RSS
Are believers in danger of extinction?
Coming up is the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. In 2016, a survey showed that 52 percent of the British public thought that Apollo missions were faked. Skepticism is highest among those who were too young to see it live on TV: 73 percent of aged 25-34 believe we didn’t land on the moon, compared to 38 percent of those aged 55 or more. These numbers seem to be rising every year. British unbelievers were only 25 percent ten years ago. It is not known how may they are today, but a 2018 poll by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center revealed that 57 percent Russians believe that there has never been a manned lunar landing. The percentage rises to 69 percent among people with higher education: in other words, the more educated people are, and the more capable of rational reasoning, the less they believe in the moon landings. In the US, the percentage seems much lower: A 1999 Gallup poll indicated just 6 percent Americans doubting the moon landings, and a 2013 Pew Research showed the number to have risen to a mere 7 percent. Not surprisingly, then, a 2010 Pew Research poll showed that 63 percent of Americans were confident that NASA would land an Astronaut on Mars by 2050.
The moon hoax theory was almost unheard of before the spread of Internet, and gained momentum with the development of YouTube, which allowed close inspection of the Apollo footage by anyone interested. Before that, individuals who had serious doubts had little means to share them and make their case convincing. One pioneer was Bill Kaysing, who broke the subject in 1976 with his self-published book We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle. He may be called a whistleblower, since he had been working for Rocketdyne, the company that designed and built the Apollo rockets. Then came Ralph René with his NASA Mooned America!, also self published.
Research gained depth and scope, and disbelief became epidemic around the 30th anniversary of Apollo 11, thanks in great part to British cinematographer David Percy, who co-authored the book Dark Moon with Mary Bennett, and directed the 3-hour documentary What Happened on the Moon? An Investigation into Apollo (2000), presented by Ronnie Stronge. It remains to this day greatly valuable for anyone willing to make an informed opinion.
Then there was the much shorter A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Moon (2001), directed by Bart Sibrel, which brings in valuable insight into the historical context. Sibrel also went around challenging NASA astronauts to swear on the Bible, in front of the camera, that they did walk on the moon, and he compiled these sequences in Astronauts Gone Wild, together with more useful footages of embarrassingly awkward statements made by NASA astronauts who are supposed to have walked on the moon but sound hardly competent and consistent; Alan Bean from Apollo 12 learning from Sibrel that he went through the Van Allen radiation belt is a must-see.
Then, using materials from those films and other sources, came the groundbreaking TV documentary Did we land on the moon? (2001), directed by John Moffet for Fox TV. To my knowledge and judgment, this is still the best introduction to the arguments of the “moon hoax theorists”: You can watch it here from its 2013 rebroadcast on Channel 5:
There are very few books available on the subject. I am not aware of a more researched one than One Small Step? The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth From Space by German researcher Gerhard Wisnewski, originally published in 2005, from which I will quote repeatedly.
I am not going to discuss all the evidence presented in these sources. I can only recommend them and a few others on the way. I will simply sort what I see as the most convincing arguments, add a few recent developments, give my best conclusion, place the issue in the broader historical perspective, and draw some lessons from it all about the Matrix we have been living in.
First of all, we need to be clear about the aim of such an inquiry. We should not expect any conclusive proof that Neil Armstrong, or any other Apollo moon-walker, didn’t walk on the moon. That cannot be proven, absent some indisputable evidence that he was somewhere else (orbiting around the earth, for example) at the precise time he claimed to have spent on the moon. In most cases, you cannot prove that something didn’t happen, just like you cannot prove that something doesn’t exist. You cannot prove, for example, that unicorns don’t exist. That is why the burden of proof rests on anyone who claims they do exist. If I say to you I walked on the moon, you will ask me to prove it, and you will not take as an answer: “No, you prove that I’m didn’t go.” Does it make a difference if I am the NASA? It does, because calling the NASA a liar will inevitably lead you to question everything you have been led to believe by your government and mainstream media. It is a giant leap indeed! Just like children of abusive parents, decent citizens of abusive governments will tend to repress evidence of their government’s malevolence. And so, people choose to believe in the moon landings, without even asking for proofs, simply because: “They wouldn’t have lied to us for more than 50 years, would they? The media would have exposed the lie long ago (remember the Watergate)! And what about the 250,000 people involved with the project? Someone would have talked.” I can actually hear myself speaking like that just 10 years ago. All these objections must indeed be addressed.
But before that, the scientific thing to do is to start with the question: can the NASA prove they sent men to the moon? If the answer is no, the next step is to decide if we take their word for it or not. That requires pondering what could have been the reasons for such a massive lie. We will get to that.
But, first of all, can the NASA provide hard evidence of the moon landings?
Rock-solid evidence from Antarctica
Yes, they can. They brought back pieces of the moon: roughly 380 kilograms of moon rocks and soil samples, all Apollo missions combined. Moon rocks prove the moon landings, don’t they? Yes they do, but only if it can be firmly established that they were not dug out from the earth. And that is the problem. As explained here, “meteorites have been found in Antarctica which have proved to have the same characteristics as the moon rocks.” It may be helpful to know that in 1967, two years before Apollo 11, the NASA set up an expedition to Antarctica, joined by Wernher Von Braun, the leading NASA propagandist for the lunar missions; Antarctica is the region of the earth with the biggest concentration of meteorites, but it is not known whether the expedition included geologists, nor if meteorites were brought back. In fact, it was not until 1972 that lunar meteorites were officially discovered in Antarctica; their lunar origin, of course, was determined by comparison with the moon samples brought back by Apollo crews (Wisnewksi 202).
So the moon rocks are a far cry from proving the moon landings. As a matter of fact, none of the so-called moon rocks can be proven to have been brought back from the moon rather than from Antarctica or somewhere else on earth. But it gets much worse: some of the so-called moon rocks have been conclusively proven to be fake. In the 1990s, British astrobiologist Andrew Steele was granted the special privilege to get close to some of the precious samples locked in NASA safes, and imagine his surprise when discovering in them a bristle, bits of plastic, nylon and Teflon and tiny earthly animals (Wisnewski 207). Another moon rock made the headlines when, 40 years after having been handed personally by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to the Dutch prime minister, it was scrutinized and proven to be petrified wood. Granted, a few fake moon rocks don’t prove that all moon rocks are fake. But it should be reason enough for starting a systematic scientific examination of the dozens of other samples that the USA ceremoniously gave away in 1969 and the 1970s.
The photographic evidence
What other proofs does the NASA have of the moon landings? The films and photographs, of course! The films are notoriously blurry, which makes their examination difficult. How, for example, can you be sure that astronaut David Scott from Apollo 15 is dropping a real hammer and a real feather to demonstrate Newtonian gravity in an atmosphere-free environment, when you can hardly see the objects? We do have a clear photo of the hammer and the feather on the ground, but how do we know they are the same as the blurry objects dropped in the film?
What would be helpful for a proper investigation is the original NASA footage. Researchers have been asking for access to these films for decades, under the Freedom of Information Act. In 2006, they were given an answer. Here is what you can read on Reuters:
“NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing. Since then, Richard Nafzger, an engineer at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, who oversaw television processing at the ground-tracking sites during the Apollo 11 mission, has been looking for them. The good news is he found where they went. The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed — magnetically erased — and re-used to save money.”
Russians are so evil-minded: as a result of this NASA admission, Russian officials have started demanding an international investigation.
Fortunately, we have the photos. Besides planting a US flag and collecting rock samples, the astronauts spent much time taking photos on the moon. And let’s be fair: in 2015, the NASA released to the public thousands of them in high resolution. They are accessible here, and can be examined in detail. Most of them are remarkable for their quality.
The Apollo 11 crew used a standard Hasselblad 500C with a few alterations, including the removal of the reflex mirror. The film used was a standard Kodak Ektachrome diapositive film, 160 ASA. That is a surprisingly sensitive film for a place where the sunlight is unfiltered by any atmosphere, especially considering that some photos, which came out perfectly exposed, were taken directly against the sun. There are also technical issues with the reliability of this material on the surface of the moon, where temperatures go from under 100°C minus to over 100°C plus: the only protection against heat for both camera and magazine was a reflexive coating. (How the astronauts survive such temperatures is an even more serious issue.)
Another problematic aspect is the professional quality of most of those pictures. Every single shot taken by Neil Armstrong, for example, is perfectly framed and exposed. Wisnewski (144-149) quite correctly points out how incredible that is, given the fact that Armstrong (or any other astronaut) could not take aim, since the camera was fixed on his chest where he could not even see it. Not to mention the difficulty of setting aperture, exposure time, focus and field of view manually with his pressurized gloves and no vision of the camera, and with no experience of photography on the moon environment. We need to remember that photography was a very skilled occupation in those days, even on earth, and it is quite astonishing to see that all of Armstrong’s shots were just perfect.
More to the point, is there any evidence that these pictures were shot on the moon? None whatsoever. They are easy to make in studios. As a matter of fact, the NASA went to great length to train the astronauts in indoor settings reproducing the condition of the moon surface as they imagined it, fabricating tons of “moon dust” for that purpose (even before anyone had seen real moon dust), and even simulating the black sky. Some of the photographs taken in these movie-like studio settings, such as the following one from NASA archives, would be hard to distinguish from the “real” thing, if framed differently.
Let’s face it: there is no proof that any of the Apollo photographs are genuine. That may not be enough to destabilize the believers. But what should is that quite a few of these photographs are “replete with inconsistencies and anomalies,” in the words of David Percy, who proves his point in What Happened on the Moon? The film contains an interview of Jan Lundberg, the Project Engineer for the Apollo Hasselblad. When asked to explain some of the inconsistencies concerning shadows and exposure (for example, astronauts fully lit despite being in the shadow of the lunar module, as in the photo reproduced on the cover of Wisnewski’s book), he answers: “I can’t explain that. That escapes me… why.”
Incidentally, Lundberg’s embarrassed admission is the perfect illustration of how compartmentalization may have made the moon hoax possible. Like the hundreds of thousands of people involved in the project, he worked on a “need to know” basis, and had no reason to suspect he was working for something else than what he was told, at least until someone challenged him to explain impossible pictures. Just a handful of people had to know the full picture, and it is not even certain that President Nixon was among them. As Wisnewski (121-126) illustrates with the Corona alias Discoverer program (a US research satellite launched around 1959 with the secret purpose of spying over the Soviet Union), it is wrong to assume that the US military, spatial and intelligence communities cannot keep a secret. To take another example, hundreds of thousands of people worked on the Manhattan Project, which remained completely hidden from the public until the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.
I will not list and examine the anomalies of the Apollo photographs, since they are analyzed in the documentaries mentioned above. But I do recommend browsing through and zooming on the high definition photographs on the NASA archive site, with the aim of assessing their credibility with basic common sense. Ask yourself, for example, if you can believe that the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle (here, here, or here) could have landed two astronauts on the moon and sent them back into lunar orbit to reconnect with the orbiting Command Module. Or pick Apollo 14’s LM Antares (here), or Apollo 16’s LM Orion (here, or here with the rover that miraculously came out of it), or Apollo 17’s LM Challenger (here). Keep in mind that these shabby huts had to be hermetically pressurized in a vacuum environment, and that, in the last two cases, two astronauts spent more than 3 days (respectively 71 hours and 76 hours) on the moon and slept 3 nights in the module. If you want to be guided along this reflection, I can recommend this 15-minute video.
Where have all the stars gone?
If the Apollo crews had photographed the moon’s starry sky, that could have served the NASA to counter the accusation of fraud. For back in the 1960s, it would have been very hard to make the computer calculation to make the stars constellation consistent. Unfortunately, no one thought about it at the NASA. The astronauts were asked to look down and collect rocks, not to look up and study the stars. It is as if the NASA were a congregation of geologists who despised astronomy. And to think that they spend billions of dollars sending telescopes into earth’s orbit! To be fair, I have read about a telescope installed by the Apollo 16 crew, but it seems that no one has ever seen what came out of it. In any case, not a single picture of the NASA archives show any star in the sky.
The official explanation? There simply were no stars visible in the moon sky. Period. It is so incredible that even some “moon hoax debunkers” prefer to explain the black sky in all Apollo photographs as resulting from low exposure. But they are wrong: the astronauts saw no stars with their own eyes. All of them, from Apollo 11 to Apollo 17, consistently declared that the sky was completely black, “an immense black velvet sky — totally black,” in the words of Edgar Mitchell, the sixth man on the moon.
Was it because the luminosity of the moon surface was too strong, so that their eyes couldn’t adjust (a day on the moon lasts 27 earth days, so the astronauts who landed on the illuminated side of the moon never experienced a night on the moon)? If that was the reason, then at least, the astronauts should have seen plenty of stars when travelling between earth and moon. They didn’t report seeing any. When they orbited around the moon and passed in its shadow, they found themselves in pitch darkness, and saw no stars. Michael Collins, who orbited around the moon several times in the Command Module while Aldrin and Armstrong were on the moon, declared in their 1969 press conference: “I can’t remember seeing any!” That is one of the weirdest remarks you can think of from an astronaut, but the whole press conference is a bizarre experience to watch.
Don’t ask Neil Armstrong
Neil Armstrong’s November 1970 interview is just as bizarre. It has been used by several skeptics as evidence that he is lying. I highly recommend this very professional analysis commissioned by Richard D. Hall of RichPlanet TV from by Peter Hyatt, a nationally recognized expert in deception detection. I find it devastating for the credibility of Armstrong.
After that, Armstrong must have been ordered to keep away from interviews. But when he was allowed to make a last appearance on the the 40th anniversary of his moonwalk, he took that opportunity to compare himself to a parrot, “the only bird that could talk” but “didn’t fly very well,” and to conclude with a cryptic remark about “breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers.” God knows what he would say if he was now invited to speak for the 50th anniversary! Fortunately for the credibility of the Apollo missions, he has now left the earth for good, and his story can now be told by Hollywood.
Fasten your Van Allen Belt
We set out to find out if there is any proof that the moon landings were real. We have not found any. Instead, we have found evidence that they were not real. But in fact, it was hardly necessary: NASA engineers themselves tell us they are impossible, for the simple reason that the astronauts would have to travel through the Van Allen Radiation Belt, which would kill them, and damage the electronic equipment as well. Listen, in the 10-minute video below, to astrophysicists and astronauts inadvertently admitting that the technology to send men beyond lower earth orbit is not yet available.
That may be the reason why, since the presidency of Tricky Dick, no manned mission to the moon, or even beyond low earth orbit, has ever been attempted. Remember, the International Space Station is orbiting at a distance of 250 miles from the earth, whereas the moon is about 237,000 miles away. On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush, speaking at NASA headquarters, announced a new endeavor to “gain a new foothold on the moon” and beyond, remarking: “In the past 30 years, no human being has set foot on another world, or ventured farther into space than 386 miles—roughly the distance from Washington D.C. to Boston, Massachusetts” (quoted in Wisnewski 329). No manned mission to the moon came out of this announcement.
Time is working to the advantage of the moon hoax theorists, for every year that passes makes people wonder: “If it was so easy to send a man to the moon between 1969 and 1972, why has it not been done again ever since?” Less that half of the British and Russians still believe in the moon landings. Among the educated, this percentage is falling fast. What will happen in twenty years, when Americans realize hardly anybody but them believes it? Will the United States of America survive the exposure of this giant hoax?
Manufacturing belief
If the Apollo moon landings were faked, serious questions ought to be asked about the NASA, to start with. Then, there is a need for some deep thinking about what has become of the United States since World War II. And beyond that, the moon hoax is the ideal starting point for reflecting on the hypnotic control that television and the news media have gained over our mind. It is not just a political issue. It is a battle for our souls.
The first step is to grow out of our infantile beliefs about the NASA, and do some basic study on what it is all about. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was founded in 1958 by President Eisenhower. Many people today commend Eisenhower for warning Americans, on leaving office, against the growing threat of the military-industrial complex, and the “potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power.” Ironically, the foundation of NASA was itself a giant leap for the military-industrial complex. There is no question that NASA’s so-called “civilian space program” was first and foremost a cover for a military program. The NASA Act of 1958 made explicit provisions for close collaboration with the Department of Defense, and in practice, the Pentagon was involved in all decisions regarding the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. Erlend Kennan and Edmund Harvey documented this point in Mission to the Moon: a critical examination of NASA and the space program, as early as 1969, and concluded:
“It remains imperative to have NASA keep its status as the decorous front parlor of the space age in order to reap public support for all space projects and give Defense Department space efforts an effective ‘cover’.” (quoted in Wisnewski 296)
Besides launching satellites for espionage purposes, the NASA was to contribute to the development of transcontinental rockets. For after WWII, the equation was simple: “Rocket + atom bomb = world power” (Wisnewski 62).
The para-military purpose of NASA is essential to understanding the Apollo hoax. For in matters of military programs, “what the public knows is also known to the enemy. This means that in principle the public and the enemy can be seen as essentially one and the same thing” (Wisnewski 7). Therefore, we should understand that deceiving the American public was not a perversion of NASA’s original purpose, but an integral part of it.
It fell upon Kennedy to sell the moon program to the Congress and to the American public in order to increase NASA budget dramatically. On May 25, 1961, a mere 43 days after Yuri Gagarin allegedly completed one orbit around the earth, Kennedy delivered before the Congress a special message on “urgent national needs.” He asked for an additional $7 billion to $9 billion over the next five years for the space program, for the purpose, he claimed, of “achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space.”
Kennedy can be blamed for fooling the American public, but it is likely that he had been fooled himself, just like he had been tricked by the CIA into the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion, a mere month earlier. Whatever the case, the moon was Johnson’s idea, not Kennedy’s. It is believed that Kennedy was convinced by a memorandum of Lyndon Johnson, titled “Evaluation of Space Program” and dated April 28, 1961, supposedly based on deliberations with top NASA officials. The memo assured the president of the feasibility of “a safe landing and return by a man to the moon” “by 1966 or 1967”, if “a strong effort” is made. As for the benefit of it, Johnson put it this way:
“other nations, regardless of their appreciation of our idealistic values, will tend to align themselves with the country which they believe will be the world leader—the winner in the long run. Dramatic accomplishments in space are being increasingly identified as a major indicator of world leadership.”
A month after his Congress speech, Kennedy officialy made his vice-president head of the National Aeronautics and Space Council with the charge of exploring the moon project. As Alan Wasser has said:
“Few people today realize or remember, but a single man, Lyndon Baines Johnson, ‘LBJ’, is primarily responsible for both starting and ending ‘The Space Race’”.
That explains why Texan industries were the greatest beneficiary of the space program, and why the NASA Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston was renamed the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in 1973.
Under Eisenhower, Johnson was both the Senate Majority Leader, and a key player in the Texan sector of the military-industrial complex. It is interesting to know that the original draft of Eisenhower’s farewell address, written by his assistants Malcolm Moos and Ralph Williams, spoke of the “Military-Industrial Congressional Complex”, but Eisenhower dropped “congressional”—in fear, perhaps, of Johnson. Johnson’s corruption aggravated after he became vice-president and appointed his Texan friends at the head of the Navy: first John Connally, then Fred Korth, who resigned in October 1963, after the Justice Department (led by Robert Kennedy) implicated him for corruption in the contract for the joint Navy-Air Force TFX aircrafts.
NASA was not just a camouflage for military developments. It was a manufactured dream to keep Americans looking up at the sky while their government was committing atrocities in Vietnam. And so, NASA had also close ties with the movie industry. Its first boss, T. Keith Glennan (1958-1961) had a long experience in running film studios in Hollywood (Wisnewski 298).
During the transition period between Johnson and Nixon, Apollo 8 allegedly carried three astronauts ten times around the moon. Then, after two more testing missions (Apollo 9 and 10), six Apollo crew landed on the Moon from 1969 to 1972, all during Nixon’s presidency. Wisnewski (130-139) provides a spectacular parallel showing how breaking news related to the Apollo program conveniently turned the American public’s eye away from Vietnam war crimes. Apollo 11 landed on the moon two months after the media revealed illegal bombardment in Cambodia, and the Apollo program stopped just after the official end of America’s involvement in Southeast Asia. So, writes Wisnewski,
“while the United States of America was murdering thousands of Vietnamese people, burning down one hectare after another of virgin forest and poisoning the land with pesticides, it was at the same time trying to fascinate—or should one say hypnotize?—the world with a conquest of quite another kind.” (131)
“For the rest of the world the cultural and technological thrill caused by the lunar landings must have been as overwhelming and disarming as the negative blow of September 11. To this day the USA draws strength from the boundless admiration generated by those lunar landings. And I still maintain that this ‘conquest’ of the moon, that ancient myth of humanity, elevated America to the status of a quasi-divine nation. / The moon landings fit in with the country’s overall psychological strategy of self-aggrandizement coupled with subjugating, undermining and demoralizing others.” (287)
“Civilian space travel became a form of ‘opium for the people’, a promise of redemption bringing a new and better future for the universe.” (63)
Indeed, travelling to the moon and coming back alive is a feat of mythical proportions. It is tantamount to travelling to the Other World and coming back to the world of the living with your physical body. That makes the NASA astronauts the equals of ancient supernatural heroes, immortal demi-gods, and that semi-divine quality reflects on the USA as a whole. Such was the significance of the Apollo moon landings: it was about a new world religion that elevated the United States above all other earthly nations. A lot has been said about institutional religions as means of collective mental control. But no religious belief can compare to the moon landings in terms of the cynical abuse of people’s gullibility. And no religion could compete, until recently, for the numbers of believers worldwide.
The deeper lesson is that it was made possible by television, and would have been impossible otherwise. Hardly anybody would have believed it if they hadn’t seen it with their own eyes.
In Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass, Alice tells the White Queen “one can’t believe impossible things,” but the Queen insists it is possible with enough practice: “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” With television, believing in six impossible moon landings came without effort.
Appendix: the Kubrick hypothesis
Before being broadcast on TV, the Apollo moon landings were studio productions. No wonder, then, that one of the most influential whistleblowers was Hollywood filmmaker Peter Hyams with his film Capricorn One (1978).
Although it has no bearing on the issue of the reality or possibility of the moon landings, and should not be taken as argument, I’d like to mention here one of the most intriguing developments of the moon hoax conspirarcy theory: the suggestion that director Stanley Kubrick collaborated with the NASA in the making of the Apollo moon films while making his 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), on which he started working as early as 1964, just after finishing his antimilitary film Dr Strangelove. The rumor has that Kubrick was then pressured into a Faustian pact in exchange for fundings and other help. That Kubrick received support from the NASA for 2001 is actually no secret: the scenario was co-written by Arthur C. Clark, an enthusiastic supporter and contributor of NASA adventures, and several assistants for the film, such as Harry Lange and Frederick Ordway, had worked for NASA and aerospace contractors. Some therefore believe that 2001 was part of a NASA program both to fascinate the public with space travel and to test production techniques.
