Agree. “Moon landings” very fake. It’s so obvious if one reads and investigates on his own.
Usually those unable to see how fake it is suffer from one or all of these stumbling blocks:
1. Poor critical thinking skills
2. Unable to diverge from groupthink - unable to think counter to what we’re told we’re supposed to think
3. Unable to handle implications that come with understanding that billions of American tax dollars were used to try to dupe the world, and that folk hero astronauts, American leaders and presidents were part of the dupe - because, as you state, “failure” at that point in 1969 was not an option.
Maybe one of these days Bart Sibrel will live to hear the fakery being publicly admitted. We’re closer to that point now than ever. Institutional trust in the United States is at an all time low.
No problems. Glad it helped. I tried to synthesise some of the main concerns. It goes beyond the rather inane and obviously faked imagery to technology, comms, fuel, radiation, control etc. Most people don't know that the 1960s 'tracking tech' would in no way, be able to track an object going to the moon and back. That tech was unavailable. The Soviets never said they tracked Apollo for the simple reason that their systems of radio wave detection were limited in altitude, radius, coverage and were not networked (these are such obvious things, but never taught or known). Of course NASA would have cloaked any 'signals' to hide the fraud - which they did.
2a. Those of us boomer kids who watched it "live on TV" were proud and excited. I personally loved science and science fiction, and here I was watching The Future. Why would I believe that the adults were making it up? Furthest thing from my mind. Later, I was cynical about anything the government said. And yet... it was hard to let go of that pride in American achievement. So for the longest time, I put it in a box and didn't think about it. Only later, with new information from the 'Net, did I re-think any of it.
Yes, the ad hominems. You can turn it back on them. By using their own data, their own 'axioms' and claims, their own silly imagery, you can prove them false. Corona is an example, Globaloneywarming (plant food), the Apollo fraud (no fuel etc), just using their own proclamations and imagery. The conclusion is that anyone supporting those narratives is a reality-denier and a critical-thinking denier.
As a child (I was 11 in 1969), the astronauts were my HEROES. I loved science and science fiction. This was the Future!
As an adult, cynical about all the political and geopolitical lies, I didn't really have an opinion either way. But. As an engineer, I looked back at Gemini and saw exactly the kind of failures I'd expect in an experimental engineering program. That's not an insult. Of course all this untested equipment in a hostile environment would fail in unexpected ways. That's how we learn. But then, on the later Apollo moon missions, when it really counted, and there were so many more moving parts, everything worked nearly flawlessly. (aside from the Apollo 13 'dramatic radio play' of course. I couldn't have scripted it better. Hubby goes to his junk box in the basement and pulls out just the oddball junk needed to make the balky appliance work. See, dear?)
It was when McGowen pointed out the missing blast pit under the LEM, which that big retro-rocket would create in the fine moon dust, that it all fell apart for me. Bootprints, yes, blast pit no? The NASA fanboy deboonker brigade twists themselves into knots trying to explain that.
Excellent observation. Experiments done on this planet with an LLM equivalent, even turning off the engine at 100 feet (the usual Fanboy declaration) lead to a large crater into which the LEM will land and in which it will fall over. Consider that these 2 actors were riding on top of 18.000 running 5hp lawnmowers. The moon has 1/6 gravity, ergo it is not a vacuum (gravity has to be processed through a medium, it is electro-magnetic energy or the equivalent). On Earth you are deaf and screaming in agony (so where was the LEM landing practiced then?). On the moon the sound would be transferred through the structure, so you are still going to be deaf and probably in pain. You would hear the sound in any comms.
Generated by electro-magnetism, it is physical energy, a physical gradient pushing in the aether, unless you believe in fantasies like 4th dimensions. You might have noticed the medium on this planet - but maybe not if you live in another dimension.
Your knowledge of physics or reality is really dim. No aether? That is not a serious statement. Do you live on this planet in an atmosphere? Your knowledge of energy and gravitational attraction has not encountered Newton it appears.
How could anybody know what is the moon surface when it could be deep layers of dust or quicksand or sink holes or swampy - nobody can know in advance where is a good spot to land.
