I thought it was funny when Father Gardner, the priest at my chapel, mentioned during one of his sermons that some people believe we never went to the moon.
Fascinating. Thumbs up on this one. No idea what to believe these days.
I've watched videos before, and seen much of the evidence, and come to the conclusion that the Moon Landings were a hoax.
However, I learned a few things in this video.
FOR EXAMPLE --
One of the astronauts claimed that they stayed cool for THREE DAYS on the moon thanks to "big batteries" onboard the LEM.
You got to be kidding me! BATTERIES? Seriously? I almost laughed out loud when he said that. I was embarrassed for him, it was such a silly lie.
The moon has no atmosphere, and it gets cooked by the sun on the daylight side -- up to 250 degrees F. And with no atmosphere, you can't use convection to draw off heat. You'd have to re-RADIATE the heat away. The amount of energy that would take far exceeds what could be stored in a few batteries, however large. And this was in 1970 remember.
I've done solar panel systems with deep cycle batteries before. I am well aware of how much electricity A/C takes -- but again, you can't use standard A/C on the moon because of the complete lack of atmosphere.
And how did those space suits hide a magic battery, enough to keep away the 250 degrees for HOURS AND HOURS at a time?
And no one is suspicious about this:
The Russians were kicking our butt in the Space Race seven ways from Sunday:
First satellite
First animal in space
First man in space
First 2 spacecraft in orbit at once
etc.
In short, the USA was having its butt handed to them by the Russians in the Space Race.
...But then the underdog USA comes from behind to land a knockout blow!
Wow...it's like Rocky IV! that kind of dramatic turnaround, that kind of surprise win by the underdog is worthy of a Hollywood movie!
What should a scientist think of data like this:
300, 250, 300, 300, 250, 240000, 300, 300, 250, 300, 300, 250, 300, 300, 250, 300, 300, 250, 300, 300, 250, 300, (many hundreds of times)...
That "240000" datum was obviously a mistake!
In short, the USA was having its butt handed to them by the Russians in the Space Race.
...But then the underdog USA comes from behind to land a knockout blow!
Wow...it's like Rocky IV! that kind of dramatic turnaround, that kind of surprise win by the underdog is worthy of a Hollywood movie!
For myself I do not believe it was faked [:]
Having lived through the time, I remember there was great competition between the USA and the Soviet Union in the 'space race.'
Here's wishing CathInfo members, readers, and of course its owner-moderator, a happy 50th anniversary [*] of the Landing on the Moon by the U.S. lunar-lander Eagle of Apollo 11.Having "lived through the time" of (Free - masonic) NASA's great psy op means only that those of us who "lived through the time" are more brainwashed than those who did not.
I also "lived through the time". I definitely do not believed that the Moon Landing was faked.
Matthew: And there is LOTS of good evidence here that all the moon landings were a hoax.
Why doesn't this statement at least mention that at one time they did have that capability?A Flexible PathThis is the beginning of a new era in space exploration in which NASA has been challenged to develop systems and capabilities required to explore beyond low-Earth orbit, including destinations such as translunar space, near-Earth asteroids and eventually Mars.
Overall interesting. Seems the originator of this conspiracy theory doesn't seem very credible.I'm not that hard on Kaysing, who is what the above clip was about. Sibrel is dishonest, though, and it's difficult not to think Sibrel is a con man.
I haven’t read any of this thread, but just wanted to go on record expressing my serious doubt that we ever put a man on the moon.
Not every wacky conspiracy theory is science-based so the problem isn’t an inability to work through the equations, etc. The problem as you say is fear but also it is an inability to make good judgments about who is worthy of trust. Kaysing isn’t trustworthy. Sribel isn’t trustworthy. That isn’t to say that the status quo is always correct. But any theory which requires us to believe that many thousands of otherwise upstanding people are maliciously lying is a non-starter for me. That’s not a credible position.
If on the other hand you can show that the existing evidence is being misinterpreted, that’s a completely different situation. I think evolution is a scientific hoax not because all the scientists are lying but because they have been trained to misinterpret the evidence. That’s completely different from accusing all the astronauts and nasa engineers and management of being malicious liars. The theory is complete BS. Same thing with flat earth. Everyone isn’t lying. If your pet theory requires belief that everyone is lying, it’s a sure sign that it is a false theory.