That hypothesis first arose when skeptics studying the Apollo photos and films became convinced that they had been made in movie studios using the technique called frontscreen projection, which had been perfected by Stanley Kubrick for his film 2001.
The theory had already been around for some time, when a French “mockumentary” called Dark Side of the Moon, directed by William Karel, was aired on Arte channel in 2002, as a very smart but futile attempt to debunk it.
But the theory gained a new vigor when film director Jay Weidner added to it the hypothesis that Kubrick cryptically confessed his participation through his 1980 film The Shining. Weidner presents his arguments in his 2011 documentary film Kubrick’s Odyssey: Secrets Hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick. Part One: Kubrick and Apollo. He also gives a brief summary of his theory in the documentary film Room 237 (2012), available on vimeo (Weidner’s contribution is between 00:44:25 and 00:51:55, and between 1:16:00 and 1:16:45). You can watch here Weidner’s contribution on YouTube:
When I first heard of that theory and watched Room 237 (I haven’t watched Kubrick’s Odyssey), I didn’t think much of it. But after watching anew The Shining with it in mind, studying Kubrick’s other films (especially Eyes Wide Shut, which one way or another killed him) and their layers of hidden meanings , and learning of his perfectionist obsession with every detail, I find the theory not only fascinating, but highly plausible.
Weidner’s starting point is the observation that, although the film The Shining is allegedly based on Stephen King’s novel of the same title, Kubrick ignored the scenario adapted by King himself, and changed so many things in the story that it can be said to be a totally different story—which made King quite resentful. Kubrick seems to have used King’s novel as a cover for a story of his own. What is therefore interesting is to focus exclusively on the elements of the film that depart from King’s novel, and on the details that seem to have no direct bearing on the main narrative. Weidner is not alone in taking this approach: many Kubrick admirers believe that the film has hidden meanings. Some argue, convincingly I believe, that it contains cryptic references to child abuse, also an underlying theme in Eyes Wide Shut. But Weidner reads into the film a subtext that amounts to an autobiographical confession of Kubrick’s role in faking the Apollo moon landings eleven years earlier.
According to that interpretation, Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) represents Kubrick himself, while the Overlook Hotel (built on Indian burial ground), represents America. The manager of the hotel, Stuart Ullman (Barry Nelson), made to look like JFK, represents the US government (as well as perhaps the JFK Space Center), while his assistant Bill Watson, who keeps observing Torrance without uttering a word, represents the Intelligence underworld.
Two scenes in particular give the keys to this cryptic narrative. The first one is when Danny (representing Kubrick’s child, that is, the Apollo films) rises up wearing an Apollo 11 sweater, on a rug with a design similar to the Launch Complex from which the Apollo rockets were launched. Soon after, Danny enters room n°237, which contains the secret of the hotel. The room number was 217 in King’s novel, but Kubrick changed it to 237 in reference to the distance of 237,000 miles that separates the earth from the moon (according to the common estimation at the time). The “room n°237” is in fact the “moon room”, because “room” looks similar to “moon” when read backward, and Kubrick has taught us to read words backward in the scene where the word “redrum” becomes “murder” in the mirror.
The second most important scene from the point of view of Kubrick’s cryptic subtext is when Wendy discovers that Jack, who is supposed to write a novel, has been typing one single sentence over and over again: “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.” That sentence, which must have been chosen by Kubrick for a very specific purpose, takes a secondary meaning once you realize that All, in American typewriter script, is indistinguishable from A11, which can stand for Apollo 11.
When Jack then catches Wendy reading the pages, he tells her how deadly serious his contract is:
“Have you ever thought for a single solitary moment about my responsibilities to my employers? […] Does it matter to you at all that the owners have placed their complete confidence and trust in me, and that I have signed a letter of agreement, a contract, in which I have accepted that responsibility? […] Has it ever occurred to you what would happen to my future if I were to fail to live up to my responsibilities?”
Besides these two scenes, there are a number of other clues that support this subtextual reading. Why did Kubrick, for example, make the design of the Indian tapestry in the main lounge resemble rockets? Does Jack aiming at them with a ball represent Kubrick “shooting” the Apollo films?
Just after that shot, Wendy and Danny go into the hedge maze. Jack then looks over a model of the maze inside the lounge, which merges with the real maze in cross fading, suggesting that the maze is not real. This is also hinted by the aerial shot of the Overlook Hotel, which clearly shows that there is no maze next to it. Coming from Kubrick, this cannot be a continuity error.
Puzzling spatial impossibilities in the film have also been discovered by careful students of the film such as Rob Ager. They are no mistakes, for Kubrick gave himself a lot of trouble to produce them. Therefore, they must have a message to tell, possibly that what appears to be outdoor was in in fact filmed indoor.
There are also two brief allusions to television that fit with the alleged subtext: a sarcastic remark on the notion that what is seen on television is “OK” (watch the scene here), and a mysteriously wireless television (impossible in 1980) showing the film Summer of 42.
Another possible clue left by Kubrick to let us know that he intended The Shining to be read as cryptically autobiographical, is the documentary that he asked his daughter Vivian to shoot on the set of the film (now included as bonus in DVDs). It makes Kubrick appear as a mirror image of Jack Torrance. This has been detected even by critics with no interest in the Apollo theory, such as Rob Ager, who writes:
“Kubrick’s decision to allow a documentary film to be shot on the set of The Shining was an unprecedented departure from his usual ultra-secretive work policy. All of the behind the scenes footage was shot by his daughter Vivian. Without realizing it, many film critics and biographers have accidentally identified Kubrick’s motive for releasing this documentary. Time and time again they have described his edgy behind the scenes behavior as being comparable to the film’s main character Jack Torrance. One of the biographies I read […] even claimed that there were running jokes on set about the similarities in appearance and behavior between Jack Nicholson’s character and Stanley Kubrick. My theory is that Kubrick was deliberately creating these character parallels between himself and Jack, both in the documentary and among his crew in general. But the most prominent example of this parallel is Kubrick’s degrading treatment of the actress Shelley Duvall (Wendy) and the actor Scatman Crothers (Halloran), both of whose on screen characters are victims of Jack Torrance’s madness.”
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Persian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Well, I’d never even known that Moon Hoax theories existed until a year or two ago, and my initial impression was that they seemed totally ridiculous. Now after reading this lengthy exposition of the material, my current view is that…they still seem just as totally ridiculous.
America’s space program and moon landing dominated the headlines and were enormous cultural phenomena during the 1960s and early 1970s, and there must have been a vast number of interviews and media accounts. So the fact that an absolutely infinitesimal fraction of these contain some statements that might be construed as possibly suggesting a fraud hardly seems significant. Aside from that sort of loose speculation, there seems essentially zero solid evidence supporting a Moon Hoax.
All my history books claim that Columbus discovered the New World in 1492. But suppose some analyst pointed to various minor discrepancies in the historical record and the explorer’s public statements to argue that the voyage was a hoax, and perhaps Columbus himself never existed. Would that be enough to overcome my presumption that every major historian writing about those events had been dishonest or deceived? Absolutely not! A huge amount of overwhelmingly solid substantiation would need to be provided in such a situation. Extraordinarily remarkable claims require extraordinarily remarkable evidence, a situation regularly ignored by conspiratorially-minded individuals.
Various assertions are made about some of the Moon photos looking very suspicious, and given my lack of expertise I personally can’t evaluate them. But even if some of the photos were doctored, a vastly more parsimonious hypothesis seems obvious. The Moon program apparently cost U.S. taxpayers something like $150 billion in current dollars, and represented a gigantic American commitment of money and prestige. Now suppose that trip went fine, but the actual photos taken by the astronauts came out blurry or were otherwise poor in quality. Isn’t it quite plausible that embarrassed NASA officials might just have had someone in their photo department quietly touch them up or even fabricate them to avoid public embarrassment? A very minor “white lie” like that, involving just a couple of NASA employees, would hardly be earth-shattering. After all, PR people are always touching up the photos for celebrities and politicians, and such touched-up photos hardly constitute evidence that the celebrity is fictitious.
A gigantic number of Americans were directly involved in the space program. If it were a hoax, surely thousands or even tens of thousands of the employees must have been aware of that shocking fact, and yet after fifty years not a single clear whistleblower has come forward. This total silence renders a hoax extremely implausible.
The counter-argument is made that huge numbers of Americans were also involved in the Manhattan Project, which was successfully kept secret, but that seems silly. Obviously, during wartime, it’s less likely that vital military secrets would get out into the media, and since almost no one had ever heard of atomic bombs, the workers might simply have mentioned to their family or friends that they were working on a super-powerful new bomb, which is exactly what everyone experts during a war. Also, the secrecy only lasted for a few years rather than a half-century.
But I think a different argument from silence totally kills the Moon Hoax theory. As everyone knows, one of the biggest reasons for our space program and moon landing was the zero-sum competition for international prestige with Russia during the Cold War, and although it eventually fell behind, the USSR had a very solid space program of its own, with numerous satellites and telescopes. If our Moon landing were just a fraud, it seems totally impossible that the Soviets weren’t aware of that, and they could have totally destroyed America’s international prestige by revealing the hoax. Yet they never made a single such claim at the time. Unless this gigantic issue is effectively addressed, any Moon Hoax theory can be immediately dismissed.
But here’s a slightly different Moon Hoax “conspiracy theory” that seems vastly more plausible to me. It’s well-known that U.S. government officials and intelligence agencies have grown quite concerned with the spread of popular “conspiracy theories” after the JFK assassination and the 9/11 attacks, with the published documents by the CIA and the statements of Cass Sunstein demonstrating this.
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-the-cia-invented-conspiracy-theories/
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-part-i-what-happened/
Now people who come to believe in one or two unorthodox “conspiracy theories” are obviously much more likely to easily accept others as well. So it wouldn’t really surprise me if various “disinfo agents” began promoting the Moon Hoax as a sort of poisoned bait for conspiracy-activists, hoping lots of them would begin accepting it and making themselves look totally ridiculous. In fact, isn’t that *exactly* what Sunstein had personally suggested a decade or so ago? Perhaps it’s more than a pure coincidence that apparently the only book ever published endorsing a Moon Hoax theory came out in 2005, just as the 9/11 Truth movement was starting to really take off. Hasn’t there also been big wave of Flat Earth videos being promoted on YouTube?
Anyway, that’s my own “conspiracy theory” regarding a Moon Hoax.
Moreover, whenever we’ve published an occasional article having any relation at all to the Space Program, it’s been very irritating that “excitable” Moon Hoax people have frequently cluttered up the comment-threads with their strange ideas. Now that they have this dedicated comment-thread for their extended discussion, it will be much more reasonable in the future to just summarily trash their off-topic comments on other articles.
1) so why didn’t the soviets call out the americans, claim it was fake, then continue with their own manned mission, and land on the moon first themselves?
because the moon landings definitely did happen, soviet scientists confirmed it, soviets knew they lost the space race, and abandoned their manned moon mission. they were strapped for cash, and moved on to other missions. for instance, landing on venus. which, did that not happen either? which brings us to:
2) were the mars missions hoaxes too? did a single US built rover ever land on mars? did a single US build satellite ever orbit mars? or is that all bullshit as well?
i guess we can go even further to:
3) are there any other planets at all? or is it just ‘turtles all the way down’ as they say. is earth just on a turtle’s back? indeed, is the earth flat too?
all you need to do is to stand on everest or one of the similar 28,000 foot mountain peaks to see the earth clearly curving, but that’s never enough for the flat earth guys. which will be the case with the moon landing hoax guys. NO AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE will ever be enough for these guys.
those space missions where human craft land on asteroids, and bring back asteroid samples, they’ll just say those missions are fake too. the japanese are in on it.
It’s pointless to argue with these people. Don’t waste the keystrokes. Nothing will ever convince them.
you’re wasting your time, ron.
astronauts could live stream the trip to mars in 4K video with stereo sound, and these hoax guys would still say it’s fake.
astronauts could bring back mars rocks and these guys would STILL say it’s fake.
Thank you, Mr. Unz, for saying what needed to be said. When I saw this article and scanned it, I was about to vomit, throw my laptop out the window and decide never to log on here again.
I am open-minded. I believe in the dialectic that you so admirably facilitate here. I am even subject to some pretty far-out ideas (such as the one I just now wrote about in Steve Sailer’s comment section) but moon hoax feces drives me over the edge and actually makes me mad. It is beyond stupid to the point of being offensive.
Thank you for putting it in its place, even after providing it with a free speech opportunity. Your golden comment balances out all the pale spittle above it.
this is all very interesting but what has it got to do with the proletariat taking over the means of production? And which Oligarchy has most promoted it, the hoax that is?
And further, Russia may have been in on the Moon Hoax to undermine faith in government in the US.
One glance at the lunar landing module at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington was enough to convince this engieer that there was nowhere near enough fuel to take this thing back into orbit around the moon.
https://airandspace.si.edu/multimedia-gallery/99-15232hjpg
OK. We all know that gravity on the moon is 1/6th that on earth, but compare with the size of the rocket that took the thing and a lot more off the surface of the earth.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/vintagespace/2017/12/14/222/
“Cryptic references to child abuse” in The Shining
I think I spotted a few. They’re pretty well hidden. There’s the central backstory of Jack injuring Danny, the central plot twist around Wendy’s assumption that Jack injured Danny after the Room 237 incident, the running theme of Grady slaughtering his daughters, and the last 45 minutes of the film in which Jack is trying to kill Danny.
Very cryptic, blink and you might miss it, but it just MIGHT have something to with child abuse. If you’re conspiracy minded, I mean…
Not to quibble with your point, but I recall Fox back when it was an upstart network running a show calling the moon landing a hoax during what I believe must have been the 1990s.
the only part i find genuinely intriguing is the “no stars” part.
The part dedicated to The Shining seems to me to be rather like the “satanic messages in rock records played backwards” epidemic some time ago. Promoted psychological illusions.
Of course, the whole issue could simply be cleared up by examining the sites of the landings.
Bill Burr – Buzz Aldrin Punches Guy – YouTube
Unz, that comparison with Columbus is asinine and grasping at straws: for one thing, the Spanish didn’t launch just five expeditions in three years, only to stop the project abruptly and then no one ever managed to replicate the feat since then up to the present day, because apparently the technology to cross the Atlantic “just can’t be replicated.”
Let’s just keep this real simple:
Do you acknowledge that America in the Sixties had the means and motivation to lie to itself and the rest of the world about its superior tech and achievements in an attempt to upstage the Soviets?
And do you believe the official televised narrative of every project the US government unveils to the public?
Vox Day has written extensively on this subject
https://voxday.blogspot.com/search?q=Moon&m=1
People who believe in the ‘Moon Landing Hoax’ theory are scientifically illiterate and aren’t even good at choosing which conspiracy theory to get behind.
Sending men to the Moon was not even the most technically difficult thing NASA and other space agencies have done. It had the greatest PR value, yes, at the time it was done.
But we have since sent unmanned probes as far as Neptune and Pluto. We have landed probes on comets over 1000 times further than the Moon. We have had people up in orbiting space stations for 2 years at a time. We have had rovers on Mars (hundreds of times further than the Moon) in operation for years at a time.
Yet, landing men on the Moon is a ‘hoax’. These nuts should also list which other space accomplishments (whether by the US, the USSR/Russia, Europe, China, India, etc.) are hoaxes and which are legit. This is where they swiftly reveal how little they actually know about space.
Ever have one of those days when you feel like you’re being played for a fool?
Who Really, Does Jew, Unz, Think He Fools?
Unz: WHY wouldn’t the “moon-landing” be a hoax if so desperately pushed by Jews like thou and the lying Jews-media?–that’s called INDUCTIVE LOGIC, sucker–the conclusion that if it isn’t hoax, then it needs to be PROVEN it’s NOT hoax–get it, stupid kike?
Jew: do thou have ANY proof there was “moon-landing”? Doesn’t it bother thou there’s NO STARS in the innumerable photos of all the pretended “moon-landing” activity? And there’s good reason for the moronic excuses they give for lack of stars showing in photos, eh? Ho ho ho oho.
Regarding thy putrid web-site for “pilpul” Jews and liars–the whole site is TRASH, like thou, Jew, utterly negligible for any serious people, and thy filthy race of trashy, murdering monsters, called Jews.
But it’s fitting and interesting to have a site like thine, reduction-to-absurd for pilpul kike liars, their goyim suck-alongs, like “one-born-brainless,” and those precious psychos who keep saying Christianity is just variation of Judaism, “Christ was Jew,” etc., whom thou also make use of, eh?
And WHAT a pathologic psycho thou are–so obsessively checking and reading EVERY goddam posting entry to MAKE SURE thou censors and deletes the REAL, serious, genuine Christians (hence anti-semites). So that’s how thou think thou shall “normalize” kikery–getting people to “beleeeeeev” that “golly gee, but Jews are like anyone else,” and “there are good Jews along w. some bad,” and “gee whiz, but thou can’t judge all kikes by just one or a few,” ho ho ho ho ho ho.
Yes, while there could well have been enough motive to fake the moon landing evidence if there was a reasonable chance of getting away with it at least for a few years it would be astonishing if the Russians or Chinese or any other country with superior hacking facilities didn’t correspondingly spoil the story. By now too Wikileaks would have had something on it.
Another test to apply is the wealth of those who could have blown the whistle and their families. Even if there were only 30 definitively credible potential whistleblowers it would surely cost a lot to keep them happy. Let’s say an average of $5 million each in 1973 and a clause in their agreements which might mean they would lose everything if they leaked. There would be a lot of notably rich people now (@6 per cent compounded about $70 million). Alternatively, wouldn’t the now dead (e.g. Neil Armstrong) have given their families something very valuable to sell, like an affidavit made on his deathbed with signature verifiable as the same as in the will of which a court had granted probate? But he does tell a good story doesn’t he.
An idiotic sentence from the article :
Simple : The cost/benefit analysis is horrendously bad, and once the PR value of being first was achieved, there was no reason to spend that much money when no industrial application of any sort emerged.
No, time is not working to the advantage of the nuts – more and more technologically challenging feats are being demonstrated by multiple space agencies the world over. The Moon landing happened when it was, in fact, technologically feasible within the vast budget involved.
”of poisoned bait for conspiracy-activists, hoping lots of them would begin accepting it and making themselves look totally ridiculous.”
Yes.
And I cant wait for the conspiracy guys to tell us where the children that weren’t
really killed at Sandy Hook are being hidden.
‘the moon hoax theory was almost unheard of before the spread of the internet’
I am almost certain this is not true. I am of just the right age to remember when the internet first became a ‘thing’ for most ordinary people and I remember reading before and after about the faked moon landing in places like the readers digest etc. Even if these articles were not agreeing with the conspiracy theorists and were just laying what they said out they were fairly common back before the internet and after.
If Van Allen Belt radiation “would…damage the electronic equipment” aboard the Apollo spacecraft, then, Moon Landing Skeptic, you need to explain why that radiation failed to damage electronic equipment aboard Mariner, Voyager, and all the other unmanned non-landing exploratory spacecraft and all the landers, such as the ones that alighted upon Mars and, quite recently, upon a comet.
No stars seen? Have a gander at the images from unmanned exploratory spacecraft – ever seen stars in their images of Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto? Pilots of the X-15 rocket planes reached space and described their heavenward view as “black” – they, too, saw no stars.
The United States landed American men on the moon and returned them safely to earth.
‘Well, I’d never even known that Moon Hoax theories existed until a year or two ago’
Really?
They are the quintessential conspiracy theory (even the death of JFK does not quite match their stature since many people can genuinely believe that Kennedy was murdered in a conspiracy). I first heard about them when I was seven but of course the internet today makes the most convincing evidence freely available…
I believe that NASA successfully landed a manned spacecraft on the moon in 1969.
Have advanced human civilizations not sent scientific probes into outer space?
Has we not explored the outer planets?
Has the US not landed a spacecraft on Mars?–(or is that also fake?)
But let the debates begin!
Free speech. Unfettered inquiry. Intellectual freedom. These intellectual pursuits are all essential to a dynamic and open society. This goes without saying. (or at least it should).
After all, we ‘believers’ in the moon landing might be wrong. I concede this. So bring it on!
Follow the evidence wherever it leads. Erase all doubt. Keep digging. Examine and cross-examine. History is a process of continuous discovery. (Science and history are never ‘settled’.)
Contrast this open, intellectual attitude with the concerted, moneyed and dark global effort to quash and criminalize all ‘doubting’ of the official Holocaust narrative (and Jewish death count) that allegedly occurred in Europe from 1942 – 1945.
There shall be no doubt.
That’s HATE!
Doubting the moon however landing is A-Ok and very progressive. Sure, hoaxes do happen.
Consider this:
Doesn’t ‘The Holocaust’ fable seem even more fragile (than the moon landing) when one considers the countless fraudulent claims by Jewish ‘survivors’, Israeli advocates and pro-Zionist journalists that have occurred for decades?
Isn’t it significant that the ‘six million Jews’ meme was trotted out falsely and repeatedly long before Adolf Hitler was even born?
Zionist Jewry has a proclivity as well as an incentive to lie and to exaggerate.
Fortified false history however does not occur by accident.
Sometimes it is used to purify criminality.
Israel’s brazen taking of Palestine (and manipulation of Washington) requires a yarn of monumental proportions. There must be horrific Jewish suffering and epic, shameful injustice committed by the gentile world against the hapless, innocent Jewish one.
The stage is set. The tale is written. Guilt is radiated far and wide.
And the Zionist project benefits.
But what is NASA’s dark, secret objective?–more funding for a do-nothing government agency?
Hmm.
It’s hard to believe that a fraud of this magnitude occurred and that the truth hasn’t leaked by now.
In any event: let the debates begin!
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.
This is normal and natural for those who seek Truth.
OOPS!
But wait.
Holocaust?
Doubt?
Cross-examination?
Denial?
Wha!?
(oh never mind.)
Your arguments against the Moon Hoax Theory are :
1) There was a vast number of interviews and media accounts.
2) The project cost $150 billion.
Arguments 1) and 2) are consequential arguments, not causal ones. If the decision to cheat was already made, then mass media presentation (the main source for propaganda and it was all about propaganda) and of course the costs would be unavoidable consequences.
3) Failed photos could have forced NASA to produce fake ones in the studio, but that was a minor deception.
Well, but what about the missing stars ? Why did the astronauts not see stars in space en route to the moon ?
4) Too many people were involved in the hoax, but none blew the whistle.
Most people worked on a need-to-know basis on the ground. The astronauts did go up in rockets, but only orbited the earth. Only the small group of people involved with
the so-called “communication with the astronauts” needed to be part of the deception.
5) The USSR did not expose the hoax.
Russia did not expose the 9/11 hoax either. Either they have been deceived themselves, or they have themselves some skeletton in the closet.
6) The Moon Hoax Theory might be part of Cass Sunstein’s cognitive infiltration project, just like the Flat Earth Theory.