They say every time they landed in a different spot but a normal person after landing safely the first time would naturally next time go back to their lucky spot, avoiding any unnecessary risks. If you get lucky on the first try to land then next time you don't risk flying to a different spot - that could be dangerous.
And if you bring a golf cart then next time you go back to where you left the golf cart and check on all the equipment left behind for wear & tear; you don't bring a new golf cart every time. The whole idea of flying to the moon is to monitor how the equipment survives in the harsh moon environment between visits.
So this story of every time landing in a totally different spot is obviously fake, makes no sense:
Read this book a couple of decades ago. It’s pretty convincing but lost me at the end when it diverted into talking about the “faces” on Mars which are clearly a trick of the light. It should have stopped with the Moon theories. Lots of unanswered questions though.
Totally agree. This is where 'the science' can write off the entire corpus of valid questions by referencing such items (martians, roswell etc) as conspiracy weirdness. By the author's own logic ET, Hans Solo and friends would not be able to zip and zoom through our 12 layered atmosphere and Mars as we all know is a cold dead planet. They would do better just to focus 'on the facts' around the Apollo scam.
They succeeded first time with less computer power than a smart watch- without a single hitch. Can’t do it now though because they’ve lost the handbook 🤣
Indeed. Also the massive thrust to lift a 5 tonne machine from the surface which would need 2 tonnes of fuel is 'invisible'. No flame or surface deformation is visible :) The structure was a few mm in width and most of the volume was taken up by 'internal fuel tanks'. But no worries, the structure did not shatter and the complex rejoin was not an issue :)
Thanks Andreas. That is LOL funny. Actor-Idiots. There are stories that in June 1968 when they filmed part of the 'lunar excursions' (walks, moon surface discovery) that the Actor-Cows-Idiots were watching and that real actors were engaged in the theatre. If true none of us would be surprised. Re the fuel, that is a problem for the narrative.
The fuel for the LEM was a magical brew they call, Hypergolic (Aerozine 50 / N2O4) a mixture of Nitrogen Tetroxide and Aerozine (another chemical mixture). I guess we won't ask about the tests to prove that this fuel worked. Orion needs tonnes to do a descent and lift off; apparently the Apollo LEM needed very little to none.
The jeeps used 'Silver Zinc' batteries protected by a 'wax box', which would not function in 250 F temps (Artemis will use Lithium-Ion apparently). It is to laugh.
I always compare it to a couple in a Volkswagen beetle of that era being stuck in the snow on a 0 degree F winter night of the northeast. You are freezing and to conserve fuel you start the engine for a few minutes every 15 minutes. You can't have enough supplies in there to fill all your needs for food, water, waste, blankets etc.
And you sure as hell don't have room to do anything.
When I see the statement by a NASA rep saying the reason why we haven't been back after all these years is because we lost the technology? Pure BS. The moon landing was like the covid vaccine , Safe and Effective, and now days we hitch a ride with the very evil we were in a race with to just get to the space station because our technology the space shuttle failed?
Another fantasist. Which telescope are you referring to? The Hubble at 300 miles alt. picks up nothing and would only pick up an object the size of a football field on the moon's surface. Your little home telescope won't have a chance of identifying anything on the moon, especially footprints made in New Mexico. No debris has ever been found. The only evidence the cult provides are the usual arrows pointing to a dark spot.
I notice moon landing skeptics/deniers rarely mention all the other alleged landings after the famous 1969 one. Bart Sibrel, one of the most famous, in his book “Moon Man” mainly discusses the first alleged moon landing, and barely mentions the others. I wonder why this is?
Agree. “Moon landings” very fake. It’s so obvious if one reads and investigates on his own.
Usually those unable to see how fake it is suffer from one or all of these stumbling blocks:
1. Poor critical thinking skills
2. Unable to diverge from groupthink - unable to think counter to what we’re told we’re supposed to think
3. Unable to handle implications that come with understanding that billions of American tax dollars were used to try to dupe the world, and that folk hero astronauts, American leaders and presidents were part of the dupe - because, as you state, “failure” at that point in 1969 was not an option.
Maybe one of these days Bart Sibrel will live to hear the fakery being publicly admitted. We’re closer to that point now than ever. Institutional trust in the United States is at an all time low.