We have photos taken recently of the moon landing sites. Believing that everyone is lying (many thousands of people) is a form of paranoia.The pictures are fake.
What the notoriously corrupt United States federal government is claiming is to have sent men to the moon in 1969, on the VERY FIRST attempt, ]It wasn't the first attempt. Much of the mission used knowledge built up through the Mercury program and previous Apollo missions. This included learning from some failures. Also, engineers can design in redundant and backup ways to try doing something, which substantially reduces the chance of failure.
The pictures are fake.What's your evidence?
What's your evidence?David Percy and Mary Bennett covered it pretty well for me. The radiation on the Moon is intense and would've fogged the pictures up bad. Also the cameras had no view finders and they were wearing those very awkward pressurized gloves, yet all the pictures came out too fine. The shadows at times go at cross angles and there's clear detail evidence of artificial background lighting. Through computer enhancement analysis they even discovered that there was a spotlight in the Apollo Sun. Everything's very tight shots and no pictures of stars or planets either. They say you can't see stars from the Moon!
David Percy and Mary Bennett covered it pretty well for me. The radiation on the Moon is intense and would've fogged the pictures up bad. Also the cameras had no view finders and they were wearing those very awkward pressurized gloves, yet all the pictures came out too fine. The shadows at times go at cross angles and there's clear detail evidence of artificial background lighting. Through computer enhancement analysis they even discovered that there was a spotlight in the Apollo Sun. Everything's very tight shots and no pictures of stars or planets either. They say you can't see stars from the Moon!All this has been addressed. Especially the shadows going "different directions" and the lack of stars in the images. You can't get the stars in a picture without a somewhat long exposure, either on the moon or on earth. Try taking a picture of the night sky
It's the Freemasons again, hoaxing the folks, imo.
What the notoriously corrupt United States federal government is claiming is to have sent men to the moon in 1969, on the VERY FIRST attempt, even though right here on earth Mt. Everest and the South Pole took NUMEROUS tries before success, allegedly accomplishing this amazing feat with 50 YEAR older technology (a cell phone has ONE MILLION times more computing power than ALL of NASA did in 1969), yet 50 YEARS later NASA can now only send astronauts ONE - THOUSANDTH the distance to the moon, even with 5 DECADES more advancements in rockets and computers.I can understand this statement. Who knows? I may agree with it in another ten years.
If Toyota claimed they made a car 50 YEARS ago that could travel 50,000 miles on one gallon of gasoline, yet today their best car can only go 50 miles per gallon, or ONE - THOUSANDTH the distance, would not the forgery of the previous claim be incredibly obvious? If it were not for people's pride and emotional attachment to the 50 YEAR OLD unrepeatable moon landing claim, also with only ONE - THOUSANDTH the distance capable 5 DECADES later, they would otherwise easily recognize this equally preposterous claim as the fraud that it sadly is.
The alleged moon landings are the only technological claim in the entire history of the world, such as the first automobile, airplane, or nuclear power, which was not far surpassed in capability 50 YEARS later, much less not even able to be duplicated by any nation on earth 50 YEARS later. The supposed moon landings are also the only time in history that such claimed expensive technology was deliberately destroyed afterwards (175 BILLION DOLLARS worth), only done so to hide the evidence of the fraud.
Seeing how it is IMPOSSIBLE for technology to go BACKWARDS and today NASA can only send astronauts ONE - THOUSANDTH the distance to the moon as was claimed 50 YEARS ago on the VERY FIRST attempt with 5 DECADES OLDER technology, the only remaining conclusion is that the 1969 claim was a federal government lie. It is that simple and that corrupt.
The alleged moon landings are the only technological claim in the entire history of the world, such as the first automobile, airplane, or nuclear power, which was not far surpassed in capability 50 YEARS later, much less not even able to be duplicated by any nation on earth 50 YEARS later. The supposed moon landings are also the only time in history that such claimed expensive technology was deliberately destroyed afterwards (175 BILLION DOLLARS worth), only done so to hide the evidence of the fraud.