The absolutely ridiculous Flat Earth Theory might very well be part of Sunstein’s project, but that is of an entirely different nature than the possible Moon Hoax Theory, which after all is far older than the Flat Earth Theory, which only recently appeared on the Internet.
There is one single argument that simply cannot be denied : the impossibility of living beings to travel through the Van Allen Belt and stay alive. NASA itself has admitted that it has not solved this problem. No travel through the Van Allen Belt, no journey to the moon, hence it was a hoax. Period.
Yeah, this one thing completly blows it out of the water.
Why would the Soviet Union participate in such a hoax? Was the cover up *that* good? How?
The most simple reason against possibility of moon landings with XX century analog technologies, is that while to launch a rocket from Earth we use hundreds of technicians, the launches from the Moon surface are served by a couple of airforce officers, selected by their stamina. Launches from Earth go through testing, numerous fail starts etc. From the supposed moon landings, tinfoil ascent modules always start with no problems, and the crewmen always succeed to meet their rocket somewhere on Moon orbit, with no breeches in their suits, no health damage or disability etc. Moreover, they look great back on Earth. For travel to the moon, humanity still lacks technologies of life support, even without the belt. April the 1st is everyday for many Americans confident with moon landings. The populace was just prepared to believe a scenario following comic books or Frau im Mond.
What if the USSR, just like the USA, was a masonic creation. What if the entire cold war was a carefully orchestrated dialectic, a massive hoax placed above the moon hoax?
Did you read about Kubrik? You certainly didn’t address it. Have you looked into the number of people related to the space program who, like Kennedy witnesses and associates, died in very suspicious circumstances in very large numbers? Freemasons are responsible for the murder of untold millions.
I have told you before Ron, by ignoring the independent and uncorrelated variable of secret societies your welt-anschauung, or understanding of reality, suffers from the omitted variable bias. The same applies to “moon landing skeptic”. The entire moon landing is seeped with masonic symbology and numerology and numerous players were high ranking masons. Exposure of the moon hoax is far more significant than either of you realize.
This sentence jumped out at me:
“On May 25, 1961, a mere 43 days after Yuri Gagarin allegedly completed one orbit around the earth…”
Allegedly? So the Russians were faking their space program too?
That is also my argument against these Moon deniers and also Americans are a notoriously garrulous bunch who just can’t keep secrets unlike the Chinese and Russians.
they still seem just as totally ridiculous
OK.
Speaking of the 52% (of the British public who believe the moon landings were faked), one wonders exactly who and how many were asked, and what fraction of the 52% have actually spent any time looking into it.
Also it would be nice to hear the story behind the US ambassador giving the Dutch PM a piece of petrified wood, misrepresenting it as a moon rock — ?
Nice April Fools joke Ron!
This article is racist.
How dare you suggest that the African American women mathematicians, scientists and engineers who got us to the moon were somehow perpetrating a fraud.
Ron, i suppose it is to your credit that you post something (on April 1st) that you deeply disagree with – a testimony to Unz.com’s intellectual open-ness. There is little doubt that intelligence agencies do try to push retarded concepts (Flat Earth, etc.) in order to discredit other more substantial investigations. But i disagree with your assessment here.
The article was too broad and unfocused, but it did touch on many of the important points. Given the huge progress in aeronautics, engineering, computer technology, satellites since 1972, and given the fact that an average smartphone is “millions of times more powerful than all of NASA’s combined computing in 1969”, it’s somewhat questionable that nobody has managed to even equal NASA alleged feat, much less surpass it after 50 years. This is not how technological progress works.
It’s also ludicrous that NASA refuses to divulge radiation data on the Van Allen Belts on the pretext of “national security”.
Maybe try looking at this subject again, but with a narrower and more focused critique. The Wisnewski book (“One Small Step”) is certainly credible, well-researched and non-dogmatic in its approach. Not a bad starting-point.
Here are 2012 satellite images of Apollo landing sites 11,12,14,15 and 16, with visible landers and rover tracks.
https://www.space.com/12796-photos-apollo-moon-landing-sites-lro.html
You’re welcome.
I got into the 3rd chapter before I thought I better hit the comments and see what the trend is before I commit to reading this lengthy piece. The moon landings make more sense to me than 9/11 but who knows WTF reality is anymore.
So the solution is to give them more exposure, with your imprimatur?
Indeed. We have more than enough ‘genuine’ hoaxes and those perpetrating them would be delighted if all critics were silenced.
Not sure about cause and effect here, but I suppose it’s a plan. Are you going to facilitate this for every variety of lunatic? And what about the inevitable grey areas? Even I’m not quite sure why WTC7 came down.
Ultimately, I’ve the feeling that a lot of people believe in outlandish conspiracy theories because it’s fun.
Aww crap, it’s April 1 and I just noticed 😉
You’d never even HEARD of the Moon Hoax theories? At your age? And you still think it was real? Boomer cognitive dissonance.
“…it wouldn’t really surprise me if various “disinfo agents” began promoting the Moon Hoax as a sort of poisoned bait for conspiracy-activists, hoping lots of them would begin accepting it and making themselves look totally ridiculous…”
I believe this is correct. I think the flat earth business is more of the same.
I’ve looked at a great, great deal of the moon hoax material and so far I’ve found none of their “problems” that weren’t readily explainable.
For fun here’s a couple of “problems” you mentioned.
1. LEM seemingly fragile.
Here’s a picture of it without the cover. The structure was metal. The outside covers are just a thin metalized film to protect against heat.
2. Too hot or cold.
Very thin films can bounce off vast amounts of heat if they are done right and that’s what the films are for. To keep heat in and out. Vacuum is the best insulator we have so all heat is radiated in space. This is also how the astronauts handled the heat. The temperature stated is only if you have a black surface that captures all the heat from the Sun. If you bounce most of it off it’s not hot. Same for the cold, it’s a vacuum so only heat that is radiated away is lost. That’s why they call “space blankets”, space blankets, as they originated in the reflecting material used in space. Here’s a picture of two people in a tent imaged by a thermal camera. The bright spot on the ground is a mouse. You can’t see much in the way of heat being emitted. In space all the heat loss would be from emitted heat so it’s not a lot.
3. Van Allen radiation belts. Here,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt#Implications_for_space_travel
They say,”…A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles (320 by 32,190 km)) passing the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year (for comparison, a full-body dose of 5 Sv is deadly). Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt…:
The astronauts went around most of the inner belt and passed through the outer quickly. Notice the rem count is from being in it a year. I can’t find the link but I’ve read before radiation from the outer belt could be stopped with something as thin as a magazine cover.
A few other thing. The focus from the camera doesn’t seen to be a problem. Surely they worked the focus and light exposure levels on earth before they got up there. They probably would only need a few set values if they set up the shots right.
Bright light in supposed shadows is easy too. The astronauts are wearing bright White suits that will be facing whatever they are shooting so the suit will illuminate a a lot. Anyone who’s been on the beach knows the sand reflecting the Sun can be dazzling even though you are not looking at the Sun at all.
No one, that I’ve seen, has any revelations that would cause me to believe that they didn’t land there.
And yes I do believe in conspiracies. Any one who looks at building 7 on 9-11 and doesn’t get that there’s a conspiracy there is a fool. I don’t expect Fox news to make a video about that anytime soon.
Thanks for this post. I was worried you’d gone completely off the deep end.
As for the “Kubrick hypothesis” and those layers and layers of cryptic clues – thanks for the laughs!
Given what conspiracies are, a “breathing together” of evildoers and the overwhelming preponderance of evildoers in Government and Governments own parasites, it is undeniable that thousands of onspiracies are hatched and executed daily in DC. There is no government activity that is free of them.
I’ve long heard of this one but not looked at it and probably won’t.
It falls under The Times category “Small earthquake in Bolivia, Not many dead”.
I have spent some time on the moon landing hoax conspiracy story myself. I mainly confined my own study to the scientific aspects of the story. There are plenty of reasons to be suspicious but thus far I have found nothing conclusive in either direction. Ron Unz’s theory that the conspiracy crowd are being baited could be right, but there are a lot of fishy aspects to the story.
I particularly don’t like the ‘couldn’t see the stars from the moon’ claim at all and have heard no convincing explanation to support it. The moon’s surface may be bright in direct unfiltered sunlight but I can’t see that it would have been that hard to shield ones eyes from the glare, especially with the shadow of the moon lander available. There is no atmosphere on the moon to diffuse the light.
Until there is some hard evidence to back up the quite understandable suspicions, the jury is still out as far as I am concerned. I eagerly await a more thorough examination of the alleged moon rocks and a verifiable passage through the Van Allen belt.
Correction. The few deceased were Chilean.
There are so many things wrong with this article that it’s unclear as to where to start.
Let’s start with the basic logic mentioned in the beginning: that it is up to NASA to “prove” the moon landings happened. And of course “proof” is not the entirety of the official record of lead up tests, flights, audio, video, materials and on and on. Since after all intimately everything can be faked.
Here’s the thing: yes, everything can be faked. I have never been to Antarctica. I only know about it because I keep reading about it. But perhaps it’s all faked as part of a major scam. Ditto everything. Existence of Julius Ceasar? Could be faked. Exoplanets? Could be faked. And on and on.
Philosophically what every individual human being has to weigh is the probability of an assertion being true vs that it being false. If we take the extreme view that only what we sense through our own organs can possibly exist and everything else needs to be “proved”, I can only vouch for a very very tiny fraction of what’s asserted.
In order to assess probabilities we need to understand the subject matter of that we are skeptics of at some level. So if one is skeptical of Evolution one needs to understand it first. We need to understand why assertions may be false; the number of people needed to falsify the record; the motivations to lie and so on.
Skepticism around the moon landing seems to have started with two primary axioms;
1. It is impossible for humans to get through the Van Allen belts.
2. Governments lie and government bureaucracies – like NASA – in particular lie to protect their turf and steal money from the public.
That the Van Allen belts (which by the way I have never personally seen/sensed and only asserted – so may be they are another giant fake?) were a serious consideration by NASA in designing deep space missions is true but any assertions of “impossibility” was just that (and one needs to have some level of education to argue the point).
The second axiom is indeed true in general – especially where the military is concerned – but skeptics go far beyond that and claim that it’s always necessarily true no matter the subject and how many people it would take to scam/keep the lid on said scam. NASA then is not a collection of disparate scientists, technicians, administrators – all of them human with a capacity to lie of course – but a well oiled machine with a singular purpose to bilk the public of billions.
Now I have little doubt that NASA would have overcharged on the Apollo missions, that there was corruption etc. If someone came along and showed that the entire thing could have been done at half the cost with half the personnel without compromising safety it may not be far fetched.
But skeptics go far beyond that. They assert that the moon landings could simply not be true (the above two axioms are a starting point) and start to spin their own narrative about how they could have been faked.
There are those with greater patience than I who have gone through each one of the standard objections to the moon landing: the photos, shadows etc. One objection noted above – that the astronauts never reported stars on the way to the moon – is false. Of course it could have been faked, but not only did NASA officially carry our astronomical experiments on the way to the moon involving stars, but most famously Apollo 13 used stars to navigate their path home. So at least if NASA faked the whole thing they didn’t forget about the stars. (Incidentally various photos by unmanned craft including that by Russians – and recently by the Chinese and Indian missions – don’t show stars in their pics).
The moon landing was indeed a great achievement but once one understands the pieces – physics, rocket engineering (even most skeptics don’t deny that you can get satellites into deep space orbit which itself is tricky which is why for a long time only two nations mastered it), crew safety (the toughest bit with the greatest risk – unmanned craft had landed on the moon – which is where it took a long time), it is not unfathomable. One can argue that the Manhattan project was in many ways more challenging given the new physics, time frames and vast unknowns.
How will the Hoax crowd explain the Laser Pulses reflected back by laser retroreflectors left behind by the Apollo programs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
In my view, it is a logical fallacy, to conclude from public TV pictures shown, that man has not made it to the moon. Man eventually went far beyond the moon, but there is neither a “holocaust” memorial on moon or mars.
Chemical rockets won’t do the trick obviously, but a field propulsion would, and this is what has been kept secret, going along with stolen patents in Germany.
The big question is, and so incredibly difficult to track, what precisely happend during the “cold war” really up until today? What happened to these patents and technology stolen? The US B2 is an obvious example of a Horten plane.
Where is all the gold going?
Why is there basically a drive to centralize all resources on the planet? For what aim? War against a much more powerful enemy that requires all resources?
Ron, if you read Wisnewski’s book, you will find that his first chapters deal with the Soviet Space program, and give some possible answers to the obvious objection to the Moon Hoax theory: why didn’t the Russians expose the lie? One first response is: why should they? Why not instead use this show of force by the US to tighten the regime and justify boosting its armament effort? But there is more: the Soviet Space achievements, before Apollo 11, were also largely fake, at least Gagarin’s first manned flight around the earth. So another question is: why didn’t the US expose the Soviet lie? Well, why should they? Why not, rather, use whatever proof they have of the Soviet lie to put them in the position where they cannot denie the US’s achievement without exposing themselves to being exposed. In this game of war propaganda, truth doesn’t matter, what matters is the power to impose your narrative, and the basic rule is: he who succeeds in making the last biggest lie wins. Besides, Wisnewski gets into a lot of details about a secret cooperation between the US and USSR in fabricating mutual lies. Again, you should read this book. Of course, I am not saying that everything is easy to explain. A lot remains mysterious, and your objections are valid. I do believe that some conspiracy theories are poisoned baits. The most obvious one, in my view, is the flat earth theory. But why would someone promote this ridiculous theory (and it is very heavily promoted on the Web), if the moon hoax theory is already doing the job, and better? It seems to me that the flat earth theory is specifically designed to discredit the moon hoax theory. That, of course, doesn’t prove the moon hoax theory is true; I’m just mentionning this to provide a different angle on that question. I am open to the possibility of being wrong, and am looking forward to serious countrer-arguments in the comments. Thank you for posting my article and thereby providing an opportunity for this debate.
April fools day is always fun.I told a guy today that during the syrian war it was discussed at nato headquarters, that if turkey were to be attacked from the rear,whether greece would help.
With respect, Mr. Unz, your rebuttal doesn’t really address the litany of technical problems to the Moon Landing claims. Hoaxers are right to smell a rat.
(Dave McGowan’s “Wagging the Moondoggie” does a great overview: http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/)
Our High School got the arvo off to go home and watch it on TV
4 others and I went to the Golf Course hunting for lost balls instead. There was just an air of unreality around it.
Was it a hoax?
It’s one of those things like the efficacy of vaccines that’s being sprung on us by the Media- you either buy in to drinking the KoolAid, or you’re a NoGoodNik, and maybe even a Terrorist?
April 1.
Coincidence?
Why not solve this question once and for all an go (again) to the moon. If they could do it in the 60s, we can do it now. Such an endeavour would make any country look great (again).
But if they faked it in the 60s. Not sure if we can do it now…
Also re Kubrick … 3 days before his death on 7 March 1999, director Stanley Kubrick confessed to fellow film-maker T Patrick Murray, that he had faked the films of the USA claimed 6 ‘moon landings’ of 1969-1972, an era when the CIA had its own film studios at Laurel Canyon, California
From the Onion, the ‘true original’ videotape of the ‘men landing on the moon’, full of four-letter words, 2min51, quite funny
A different theory holds that, yes, we did go to the moon; but, on the moon, we encountered extraterrestrials who told us in no uncertain terms to stay out of space on pain of dire consequences.
Thanks. For me the shamed demeanour of the “moonwalkers” while being interviewed, the claim by NASA officials that they have “lost” the technology to return to the moon and then the kicker, the Van Allen belt. Those are the real tells for me. Other astronauts have reported bright flashes and sparks in their vision, painful headaches and a loss of concentration getting even near that radioactive zone never mind flying through it. Hopefully the more erudite commenters will clear those questions up for me.
Imagine if it did turn out to be a great hoax and the science come to prove that conclusively. That would be the time for all to accept that just about everything else that we’ve been led to understand is real and true is actually not that way at all but often the very opposite and ask, why?.
Curious you chose to make an analogy of the alleged moon landing hoax with your perceived “historically proven” discovery of America by Columbus in 1492.
Why curious? There is indeed an abundance of evidence that this is a fake story, and one that has had “time altered” and if you wish, I am happy to provide convincing evidence. For instance, his family name wasn’t “Columbus” it was Colombo. And there is the curious “coincidence” of a “Saint Colombo” that landed in Scotland in the 400s A.D…one thousand years earlier almost to the day.
And the “1492 Colombo/Columbus” was in fact said to be on a Christian crusade to convert the heathens he encountered, but in reality he brought back slaves from the New World, which Queen Isabella granted freedom when they arrived, if they converted. Queen Isabella became an opponent of Colombo/Columbus, who in reality appears to have been a Jew. And she was well-documented to be opposed to Jewish influence in her empire, and it is not difficult to use etymology to understand how Isabella became the “evil queen Jezebel” of Jewish myth. “J” and “I” are interchangeable, as are the “S” and “Z”. There is much more, you have my email, just write and I will provide quite a few well-researched articles on Jewish historical illusions I have composed
And one more thing: there is the alleged mirror left on the moon that the US used to aim a laser at (from Texas if memory serves): I suppose if that mirror can still be detected, it would be difficult to claim no one left it there…
But Illusions of American MSM are very, very real. In fact, one might say standard operating procedure. William Casey admitted it, just a few days before he “drowned” canoeing.
“And I cant wait for the conspiracy guys to tell us where the children that weren’t
really killed at Sandy Hook are being hidden.”
In plain sight. Really, it is quite simple: the hoaxers took photos of children that were kindergartners 3-4 years before Sandy Hook, offered them as current photos of these children, so in actual fact any one looking for those children would never find them: they were already 4 years older.
The fact the coroner would not allow the parents of these children access to their lifeless bodies (so stated on video news that day) is very difficult to believe: if your child had been shot dead, would anything keep you from their little body?
These children sang at halftime of a Superbowl, and anyone can see it on youtube. There is no doubt those are the Sandyhook “victims.”
MSM is Illusion. So said the CIA’s William Casey… just a few days before his “tragic drowning” while canoeing.
I have seen it claimed (in these forums) that after the 1972 Soviet crop failure, subsequent American aid (to its supposedly mortal enemy) was essentially blackmail payment to suppress Soviet revelations about the American space program.
Very intelligent presentation of the facts. President Putin was asked by an obviously set up questioner in a town hall forum if the Americans went to the Moon. Putin said “”Of course they did.” However, to explain why Russia has not sent a man to mars, he said “at the present time there is no way to safely travel through the Van Allen Belts.”
If an adult were to seriously ask us if Santa Claus exists, what should we say?
You’re an idiot. You cannot possibly be an “engieer” [sic]. If you are, do you have a license to put P.E. after your name? If you do, it should be revoked.
If you are an engineer, you should be able to really do the math, s*ithead. LOR (Lunar Orbit Rendezvous) was chosen precisely so the lander could be that small and light.
While you have written some other comments I respect, this one falls to the level of idiotic.
Thank you Mr Unz.
1970s movie Capricorn One is about a faked Mars landing. That movie is how and when I first heard about a the ‘Moon landing hoax.’
This – not any evidence about the alleged Moon landing as hoax – is the most important section of the article: “If I say to you I walked on the moon, you will ask me to prove it, and you will not take as an answer: “No, you prove that I’m didn’t go.” Does it make a difference if I am the NASA? It does, because calling the NASA a liar will inevitably lead you to question everything you have been led to believe by your government and mainstream media. It is a giant leap indeed! Just like children of abusive parents, decent citizens of abusive governments will tend to repress evidence of their government’s malevolence.”
Our government is abusive. It lies better than, and at least as often as, the KGB and Kremlin ever hoped to.
There are lots of reasons for it be hoax.
A lot of commenters say – The Soviets didn’t say anything against it.
Well, the Soviets fixed up shower rooms to look like gas chambers after to the war. The west was in on this too. The fixed up shower rooms had weak wooden doors, not good for a gas chamber at all. The Soviets forgot to fix that, “historians” and everyone went along with it and they still do. Why did both the West and Soviets work together on this sham? Both wanted the Jewish people to have Israel without any guilt. So, the Palestinians were kicked off the land and still are be kicked off using this sham.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, Auschwitz camp sign changed from four million to one million died. Yet, for forty something years both in West and Soviet lands, in all our media and “history” books it was four million.
Why didn’t they go back after 1972
It is not about money. The US has thrown trillions on the dollars to help Israel with the Seven nations to destroy game in the middle east. The US spends 610 billion a year on military. The combined military spending by China, Russia, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, India and Japan is 578 million.
If the US could go, others nations would have went. It is not about the money. No spaceship has been designed yet to be safe enough for manned lunar landings or manned landings anywhere in our galaxy. All the over the top US military spending for waring with its fellow earthlings is destroying any chance of that happening soon.
This does not counter of non-manned landings on the moon or elsewhere in our galaxy. It is the manned landings that people are questioning.
The lunar module is quite flimsy. It does look like something that could take people safely to the moon or anywhere very far in our galaxy.
Thank you Mister Unz.
Ron, Ron, Ron, the eye’s will never see as long as the mind is blind. Come on, 50 years later and not one manned mission has returned to the moon?
If you ever manage to let go of your cognitive dissonance and want to look at REAL EVIDENCE, this will be a good place to start.
https://www.aulis.com/index.html
Fact: There’s NO PROOF Of Any Manned Moon Landings, PERIOD, Morons–Face Reality
Dipshit: HOW do thou know those contraptions (“retroreflectors”) weren’t put there on moon, if they’re indeed there, by means other than manned “moon-landing,” dumbass?
Simple, easy default conclusion is manned moon-landing is lies like everything else about ZOG, fools–simple product of inductive logic, very basis of science itself, suck-holes.
So again, question is what PROOF is there of manned moon-landings?–NONE, just the usual lies and unfounded assertions by KNOWN liars and paid flunkies. Humans are supposed to beleeeeeeeeev same morons now pushing “climate-change” lies?–and all the other lies?
Rulers of this filthy Jew-dominated (Jews the leading Satanists–just ck into their filthy Talmud) dictatorship are same ones living off the US Fed Reserve central-bank of issue–literally legalized counterfeiting (see Mises.org for expo; use site search-engine for particular terms)–which is steadily buying-up all the nation’s and people’s assets.
Meantime, Satanists at top are steadily killing and poisoning everyone by the toxic vaccines and drugs, “geo-engineering” and “chem-trails,” glyphosate poisons, etc.–this subtle and slow-kill mass-murder, in accord w. Agenda-21 and -2030 GENOCIDE is what’s happening, fools.
There is a trail to be discovered, taking one back through time through the use of language, words. One of these trails is the word “Illusion.” Where did it originate?
I would offer that the ancient writer called Sanchuniathon left us a big clue: He stated that the “God of Time” was called Chronus, aka “Illu.” This Illu, or Chronus, was an actual, historical person. He was a prince, living in various kingdoms his father ruled, but in one of them, Egypt, he was the “Head Priest” of the two religious centers, the “twin cities” on the Lower Nile Delta, called “Sais” and “On.”