Nice article, thank you
No problems. Glad it helped. I tried to synthesise some of the main concerns. It goes beyond the rather inane and obviously faked imagery to technology, comms, fuel, radiation, control etc. Most people don't know that the 1960s 'tracking tech' would in no way, be able to track an object going to the moon and back. That tech was unavailable. The Soviets never said they tracked Apollo for the simple reason that their systems of radio wave detection were limited in altitude, radius, coverage and were not networked (these are such obvious things, but never taught or known). Of course NASA would have cloaked any 'signals' to hide the fraud - which they did.
2a. Those of us boomer kids who watched it "live on TV" were proud and excited. I personally loved science and science fiction, and here I was watching The Future. Why would I believe that the adults were making it up? Furthest thing from my mind. Later, I was cynical about anything the government said. And yet... it was hard to let go of that pride in American achievement. So for the longest time, I put it in a box and didn't think about it. Only later, with new information from the 'Net, did I re-think any of it.
Those 3 points cover all supposed ‘conspiracies’, and that is the ace TPTB hold.
The older I get, the more I understand how much the “conspiracy” category is used to silence and shame any discussion counter to what TPTB desire.
Yes, the ad hominems. You can turn it back on them. By using their own data, their own 'axioms' and claims, their own silly imagery, you can prove them false. Corona is an example, Globaloneywarming (plant food), the Apollo fraud (no fuel etc), just using their own proclamations and imagery. The conclusion is that anyone supporting those narratives is a reality-denier and a critical-thinking denier.
The same about Twins would be penetrated by aluminum planes.
As a child (I was 11 in 1969), the astronauts were my HEROES. I loved science and science fiction. This was the Future!
As an adult, cynical about all the political and geopolitical lies, I didn't really have an opinion either way. But. As an engineer, I looked back at Gemini and saw exactly the kind of failures I'd expect in an experimental engineering program. That's not an insult. Of course all this untested equipment in a hostile environment would fail in unexpected ways. That's how we learn. But then, on the later Apollo moon missions, when it really counted, and there were so many more moving parts, everything worked nearly flawlessly. (aside from the Apollo 13 'dramatic radio play' of course. I couldn't have scripted it better. Hubby goes to his junk box in the basement and pulls out just the oddball junk needed to make the balky appliance work. See, dear?)
It was when McGowen pointed out the missing blast pit under the LEM, which that big retro-rocket would create in the fine moon dust, that it all fell apart for me. Bootprints, yes, blast pit no? The NASA fanboy deboonker brigade twists themselves into knots trying to explain that.
Excellent observation. Experiments done on this planet with an LLM equivalent, even turning off the engine at 100 feet (the usual Fanboy declaration) lead to a large crater into which the LEM will land and in which it will fall over. Consider that these 2 actors were riding on top of 18.000 running 5hp lawnmowers. The moon has 1/6 gravity, ergo it is not a vacuum (gravity has to be processed through a medium, it is electro-magnetic energy or the equivalent). On Earth you are deaf and screaming in agony (so where was the LEM landing practiced then?). On the moon the sound would be transferred through the structure, so you are still going to be deaf and probably in pain. You would hear the sound in any comms.
Gravity has to be processed through a medium? 😵💫
Generated by electro-magnetism, it is physical energy, a physical gradient pushing in the aether, unless you believe in fantasies like 4th dimensions. You might have noticed the medium on this planet - but maybe not if you live in another dimension.
Your knowledge of physics or reality is really dim. No aether? That is not a serious statement. Do you live on this planet in an atmosphere? Your knowledge of energy and gravitational attraction has not encountered Newton it appears.
How could anybody know what is the moon surface when it could be deep layers of dust or quicksand or sink holes or swampy - nobody can know in advance where is a good spot to land.
They say every time they landed in a different spot but a normal person after landing safely the first time would naturally next time go back to their lucky spot, avoiding any unnecessary risks. If you get lucky on the first try to land then next time you don't risk flying to a different spot - that could be dangerous.
And if you bring a golf cart then next time you go back to where you left the golf cart and check on all the equipment left behind for wear & tear; you don't bring a new golf cart every time. The whole idea of flying to the moon is to monitor how the equipment survives in the harsh moon environment between visits.