The Moon Landing is full of nonsense and things that don't add up from start to finish. Read the other threads, because I can't keep repeating them here.I agree. I see a lot of nonsense and things that don't add up. The problem is that nearly all of it comes from the people who think the moon landings didn't happen.
I agree 100%, but still, the lie has further problems. Computers in the 60s were as big as a garage; now they are as small as a wristwatch (and even smaller). The idea that the destruction of 1960s tech would impede current day tech is ludicrous! We're not talking about a dying industry, like the making of stained-glass windows, where the destruction of knowledge is damaging because people just aren't making these things anymore. We're talking about the tech industry; we're talking about NASA; we're talking about the entire industries of the airforce, computing and satellite combined. These industries have grown exponentially since the 60s. The tech should be available to where we could build a moon-landing project from scratch, ignoring that the 1960s NASA even existed, and it should be "light years" better. The tech of the 1960s is so outdated that it doesn't even matter.Good point. NASA should not have to work hard and spend years of effort to get us "back" to the moon. A lot of that trail should have been blazed in the 1970s. At most, they should have to replace hundreds of pounds of solid state computer parts with a single (hardened against radiation, extreme cold, and other space conditions) computer like they've been using in low earth orbit for decades. They already have modern computers working in outer space, they're just not very far from earth. Haven't they developed modern computer, navigation systems on the ISS and even unmanned probes? You're right, we're talking about whole industries that have all advanced over the past 50 years. NASA should be able to go to the moon on relatively short notice if we truly went there 6 times in the past.
So they landed on the moon 6 times and then they moved on to something else less expensive. The technology isn't lost. It was applied to different problems. This is a witch-hunt. When we send people back to the moon, you'll find reasons to doubt that it happened. It won't matter how stupid and ignorant the argument is, you'll believe it because you are paranoid and you can't distinguish what is worthy of belief and what isn't worthy of believe. Not everything that is worthy of belief turns out to be true but that's life. We make mistakes and we move on. We don't become paranoid and think that everyone is trying to fool us.NASA has explicitly said they destroyed the technology of the Apollo program. I notice you say "when" we send people back to the moon. As others have pointed out, every US president since 1973 has held out the promise of going back to the moon (and lately they've added: a trip to Mars) as a way to inspire the American people and appear extra presidential and visionary. Thus far, every last one has failed to deliver. Even Trump might leave office in 1 or 5 years without anyone setting foot on the moon during his tenure. I wouldn't be surprised at all.
A lot of people get stuck on this idea that too many people would have to be involved for a hoax like this to work. But in many lines of work everyone stays in their own lane, does their own individual job, and has no idea what's going on above their pay grade. Especially in government.It's not so simple. A LOT of engineers worked on the technology. Let's assume it was all a hoax and most of the engineers didn't know it.
Going to the moon was too expensive. Johnson wanted to cancel the whole program because he was worried there would be political repercussions for spending so much money on it. So they landed on the moon 6 times and then they moved on to something else less expensive.Great story, except it's contrary to the facts. The US did indeed spend a ton of $ on the moon landing project, but it was never completed. They faked the actual landings so that they could justify the expense to the public, and then get the budget increased! Could the US have eventually landed on the moon, with 60s and 70s tech? Probably, but it makes no difference. The goal of landing on the moon had 2 purposes - to justify the cost and existence of NASA and to give the public a "hooray, America is awesome and better than russia!" moment during the cold war.
NASA should be able to go to the moon on relatively short notice if we truly went there 6 times in the past.The main limitation is a sufficiently powerful rocket. There just isn't a currently operational, human-rated launch system capable of getting enough mass up there. (And NASA seems o be designing for Mars, which does add several new issues that the Apollo program didn't deal with, including people spending years in open space.)
NASA has explicitly said they destroyed the technology of the Apollo program. I notice you say "when" we send people back to the moon. As others have pointed out, every US president since 1973 has held out the promise of going back to the moon (and lately they've added: a trip to Mars) as a way to inspire the American people and appear extra presidential and visionary. Thus far, every last one has failed to deliver. Even Trump might leave office in 1 or 5 years without anyone setting foot on the moon during his tenure. I wouldn't be surprised at all."destroyed" is a bit misleading. The Apollo program was shut down by a change of administration, and so the people with operational knowledge moved to other jobs, and the machine shops making parts retooled to do other work.