Later, his son also became “Head Priest” in same cities. It was common practice of the king to place family members in such positions. Sais is the same word the modern Thai call “Sai”: a temple/religious center by a river. “On” is aka the Greek “Heliopolis.”
Illu, of Sai(s) and On IS Illusion, literally. His son? “Maya.” Maya is the sanskrit Hindu word meaning…Illusion.
In the Egyptian texts…Maya is the son of “Iawy.”
Yahweh. He was an Illusionist…and the last kingdom he ruled was known as the Kingdom Of Media.
He was blinded by a spike in his right eye. Which is why you see actors and actresses placing a hand over their right eye when they sell their soul to the Media of Hollywood.
He was also called Yuya: his mummy displays the pale skin where he wore the famous mask…and the scar of the spike driven through his forehead, popping his right eye. He is the historical person portrayed on those Chinese statues discovered in 2013, of a person wearing a mask: Yu, the Great.
He is real, he was a very “Elusive” character…Elu Shiva. Aka “TaeSheba” the Hittite king…who sent a statue of Istar to his brother, the King of Egypt known as Amenhotep III…that my friends is the historical “Queen of (Tae/King) Sheba…a person, not a place. A tale stolen, twisted and then claimed as their own by the worshipers of the Great Deceiver: Illu of SaisOn.
Chronus is aka Saturn.
So, when those of us who point out that Sandyhook was an Illusion, those claiming we are “conspiracy theorists?” Who invented that term? The CIA.
The big clue it is a hoax, an Illusion, is the name of the street that the alleged shooter and his mother lived on. It is named after an Indian Yogi that immigrated to the US in the early 1960s, that stated “The whole world is a stage, and Brahma places us where he will, and we all play our parts.” Yogananda. They lived on Yogananda Street. Curiously, I discovered that David Rockefeller donated a statue of Brahma to a museum. Brahma, the god Hindus don’t build temples to, because he “has a tendency to turn…DEMONIC.” Brahma is a Brahma…Abraham.
I know what is not real, and Sandyhook was an Illusion. The Moon landing…well…a laser-reflecting mirror seems to indicate otherwise.
Because the ones running the show on both sides were freemasons. It explains everything. Plus there is an incredible amount of written and recorded proof of this. Albert Pike explained how the masons wanted 3 world wars in his letter to Mazzini. I know that Ron Unz disputes its authenticity, but just like the protocols of zion it has proved to be uncannily accurate.
The real question is why would Ron Unz and “Moon Landing Skeptic” ignore a preponderance of evidence showing masonic connections and plans in Nasa and the hoaxed landing? Could they deliberately leave all these questions unanswered as a form of obfuscation? Is it possible that Brother Ron knows that the landing was faked, but due to his oaths to his masonic brothers he cannot be honest?
The best explanation for this wilful ignorance is that they are freemasons themselves. Especially Ron Unz has been rubbing elbows with masons for long enough to either know about their activities, or to partake in them.
Just bit of post-editing there.
Actually, Ron’s problem is that he believes that objective reality is somehow constrained by what his mind can conceive of. (It is not.)
He is not the only person with this problem.
“Yahweh”/ Yuya was the old king of Media known as “Astyages.” In their language: “Ista-Magu.”
Astyages seems to be the root for “Astigmatism” and “Ista-Magu” the inspiration for Mister Magoo.
Both relate to be very near-sighted…or perhaps blind in one eye, as was Yuya/”Yahweh.”
He was “YWH”: Amenhotep III had that name carved in stone at the Temple of Soleb…”The Shasu of YWH are my enemy.” He was referring to Yuya…Shasu means Children (Chasu) in sanskrit.
Amenhotep III was called “Shalmanu” when seated on his throne in Urusalim. Shalmanu…the “God of the City” of Urusalim. Figure it out: another stolen myth by the Deceivers.
I remember reports of Laser beams being bounced off the moon in the early fifties. There is an important principle about lying. If you can lie about one thing, you can lie about another, and another, and…
MOON LANDING SKEPTIC, whoever you are, thanks for pointing out the total absurdity of the moon landings. I must say it is sad, that no matter how much evidence is presented to show what a total sham the whole thing was, there are many who will never accept the truth. So, I say we have a little laugh with George Carlin, as he tried to tell us it was all a big lie so many years ago.
Doubtful. More likely there is something odd about the poll.
A yougov poll gives 12%, and given 5% of people always lie to pollsters the true number is probably less.
I just looked at these and you can’t make out anything! Is this some kind of joke?
Well these ‘Satanists’ have completely succeeded in your case, you have lost your fucking mind you deranged nut job.
Perfect day for Moon Loon.
Well, it appears that both the Russians and Chinese have said they are going to send men to the moon and both have delayed the projected date:
https://jalopnik.com/how-chinas-planned-moon-landing-will-differ-from-americ-1796095970/amp
https://sputniknews.com/russia/201601201033407556-russia-postpones-moon-mission/
The Chinese were going to go in 2020, but delayed it to 2036, it seems, and the Russians now say they are going in 2035. It is one thing to think that the U.S.A. is more technically advanced but frankly, it is absurd to think that it would be anything other than trivial for either the Russians or Chinese in the current day to replicate vintage 1960’s technology.
All of this strongly suggests that the technology simply did not exist at that point in time.
If the Russians and Chinese can’t go now and are now talking about going in the mid-2030’s, they don’t have the technology to go now and it becomes a dead cinch bet that the U.S. did not have the technology to do it half a century ago! What I’m suddenly wondering is, if the year 2036 rolls around and neither the Russians nor the Chinese nor anybody else has gone there, how many people will still believe that the Americans went 67 years earlier, in 1969?
Vox Day also believes that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (TENS) is bogus. He has recently weighed in on that by misrepresenting (in the most embarrassing and ham-handed way) the mathematics that support TENS concepts such as a species rate of mutation fixing, and when this has been courteously pointed out to him, …. he refuses to acknowledge his basic math errors and instead goes ad hominem upon any commenter that won’t play along with his surprisingly juvenile subterfuge, and deletes these comments from his threads.
Vox Day really isn’t an authority on any topic as far as I can tell, though he is often entertaining to read nevertheless. He does speculate alot about all kinds of topics and so he does offer food for thought, but I don’t see him as someone capable of converting a speculation into a testable hypothesis. It looks like to me that he doesn’t have the cognitive chops for that (despite his incessant bragging about his supposed elite-level intelligence).
As well, I have noticed that Vox Day has no aptitude whatsoever with respect to handling metaphysical concepts such as the topic of universals. As such, when he wades into theological speculations – his tendency is to show his hand as one that easily falls prey to the error of taking on an unwarranted ontological conceit (which is an extremely common problem).
Our government has lied about so many things, I could believe about anything. Still, a couple of other thoughts:
Apollo 15 placed a retroreflector array on the moon’s surface. It is routinely observed by laser pulses from observatories around the world. OK it could have been put there by another unannounced unmanned mission, but still…
Right now nobody can see the landing site from earth. But it’s only a matter of time before other probes etc. get close enough to do so. The evidence of the lunar landings will be there like nearly forever. There are hints of this so far, but not conclusive. But someday we will, indeed, know for sure.
The moon landings that were shown to the public were faked, but the US has had a secret space fleet for decades that has been to the moon and mars and is called Solar Warden, if interested look up these names; Gary McKinnon, Col. Phillip Corso, Laura Eisenhower, Paul Hellyer, Al Bielek, Preston Nichols, John Lear, Bob Lazar, Corey Goode, William Pawelec, etc..
Below Is Brilliant Example Of Dink Reasoning:
Thomm tells us:
But preceding is mere assertion-without-substantiation, like so much of what this dink says.
Then-
So, so what?–just more babble.
Then we get,
And assuming ANY of this additional moronic babbling is true, SO WHAT?–does it prove the manned moon-landing?–NO, it doesn’t, fool–known as “red-herring” reasoning and babble.
The dink finishes off w.,
Such is dink reasoning, folks–assertions, blather, irrelevancies, and idiot commands as to what others are supposed to do. Hint, suck-holes: it’s NOT about “knowing about space,” but simple logic. Get a clue.
The hammer – feather drop was just another hoax, as this short video proves.
Putting people in space is itself an incredible achievement. It’s also incredibly expensive. It cost taxpayers just over $21 billion to run NASA through September of this year.
Yet this amount is only a fraction of our national budget. Less than half a percent. Compare this to the $750 billion received by the the Department of Defense. Now that’s alot of money!
Now I’ll proceed with my opinion.
What is the value of space exploration? There is no cure for disease to be found in the cosmos.
Sending a rover to Mars while it seems amazing, which in a way it is, still is nothing but a remote control vehicle. It surveys land. Big deal. Stupid rover falls in a rut, tips over and that’s all folks!
I can understand the excitement and pleasure engineers feel when seeing their thoughts and ideas in action. That’s great. But the idea that it’s for the good of humanity is ridiculous. It might be good for the rich in a couple hundred years. The Earth might be polluted and too dangerous to inhabit. Maybe technology and infrastructure will one day be possible in space that will allow the rich to live there. I visualize a future along the lines of the movie, Elysium.
On another note, Border patrol recently seized over 700 lbs of fentanyl. Enough to kill over 50 million people. I don’t have much sympathy for drug addicts, but I do care about their children. They are innocent. And so often are their families. Anyway, if this doesn’t constitute a national emergency, what does? Give Trump $5 billion for a wall.
The United States isn’t doing too well. Whether or not astronauts walked on the moon is irrelevant. We have enough problems to take care of at home before we go on an expensive vacation.
Moon hoax theories are absurd, and you should not publish such idiocy. I did not work on Apollo but I did, as an engineer at Honeywell, work on the stabilization control system for the space station, and I did work with people who had worked on Apollo. I did not read the article. It should be pulled immediately, it makes you and the site look idiotic.
According to this NASA astronaut, it’s because “we destroyed the technology, and it’s a painful process to put it back together again.” Begins about 1:50
The point is not about the ability to send unmanned spacecraft to remote places, the point is to send living people to those places, and here the insoluble problem of the deadly Van Allen Belt comes at play.
This strikes me as a very very weak argument. It is true that the space program employed directly or indirectly many thousands of people, but surely the overwhelming majority would not be in a position to know whether the overall project was a hoax. If you are one of the many thousands of engineers, you are working on your little piece, some widget that connects to another widget, let’s say.
Only people very very high up in the project would need to know that the overall thing was a hoax. I have no idea how many people that is, but that would be the relevant question. Obviously, it is a much lower number than the total number of people involved in the project.
Start the video at 7:11 if you want.
I’m not sure exactly what to make of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4UP6nRMuGs&feature=youtu.be
I don’t like the term “crazy anti-Semite”, but sometimes it seems to be apposite.
Jewwy Shill Can’t Face Truth, Reality
Ho ho ho oh ho, what’s the matter, “Graham…”? Did I really lose my “mind,” shit-for-brains? So what’s the error in the logic?–tell us, fool–and exactly what is “deranged”?–ho ho ho ho ho.
We can tell thou are just another Jewwy shill who can’t imagine there’s outstanding evidence for the toxic vaccines and drugs, thou ignorant moron–which thou can easily google or use any other search-engine to find and verify, sucker. Ho ho ho ho
Those Sandy Hook children didn’t exist in the first place. They are vicsims.
Besides, the school wasn’t in use for years.
For the idea of vicsims, see : septemberclues.info/vicsims shtm
By far the most readable and enjoyable writer on this subject is the late Dave McGowan’s WAGGING THE MOONDOGGIE. http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/
If they would have killed Neil Armstrong for spilling the beans, they would have killed his family for doing the same. They would have been threatened already before his death.
“Saggy” Doesn’t Realize What Morons Some “Engineers” Can Be, Ho Ho Ho
Saggy: Only one who looks like idiot is thou–and it goes to show what idiots “engineers” can be, eh? “Space station” is far cry fm manned moon-landing, moron–it doesn’t go through the Van Allen Belts, does it? And DID thou work w. people who worked on “Apollo”?–so what?–so what does that prove, fool?
Don’t tell us, “Moon hoax theories are absurd,” fool–just tell us what the proof is, and/or give a citation where we might see some evidence–see what a dumbass thou really are?
“…The United States landed American men on the moon and returned them safely to earth…”
A pious article of faith, but how about science ?
That is the ultimate Wakanda argument, and settles the point !
April Fools aside, the article was interesting for its mention of the involvement of LBJ, who was a complete rat, and for nuggets like this, which seem to have some probability of being true.:
Also, someone argued that no subsequent manned landings have occurred because they wouldn’t be cost effective. I confess complete ignorance about it, but would lunar bases be, or not be, cost effective from the point of further space exploration? Furthermore, since when have the ruling classes ever really cared about cost effectiveness when the bulk of the costs can be shifted, in one way or another, to the rest of us schmucks?
“Franklin”: Jew-Friendly Gate-Keeper Wannabe?–Ho Ho Ho Ho
“Franklin”: thou poor brainless moron, doesn’t it occur to thou this site, w. all the anti-Semitic -seeming articles needs some serious, genuine anti-Semitism?
And have thou noticed the lack of serious, genuine Christians (who are extremely anti-Semitic) who are allowed to post on this web-site comments-pages?
So what’s the deal, dumbass?–thou are saying serious, genuine anti-Semitism is not allowed?–know what thou can do, sucker?
Know what Jews are?–they’re Talmudists, and those, like Unz, who are related, genetically, and who defend them and thus express loyalty to those monsters–find out what Judaism is REALLY all about, thou ignorant fool–see Talmudical.BlogSpot.com, RevisionistReview.BlogSpot.com, and Come-and-hear.com, and learn something for once in thou idiot’s life.
Agree, Sandy Hook school was closed in 2008 over asbestos contamination, the school was used for the fema drill no one died and the FBI statistics for Newtown show no murders for 2012, see Wolfgang Halbig and Jim Fetzers reports on Sandy Hook.
Yes, very weak.
Just look, for instance, at the tens of millions of people involved in the world wars, including many who were opposed to them, who nevertheless went along with the frauds. Compare that with how few actually “blew the whistle,” and then recall how many of those anyone has ever heard of. How many have even heard of Charles Beard, John Toland, Robert LaFolette, or Jeanette Rankin, for instannce?
Yes, that type of argument is fatuous at best, and hopefully all of this will enhance curiosity about epistemology, but that seems incredibly unlikely.
The source: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/what-eisenhower-really-said-about-the-military-indutrial-complex.html
50 years on? Get real. We are talking about something where no one’s career after say 1990 was likely to be affected one way or the other, nothing like the national prestige issue of the early 70s was at stake and no one would have cared enough to go beyond, at most, opining that Neil Armstrong or whoever had gone senile. Have you ever lived in the real world?
See #16, intended as a reply to #1.
That is sooo true.
It goes for a lot of other “professions” as well. If people only knew how incompetent the bulk of those with advanced degrees and occupying positions of power can be, they’d fill their shorts in record time. And I’m not even mentioning the lying shysters more than a few of them are.
Yes they did: the Gagarin hoax is almost beyond doubt, as Wisnewski documents (together with other Soviet Space lies).
They have already made a start on getting one set up on the moon!
https://israelunwired.com/watch-live-as-israel-sends-spacecraft-to-the-moon/
Jonathan contemplated, asked: “What I’m suddenly wondering is, if the year 2036 rolls around and neither the Russians nor the Chinese nor anybody else has gone there, how many people will still believe that the Americans went 67 years earlier, in 1969?”
Hey Jonathan!
Commenting as a Scranton-based “Homelander,” I do not believe it.
In fact, had I expendable “Benjamins” and resources to prove the 1969 Moon Landing was a crock, I’d try to make a hefty bet with Moon Walk believer, Ron Unz.
While ZUSA sanctions & military threatens both Russia & China, I respect your point made on the latter’s delay to land manned spacecraft on Moon, amble around, post respective flags, and collect lunar rocks.
Thank you, JR! And don’t shoot me…, I am only the Scranton School District bus driver.
P.S.: Peculiar to me is how NASA has collaborated with Russia, in particular, the Space Shuttle missions.
That is fake; it is not Kubrick speaking. This is taken from the mockumentary “Dark Side of the Moon”, aired on Arte channel in 2002, as an attempt to discredit the whole moon hoax theory, as I mention in my article.
Uh, sory. My Dad worked directly on the moon shot as did thousands of other honest, patriotic Americans. They were all fooled, right? Give me a break. What nonsense.
Fool’s day . . . Opportunity for majority of commenters to prove themselves to be . . .
Many thanks!
I have enjoyed reading your heteredox views about China, even the murderous Mao, but I fear you credibility will suffer if you endorse as authoritative the self indulgent windbag that you link. Before putting too much store in handwaving about missing tapes you should at least read
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes?wprov=sfla1
Hoax or no hoax, this achievement needs to be placed in perspective if for no other reason than to keep in check the premature and misplaced chest thumping that goes with these pioneering achievements. Trivial from the standpoint that these “giant steps” in “space exploration” do not even scratch the surface of space and what lies beyond. To reach the moon and bring back some rocks from a satellite that is by cosmic standards not even a stone’s throw away is hardly worth writing home about. An estimated two hundred billion to a trillion galaxies (each with billions to trillions of stars) in the known universe with the distinct possibility of multiverse(s) should put this human achievement in perspective. A drop in the ocean of the moon landing as achievement would be a gross understatement. We humans are intimidated by the unknown and our epistemic impotence in the face of such enormity hits our inflated egos where it hurts most: our inability to control and manipulate such immensity, much as we would like to — and spread our destructive ways to other worlds. Our own history of empires controlling humanity under their rule has been a history of abject failures basically, and learning that we have learned nothing from history. Against this background, it should make little difference if the moon landing was for real or a hoax. Just saying.
No Fair Bringing In Daddy-Dad
Hey dumbass: how old are thou, moron? My daddy-dad said so, so therefore it’s true, and if thou don’t agree, I’ll sock thou one, eh? So if thy dad told thou so, KEEP IT TO THYSELF, dumbass–don’t tell us, thy dad says so, so therefore it’s true, stupid shit. Is there proof?–YES OR NO. We hope thou don’t get thy (lack of) brains fm thy daddy-dadio, eh? Moron.
I like the fact that Ron is stepping up to post alternative viewpoints, no matter how flawed. He is one of the last champions of our doomed Bill of Rights.
I do enjoy following all these torturous conspiracy theories and whenever I discuss any of them with a believer I hit them with my own fabrication about the sinking of the Titanic being a false flag op. They generally react by either thinking I’m on to something, or get mad when they realize I’m trolling them.
I’m never sure to what extent the theorists are sincere and operating in good faith as opposed to cynically exploiting the gullible. Perhaps a little of both. You see evidence even inside their own arguments. Just one example from MLS is his version of the Dutch Prime Minister and the fake moon rock. He describes it as having been personally handed to the PM by the Apollo astronauts. Yet the newspaper screen capture he posts says it was given to him by a diplomat who said he got it from somebody in the State Department.
When someone reverts to insults, it usually means that they have lost the argument.
So please tell me sir, where did they hide the fuel that took the lunar lander back to orbit? In its legs? Or did they use a string to pull it back up again?
FYI, I am a professional engineer. I went to Imperial College, London – twice. I was offered a place at Cambridge and I turned them down.
https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/imperial-college-london
How about you. Have you ever heard of Newton’s Laws of Motion?
If you are a one glance is enough type I trust you are not actually practising in any potentially dangerous kinds of engineering. Your calculations please, if any?
http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/
This is a series of podcasts on the subject.
Food for thought and easy listening. Entertaining,
Ron Unz allows any form of “conspiracy theories” about Jews, both in articles and in comments, and still you accuse him of dishonesty?
And your kind of “Christian” would not be recognized by Jesus.
What a great flushing out Ron. Most of the usual suspects.
Twain had some wise advise, “Don’t let schooling interfere with your education.” Mark Twain
Jan 3, 2019 ‘Dark side’ of the moon: China’s Chang’e 4 probe makes historic landing
A Chinese spacecraft has made the first landing on the far side of the moon, touching down in the South Pole-Aitken basin.
I have to disagree: the excellent presentation of the elements in dispute offered to support “the great man on the moon hoax” hypothesis stands. Images shown by privately owned media alleged to be obtained while on by humans in a USA produced earth to moon; moon to earth vehicle, in the time period in question, they are little more than dubious evidence.
The USA(is known to never lie, or keeps secrets from those it governs) but their word, unless solidly verifiable, is just more dubious evidence, but evidence cannot challenge hypotheses or any of its premises, it takes facts to challenge hypotheses or premises that support the hypotheses. .
Nothing in any of the post or the article I have seen here destroys the hypothesis ta human on the payroll of the USA, actually traveled in a vehicle from earth to the moon, landed on, and walked on, the surface of the moon, in the time period alleged (1960s), and reentered the vehicle returned back to earth, nor do any post or the article destroy the competing hypothesis, neither is supported by verifiable fact.
Both Hypothesis stand until one is proved by fact to be wrong.
Neither confirmation by 9/11 crooked lying governmental official types or videos produced or aired by privately owned never fake media are facts, such official statements and media presentations might be evidence, but they are not facts, so without facts, both hypothesis stand.
In mathematics things like this are studied by constraining the situation in a bounded space ( values of dimensions, environments, other variables and circumstances are identified to and defined for the bounded space). Once defined the possibilities are evaluated, one by one, and algorithms that describe the behaviors and activities within that space are then iterated.. through known, possible, even imaginary scenarios, one by one, with the objective to evolve or discover at least one scenario, that can be supported by real facts, that prove the hypothesis or any of its premises to actually be wrong.. at that point the hypothesis and premise are re designed, and restated and the iteration done again and again.. <=unless the hypothesis is defeated by real supportable and verifiable fact, it stands.. hearsay is not fact, it might be evidence.. the contents of videos are not facts, they may be evidence but they are not fact.
Here we have a hypothesis that exceeds the limits of the belief systems of some people, so they recommend the hypothesis be ignored by everyone else.
I say it is not possible to ignore the hypothesis (either one); no matter the reputation of the person making such recommendations, just as 9/11 was a insider job hypothesis cannot be discounted, they must all be evaluated one by one, until facts (verifiable, sufficient in every measure), are adequately presented and accurately verified that prove either hypothesis or one of its premises to be wrong beyond doubt <I said prove the hypothesis to be wrong, not discount it as lacking reasonable belief..
It’s great to have a circular File 13 in which to discard this drivel.
It’s a bit like handling hornets at a picnic. Put all the discarded bones from the fried chicken on a plate away from the rest of the food, so that the pests can feast upon the garbage while the rest of us dine in peace.
James Bond on the moon in 1971 (just for fun):
I would like to believe that Armstrong and Aldrin made history by walking on the moon, but the arguments that this did not happen are very strong.
NASA’s Orion spokesman admitted that one of the agency’s priorities was getting space travelers safely through the Van Allen belts twice- 45 years after this was allegedly done on multiple occasions!
