight missions, Kaysing is similarly concerned, but on a much broader scale. He says that in many categories the Apollo missions were off the charts in breaking all the reasonable limits of probability (80 systems, 6 times, without fail -- min. 55). He says that the data records for the Apollo missions are not classified information, but nonetheless, nobody can get access to them (see min. 34). For example, nobody is able to explain how the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) was able to rendezvous with the Command Module after leaving the moon when the latter was orbiting (allegedly) the moon at a tremendously faster velocity. Yet this incredibly complicated maneuver was somehow performed FIRST TIME without a hitch, unrehearsed. There were MANY such first-time-unrehearsed successes in Apollo. The probability of all these things going right first time without any experience is very close to zero. But people believe it anyway.
.
One college professor Sibrel quotes as saying that even if he (Sibrel) could get one astronaut to admit that the whole moon mission thing was a hoax, he still would think that it had been real.
.
The data provided on the YouTube page for this video has the following:
.
Bart Sibrel
Published on Apr 14, 2013
.
Bart Sibrel's unedited, never before broadcast, interview with, now deceased, original moon landing hoax proponent and former contractor to NASA during the Apollo moon missions, Bill Kaysing. The interview was edited out of Sibrel's "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" at the request of Fox Television to make the film fit into a one hour time slot.
.
Mr. Kaysing discusses his first hand account of the incredible atmosphere of engineering ineptitude, on-the-job drunkenness, and endless insurmountable schedule slippages that were rampant in the program, dooming it to failure.  "The only way to make it, was to fake it", he said was the underground motto of the staff.
.
Never before in all of recorded aviation has a flying machine worked on its first attempt, much less the most complicated one ever imagined, landing on another heavenly body on its maiden voyage, and returning roundtrip with a crew that lived to tell, all with 1960's technology. (More computing power today is found in a $10 watch).
.
According Kaysing, a classified interdepartmental memo rated the odds of a successful and survivable manned lunar landing on its first attempt at one in ten thousand.  That is why the returning men of the mission looked so dejected rather than triumphant at their press conference, as they were blackmailed into lying about the alleged greatest accomplishment of mankind, to the detriment of their own souls.
.
For licensing information, contact Bart Sibrel of Sibrel.com via "bartsibrel@yahoo.com" or http://sibrel.com
.
Share, Thumb's Up, and Support!
Paypal Donate:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...
.
Buy Autographed DVD
"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon"
https://www.ebay.com/itm/232544447533
.
Buy Autographed DVD
"Astronauts Gone Wild"
https://www.ebay.com/itm/232593123556
.
"Did They Really Walk on the Moon 48 Years Ago?"
http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/land-...
.
"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon"

.
"Astronauts Gone Wild"

.
"Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon"

.
"Apollo Zero"

.
Sibrel's Conspiracy Corner Editorial Page at The Sleuth Journal
http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/consp...
.
Sibrel.com
http://sibrel.com
.
The Reason Why the Comments Section is Closed:
http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/consp...
.
.
After all this, I still have unanswered questions about the alleged BATTERIES, and the alleged AIR CONDITIONING equipment.
Lead acid batteries were the only type in use at the time, but how do they work in a VACUUM? They would have to be dry cell batteries or else the electrolyte would boil off without ambient air pressure. So the lunar rover for example would have to be powered with something like a very long stack of nickle-cadmium D cells (that was the rechargeable variety of that time).
.
Ask any air conditioning technician or engineer about how it works. You need to have a heat sink or an environment where you can dump the BTUs from the cooled volume. If you want to cool off a LEM or a space suit, you need a cooler place where the heat can be disposed of. On the sunlit surface of the moon the 250-degree environment has no such cool place where the heat can be dumped off. Plus, there is no air or atmosphere on the moon so no evaporator coil would have anything to cool it off, no matter how hot it gets. The only way to dispense with the heat would be by radiation like infrared radiation. It would require a refrigerant to be upwards of 300 degrees so it could lose heat in a 250-degree moon surface. No one has ever explained what refrigerant could be used that operates at 300 degrees F.