Great story, except it's contrary to the facts. The US did indeed spend a ton of $ on the moon landing project, but it was never completed. They faked the actual landings so that they could justify the expense to the public, and then get the budget increased! Could the US have eventually landed on the moon, with 60s and 70s tech? Probably, but it makes no difference. The goal of landing on the moon had 2 purposes - to justify the cost and existence of NASA and to give the public a "hooray, America is awesome and better than russia!" moment during the cold war.I remember reading something many years ago that the "Space Race" was actually about perfecting the rocket technology for delivering atomic warheads. As it was easier to get funds to send a man to the moon than to send nukes to Russia, but the rocket can do both.
.
The fact that NASA's budget has ballooned since the 70s, with billions upon billions (maybe trillions) spent on many projects which are highly classified gives us the motive the deep state had in the crime of the fake landings. The opportunity was the fact that a Hollywood studio type atmosphere could fake the landing because most americans would watch the event on tvs that were low resolution and also, most americans trusted their govt to a large degree, being we were only a few years removed from JFK, who was probably the last president worth trusting to some degree.
.
NASA didn't have a less expensive budget after the moon landings, they had a LARGER budget. They just knew that the moon hoax would satisfy the public and let them work in peace for a few decades, so that they could come up with the next fantastical goal - mars. Such a project would take decades to accomplish, so NASA could justify their increased $ and secrecy.
It's not so simple. A LOT of engineers worked on the technology. Let's assume it was all a hoax and most of the engineers didn't know it.You're missing the point.
The thing is, even if an engineer was working on a small part, that engineer expected the part to be going into space. It was designed to go into space, from the smallest part to the integration. And they didn't just design on paper - they build parts and prototypes and tested them to make sure they could go into space. And some pieces were designed to be on the moon. (Parts of the lunar lander structure were designed for 1/6 gravity.) And not only that, but they expected this ship to be carry people, so they designed it to protect people in the space environment. That added several systems for life support (breathing, food, waste disposal) that engineers really designed, tested and built. The designs were for taking people into space and to the moon.
And we do have the blueprints and some remaining parts. Engineers today can verify that, as designed, it had the specifications for taking people into space and to the moon. If any of this were not up to specification, a lot of engineers would have noticed in the last 50+ years. That hasn't been the case. (And there are engineers outside the US.)
So you're left with nearly all the engineers spending their time designing, building and testing something that could go to the moon (so the blueprints and remaining parts look right), but then building something else that couldn't.
If this was all a hoax, it would have been simpler to just, you know, go to the moon.
The US did indeed spend a ton of $ on the moon landing project, but it was never completed. They faked the actual landings so that they could justify the expense to the public, and then get the budget increased! Could the US have eventually landed on the moon, with 60s and 70s tech? Probably, but it makes no difference. The goal of landing on the moon had 2 purposes - to justify the cost and existence of NASA and to give the public a "hooray, America is awesome and better than russia!" moment during the cold war.
I remember reading something many years ago that the "Space Race" was actually about perfecting the rocket technology for delivering atomic warheads. As it was easier to get funds to send a man to the moon than to send nukes to Russia, but the rocket can do both.Great point. And let's not forget all the low orbiting satellites that NASA developed, which have been shot up into space in the 1,000s and which are used to create the surveillance state, GPS, internet, and drone tech. Add in what you describe, that NASA has also developed much tech for the military industrial complex. What other top secret projects has NASA worked on - facial recognition? Crowd control weapons? Biometric chipping tech for the antichrist? The coming 5G surveillance state? Let's not forget weather control weapons.
If this was all a hoax, it would have been simpler to just, you know, go to the moon.
I have patiently explained each of these things when they have appeared. But now we have the same people just repeating the same things, as if they have never been addressed either here or elsewhere on the internet. And while I was doing Sunday liturgy and family things, someone has apparently given me 23 downvotes in less than a day.Thank you, Stanley for your patience. May God bless you for it. I wasn't one of those who gave you a thumbsdown vote. You are at least giving it all you've got and deserve some recognition for that. Please don't leave the discussion, because 5micro probably couldn't get along without you.