There is also the claim that the technology employed in 1969 was destroyed. That is quite absurd, considering that throughout recorded history (barring major civilizational collapse) technology is almost never lost and tends to progress, not regress. This would have been especially true since the Soviets had equal or even more advanced space flight technology than the U.S.
The film allegedly used in the astronauts cameras could not have withstood the extreme temperatures on the lunar surface. Those perfect photographs could not likely have been taken on the moon, much less by amateur photographers wearing what amounted to mittens and with no ability to focus or use the camera as it was designed to be used.
The video of the astronauts which purports to show them bounding around in one sixth earth gravity is merely slow motion video of men in white suits jogging and jumping in earth gravity.
Since there is no- or extremely miniscule- atmosphere on the moon, how would the cooling/heating system on their backpacks work? The difference between being in sunlight and shadow on the lunar surface was extreme- say from over 200 degrees Fahrenheit to well over 100 degrees below Fahrenheit. To this day, no heating or cooling system can instantaneously change ambient temperature to a level comfortable to humans.
Perhaps no national prestige, but NASA itself has its own prestige to protect.
Senile people tend to forget things, not to make things up.
Thanks for bringing this link to our attention. I’ve just read the opening quote, and that’s a nugget:
I’ll have to check if it is a real quote!
All governments lie. I hope you agree with this assertion.
The Russians had no motive to expose the Americans to ridicule. Because the Americans doubtless have lots of material on individual Russians that would have been used to return the favour.
The leaders of Russia, China and so on are most of all concerned with retaining power in their own countries. Making the Americans look silly is counterproductive – especially since the Americans have control over most of the world’s media.
Landing a man on the moon is of no strategic interest whatsoever. It is purely an act of self-promotion
How dare you suggest that the African American women mathematicians, scientists and engineers who got us to the moon were somehow perpetrating a fraud.
—————————————————————————–
You mean it wasn’t Dr. Werner von Braun and his German’s who got us there?
Unz Is For “Pilpul” Trollery–And This Is Training, Exercise Psy-Ops
Moron writes:
No, thou poor deluded fool–he admits he’s Jew, and he perfectly acts like it. This site is PSY-OPS, despite the seeming anti-Semitic articles he posts. LOOK AT THE COMMENTS, see the numerous Jew trolls–it’s FILLED w. Jew trolls.
And the goyim–observe they’re all such milky, wishy-washy apologists, everything oriented to Jews, Jew-friendly, Jew-serving–designed to normalize Jews as legitimate members of society. Always these stupid goyim must conclude: (a) “there are some good along w. some bad Jews,” (b) “Jews are like anyone else,” and (c) “thou can’t judge all Jews by just a few or just one of them.”
Note all the Jews and their buddies and defenders among the goyim, but NO serious Christians, no serious anti-semites who are AGAINST Jews and say what they are–MONSTERS and liars who must be removed and eliminated.
For Jews are SATANISTS, (extreme) subjectivists, holding reality is mere product of mind/consciousness, making subject God, the creator–Satanism by definition–it begins as outright philosophy, against which we Christians hold reality is OBJECTIVE, in accord w. Aristotle.
Unz thus runs mere psy-ops training “camp,” so to speak, for his “pilpul” (casuistry) Jewwy trolls and shills–that’s why Unz most carefully, intensively CENSORS and screens each and every posting-entry. Unz is NOT NOT NOT for free speech, except only HIS free-speech, sucker–don’t be a fool. Get a brain and get a clue.
So now we have even NASA organising murders to protect something no current employee has had anything to do with. Yeah, Ron really has flushed them out 🙂
Not only is the moon landing a fraud, so is everything associated with it (the galaxy, the milkyway, the heliocentrix solar-system, outer-space, etc.), and while were at it, so is JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING associated with modern day education (the holocaust, the Kennedy shooting, the slave trade, Columbus, dinosaurs, etc., etc., etc).
But stick with it Unzey, I’m sure the learning curve for 250 IQ guys is quite steep.
Because there are no “Soviets” and “Americans” so to speak. Just two wings of the same party that speak different languages.
Great one! Thanks
Yeah Paddy.
But I’d make a fair assumtion you have me beat there.
Well, the Van Allen belts don’t completely encircle the Earth but are nearly toroidal in shape. The current explanation (e.g., on Wiki) is that the Apollo missions were sent through the thin part where the inner, more dangerous, belt is nonexistent, and the exposure to the outer belt was brief because of the high speed of travel. I don’t have the background to question that – does anybody here?
Another objection raised here by a poster was how the lunar module could have possibly taken off from the Moon, given the meager size of its rocket and fuel capabilities. This seems like a fairly basic physics problem that anyone with the right physics background should be able to figure out, and easily demonstrate that it was either possible or impossible. I.e., given the Moon’s gravity, the weight of the module and its occupants, and the ca. 1969 rocket technology, what size of rocket and how much fuel would be needed to leave the Moon? It’s hard to be believe no it has not already been done by independent experts, pro or con. If this were the technical snag for a manned Moon landing (and return), the would-be hoax could’ve been revealed by what must be thousands of people with the physics chops to show the impossibility of it.
Fallacy detected: It is extremely unlikely that all lies went in one direction (believers posing as skeptics) Since every one of these lies would be cancelled out by the opposing lie (skeptics posing as believers) we should probably just disregard your point.
OK guys lets start with the ball on the tee and work our way up:
How in the fuck did they send a television transmission back 93,000 mil from the moon in 1969 when there is no broadcast facility there?
It has just been conclusivly proven the the commies put Donald Trump in office to undermine the Republic. Of course they are in on the moon hoax. Only someone in flyover country would believe otherwise.
“Franklin”: Perfect Little Sucker Jews, Unz Lives On
Franklin: thou are just a stupid, Jewwy liar–Unz deletes/CENSORS MOST of my entries, stupid little scum. And WHAT do thou know about Christ or Christianity, stupid little punk? Christ = TRUTH, moron–see Gosp. JOHN 14:6.
Jews HATE truth (JOHN 8:44), as Unz perfectly demonstrates every chance he gets–only sometimes he throws a bit of a “curve-ball” to pretend for the morons, like thou, little dumbass. Observe there’s NO serious Christian voice published here on these comments pages–NO serious anti-Semitism allowed. And “exceptions” really only prove the real rule, sucker–thou are just too stupid to think and see.
If you want to.assert that the Van Allen belt is, or was in 1972, a fatal barrier to human passage from Earth to Moon you might care to rebut what is said here
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2017/06/16/astroquizzical-van-allen-belts-barrier-spaceflight/amp/#aoh=15541306001859&_ct=1554130810231&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s
“Hidden Figures” proves it – the Hollywood would never lie to us.
Probably, but they’d need more than a little grease.
Well, it might be better to make a bet with somebody who will pay when he loses.
Loved all of Dave’s stuff as it always took a common sense approach to investigative journalism. Just a common sense working man with a flair for writing and an uncanny ability to sniff out the truth.
This often leads to a more realistic analysis of a situation than that of an “educated” man who has spent the greater part of his life in propaganda mills known as “schools” and are very adept at quoting so called “settled science”.
As the Great Mark Twain stated: The trouble with the world is not that people know too little; it’s that they know so many things that just aren’t so.
When all one has is a hammer….
Wow!
That ends that argument.
Well, not from his standpoint…
“Wizard”–One Of Unz Review’s Prize Trolls
Kike troll: don’t waste our time kike–just put thy argument in thine own words and work fm there, sucker. But thou can’t do it, being the stupid Jew troll, monster and enemy of humanity thou really are. Thou are one of Unz’s prize trolls, here on Unz Review, we see. Soon enough, enough people will see the psy-ops Unz is running.
We landed on the moon. Several times.
The Holocaust was a terrible tragedy.
Oswald killed Kennedy. All alone.
26 Muslims with box cutters did 9/11.
WWI was due to an assassination in Austria or somewhere.
The Jews don’t run Hollywood.
Governments don’t lie.
To lend credence or otherwise to the idea of a moon landing hoax, look for the suspicious deaths of lots of people with the sort of photographic skills that would have been used.
They might have been associated with NASA at one time as well.
It is not at all peculiar if you accept that both space programs are under the control of Freemasons, who are playing a bigger game than just “Look mom, we can send a man to the moon”, or even “America fuck yeah”.
How about this one: Why do all the ZOG nations of the planet keep pouring untold billions into CERN, constantly building bigger colliders and searching for really important things like “The God Particle”? Not only is this an Illuminati scientist’s wet dream, it is a phenominal waste of what are supposedly the planets “brightest” scientists. Yet all these guys never leak, never blow a whistle about whats going on.
These CERN scientists are almost as smart as the ones who have been spent the last 50 years telling us that the polar ice caps and glaciers will all be melted in 5 years. They never stop their blathering, and just like CERN they all toe the line when it comes to dogma. All those nations, even Russians and Chinese, agreeing on this hoax. Why? Could they all be under the influence or control of the same secret society?
Truth Is Truth: Reflection Of Reality
Well, “truth,” buddy: it’s still the truth, isn’t it?
I wish that, while being granted his choice of staying anonymous, the article’s authors would have agreed to append a short description of himself, in the wise of Washington Watcher.
It would have provided a dash of context, and context is never too much.
Early fifties?
“The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing laser pulses reflected from the Moon’s surface using a laser with a millisecond pulse length.[2] Similar measurements were obtained later the same year by a Soviet team at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory using a Q-switched ruby laser.[3] Greater accuracy was achieved following the installation of a retroreflector array on 21 July 1969, by the crew of Apollo 11, and two more retroreflector arrays left by the Apollo 14 and Apollo 15 missions have also contributed to the experiment. Successful lunar laser range measurements to the retroreflectors were first reported by the 3.1 m telescope at Lick Observatory, Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories Lunar Ranging Observatory in Arizona, the Pic du Midi Observatory in France, the Tokyo Astronomical Observatory, and McDonald Observatory in Texas. ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment
Question: was Neil Armstrong lying? Is Buzz Aldrin still lying? Should we waterboard Aldrin until he tells the truth?
On some calendars, 20 July equals 01 April.
2019 technology ain’t existing to return men from moon.
Sure as hell didn’t in 1969
Today’s toy drones more advanced than 1969 NASA technology.
‘Because there are no “Soviets” and “Americans” so to speak. Just two wings of the same party that speak different languages.’
You may be right.
“Taken together, these four volumes constitute an extraordinary commentary on a basic weakness in the Soviet system
The Soviets are heavily dependent on Western technology and innovation not only in their civilian industries, but also in their military programs.
An inevitable conclusion from the evidence in this book is that we have totally ignored a policy that would enable us to neutralize Soviet global ambitions while simultaneously reducing the defense budget and the tax load on American citizens.”
“ His book tells at least part of the story of the Soviet Union’s reliance on Western technology, including the infamous Kama River truck plant, which was built by the Pullman-Swindell company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a subsidiary of M. W. Kellogg Co. Prof. Pipes remarks that the bulk of the Soviet merchant marine, the largest in the world, was built in foreign shipyards. He even tells the story (related in greater detail in this book) of the Bryant Chucking Grinder Company of Springfield, Vermont, which sold the Soviet Union the ball-bearing machines that alone made possible the targeting mechanism of Soviet MIRV’ed ballistic missiles. “
http://www.crowhealingnetwork.net/pdf/Antony%20Sutton%20-%20The%20Best%20Enemy%20Money%20Can%20Buy.pdf
And one of them at the very top, without whom the hoax would not have been possible, the director of the studio recordings down on earth, Stanley Kubrick, eventually confessed. They keep insisting that nobody ever blew the whistle, and when a credible witness of Kubrick’s stature, authority, and reputation does blow it, they still keep insisting that nobody has come forward. I don’t know what they want? Von Braun’s signed confession? That Von had no conscience, and he just reproduced on a grander scale the film sets he was doing for Fritz Lang.
There are far too many holes in their story. You would have thought the original recordings would have been an American National Treasure and closely guarded and preserved for posterity. But they just disappeared. They were probably destroyed on purpose so as not to reveal whatever clues Kubrick left on the set while filming those original recordings to point out that it was all fake?
My takeaway from this article is the obvious rise in pseudoscience and that antirationalism is widespread in the global culture of the 21st century.
It shows a big decline in the education system in the West and the rise of Postmodernism, cultural relativism and Multiculturalism.The leftists want to discredit all white achievement. All 12 of the Apollo astronauts were White
The apogee of White achievement and confidence was in the 1960s, with the US having a 90% white population.
Today that figure is but a distant memory.
Like the holocaust hoax and 9/11 hoax, if technical and scientific limitations prevented either from happening as claimed by authorities, then the moon landings didn’t happen.
Hee hee! Good God man. You are a piece of work.
I know there was no fuel in the legs, because I know the son who now owns and operates the metal shop here in Connecticut where his father made those aluminum tubes and sent them across the sound to Grumman on Long Island. He keeps a few leftover tubes in the shop now, unused pieces of human history.
I know that’s useless trivia to you, but you are beyond hope.
Since you are an engineer, I now I understand why British cars have historically been so crapilly made and unreliable. I almost got killed as a boy in one of your Triumph TR-3s. A steering link broke and we flipped over when I was 6. Broke my right arm in two places. Your British engineering is the reason I switched to my left arm and became ambidextrous to this day. Thanks.
Seriously, you should be ashamed of yourself. The British Interplanetary Society was one of the most august organizations in the 20th century exploring the idea of going to the moon. Your Arthur C. Clarke was a member who reported on Apollo here as it happened. You are not worthy of shining his shoes. Also, it is my experience and observation that some of the most knowledgeable enthusiasts of space exploration and the Apollo Program are Englishmen. You do not deserve the title of Englishman, you moron.
Have you done the math on the fuel, lunar orbit velocity, or anything? Or did you just eyeball the Lunar Module in Washington? Do you know the specific impulse of the LM ascent engine, or anything at all? No, you don’t.
I am never this rude on the internet, until now. GFY. And if you don’t know what that acronym stands for, go find out smart man.
Jesus f*cking Christ. The world is insane.
Notice that all rockets (and now shuttles), all take off travel vertically for ‘x’ amount of miles and then veer off horizontally? Were it the case that they actually WERE going into space and the earth WAS global then any craft could take off as a normal plane does and fly in a straight trajectory reaching space in the same time as if it were going upwards. It doesn’t, because it isn’t leaving the earth.
I don’t know if anyone’s put this video up for viewing but it’s about Kubrick and the Moon Landing and it’s incredibly interesting. There are also images of the ‘supposed’ Mars mission, being filmed in Greenland.
I BET THEY DON`T TEACH THIS IN SCHOOL! Want PROOF? Here It Is! (2019 – 2020)
I always favored the theory that the Shining was an allegory for the genocide of Native Americans. The genesis of this theory was from none other than the Washington Post, back in 1987 (right around the time Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket was released).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/style/1987/07/12/kubricks-shining-secret/a7e3433d-e92e-4171-b46f-77817f1743f0/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ad8028bebb6d
If you find the “no stars” part intriguing, you should ask a photographer. I’ve been a photographer since 1967, when I was 13 years old. And in the late summer of 1969 I, and tens of thousands of other photographers, both amateur and professional, eagerly awaited those photographs to be published.
The reason you see no stars on the photographs taken on the surface of the moon by Armstrong and Aldrin is that the cameras were set to properly expose objects illuminated by sunlight. The sun is almost exactly the same distance from the moon as it is from the earth, the difference being far too small to have any affect on the exposure. So the exposure settings on the cameras (aperture diameter and shutter time) would have been the same as here on earth at midday without a cloud in the sky.
So if you have access to a camera with manually adjustable aperture and shutter time settings, you can determine for yourself whether or not stars ought to have been visible on the images made on the moon. Here’s how you do it. There’s a simple rule for this called “Sunny 16”. The Sunny 16 rule states that in bright sunlight, you set the shutter time to the inverse of the film or digital sensor’s sensitivity. For example, if the ISO sensitivity of the film is 125, you set the shutter time to 1/125 of a second. Then you set the aperture to f:16. For the curious, f:16 means that the diameter of the aperture of the lens is 1/16 the focal length.
If you’re taking photos on the beach on a sunny day at noon, use the Sunny 16 rule and you’ll get correctly exposed images. So, do that. Set the camera according to the sunny 16 rule and go outside on a sunny day and take a photo. Then, put the camera down. Don’t do anything to it. Just leave it alone. Don’t change any of the settings on the camera. Wait until a few hours after sundown. If the sky is clear, go outside. Wait a few minutes for your eyes to adapt to the darkness and look up at the sky. You’ll see stars. Now, pick up the camera. Don’t change any of the camera’s settings. Just point it up at the sky. Now, take a picture.
Now, compare the two photos; the photo you took at midday, and the photo you took of the night sky. Notice how the first photo looks just fine. And notice how the second photo is completely black. Same exposure settings, but a rather different result. The reason is that both film and digital sensors have a limited range of sensitivity, much like our eyes. You can certainly photograph stars at night, but you need to use exposure settings that allow more light to enter the camera and expose the film or sensor. And if you were to use those nighttime settings during the day the resulting photographs would be all white, no detail whatsoever.
But let’s imagine that there should have been stars visible in those photos. Just suppose that I’m all wet when it comes to photographic exposure. It’s possible. I’ve been wrong about a great many things over the years. So, it’s late summer, 1969. The moon photos start showing up in the media such as Life Magazine, which is probably where I first saw them. Thousands of professional photographers all over the world have been waiting anxiously to see them, just as I had. All of these professional photographers would know from years of experience that the exposure settings for bright sunny days should be the same as for photographing the stars, right? Remember that back in 1969 automatic exposure cameras were extremely primitive. The Leica and Nikon cameras most used by pros had no provision for automatic exposure. Every pro photographer had to know how to properly expose a photograph. Now imagine the uproar when NASA publishes photographs that don’t show the stars, when all of those professional photographers knew full well that the stars should have been clearly visible. The noise would have been deafening.
But there was no uproar at all. It seems to me that the people claiming “HOAX” need to explain the silence.
I sympathize — I did wade through it, and the idiocy, ignorance of basic physics and optics in particular, illogic, and overall truculent stupidity pissed me off, too. But I disagree with your conclusion about what Mr. Unz shouldn’t publish, and why. It makes neither him nor the site look idiotic; it makes the site appear to be a place where all voices can be heard, not merely the ones inoffensive to acceptors of the conventional “wisdom.” This is why I read UR every day. Silence the viewpoints that might offend Mr. and Mrs. Teevee Watcher, and you’re left with … what, CNN?
Still, I feel your pain. I spent years teaching general physics (to engineering students, mind you), and I know that lots of them left my class ultimately unconvinced that two objects, one dropped from rest and the other launched with some horizontal velocity, hit the floor simultaneously. And I had a decent little physical demonstration by which they could actually see (and hear) it happen, right in front of them. You shake your head, ultimately, and move on. Not everyone can, or will, understand.
Besides, the comments on this piece are a treasure trove of names, or Simple Pseudonymic Handles, that you will know to ignore, or laugh at, in the future.
“Secret Societies” Depend Upon Stupidity Of Over-Populated Morons
Cowboy, buddy, thou could be on to something, don’t doubt. Observe Gosp. JOHN, Christ (TRUTH, JOHN 14:6) vs. satanic/Jew lies, lying (JOHN 8:44). So what are lies built upon?–the subjective view of reality, whence anything goes, according merely to the whim of the subject. What’s a lie?–it’s a representation which LACKS a basis in OBJECTIVE reality.
So ask thyself: WHAT is the VERY TOP criminal enterprise?–central banking, literally legalized counterfeiting (see Mises.org for expo; use their site search-engine for particular terms). Note HOW this criminal enterprise works–simply most of the stupid, over-populated scum don’t know what “MONEY” really is and must be. Ironic, isn’t it?–these scummy, ignorant puke don’t know what they think they see and handle practically every day?
But the dumb bastards are persuaded that CURRENCY is (practically) same thing as real money–which, by it’s nature, must be commodity-based, gold/silver being best.
And the stupid scum are then persuaded that, geeeee, we should have INFINITE currency–against real money which is necessarily FINITE. And this is how the top Satanists RULE–by the stupidity of the over-populated scum.
And there’s NO SOLUTION to this problem–stupid people are going to be stupid–AND THEY’RE GONNA DIE, eventually. Such is the satanic society, always dominated by Jews who are simply most COLLECTIVISTIC Satanists, most committed, motivated, and ORGANIZED, always thus dominating the less organized, more “individualist” Satanists among goyim, even though these stupid goyim nearly always out-number the Jews.
We can only hope the top Satanists (Jews) will fall-out w. one another as they suspect a double-cross, which is what Jews and Satanists always do to the goyim (as in recent “Brexit” difficulties, for example). And it looks as if that double-cross might actually have happened (in 2016) as the usual “leftist” socialist-styled “atheist” Jews were sooooo shocked that Trump was elected, pushed by the “neo-cons” and Israel-first crowd on the phony “right.”
Regardless, nothing revolutionary will happen UNTIL that central-bank scam is exposed and collapses–which might actually happen soon, some observers say, as US Fed Reserve is considering more “quantitative easing” (inflation), even though int. rates are still too low by normal standards.
It’s more than mere “secret” society–it’s the specific lies that holds things up, founded upon the stupidity of the over-populated morons–like regarding central-banking and confusion in their little minds regarding real money and mere currency.
It is not the prestige of the employees that is important, it is the prestige of the institute.
It looks like we will see Americans return to the surface of the Moon very soon
SpaceX have started working on the rocket for the trip already, and Blue Origin have their own plans
It would be worth it to waste a bat-stroke. Or several, just to be sure.
Yeah, that wooden moon rock was not given to anybody in the Netherlands by anybody remotely involved with Apollo. Whatever happened, I can tell just by looking at it that it would not fool anybody except the most gullible. And I’ve seen a lot of moon rocks up close. There was either a theft or a fraud there somewhere.
The hoax idiots who have already swarmed here have only confirmed my sad current belief that humanity is beyond hope. My only hope now is that my wife and I and our loved ones die soon enough that we don’t have to suffer under too many years of the stupidity that lies ahead.
There is actually a (claimed) British engineer on here arguing and insulting me. He eyeballed the Lunar Module in the Air & Space Museum and just knows that it didn’t carry enough fuel to reach lunar orbit. There is no indication whether or not he knows lawnmower gas from rocket fuel, or anything at all about the ascent engine and its specific impulse and the very special fuel itself. Furthermore, he seems oblivious to the fact that any conspiracists would not build and present to the world anything that a moron like him could “just tell by looking” was insufficient.
The world is full of idiots. This makes me very sad, because I have loved the Apollo Program since I witnessed it in my pre-teen years. It is one of our species’ greatest achievements, and it pains me to witness so many people now who simply won’t believe it. It was that amazing, so amazing that they can’t believe it.