So this story of every time landing in a totally different spot is obviously fake, makes no sense:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3gDG023plXCJLVpvHZ8qtBf/find-the-apollo-landing-sites
Read this book a couple of decades ago. It’s pretty convincing but lost me at the end when it diverted into talking about the “faces” on Mars which are clearly a trick of the light. It should have stopped with the Moon theories. Lots of unanswered questions though.
Totally agree. This is where 'the science' can write off the entire corpus of valid questions by referencing such items (martians, roswell etc) as conspiracy weirdness. By the author's own logic ET, Hans Solo and friends would not be able to zip and zoom through our 12 layered atmosphere and Mars as we all know is a cold dead planet. They would do better just to focus 'on the facts' around the Apollo scam.
They succeeded first time with less computer power than a smart watch- without a single hitch. Can’t do it now though because they’ve lost the handbook 🤣
Indeed. Also the massive thrust to lift a 5 tonne machine from the surface which would need 2 tonnes of fuel is 'invisible'. No flame or surface deformation is visible :) The structure was a few mm in width and most of the volume was taken up by 'internal fuel tanks'. But no worries, the structure did not shatter and the complex rejoin was not an issue :)
It’s utterly ridiculous- I can’t believe anyone still believes it 😆
What fuel was used? It must be one that doesn't require oxygen to burn. (I am completely green on the topic of combustion).
Btw, love the term Actor-Nauts. In Norwegisn, naut refers to cows. When used on humans it means idiot.
Thanks Andreas. That is LOL funny. Actor-Idiots. There are stories that in June 1968 when they filmed part of the 'lunar excursions' (walks, moon surface discovery) that the Actor-Cows-Idiots were watching and that real actors were engaged in the theatre. If true none of us would be surprised. Re the fuel, that is a problem for the narrative.
The fuel for the LEM was a magical brew they call, Hypergolic (Aerozine 50 / N2O4) a mixture of Nitrogen Tetroxide and Aerozine (another chemical mixture). I guess we won't ask about the tests to prove that this fuel worked. Orion needs tonnes to do a descent and lift off; apparently the Apollo LEM needed very little to none.
The jeeps used 'Silver Zinc' batteries protected by a 'wax box', which would not function in 250 F temps (Artemis will use Lithium-Ion apparently). It is to laugh.
Why then, did the USSR go along with it?
Lots of reasons given in various posts.
Their own dead, frauds.
Money and lots of it.
USSR was bankrupt by 1965, it need the money and food supplies.
They never agreed to the landings - a lie.
They never tracked Apollo - you can't with analogue tech - and the signal was cloaked - another lie.
3 years ago they came out with proof using Google AI (10 layered neural networks) that the landings were a fraud.
So they don't admit to it.
I always compare it to a couple in a Volkswagen beetle of that era being stuck in the snow on a 0 degree F winter night of the northeast. You are freezing and to conserve fuel you start the engine for a few minutes every 15 minutes. You can't have enough supplies in there to fill all your needs for food, water, waste, blankets etc.
And you sure as hell don't have room to do anything.
When I see the statement by a NASA rep saying the reason why we haven't been back after all these years is because we lost the technology? Pure BS. The moon landing was like the covid vaccine , Safe and Effective, and now days we hitch a ride with the very evil we were in a race with to just get to the space station because our technology the space shuttle failed?
Wow- so right about the Apollo “hoax” but seeing aliens on Mars. Buckle up your foil hats folks.
Another fantasist. Which telescope are you referring to? The Hubble at 300 miles alt. picks up nothing and would only pick up an object the size of a football field on the moon's surface. Your little home telescope won't have a chance of identifying anything on the moon, especially footprints made in New Mexico. No debris has ever been found. The only evidence the cult provides are the usual arrows pointing to a dark spot.
They went to a simulator. Like Blue Origin. Oh, but wait, you believe in that too.
I notice moon landing skeptics/deniers rarely mention all the other alleged landings after the famous 1969 one. Bart Sibrel, one of the most famous, in his book “Moon Man” mainly discusses the first alleged moon landing, and barely mentions the others. I wonder why this is?