I agree. I see a lot of nonsense and things that don't add up. The problem is that nearly all of it comes from the people who think the moon landings didn't happen.
The fallout from the fake Apollo moon landing programSo it really doesn't matter that people have refuted all the jootube videos you have presented?
… But some of us, I think, are forced to face some unsettling thoughts about the very country which gave birth to NASA and Apollo, and, most recently the nascent Orion program.
…
So serious has the whole thing become for me that I am finding it difficult to remove my hat and place my hand over my heart when the Pledge of Allegiance is recited at a public event.
…
Apollo is the greatest hoax which America has manufactured to date.
You're missing the point.I think you missed the point. I already addressed this - "even if an engineer was working on a small part, that engineer expected the part to be going into space". Engineering in the US has a fair amount of decentralized responsibility, but it is responsibility none the less.
...
Think about all the manpower and people it takes to build a skyscraper. Yet how many architects actually draw up the plans for the design? Less than 5? Then add a few more people to account for the head construction engineers (who have some engineering experience). Everyone else has NO IDEA how to build a building. They are experts on the detailed process, not the overall build. So out of 1,000s of concrete guys, plumbers, electricians, steel workers, etc, etc who build buildings, less than 10 people are responsible for the design and structural integrity of the building. And this is for a building project that has been done 1,000s of times. There are skyscrapers everywhere.
Great story, except it's contrary to the facts. The US did indeed spend a ton of $ on the moon landing project, but it was never completed. They faked the actual landings so that they could justify the expense to the public, and then get the budget increased!In absolute dollars, NASA's budget peaked in 1966, then decreased every year to 1976.
.
The fact that NASA's budget has ballooned since the 70s, with billions upon billions (maybe trillions) spent on many projects which are highly classified gives us the motive the deep state had in the crime of the fake landings.
I remember reading something many years ago that the "Space Race" was actually about perfecting the rocket technology for delivering atomic warheads. As it was easier to get funds to send a man to the moon than to send nukes to Russia, but the rocket can do both.There is an element of truth to this. If you can put something into orbit, you can drop it out of orbit anywhere, and so deliver ICBMs. When USSR launched Sputnik, it became an element of national security for the US to be able to do the same. But that much only requires the tech for low earth orbit, and the US did that in 1958 (Explorer).
I heard that the construction industry will have a declining budget for the next 20 years, which will mysteriously cause it to lose the technology to build buildings.I heard something similar. There are only 6 working construction supercranes left in the world, and they get destroyed in the process of erecting a super-tall building. The technology to make them is the property of the US Govt, which has made all previous supercranes. These supercranes cost 1% of the US federal budget to make, and Trump has directed the National Architecture and Construction Administration not to make any more. Most of the companies who made the parts and tools for them will be closing shop, though some will probably retool to support building the wall. So even though we have the know-how to build one-off supercranes, we will soon lose the manufacturing chain to actually build another one.
That technology will be lost.
We are all going back to yurts.
:laugh2:
Claudel: You really should understand, however, that there are a great many people, people who are as cognizant as you are of the empire of lies that engulfs us all, who are not prepared to count Apollo and the rest of the space program as one more stone on the mountain of deception.
I am not saying that Stanley does not have knowledge of the Apollo Program and of the technology surrounding it. But he does infer that his knowledge is indisputably correct, and superior to that of his opponents, who are merely conspiracy nutters who rely 100% on Youtube videos for their information. I would remind Stanley and others that there are plenty of qualified scientists and engineers who either dismiss Apollo as an utter hoax, or who have grave doubts about it.I think you might have me confused with someone else. You are more than welcome to verify whatever info I provide. Most if not all of this is on the internet, available to everyone, though I have tried to provided links for the stuff that's more difficult to find addressed specifically.
Stanley: You also ask if I have any connection to NASA. Would it matter? If so, why, and if not, why ask? I suspect whatever I might say would distract the discussion. I would rather focus on evidence. The identity of X was not revealed in the CCCC thread for a similar reason.