I would bet that there is a strong correlation between Maga style thinkers, building 7 deniers, and moon landing faithful. Likely followers of pro basketball, football or baseball are closely correlated too.
The hoax of America being “exceptional”, starting with their invasion of the south, then claiming that they “freed the slaves”, then the theft of all of Spains colonies by inciting a war, then demanding reparations, then to destroy Europe twice and claim they “made it safe for democracy”, is just too deep a part of the American psyche for these MAGA guys to deal with. The cognitive dissonance has become multi-generational and is now part of their DNA. USA! USA! USA!
This guy has his own opinions.
https://diehold.com
Any truth to this?
Making Unz a place for hoaxers to go off on conspiracy theories undermines the website. This is a political site discussing important issues upon which the survival of our country depends. This place should not become a haven for childish crackpots who have poor reality checkers. They can get their own website. It’s irresponsible to allow these nutjobs on the site. We’ve got more important work to do.
If many shared your approach… what an easier world it would be.
No need to speculate or guess. On true pictures of moon you see no sand. There is no sand on the moon. Moon has no atmosphere. Sand on the earth is created by wind and humidity.
As much as I enjoy American and English engineers throwing rocks at each other’s glass houses, I feel it is necessary to point out one thing:
The biggest piece of crap car, likely of the century, is the Tesla Model 3, built in the crappiest tent car factory ever. The pinnacle of American engineering. Musk even bought an entire German Robotics company to make the turd, but then they couldn’t even make the productrion line work. Even the British couldn’t eclipse it.
Science does disprove it – at least to those who understand basic science and technology and the limitation they impose on human activities and accomplishments.
Something like this?
or this?
How stupid could you possibly be?
Your entire screed effectively says that even though humans did a number of more technologically difficult things, they somehow did not do the less technologically difficult one.
The most ludicrous thing in your screed is the notion that you possess ‘logic’. Could you BE more Dunning-Kruger?
Heh heh heh heh
I find it quite interesting how these airheads, who so devoutly believe in mother Nasa, are unable to come up with a better argument than:
“Oy Vey. Da goyim know. Shut it down, Ron”.
At least this “anon” stopped at “hoaxer”, but I have little doubt that “anti-semite” spittle will be flecked on this thread.
But the astronauts in several interviews also denied having seen any stars with their own eyes… So it is not just an exposure issue, but it affected their own eyes as well.
Also the fact that in the photographs you can see many details in the shadows, but no stars at all, even in pictures without any human subjects, which could have been exposed for a longer time (let’s say a few seconds). Anyway, maybe there really are no stars in the Moon’s sky, I haven’t been there to know…
I also recommend Dave McGowan’s funny take on this issue in “Wagging the Moondoggie”. As for me, I am agnostic on this, but I have to say that the “official story” (as usual) has a few holes.
http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/
More Trolling On The Troll Site For Troll Training And Exercise
Who’s “we,” sucker? “Conspiracy”?–did thou know Christian New Test. is founded upon the conspiracy of Satanists and Pharisees to kill Truth (= Christ), the joke being on Pharisees as TRUTH always resurrects?
And USA is founded on the consp. noted by Jefferson in Dec. of Independence, btwn King and Parliament to usurp rights of English colonists.
So consp. is foundation of Western Civilization and specifically of USA so threatened now by Jews and Satanists, like Unz who’s running a psy-op on this site for his buddy Jew trolls and pilpul artists, like “wizard of oz” who likes to waste everyone’s time.
And thou, “anon”–thou are just ANOTHER troll, eh?–of course–it’s what this site is REALLY all about. Unz the big troll, running a trolling training site for trolls, pretending Jews are “normal” humans, like everyone else, ho ho ho ho ho ho.
You’d probably like C. J. Hopkins’s Zone 23.
Ron, kindly read this.
http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/
Time is moving forward and we aren’t remotely close to a manned mission past Low Earth Orbit, much less to the moon.
There is a lie.
Then there is a BIG LIE.
Then there is 911.
Santa Claus is a BIGGER LIE than moon hoax.
Jesus died for your EVILS is beyond all the above.
Qur’an Chapter 55
33. O society of jinn and humans! If you can pass through the bounds of the heavens and the earth, go ahead and pass. But you will not pass except with authorization.
34. So which of your Lord’s marvels will you deny?
35. You will be bombarded with flares of fire and brass, and you will not succeed.
36. So which of your Lord’s marvels will you deny?
https://www.clearquran.com/055.html
Good reply.
The people are scum. I won’t deny that. Far too lazy to educate their ignorant selves on what’s actually going on. They’re far too interested in the ‘lives of others’ (those others being dead-head celebrities good at acting, having big tits or kicking a ball about) than the survival of their own civilization and race. And worse, happily being subjugated by a tribal elite, of genocidal Jews, whom they happily allow to be nationalistic, but attack any whites who wish the same. They also fail to see that white nationals only want a home of their own to raise their families and live in peace, compared to the Jew who wants that but the utter obliteration of the world’s population and to have this earth all for themselves.
Sure, it’s a game between the Jews, that was the election of Donald Trump over Hilary Clinton, but at least it certainly shows ‘in-fighting’ between the nationalist Jews and the globalist ones. This is really the only hope, because if they do screw up, then cracks will start to appear in the facade, that even the dumbest and blindest goyim won’t miss seeing. And then that’s when questions start being answered.
You know, I was talking to my mother, just today, telling her that Islam will conquer the west and she truly believes there will be a fight back. She recalled the Spanish expulsion of the Moors. I simply stated to her that she fails to see the underlying problem within the west today, NOT there in the past, especially with the Spanish. That is, of course, white race, hating whites, utterly ignorant morons, who happily do the bidding of the genocidal Jews, to exterminate their own race. Nowhere in history, were there ever any western (or world) people, who worked hand in hand with the enemy, to destroy themselves. That was the whole purpose of treason and anyone caught trying to do so met a gruesome, torture execution in public. There was no crime greater than the compromise of one’s people and civilization.
This is the problem that whites face. Never in any time have there been so many treasonous bastards, selling their race to be slaughtered by the Jews. And when you tell people this, they laugh, utterly ignorant to reality, courtesy of being indoctrinated and brainwashed by the Jewish controlled msm and academia.
The white civilization is dead.
The good news is, at least we’ll get the last laugh, because the ‘sellouts’ will eventually wake up, while queuing up for execution, by the immigrant rulers of their land, while the Jew laughs at their stupidity, but good service to them. They will, at that moment realize that we were right all along and had they listened to us and simply removed the Jews, they wouldn’t be about to be butchered.
Holly costs, moon animations, 11=9’s, Gas lite candles courtesy of Assad, fake terrorism for local schools, bars and gyms, run man run Marathon hoaxes,.from the USS main in the harbor of Cuba to the USS liberty, our propaganda monsters never sleep.. they will invent what ever you want someone else to believe and believe me, they work hard, to make it seem real.. some people will believe anything and our work proves it.
see
We don’t charge money for our services, instead we just take your freedoms
Why would you think that the Soviets were even capable of tracking a spacecraft in orbit?
Tesla is irrelevant to the American automotive industry, and pretty much irrelevant to anything.
Americans have produced Godawful cars. I know because I came of age in the 1970s, when it seemed that my countrymen had forgotten how to even design and build the things. Nevertheless, it was one American named Ford who figured out how to mass produce automobiles that ordinary people could afford to buy. The rest of the world followed.
Let me repeat that: The rest of the world followed.
Now, it is fun to throw rocks back and forth across the pond, when in fact we are family and will never separate our histories. Nothing I say about an Englishman will ever diminish him, just as nothing an Englishman says about me can erase the glorious history of my very own ancestors who kicked British ass and built the greatest nation in the history of mankind.
“It’s one of those things like the efficacy of vaccines that’s being sprung on us by the Media – you either buy in to drinking the KoolAid or you’re a NoGoodNik…”
Why cannot the same thing be said about the “efficacy of circumcision?” It was never part of Christian America (crazy JH Kellogg aside) until the advent of hospital births, and especially not until after WWII and the Jewish takeover of US medicine. At least vaccines (some or most of them anyway) provide a lot of good in preventing the spread of deadly diseases. What good does the Jewish rite of circumcision do anyway? All theories that mutilating a baby’s tiny penis is for the greater good have been debunked. Yet millions upon millions of ignorant, gullible Americans still believe in this Jewish con job. Perhaps they always will.
If gentiles can be made to believe that robbing their sons of their god-given birthright is a good thing, they can be made to believe in anything. Thus most will always believe that we sent men to the moon and back, that Oswald alone killed Kennedy, and that Building 7 was brought down by a small fire.
Yes early fifties. It was a trading card that came with bubble gum.
One of my most vivid memories is of sitting in a darkened room in Berkeley, CA , summer of ’69 ,and watching Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon. Although the audience was an “interesting” mix of political viewpoints, all cheered when Mr. Armstrong’s foot touched the lunar surface.
At a later date, I can say it was an eerie feeling to stand in front of one of he Apollo capsules on display in Smithsonian and realize this was an *actual* space ship.
As it happens, I have been personally acquainted with people who designed equipment which was left behind on the moon, including a device which was, and perhaps still is, used for laser range finding.
Maybe the “hoaxers ” should look up this guy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Schmitt
Then again, in the words of the great poet, T.S. Eliot,
“Mankind cannot bear too much reality.”
Keep believing Buzz Mohawk, you obviously need it. On the other hand, if you ever start to doubt, you’ll see, it doesn’t feel so bad. Give it a try!
Clearly, sir, the time has come for you to answer the big question: Froot Loops or Coco Puffs?
But you can’t answer the question, can you? And that’s because you are a JEW! I see right through your disguise, and now so does everyone else. So go ahead, JEWBOY, try to answer the question: Froot Loops or Coco Puffs?
I won’t hold my breath.
If for the sake of argument we accept the presence of laser retroreflectors on the moon, how does that prove that a manned space mission placed it there? One could just as easily argue that the presence of the Mars rover ‘proved’ that men had walked on Mars.
I still stand by what I said earlier, that I have seen no conclusive evidence on either side of this argument.
Your dad was Wernher von Braun?
What did he work on? How would he know anything about the other aspects of the build when he wasn’t permitted to know?
Without dark visors, their vision would have been damaged by UV radiation. That may have been enough to make seeing the stars difficult. But put that aside and do another experiment, after making the two photos as I described earlier.
On a bright sunny day, go inside your house and turn on all of the lights in whatever room has the brightest lights. Just turn them all on until your eyes adjust to the light level, about ten minutes or so. Then walk outside and look around. For a few seconds, is the brightness dazzling? If so, that tells you that direct sunlight is brighter than the lights in that room of your house.
Next, wait until a few hours after sundown on a night with clear sky. Go to that same room and turn on all of the lights, just like before. Give your eyes ten minutes or so to fully adjust. Next, run outside and immediately look up at the sky. See any stars? They probably won’t be visible for several seconds. And that’s after being in the room at the same light level that wasn’t as bright as being outdoors in full sunlight.
When the astronauts were looking at the moon’s surface, that surface was many times brighter than the light from any distant star. I’ve never been to the moon but I doubt very much that if I were there on the sunny side that I would be able to see any stars either.
As to seeing details in the shadows, that’s very easy to explain. The shadows are just those areas not exposed to direct sunlight. But there would still be lots of light that reflected off of the moon’s surface, the LEM and the space suits of the astronauts. There’s nothing about any of the hundreds of moon photos I’ve seen that is at all unusual. Photographers deal with shadows all the time when exposing photographs, and while manipulating those photos in the darkroom, whether digital or analog.
And again, to anyone who thinks the photos are evidence of a hoax, where was all the uproar from the thousands of professional photographers in August of 1969?
Thomas Fleming of Chronicles recounted how he heard the hypothesis from young blacks decades before that. So what we’re seeing is the mainstreaming of ghetto thought.
This isn’t hard. 1/6th gravity. That would suggest it would have to be at least 1/6th the size of the Saturn V (at least – it has to land and take back off).
Even accounting for different conditions like lack of wind resistance that tiny lunar module isn’t going to make to back to orbit. Let’s not even mention docking with the command module. Read this.
http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/
The astronauts took terrific, studio quality, photographs without being able to adjust anything or even see through a viewfinder. And they had terrific batteries which are still top secret to cool down the spacesuits in the 260 degree fahrenheit heat in the sunlit part of the moon, and those spacesuit also had to warm them when they stood in the shade which is minus 260 degrees fahrenheit. Our scientists are so far ahead of everybody else it is not funny. When you are great, you are great.
Well said and truthful..
In 1956 Werner von Braun, wrote, in what Colliers? that a rocket to the moon would have to be the size of the Empire State building. He sure changed his tune when he saw what America was really capable of.
Perhaps they were fooled, too. An early instance of VR.
Well, with a proper studio lighting setup and correct exposure settings, you can even make a white backdrop look like a pure black background … wait!
I guess Mr. Pence better get to getting The NASA better funding to get someone up there pronto before the ChiComs and Russians uncover the truth.
Of course, the whole issue could simply be cleared up by examining the sites of the landings.
There are images of the landing sites from the lunar reconaissance orbiter (LRO) visible here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
You can not hide children that did not exist at the time of Sandy Hoax alleged incident,and you can not hide stars from sparkling onto the moon, show me one picture taken of earth on the moon with the astronaut pausing in it together or even a pic of just the earth that is 5 times larger than the moon you should see it 5 times larger from the moon srface plain and simple
Ron, there are a lot of idiots here, including the author of the article, who actually gold-box replied to me. It just makes me want to die. Please don’t foster any more of this.
They now have their playground and their 15 minutes of free speech, thanks to you. They have come out of the woodwork. That should be enough. It certainly is enough for me to see how many there are.
In the words of John Derbyshire, “We are doomed.”
I hope this is satyre.
Thanks. They are called “Yankees”. I believe it ultimately traces back to Conversos who fled Spain and Portugal and landed in Amsterdam. Those same “humans” who ran the slave trade and the opium trade.
Perhaps Ron Unz will consider adding IDIOT to the list of one word responses!
I’ll look it up.
Yes. von Braun had to be convinced that Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR) was the best approach at the time. LOR is what eliminated the need for a giant lunar lander. He was stuck in the 1950s era paradigm of giant rocket ships containing everything doing everything. He even wanted to establish an Earth orbit space station before venturing anywhere beyond. He thought that was necessary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_orbit_rendezvous
John Houbalt, the American who championed LOR:
Its very clear you don’t understand how the Moon mission worked
The Saturn V launched the lander, the return capsule, the service module, and 3 astronauts and supplies, must of the lander was left behind on the surface, only the small assent stage was used to return the astronauts to the service/command module
Well. That escalated quickly.
This was fun as an exercise. A few years ago when I started getting in to these “conspiracy theories,” I suffered what I call an epistemological crisis, and I began to give every wild conspiracy theory credence, including the moon theory. I mean a cautious suspicion, not full on certainty. How do we know what real anymore? After reading Michael hart’s Synopsis of the moon landing in his latest book, that cleared up the scientific question I had about the landing.
Regarding the “no stars” argument—isn’t that exactly what you would expect during day on the moon? The sun would overpower the stars just as on earth, but the sky would be black because there is no ozone to scatter the blue light. You see, this was a carefully crafted hoax…
The title of this article has a question mark at the end. It is up to us to decide what the answer is. Personally, I can’t imagine the controllers would ever say anything remotely close to any form of truth. I grew up in the Soviet Union, and clearly remember how people who dared to question Bolsheviks crimes were looked at; People used to say: “yes there was corruption and brutality but definitely not on such a massive scale”. The truth is that that scale was much bigger than anybody could ever imagine. To me, the moon landing is a lie! Most people still don’t know that the biggest film studio in the world, TSM3K, is owned and run by the pentagon.
I don’t have the truth, but doubt.
– It’s marked by the numbers, the spell 11. 911.
– Prepared for decades, Frau im Mond 1929, even with feminism.
– Doubting NASA does not mean to doubt the globe. Doubting the official picture the world does not mean buying the flat Earth.
– The truth can’t be found by staring at photos. No smoking gun there.
– Truth is in the big picture, the timetable of the program. The lack of testing, compared to similar projects. The immediate transition to the space station insanity with constant need for spacewalks.
– No casualties, except on Earth. Apollo 1, all dead.
– Like concerning 911, the number of people who would actually know is not big.
– The argument, the Russians would have told, is weak. They are waving the same colors on their flag, they receive technology, they are friends in space.
– Just step back, see the big picture. What do we get, in the age of 4k mini cameras.
Israeli moon landing, tomorrow!
Judge, what you are presented.
Read “How Apollo Flew To The Moon” by David W. Woods. Case closed.
Von Braun also wanted to send astronauts on to Mars by the 1980s, so he wanted bigger rockets, in the end a Saturn V sized rocket got the job done, BTW the Soviets also came the more or less the same conclusion on the size of rocket needed, their N1 rocket would have had a similar payload to the Saturn V, larger rockets than the Saturn V are possible, and there are at least 4 of being worked on right now, I expect to see 3 of them launch in the few years
Or course they are people who argue that the best way to get to the Moon is to use multiple launches of smaller rockets to construct the spacecraft and lander in LEO, they might be right
Michael Collins never went to the surface of the moon.
He stayed up in the orbiting thing while Neil and Buzz played golf down below.
Still didn’t see any stars.
It was that amazing, so amazing that they can’t disbelieve it.
There. Fixed your cognitive disorder.
Those wily Russians knew that one day they would have a puppet in the White House, and this just gave them one more string to pull.
“If gentiles can be made to believe that robbing their sons of their god-given birthright is a good thing,”
Dick Cheese, gentile’s God given birthright. Thanks, Jesus.
I’ve scanned thru most of the comments and none I’ve read have mentioned the great work of YouTuber Owen Benjamin. Yes, he is a comedian, but he’s also a truth teller, having given up a Hollywood career, and millions of dollars, because of its moral rot. I hadn’t given much thought to the alleged mood landings for years until I stumbled upon his live streams debunking the subject. As on many other subjects, including the Jewish takeover of America, he provides much food for thought.
One could examine mountains of data to verify the veracity of the “moon landings” or more simply and entirely within our own grasp we could go outside on a bright moon night and make a “zetetic” observation. I do it with out any camera or lense, just with my own eyes and you can clearly see ……Wait for it……..
clouds behind the moon!!! Period, end of story. No technology, no devices, no one else but me interpretting the “data” Clouds behind the moon>>>Also clouds can be seen behind the sun. So, I don’t care. I saw it with my own eyes. If there are clouds behind the moon and the sun. Then all that billions of dollars and illusions, opinions, interviews, speculations, Kubrick movies, bla bla, bla…Its all out the door. We must learn to observe the truth before our eyes without our cultural programming. THis is the way out of this absurd, deceit-ridden place we find ourselves in. Try it, just go out and look at the moon at night. Clouds are like 10-20 miles away….So now you realize that you don’t know shit.
I know nothing about top secret batteries. But I do know a lot about photography. With a small aperture, the lens will give sharp focus over a wide range of distances. I don’t recall if the lens were set to a fixed focus or not. I suspect they were. But at f:22 or so they would have had sharp focus from about ten feet to infinity. Do a web search on “Hyperfocal Distance”.
The lack of a viewfinder is not a problem. They would have practiced with the camera before blasting off and so they would have known how still they had to be, and they would have known what to expect from each exposure.
These are things that anyone with a camera can test for themselves. Just start a camera to your chest a take a photo. See how the photo is framed. Now try another. It won’t take long until you can quickly predict what will be in the photo and what will not.
This isn’t rocket science. It’s photography. You don’t have to take my word for anything. I’m not telling anyone what to believe. I’m just tell everyone how they can find out for themselves where or not the moon photos show evidence of a hoax. You don’t have to believe me. All you need to do is learn some basic things about photography and you can figure it out for yourself.
It’s entirely possible that the moon landings happened but it’s not possible that it happened using the technology that was available at the time. There is no way they could get beyond the Van Allen radiation belts. NASA scientists claim today that they do not have the technology to do so. NASA also claims to have lost the science that was used in the Apollo missions. That’s so over the top that it’s hard to believe any one takes it seriously. If the US did indeed go to the moon it was done using advanced technology was secret and that remains secret.
I believe the prevailing authorities say the moon is around 234,000 miles from Earth. (The sun, which, like the moon, appears to the human eye to be a couple hundred miles away, is supposed to be 93 million miles from Earth — because it has to be for the heliocentric model to hold up.) No less a Grand Eminence of SCIENCE than Neil DeGrasse Tyson lists as his first argument against a moon landing hoax the fact that they took just enough rocket fuel for a 468,000 mile round trip. How he knows how much fuel they used he doesn’t share.
I was always impressed with the immediacy of the phone connection between Nixon and the moon. Today there is a lag of several seconds between transmission and response just for a televised phone call across the Atlantic. Apparently no such problem at 234,000 miles back then.
The worst part of the article was trying to tie in Kubrick’s movie the Shining into some kind of confession by Kubrick that he participated in the moon landing hoax.
There were no hidden hints of child abuse and out of control temper. The Nicholson character had been fired from teaching jobs because of his temper. The precipitating factor that sent the family to the hotel was his injuring a student. He’d hurt Danny and the wife was very nervous around him because of his temper and violence
And what does the movie have do do with the moon landing? Nothing at all. There are no movie studios or other commercial buildings in residential only zoned Laurel Canyon.
When Laurel Canyon blvd gets to the top of the hill and leaves the Canyon it becomes a commercial street. It’s certainly possible there was a small movie lot somewhere along Laurel Canyon blvd but no commercial buildings in the canyon itself.
The part about hints in Kubrick movies that he produced the hoax is about as silly as the stories about the Beatles music worshipping the devil if played backwards or that McCarthy died young and that the Beatles brought in a double.
Then there’s the fact that I went to college with aeronautical and astronautical engineers who worked for NASA and were sent to Texas to work on the program
Fascinating, moon hoax because deathly van Allen belts?
They simply didn’t passed them due to the over the poles trajectory.
Kubrik (RIP) confessed days before his death?
He died on a heart attack, how did he now that?
Need 1 minute to know that, why do made fools out of yourself?
“The people go to moon in 1969?
I am not totally sure, I wasn’t on the moon than
Did they fake going to the moon?
No, I am pretty sure they didn’t
because they couldn’t”
Any theories as to why sensitive film in cameras was not damaged by UV radiation?
I feel like I am in a very smelly bus station or a mental hospital (and I’ve been in both, so I know what they’re like.) Is this really what UR is? Am I just a dirty, f*cking moron who doesn’t realize it? Is that why I am here? I can’t freakin’ believe this.
One thing about the moon landing. It was a real triumph of WASP, German descent White American men. Could it be that the entire hoax myth is just another Jewish attack on White men like the attacks on Columbus and the other Portuguese and Spanish explorers and our own ancestors who colonized America?
Something to think about.
I was in Elementary School when the Challenger blew up. Kids talked about the moon landing hoax in 3rd grade. It was a very common idea.
I can only guess as to why he didn’t see stars. My guess is the Apollo had darkly tinted windows to protect the astronaut’s eyes from the extremely high intensity UV. Here on Earth the atmosphere filters most UV. No atmosphere in space.
Didn’t astronomers from smaller nations have telescopes with which they could monitor the flight to the moon and other lunar activities?
We probably don’t need to send people there again. It is an uninhabitable moon and it is hard to justify the costs for bringing any matter back, no matter how rare and valuable. We could probably build a hotel five miles below the ocean. Astronomical costs would stop any second attempt.
If the entire moon landing enterprise was a fake it has to be the largest hoax in history.
Arthur C Clarke was a science fiction writer (and, I believe, a 33rd degree Mason — relevant because many of those who think NASA and the moon landing are fraudulent believe high-level Masons are at the heart of the hoax) whose imagination apparently had prophetic power. He imagined geo-stationary satellites, put them into a story, and ten years later they were reality.
But has anyone ever confused him with a scientist?
Dear Mr. Unz.
It is a little cheap of you to reply immediately after a silly but entertainng Moon landing hoax article. April Fool’s Day or not (and it wasn’t yet in ynur time zone)..
” However, in 2009 the Rijksmuseum of the Netherlands declared that the “goodwill Moon rock” it had received in 1992 from the estate of Netherlands Prime Minister Willem Drees was bogus. This “Moon rock,” which had been exhibited for more than a decade on a gold-colored piece of cardboard, weighs 89 grams (3.1 ounces) – far larger than the 1 gram piece of lunar basalt 70017 affixed to the Netherlands Apollo 17 lunar sample display. Testing of the Rijksmuseum “Moon rock” in 2009 showed it to be a piece of petrified wood, likely from Arizona. The Rijksmuseum had insured this “Moon rock” for ƒ100,000 (€50,000 [$85,000] in 2012 currency) upon its receipt.[4][5][6][7][8]
“An investigation showed that United States Ambassador J. William Middendorf II had presented Drees with the “Moon rock” on October 9, 1969. The Apollo 11 astronauts were visiting the Netherlands at that time on a goodwill tour. Drees’ grandson speculates that his grandfather, who was nearly deaf, and blind at the time, formed the mistaken impression that the “Moon rock” he received was from the Apollo 11 mission. When Drees’ “Moon rock” was received by the Rijksmuseum in 1992, the museum phoned NASA to verify its provenance and was told over the phone, without seeing the piece, that it was “possible” it was a Moon rock.[4] USA Today says the discovery of a bogus “Moon rock” at the Rijksmuseum should serve as a wake-up call for all the countries of the world and all the states of the United States that received the Apollo 11 and 17 lunar plaque displays from the Nixon administration to locate the displays and fully secure them.[4][5][6][7]
“According to Moon rock researcher Robert Pearlman, both the Netherlands Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 lunar sample displays are in the National Museum of the History of Science and Medicine in Leiden, Netherlands.[1][2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_lunar_sample_displays
Are you a Jew? All my life I’ve noted that the “ America is bad and evil, Americans invaded and stole everything Americans are bad and evil on and on “ mantra is a Jewish, especially a Jewish intellectual thing.
The whole rational for the Jewish lawfare drive for desegregation school bussing, soft on black crime, affirmative action, endless third world immigration is based on the Jewish view that White Americans and our European ancestors are some kind of devils that must be destroyed by Jews black stormtroopers
More and more I think the moon landing was a hoax story is just more Jewish propaganda that the White goyim just aren’t smart enough to land men on the moon.
If you hate Americans so much, move to Israel.
I don’t remember what film they were using. But film would not be damaged by UV. UV can cause a blue cast to color slide film, and UV filters are readily available in camera shops to deal with it.
Right.
I seem to remember, circa early 1970’s, several delays and interruptions watching Muhammad Ali fights from EUROPE.
The bottom line is, in order to transmit a signal, even now, you need a system of transmission, the further the distance, the more powerful the transmission. The power outage needed would have had to have been massive broadcast a signal this far, and the antenna would probably have had to have been as high as the World Trade Center.
Another nail in the coffin is radiation dosimetry. There is a series of published scientific articles that report how much radiation the crews aboard various spaceflights received. The following table is from one such article.
Notice how the lowest orbits (Gemini) resulted in the lowest daily doses, whereas higher orbits produced higher dosages (STS-41C, Skylab). The Apollo missions – with the exception of Apollo 14, but including Apollo 13, with all its anomalies – are right in the middle. This could hardly be the case if they had gone through the van Allen belt. Also notice the vagueness of the info – just “lunar orbital flight,” when for all others the detailed heights and inclinations are given.
Fake.
This is legitimately impossible or a blatant lie. You’ve written about the Holohoax and 9/11 Truth and yet claim to have never even heard of the Apollo hoax until your 50s. It seems this site serves the same poisoning-the-well tactic as Sunstein.
But Paul McCartney is really dead.
It’s entirely possible that the moon landings happened but it’s not possible that it happened using the technology that was available at the time. There is no way they could get beyond the Van Allen radiation belts. NASA scientists claim today that they do not have the technology to do so. NASA also claims to have lost the science that was used in the Apollo missions. That’s so over the top that it’s hard to believe any one takes it seriously. If the US did indeed go to the moon it was done using advanced technology that remains unknown.
We didn’t have the technology to make a sophisticated movie in 1969, when we had been making movies for 80 years.
But we did have the technology to go to the moon in 1969 when we had never even attempted it up until that time.
Maybe the stupidest 13 minutes I have ever watched.
What about the USA Surveyor 3 camera that was removed by the Apollo 12 astronauts and returned to earth and is now on public display? Is that faked as well?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_lunar_sample_displays
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NTRS/collection2/NASA_SP_284.pdf
LOL
Aww, give him a break, Buzz.
After all, the British motorcar industry did invent Lucas “electrical systems,” which were so efficient that much of the time they used no detectable amounts of electricity at all.
I think you’re right about the ascent of the lunar module – surely somebody would have worked that out by now. Physicists are some of the cleverest people, engineers not far behind. This shouldn’t be a difficult problem.
Re. the Van Allen Belts – so why haven’t we sent anyone through them since the Apollo missions, and out of low-earth orbit? Done numerous times already, it shouldn’t be hard to repeat.
Unless that article weekend is correct. Boy, our collective IQ is plummeting faster than WTC 7!
yes, consider yourself flushed but then most of us already knew that so no surprise.
I did also use a shoot-the-monkey demo … not nearly so fancy as those. The one I was remembering was simpler yet: a spring-loaded plunger and two steel balls. You leveled the device, and set the spring. When released, the plunger gave one ball a horizontal whack, while depriving the second ball of its support so that it fell vertically from rest. The balls made a nice simultaneous click when they hit the linoleum floor.
This was supposed to convince my students that projectile motion should be analyzed by treating its horizontal and vertical components separately, since they are mutually independent. But there’s something about that idea that profoundly offends the intuition of many (most, really) people.
Oh, well …
Wait. That can’t be true. Hidden Figures told us the black women did it all!
The images from the moon landings were very low resolution. Presumably a more powerful transmitter would have sent higher resolution images. But I fail to see how the distance to the moon would mean that no image at all could be transmitted.
“Clouds behind the moon>>>Also clouds can be seen behind the sun.”
So… you can see right through the moon? What is that, like x-ray vision or something?
If the Russians or the Chinese really wanted to destroy America’s spirit they could simply send unmanned vehicles to the various Lunar lander sites to get video.
Hmmm, actually, even if they faked such video plenty of people would believe it, since so many seem to think America Was Never Great.
How would the Russians prove was fake?
Even assuming it was fake, calling it fake would just make them look stupid.
Yeah, man. Self-awareness can be painful.
Let me know when this happens eh buck-o. I’m guessing it’ll be about the same time “Q” will be able to get Hillary put in leg irons. It will all be about as real as Elon’s “roadster on a rocket”. Hahahahaha
Well, about that…
So the earth rotates the sun at 66,600 miles per hour and somehow, a man-made, fuel-propelled object can keep up with it (just how large are these gas tanks anyway?)?
“But…but…but…Grav-it-eeee!”
So gravity is strong enough to pull “satellites”, along with us at 66.6 (wink) million mph, but not strong enough to pull them to the ground.
If you see it on the news, it’s a lie. It is as simple as that.
While the Ides of March have passed, the fools associated with 1 April seem to be alive and well. 🙂
Probably my fault. I keep posting pics of mission control filled with all those White dudes.
Regarding large numbers of people uniformly keeping a secret, a recent example is the Flight 800 preposterous coverup. Regarding the Flight 800 coverup, Ron Unz wrote the best explication of this, short of reading the entire Cashill book. Mr. Unz’s tone in the comment above surprised me, in light of his Flight 800 essay.
God help me, many moron’s abound here.
Sorry, that should be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3 not Netherlands.
Surveyor 3 landing site from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter 2009.
https://www.quora.com/How-far-can-a-long-range-digital-TV-antenna-broadcast-a-signal
Your recollection is flawed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-second
Roundtrip time = (2)(1.282) = 2.56 sec.
That is minimum time, with zero allowance for pause in conversation.
Houston to Apollo stops @ 0:53
Apollo to Houston reply @ 0:59 => 6 sec.
Nixon to Apollo stops @ 2:13
Apollo to Nixon reply @ 2:20 => 7 sec.
I expect your response to be that NASA knew this would happen (since they were well aware of the speed of light) and “faked ” the time delay. No problem, eh?
“We have…..We have…..We have…..”
Have we?
And the proof?
Books, newspapers, TV and all the people involved you say/imply?
And you’re 100% certain they’re all being honest?
Freemasonry…..you’ve heard of that? You know they’re bound by an oath of secrecy? You know those who uphold it are richly rewarded? You know a horrific execution awaits for those who break it? You know freemasons do and never qustion their orders? You know there are millions of freemasons on this earth? You know that they control every establishment on this earth? You know that all aristocracies are freemasons?
You see there’s one main problem with people like you. You simply accept the status quo and history as read, show how incredibly gullible you are, with zero skepticism and no critical thinking skills. You are the tyrant’s wet dream.
You’ve stood on Everest? I’ve stood at a point in the Sierras that overlooks an expanse of over 120 miles — from Mt Lassen to Mt Shasta. Over such a distance there is supposed to be nearly two miles of earth curvature. None is visible. No curvature is visible from an airplane at 35,000 feet. I’ve looked several times on very clear days in Arizona, able to see 100 miles in either direction.
April 1st is a great day for the article and Ron’s rebuttal. Is his rebuttal tongue in cheek? Like the Russians have been so vocal about 9ll or the holocaust! NOT
The old public radio series “Car Talk” always amused when some theory was presented and the Car Talk guys would ask: “You’re an engineer, aren’t you?”
Your remark is so typical of the circumcised man. People like yourself live in a world of denial.
“But we have since sent unmanned probes as far as Neptune and Pluto. We have landed probes on comets over 1000 times further than the Moon. We have had people up in orbiting space stations for 2 years at a time. We have had rovers on Mars (hundreds of times further than the Moon) in operation for years at a time. ”
Let me make a very stupid question. Have you got back any of the probes you sent to these planets? That is, the astronauts flew back with the landing module. The moon radius is 1/3.66 of the earth’s and the mass is 1/81 of the earths, thus gravitation on the moon surface is 1/6 of that on the earth and the work to do to exit the gravitation field of the moon is 1/22 of the work to exit the gravitation field of the earth. To fly away from the earth takes a big rocket, but these astronauts flew away from the moon with a landing module. Do you Americans do such often? I mean, I guess you send the probes back after they have collected some planet stones?
Same as if you are in a brightly lit city. You hardly see any stars due to the background starlight and the sun is many times more luminous than the ambient light from any man made source. The reason the sky is black is that there is no ozone to scatter the light.
If you don’t even know the difference between a nature spirit and a comical ridicule of one’s belief, then how can I take anything you write seriously?
Yep, I’m in a smelly bus station all right, complete with the same dirty, rude characters.
This is what I get for humoring an idiot and trying to insert a little history.
This is pointless.
Great video. 🙂
Vielen Dank.
With no atmosphere and low gravity allowing for lower orbits and given our current satellite abilities, there shouldn’t be anything we can’t see on the moon including Neil Armstrong’s golf balls.
The rover tracks and footprints should be clear as day.
There should be a list of interesting geological features and other anomalies on the moon with resolution equivalent to the level of being able to read license plates.
Where are the ultra high resolution pictures of the moon?
The true reason, why the Soviets never exposed the moon-landing hoax, is the American National Space Defense Force, which has got the Soviet Cosmos Colonist Army on the ropes.
The true reason why the Trump administration has started the trade war is due the China’s reconquest of Ganymede’s portal to Elysium.
No need to climb Everest, or any other mountain.
Go down to the seashore, watch ships disappear from sight past the horizon.
Ancient people knew this as well.
http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/~jochen/gtech201/lectures/lec6concepts/Datums/Determining%20the%20earths%20size.htm
Do the “flat Earthers” have an “explanation” as to where the ships go so we can no longer see them?
I’ll bet it’s a real hoot.
In the recent movie Apollo 11 there are crowds of people, thousands of them, waiting for and looking at the liftoff (?) 8 miles away. I saw this film and as far as I know all those people look mighty genuine for 1969 (as far as I can say, though I wasn’t so old at that time). What would they have been looking at if not the launching. I say they’re not actors. Just opining here, mind you.
Troll Or Dumbass?
Dumbass: If the book by Woods is really worthwhile, as thou pretend, then thou would understand it and be able to make an argument in thine own words–don’t direct attn. over somewhere else, moron. But thou cannot make thine own argument as thou doesn’t know anything. And we see thou are just another moron trolling, like “wizard,” eh? Case closed.
The author is almost certainly Wally.
Absolutely agree. Well said, sir.
Unfortunately, the quality of the first two are sorely lacking nowadays. As for the third, well, it’s much easier, safer and more profitable to churn out trinkets like smart phones than it is to put men on the Moon.
Quote: Now that they have this dedicated comment-thread for their extended discussion, it will be much more reasonable in the future to just summarily trash their off-topic comments on other articles.
Reply: That’s a mighty broad brush to wipe dissenting voices under the rug. On 9/11,physics went out of the window. I think it’s therefore wise to keep all options open and on the table, until proven wrong. One can’t blame people for being skeptical, when it comes to government propaganda, lies and half-truths.
Torches of Freedom [cigarettes], DDT, Softenon, etc. are ample proof of deceitful manufacture/governmental cover ups. Why should it stop there?
Have you ever taken a film roll through X-ray machines in airports. What a hoot.
The idea that “vast numbers of people” couldn’t keep a secret is a boilerplate argument of the anti-conspiracist crowd. They use it to dismiss inside orchestration of the S-11 attacks, JFK assassination etc. But it’s simply refuted by the observation of how some 100,000 people worked on the Manhattan Project and yet nobody leaked anything about that for many years afterwards. Obviously a man mining uranium ore in Canada in 1940 would have no idea what it was for. Similarly, the individual engineers and technicians of the Apollo proramme would also not have an overview of the mission’s totality (one who did – Bill Kaysing of Rocketdyne – did actually blow the whistle).
This can all be summed up in one word: compartmentalisation.
Why does earth need a Van Allen Belt?
To hold up its Van Allen pants!
WAKKA WAKKA!
What does the astronauts not wearing pants have to do with it?
Oh, c’mon, Buzz. Lighten up. I know you have a good sense of humor. A lot of these people don’t. This is quite an entertaining thread.
Absolutely.
I was aware of this theory for years, and I asked many Russian space scientists whether it is true. I never met one (and some of my interviewees were deeply engaged in the space conquest) who would unequivocally say the Moon landings were a hoax. Majority would say “it is complicated”, and minority would say there is no doubt about the landings. Nobody said he knows it didn’t happen. It is not a proof, but that’s what I got.
Two different issues – don’t conflate them!
As Ron Unz correctly noted, this article is terrible. If this article is the ultimate authority in “moon hoax theories”, then I am now even more convinced than ever that yes we did indeed go to the Moon back in the late ’60’s and early ’70’s.
Sandy Hook, on the other hand, has a number of legitimate questions that scream for answers. I don’t know what happened that day in Newtown, Connecticut, but I don’t trust the mainstream media’s version of events.
Yes, it’s pretty much the first thing any of them bring up, considering it a softball served up by people completely unfamiliar with the discussion. They will tell you to get out a telescope and the bottom of the ship will come back into view because it has not gone over a curve. The law of perspective means objects moving away eventually appear smaller from the bottom up, but due to the limitations of human vision, not a curving earth.
The official story, however, apparently admits of no limitations on human vision, since it holds that we can see stars quadrillions of miles away.
Now which of these accounts requires more credulity?
I am dumbfounded that Ron Unz has apparently swallowed this thoroughly ridiculous canard hook line and sinker. Huge amounts of evidence destroying the official story are now available on the internet; even a child could see it was a hoax. Ron obviously didn’t spend much time looking into this.
Humanity Is Essentially Anti-Semitic, Don’t Forget
Newsflash, sucker: MOST humans are anti-semites, just naturally–excepting only (a) some, but not all, of those on Jews’ payroll, and (b) those fortunate souls who don’t know about kike filth who say they’re “chosen” by God (honest, we have their word for it), that collectively they’re co-equal w. God, the most wonderful thing God ever created, and all the rest of the idiot, psychopathic crap one finds in Talmud and Zohar, etc. No decent person calls himself Jew, sucker. Get a clue, scum.
No, I am agnostic. I sang in the choir in an Anglican church for 3 years.
My Grandma was from Cairo in little Egypt. Her people fought with the south.
The US was lost when they turned down the articles of Confederation and signed onto the masonic Constitution.
If you look close enough, you can trace the moon landing hoax back to the “civil war”, and then back even further.
The rocks were fake genius.
You’re not serious. Professor Scudder merely parrots the official NASA narrative, using their own potentially corrupt data.
You want to get real about the damaging radiation potential of the Van Allen belts? We’re sending out probes and rovers all the time. I’m sure we have radiation and telemetry data from every single mission, including many from just the past few years (since NASA “lost” all the original Apollo data). So are they matching that idyllic 0.38 rad number Professor Scudder quotes? Or are they at sufficient levels to kill a man?
That bit about minimizing their effect because we’re going super-fast is ridiculous.
There have always been plenty of people at the launches, legitimately there to see what they think is history. They see the rockets take off vertically, then level off into a horizontal trajectory heading out to sea.
It is kind of hard to find the orbital parameters for Apollo 11, but for Apollo 8 wikipedia states an orbital inclination of 32 degrees (relative to the equatorial plane). That doesn’t permit egress over the poles – and you certainly wouldn’t waste fuel on changing the orbital inclination before egress if you could help it; you would launch into the proper orbit right away. So your thesis is untenable.
Yet, the radiation dosage measured on Apollo 8 was comparatively low (see my earlier post).
Lol! This moon “hoax” theory is nothing!! Only idiots will find any value is following such a fool’s errand.
The whiteys have been perpetuating a far greater hoax for millennia. To know more about it, look up a certain ideology called the “Trinity.”
I note that you don’t actually say what mass or volume of fuel would have been needed.
So, if you think that’s an expected delay of transmission in 1969 from 234,000 miles, now please answer truth’s question about how it was transmitted.
Earth orbit data for all Apollo missions here – all similar to Apollo 8, none compatible with polar egress. They would definitely have gone through the van Allen belt.
I read the book and only caught parts of the movie but it didn’t seem to me that there was anything in the movie about the incident that was torturing Jack. He had hit a child on a bicycle with his car killing them. I thought this article was good except I wanted to hear more about the connection with Kubrick and what did the movie Eyes Wide Shut have to do with the moon landing.
The stars in the sky thing seems a little odd but not totally disproving the fact that the moon landing did or did not happen. On earth here it is possible to take pictures without seeing stars. Would stars be more or less visible from the moon? Possibly it being more near the sun makes stars harder to see and possibly no night time occurred to allow them to be seen.
Wow. Mr. Unz, wow. The moon landings were faked completely. The Soviets DID call it fake at the time in 1969 but were easily written off as simply being jealous losers. They obviously received some benefit in backing off the claim. There is no question whatsoever that ALL of the photographs were faked, or, rather, shot on earth in a studio. The most damning evidence is the lack of fuel carrying capacity of the module and lander. The initial news conference of the ‘first men to set foot on the moon’ is almost as equally damning. Only an idiot could look at the so called Lunar Lander and conclude that it protected humans from the moon’s atmosphere while sustaining them for days with power, food, waste facilities, heat, and oxygen.
We’ve been living in a world of lies for a long, very long time. I come to the Unz. review for some truth. Not anymore. Like any successful disinformation campaign, 99% of truth is delivered for the express intent of delivering the monumental lie.
Dummy or liar, doesn’t matter – result is the same – hiding truth and spreading lies. Owning the media and ‘entertainment’ industries, well, since they began, sheenies are the absolute masters of lies, deception and subterfuge.
Governments = Corporations = Banks. A three headed hydra run, owned, and controlled by the same vile predator class that derives it’s power from their exclusive, government given ‘right’ to create currencies from nothing and charge the world ‘interest’ on it. Enforced by government force, this massive con and wealth transfer scheme is maintained by lies distributed 24/7 from cradle to grave by academia, media, & ‘entertainment’ venues. Successful today only because of folks like Mr. Unz who supports and nourishes the lie that governments exist to serve the people, don’t lie to us, and the far bigger and most unfortunate lie that ‘entertainment’ means watching something instead of doing something.
What the hell?
The moon landing a hoax? Ho-hum. Let’s face the fact that the moon itself is a hoax!
Happy April Fool’s Day!
I promised myself I wouldn’t engage the stupidity overflowing this post and its already-long comment thread, but I’m weak, and I can’t help it. Which “law of perspective” are you babbling about? Maybe it’s some law enacted by a parliament of dunces somewhere?
Sorry, I misplaced my magic telescope that allows me to see through the ocean. But if I find it, I plan to start scouting for sunken pirate treasure and hot topless mermaids and stuff.
Jews And Their World Of Lies, Lying, Liars, Special-Pleading, And Question-Begging–An Endless Universe Of Fakery, Fraud, And Flim-Flam
Tell us, moron: how many times do thou have to be lied to by kikes and their suck-alongs before thou concludes everything and anything they say is probably a lie?–this is called INDUCTIVE logic, sucker–it’s natural and native to the human qua human–how we think, if and when healthy.
And what’s the necessity of beleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevin’ anything? Beleeeeeeevin’ something doesn’t make it true, and truth is precious thing–it deserves proof–and if it’s really, genuinely true, then it doesn’t fear simple little thing, like PROOF, sucker. And if it’s really true, then it can stand proof, and more proof, and yet more proof.
So necessary, default conclusion is if it is told by Jew, it’s surely a lie. And now how long have Jews ruled?–probably since Napoleon at least. We KNOW Rothschilds have ruled Europe since early 19th cent., after Napoleon.