The NASA mission report on Apollo 13 says it got colder, estimated at 45-50 oF. See page G-3.Yet it does provide the recorded testimonies of both Alan Bean and Gene Kranz, and it’s pretty obvious that these two are not on the same page. Can you explain the discrepancy?
Stanley:
It's not clear to me what Alan Bean is talking about. I think he was talking about the LM on the moon. The LM was designed for the moon surface and the relatively short trips to and from the CM….
Or perhaps Bean was just mistaken. People do make mistakes sometimes.
Indeed. The LM, as you say was designed for short trips, not for 200,000 mile plus trips. Yet, these three astronauts spent three days in space in a flimsy, virtually unprotected, LM (LEM) in a totally hostile environment for which the vehicle had never been designed. They were huddled together on this craft, shorn, apparently, even of their space suits. But they survived unscathed through it all.I said "The LM was designed for the moon surface and the relatively short trips to and from the CM".
There is an element of truth to this. If you can put something into orbit, you can drop it out of orbit anywhere, and so deliver ICBMs. When USSR launched Sputnik, it became an element of national security for the US to be able to do the same. But that much only requires the tech for low earth orbit, and the US did that in 1958 (Explorer).
Other elements of the space race - manned space flight
and especially satellites - were also within national security needs.
Stanley:You lost me. The Apollo 13 astronauts approached the Moon’s surface, I guess. One oxygen tank blew up. They aborted the actual moon landing and started to whiz back home pronto. That meant having to negotiate 200,000 return miles plus in deep space. We’re not talking now about heat generated near or on the Moon, but heat in deep space on the return journey. How much of that distance was spent on the CM before the astronauts decided to climb into the LM, I don’t know. Do you? I assume that much of it was on the LM, that leggy, thinly covered contraption, which they could never operate successfully during simulations on earth, but which seemed to work just fine on the Moon.
After the explosion on Apollo 13, they used the LM, but they didn't have the heat incoming from the moon surface (whatever amount that would be), or from the rockets, and they turned off a lot of the equipment so it was not generating heat either.
You lost me. The Apollo 13 astronauts approached the Moon’s surface, I guess. One oxygen tank blew up. They aborted the actual moon landing and started to whiz back home pronto. That meant having to negotiate 200,000 return miles plus in deep space. We’re not talking now about heat generated near or on the Moon, but heat in deep space on the return journey.There's no secret knowledge here. There's a lot of docuмentation on the internet. The Apollo program was pretty open, certainly compared to something like the Manhattan project.
...
But I’m asking you, Stanley, since you imply that you’re in possession of knowledge about things that the average Youtube conspiracy theorist would not have.
But manned flight to the moon? How that helps militarily seems rather more indirect.
After Sputnik, Ike changed his mind, bringing in Wernher von Braun's Germans from the openly military Redstone Arsenal (Huntsville, Ala.), and "the Germans" promptly put a U.S. satellite into orbit.
Syracuse: "Moon Landing" was one of the three biggest lies of the 20th century.
It is more profitable to be ashamed of yourself for your own sins. Why worry about something which you are not responsible for nor do you have any power to change and ultimately you may not even have the knowledge and training to fully understand? To my knowledge, none of the leading lights of the conspiracy theory have any scientific or space technology training. It’s probably wise to just not speak about it lest you show everyone how ignorant and foolish you are.
.... the more ashamed I become of my country.
It is more profitable to be ashamed of yourself for your own sins.
As the old comparison goes, going to the moon IS actual rocket science, so this type of engineering is highly complex. Most engineers can't comprehend it and aren't trained to. You can't go to your local college and major in rocket science.
Only those highly trained genius scientists "at the top" understood it and were tasked with putting together the overall plan. It would've only taken a few engineers to convince everyone else that "this will work".
Required viewing
Where I disagree with this video is that they were not even in low earth orbit. If you look at the shots they took through the window, the cloud patterns were stationary and not moving. In low earth orbit they were claimed to be moving at 18,000 MPH around the earth. Clearly the cloud patterns would have moved quickly through the window. I think they were on the ground and then just looking up at a blue sky through the window.Eh, that's how the globbers and heliocentrists reconcile these things. It's still worth watching.