Thou scummy filth positively stink–sooooo butt-hurt that people don’t want to beleeeeeeeeeeev thy stupid lies and lying. Why is it soooooooooooo goddam necessary that people beleeeeeeeeeeev scum like thou?–have thou ever wondered?
Get a clue, sucker: reality is OBJECTIVE, for if not, then ANYTHING and everything is both true and not true at same time. ONLY objective reality makes any sense as objectivity and only objectivity renders the logical method and science.
So if there’s any objective basis, then and only then is it, and can it be verified by sense-perception–that’s “PROOF,” by definition. So we look for EVIDENCE–both in science and in legal investigations. So what’s evidence and/or proof for manned moon-landings?–TELL US, SHOW US, scum.
The “evidence” we have indicates it’s all lies on top of lies–no stars in the pictures–for good reason, because then they’d have problem for the constellations. The shadows of the pictures are pointing diff. ways. When the film (or video) is slowed-down, it shows just earth-like jumping distances–it’s all fake, fake, fake. And THEN we get thy stupid butt-hurt idiocy because people know thou are just lying, special-pleading, and begging for credibility, as liars always do.
Thou are just a bunch of lying scum, like w. all the other lies scum like thou tell–about “climate-change” and 9/11, and Sandy hoax, and holohoax. Thy lies and lying just never end. Thou live in a world of lies, liars, and lying–just like Christ warned.
I agree completely with Ron Unz’s first post.
Besides, I attended a technical school involved in developing some of the technology that had gone into the Apollo project. I think I would have heard at least rumors of a fraud if fraud there had been, and I didn’t.
It’s people like apollonian” and a few others here who give antisemitism a bad name, LOL.
Aw, what the hell, let’s have some fun. If the earth is flat, where’s the edges? Why aren’t there any pictures of them? Or does it just go on forever?
And how come people in Australia see constellations that I’ve never seen? That damn Southern Cross … must be a hoax, too.
I always have believed that the moon landings were for real because I saw it happening on the televitz as a boy. Fast forward, 50 years later and I’m not so definite in my belief. The technology was available to create very realistic depictions of space as shown in movies such as 2001 a Space Odyssey and we haven’t been back for 50 years. That alone is very peculiar. We know that the government has been lying to us about Pearl Harbor, WW2, Vietnam War, Bay of Tonkin incident, USS Liberty Incident, and the Twin Towers. With the consistency of lies about other subjects, why not this one too? We have motive (they wanted the Russians to think we had this technology and having achieved this we would have respect from all over the world). Some of the scientific angles quoted by the debunkers are in areas where I don’t have enough knowledge to agree or disagree with but taking the whole thing in perspective, and weighing the pros with the cons, I choose to have an open mind on the subject.
Get your conspiracies straight.
It is the Van Allen Belt that is fake, not the moon landings.
Sheesh.
One of the Sandy Hook father’s recently committed suicide over his child’s murder. Perhaps you think that that is a hoax too.
I agree with your comments in many ways. I once posted remarks similar to yours on another thread and was immediately flamed as a Neanderthal. In many ways the space program has been high dollar welfare for the scientific community. This has meant billions of dollars have been directed to a relatively small part of our economy. Meanwhile much of our infrastructure is desperate need of replacement or upgrade.but the money never seems to be available.
Jews Are Sooooooooooo . . . Uh, Brilliant–Yes, That’s It….
Anti-Semitism is simply obedience to God, sucker–and didn’t cha know all humanity is anti-semitic?–kicked out of practically EVERY country on earth, multiple times. Christ was anti-Semitic–just ck Gosp. MATT, all 39 verses of ch. 23 where he calls those dear Pharisees “serpents and vipers.”
And what’s this?–so thou “attended” a tech “school” and didn’t “hear rumors,” so therefore thou agree w. thy fellow Jew liar, Unz?–golly gee, but what a surprise, ho ho ho ho ho. Good gravy, but I thought thou kikes were supposed to be “smart”? But actually, all anyone needs do is to get thou talking and lying, and there goes so quickly thy reputations and boasting of “high IQ,” eh?–ho hoo ho ho oho. Don’t stop, kike–by all means keep talking to us, and tell us more–we love it, ho hoh o ho ho.
Do you have any source for that? Thanks, M.
God are you stupid.
There is a 200 foot wall of ice around the entire rim. Nobody can fly past the wall because the government won’t let you.
Those charter flights to the South Pole – all fake. The people who go on them – fake. But the people are starting to rise up. Rage against the machine!
I think you mean William Colby
Maybe Bill Cooper can inject a little common sense into the brains of these NASA loving day dream believers. Here’s your science!!!
It is good to see so many intelligent conspiracy realists on this site. So many have responded effectively to Mr. Unz’s arguments against the Moon landing hoax theory that I hardly feel the need to chime in, but I will anyway.
It was actually realizing that the Moon landings must have been fake that caused me to start reconsidering the mainstream narrative of the Cold War. As other commenters have pointed out, it appears likely that the Cold War was a manufactured dialectic. One purpose of this dialectic was to provide an excuse to build up the military-industrial complex and intelligence services, with their many levels of secrecy. The Powers and Principalities show on the thkelly67 channel on YouTube is a good source of information on this.
I have written a number of comments about the Moon landing hoax on other alt-right websites. The level of vitriol coming from some commenters trying to shout me down is remarkable. (In fact, I strongly suspect that some of the persistent commenters who were doing this were paid trolls.) One doesn’t need to get angry and/or abusive if one is defending something obvious, like the fact that the Earth is round. The “truth” of the Moon landings, on the other hand, is not obvious at all, given how need-to-know secrecy works and given that we have been unable to put people above low-earth-orbit since then.
I encourage open-minded and undecided people to spend time looking into this. The information is easy to come by, e.g., on YouTube. There have been many, many deceptions. Realizing this can be anxiety-provoking at first, but don’t worry: the Earth will still be round at least.
The key is in realizing where the information bottlenecks lie. That is where deceptions occur. Information bottlenecks lie in complexity and limited access to information. Also, disinformation campaigns are used to discredit true conspiracy theories. I think that the flat earth theory is an example of such a disinformation campaign and that its purpose is primarily to discredit the true Moon landing hoax theory.
It’s suspicious that this comes out on April 1.
But anyway, one thing that did annoy me is when I learned that there was only one TV receiver. NASA received the signal then the TV networks pointed their cameras at the TV provided by NASA. This was in the late 1960s and 1970s and TV magic was all the rage.
One of the reasons the video may have been erased is that they don’t want it compared to stock footage from the networks. There may have been a delay so they could edit out anything unfortunate.
I know very little about the whole “Q” business, I think its just some dude trolling
As for SpaceX, yeah I think they will land people on the Moon in the next few years and then send people to Mars, they are clearly headed in that direction, right now SpaceX have the most powerful and therefore the best rocket in the world, the Moon hoax people around here keep pointing out that NASA can’t send people beyond LEO and back to the Moon, and its true NASA don’t have a big enough rocket to do this, but SpaceX do, it would be easy enough for SpaceX to put a Dragon capsule onto a Falcon Heavy and send a few people on a trip around the far side of the Moon and then back to Earth, not as good as Apollo 11, but not bad either
Watch the news over the next few weeks, you might see videos of SpaceX testing their next gen Moon/Mars rocket in Texas
Keep in mind that the richest man in the world is also working on his own space program and he is also headed for the Moon, unlike Musk he has more capital to play with
Too far away for the inverse square law to make a difference? 😉 .
Admit that Apollo and most of NASA was political to begin with. When Kennedy said “Moon before 1970” all the engineers groaned, he had no clue how many hurdles were in the way. They had barely put a few communications satellites up.
So it’s only the political aspect of Apollo anyone really discusses. And it’s a fact that 1969 was a quiet year for sunspot cycles besides. The real conspiracy is — are these cycles encoded in ancient literature and is that what they want to keep hidden?
What armstrong said about one small step makes me think about how things have changed and what is possible.
I collect slide rules and ask any person under 30 today and they will not know what a hemmi is.Yet in the days ago engineers built these amazing machines using slide rules to compute complex equations.
The hoax generation are simply too easy to fool.
April Fools!
Gern geschehen
you’re welcome
My argument exactly. How about Cassinni Huegens getting guided through Saturn’s rings and then soft landing a probe on Titan?
Hey, Russians landed in the White House.
This gentleman’s argument is that in 1969 we were advanced enough to design a rocket capable of going to, and returning from, the moon, but not advanced enough ro design a larger film canister.
I am convinced that the manned Moon landings were fake, and I didn’t see anything in the article to suggest that it was meant as an April Fools prank. Given the number of articles that have been posted on this site advancing other controversial conspiracy theories, I would not be too confident about this article being a joke if I were you.
Reminds me of this.
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fworldeventsandthebible.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F05%2FBibi-Iran-This-Close-At-UN-2012.jpg&f=1
Sorry i do not find the original website:
But you can read here (states you are right and shoes the flight paths).
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SMIII_Problem7.pdf
and here
Konkret: Die Astronauten von Apollo 11 erhielten während ihres 195 Stunden dauernden Fluges insgesamt eine Strahlendosis von 6 mSv.
Apollo 11 Astronauts gets an total Dose of 6mSv during the whole flight.
My “over the pole” is incorrect (thank you for correction), but “around the belts” is what they did.
Time to find 5 minutes. Making a fool out of yourself in denying this don’t change.
Is this April Fool joke or not? I can no longer tell?
https://apnews.com/657853d5c23346fa9a45eaa71cf10d07
The story says some homo guy used his sperm to fertilize the egg of his sister. That would be genetic incest. And his mother carried the child. That would be double-incest, sort of.
But the homo guy and his ‘husband’ are pretending that they had the child together.
Is (genetic)incest okay if in service of homomania?
Feminists bitch about how ‘patriarchy’ commodifies women into objects in dumb stuff like HANDMAID’S TAIL, but if anything uses women’s body like rental commodities, it is the sick vanity of homos and trannies.
The article may not be a April fools day joke, just the content……the conspiracy theory’s are more complicated than the actual moon landing, Occam’s razor Dude.
Peredur said: “I am convinced that the manned Moon landings were fake,”
Hey Peredur!
You are not alone?
Fyi, am convinced that both the capture & lynching of Saddam Hussein & the killing of Osama bin Laden were “fake.”
Thanks! But one more thing. Try to keep fresh in mind, TV’s X-Files slogan, “Trust no one.” Fyi, I support that, especially when a person is either a suspected or known Israeli fanatic.
The Sandy Hook school was closed in 2008 because of asbestos contamination, no one died at the school, FBI records for Newtown show no murders in 2012, it was a FEMA drill, look up Jim Fetzer and Wolfgang Halbigs reports on Sandy Hook.
If you get out your telescope — give it a try — and the bottom of the ship comes back into view, then you aren’t looking through water, are you? You’re looking at an object atop the water that has not gone over any curve. Reading comprehension can be your friend — try a little harder with it.
As for the standard bullshit about where’s the edge — you have no idea how tiresome it is for people who follow this discussion to hear this time and again from ‘debunkers’ who have no familiarity at all with the issues. Ten minutes exposure to just about any flat earth video will tell you what their position is on the edge. Believe me — you’re not being devastatingly incisive, posing unaswerable questions.
I too have wondered why we haven’t seen any high resolution video (or even photos) of the abandoned landing sites. Satellites have frequently orbited the moon, and I believe some are even doing so now. It shouldn’t be a big deal to shoot some detailed video (with “licence plate” resolution) of at least one of the sites, and it would put this controversy to rest. And yes, with time, the population of doubters grows (as it should)…
Yes, the opening admission is scarcely credible. Also strangely for Ron, the rest of his fairly lengthy piece is far from compelling. Perhaps he is simply having a Stanley Kubrick moment.
The counter to this which is not absurd is that the Cold War itself was a hoax. Russkies and Yanks both pawns of the powers that be that run everything in secret.
I don’t buy this but it is not logically fallacious.
The overarching problem is the obsession with secrecy. We really have no idea how big the black budgets are or what is done with them. We might have men on the moon right now. I think it is very likely that we went to the moon in 1969 but the true facts are nothing like the story fed to the public.
“So said CIA’s William Casey…just a few days before his ‘tragic drowning’ while canoeing.”
I think you’ve confused William Casey with William E. Colby…
Pics of the Sandy Hook kids can be found easily using a simple Google search and seem to support your comment.
In my old age I’ve come to the conclusion that all “official stories” explaining nationally significant, tragic events are chock full of lies and misdirection and are purposely intended to lead one far, far away from the actual truth of what happened.
Satanism In Thy Face, Suckers–And Remember Judaism IS Satanism, Never Doubt
Tell me what thou think: IS THIS SATANISM?–and is this what we get w. those precious kikes in charge of our culture, given their control and use of that thematic criminal enterprise that literally defines the rest of the satanic culture–CENTRAL-BANKING, legalized counterfeiting?–see Mises.org for expo; use their site search-engine for particular terms.
Thus the satanized goons, morons, scum, filth, weaklings, suckers, and inferiors–grossly OVER-populated–have decided they want INFINITE CURRENCY–not real money which is necessarily FINITE in amount–legalized counterfeiting which steady “inflation” devalues the currency units, despoiling and impoverishing the stupid suckers, destroying the economy, etc.–the stupid, brainless puke, called “the people,” thoroughly satanized, idolizing their precious kikes who lead them in suicide, death, destruction, starvation, warfare, famine, pestilence, etc.
So what happens is we Christian (hence genuine anti-Semitic) heroes and patriots must simply continue preaching anti-Semitism till the “people” get tired of being killed-off–there’s no other way.
Well, I’ll admit I’ve only skimmed over the more than 30,000 words of angry comments on both sides of the issue, but I think my argument from silence is still very strong.
For example, my original training was as a theoretical physicist and I don’t really know anything about the Van Allen radiation belts. But I’d think that there are many, many thousands of astrophysicists and astronomers who certainly do, and large numbers of these surely had been working for NASA. Most of the Moon Hoax people claim that astronauts would have faced certain death from radiation in their trip, thereby proving it never happened. But if that were true, then all those thousands of scientists knew the lunar trip was an impossible suicide mission and therefore an obvious hoax. Yet 100% kept their silence for fifty years, which seems exceptionally implausible to me, especially since so many of them worked for the rival USSR. Science is science and radiation calculations don’t lie.
The Moon Hoax people also claim it’s obviously impossible for the return module to have had the fuel to lift off the lunar surface, returning the Moon-walk astronauts to orbit. Once again, this is a question of simple engineering, and if it really were impossible, many tens of thousands of aeronautical engineers, including all the NASA employees who allegedly designed the return module, would have known that, and therefore must have been aware of the hoax. Yet none of them spoke up at the time or during the fifty years that followed, which seems very implausible to me. Once again, science is science and lift/fuel calculations can’t be that difficult to check.
It looks like many of the Moon Hoax people similarly believe that earlier Gagarin space mission was also a total hoax. But why would America have not exposed it at the time, and humiliated the USSR? One possibility suggested by some commenters is that the entire US-Soviet Cold War was also a complete hoax, with both the US and the USSR secretly controlled by closely-allied Masonic sects. I suppose that possible, and Khrushchev and Nixon had actually exchanged secret Masonic hand-shakes before their harsh public denunciations, but I’d really need to see some hard evidence before I accept that theory.
According to the Moon Hoax people, it’s very simple and ironclad science that the astronauts would have been killed by radiation and that they couldn’t have possibly had the fuel to lift back off from the lunar surface. Well, maybe. But apparently, the silence of tens of thousands of astrophysicists and aeronautical engineers over fifty years suggests that either that they disagree with this simple scientific assessment or that they were participating in a remarkably large and long-lived conspiracy, one which seems rather unlikely to me.
The 9/11 Truthers endlessly refer to the thousands of architects and engineers who have publicly signed the 9/11 Truth Statement, saying the official story of the WTC attacks is physically impossible.
If the Moon Hoax people are correct that the official Apollo story is so blatantly impossible based on very simple radiation and aerospace issues, why haven’t they put together a website with the public signatures of thousands of astrophysicists and aerospace engineers confirming this position?
The Russians also put laser reflectors on the moon in 1970 and 1973. You can bounce lasers off their reflectors as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the_Moon
“Aw, what the hell, let’s have some fun. If the earth is flat, where’s the edges? Why aren’t there any pictures of them? Or does it just go on forever?”
It’s turtles all the way down. Don’t you know anything?
This April Fools day hoax or not presentation offers some serious questions. The one I wonder about is how the astronauts came away unscathed going through the Van Allen Belts. Apparently it’s because of the trajectory used and the fact they went very, very, very fast. Okay then?
https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts#page-4
I am slow and methodical, so it took me this long to figure out that this article and comment thread is just an April Fools joke.
Ha ha ha. You really are a genius, Ron. Thanks for the laughs. 🙂
Practically all of the major points are covered by you briefly and succinctly.
One reply to your post mentions the ability of Apollo missions to thread their way through the lower radiation parts of the Van Allen belts. It seems more than strange that Nasa could do this seemingly at will some 50 years ago, while it tell us, at length that this is now one of the major stumbling blocks to manned space flights above low orbit. Then however unlikely it would seem, we have to assume that not only has the famous Saturn technology been mislaid but also it seems that this really uncanny ability to navigate the Van Allen belts has been similarly lost without trace. They are just so bloody careless at Nasa.
Now, for true believers, facts do not matter and cognitive dissonance or is faith will always win the day.
Moon Landing Skeptic , no author listed
That is the the title for this article. How many previous Unz articles have been anonymous?
The Channel 5 “documentary” is “still the best introduction to the arguments of the “moon hoax theorists””
Somebody better come up with a better “best” then. It’s a typical inept TV “documentary” that has 3 minutes of meat and 42 minutes of filler. Who can sit all the way thru those awful things? Take pity on us, and just write one paragraph of bullet-points.
The moon landing that was shown to we the people was faked, however the US has had a secret space program called Solar Warden that has put men on the moon and mars and still is in operation, google Solar Warden and has been in operation for decades.
Given their position at the time they would have had no idea what was actually going on…
Hmmmmmmmmmm
Gee whiz, but does it take a “theoretical physicist” to figure-out it could be harmful to career or even life by doing such dastardly thing to ZOG?
Ron Unz – these things are not as easy to check as you suggest. Try getting proper coordinates for the moon landings. You would think this would be easy to get – nope!
Don’t you find it odd that all of the original high quality video footage of the moon landing was “lost”? The low quality footage was transmitted “from the moon”, but high quality footage was available from the tapes brought back from the moon. That was lost/destroyed.
Again, I enjoin you to read “Wagging the Moondoggie”. If the conspiracy theory about the moon landing is as absurd as you say then you shall have no problems poking holes in Dave McGowan’s thesis.
http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/
Good point. Thanks.
Columbus’ walk on the New World was a hoax.
If you look at the USS Liberty in 1967, the parabolic dish on the ship was intended to transmit signals using signals bounced off the moon to NSA receivers – a half-million miles ONE WAY.
“Troposcatter” communications links were a regular feature of military communications over half-a-century ago. Thats RF scattered enough to be received above the noise to generate sufficient S/N for transmission of intelligence.
Very low RF noise in microwave environments means you can make up for low RF ERP with high gain antennas – that’s why they got great big dishes in Australia.
From time to time I enjoy watching the humorous as well as informative daily videos from Lionel Nation. He’s subject to repetition, but is quite fond of quoting Gore Vidal, who said he wasn’t a conspiracy theorist but, instead, a (((Conspiracy Analyst))). Lionel applies that logic to 9/11. All we can do is raise the questions, but the average joe is in no position to answer them. It’s up to the authorities to do so, but don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer. The same is true of the alleged Moon Landings. Something stinks to high heavens here. Only Luddites dismiss our questions out of hand.
Thanks to our experience with Triumph and BSA motorbikes, we were familiar with the phrase “Lucas Electrics, Prince of Darkness.”
Not “Genius” At All, Really–Just Typical Jew Insidious Subversion, Psy-Ops
I don’t know if it was “genius,” but it sure was clever and insidious, regardless–to bring together all these “anti-Semitic” articles–who else would/could have done it?
BUT notice then, in comments pages, the strange lack of serious, genuine anti-Semitism and real, genuine Christianity and Christian advocacy–is there anything more anti-Semitic?–Christianity being worship of TRUTH (= Christ, Gosp. JOHN 14:6) against Jew/Satanist lies, lying, and liars (JOHN 8:44).
So we see the very interesting strategy of Jew advocate (“golly gee, but Jews are just ‘normal’ people–like anyone else, eh?”), Unz, who, despite the anti-Semitic articles, and like the most obsessed and pathologic control-freak, carefully CENSORS and suppresses genuine anti-Semitism and esp. serious CHRISTIAN (anti-semitic) advocacy in proper spirit of the anti-Semitic articles presented by Unz Review.
Further, we see the legion of Jew/Jewwy trolls Unz allows in, to exclusion of genuine Christian anti-semites, and still further, the luke-warm, apologetic gentile milquetoast “critics” of the Jews, who are so wishy-washy for their pathetic complaints and nit-picking it’s enough to make one sick.
And again, note the obvious pupose of the site and editorial policy–the NORMALIZATION of Jew monsters and anti-human psychopaths and satanists within the society of genuine humanity–which is all lost on the stupid goyim who are allowed to post and publish on Unz Review, the dumb, brainless scum.
I guess the Law of Perspective ceased to be interesting, hmmm?
Where’s the edge? Seems like a simple question. How about just answering it, instead of suggesting I go look up videos?
And why do those antipodean types go out on clear nights and see different stars from the ones I see? Could it be that “up” is a significantly different direction, depending on where one is? Sounds like we might all be living on a, ummm, curved surface?
Here’s another simple question: why do lookouts on ships perform their duty from the highest perch available, such as a masthead? Yes, I know, more standard bullshit, and therefore won’t be answered. I’m sure I’ll be told to spend ten minutes on a flat earth video. Yeah, sure.
Kubrick’s moon landing videos were faked. Francis Coppola was actually hired by Aristotle Onassis to hatch the scheme. What made the ploy so dastardly was that Kubrick was led to believe that he was filming authentically fake footage of men landing on the moon, but in actuality he was filming artificially fake footage.
No, but I’s a-learnin. Just gots to find me some-a them flat earth videos.
Relaunching from the Moon is nowhere near the hardest part.
Plus, people have come and gone from space stations hundreds of times.
Get a clue. Neptune and Pluto are each over 15,000 times further away from the Moon, plus any probe that leaves the Hill Sphere of the Earth has a far greater engineering challenge ahead of it – staying out of the Sun’s gravity well. A trip to the Moon does not have to take the Sun’s gravity well into account, as it is within the Earth’s Hill Sphere.
You probably don’t know what a Hill Sphere or gravity well is.
Going to the Moon with a manned vessel, landing there, having them walk around, and then launching from there to get back to Earth is NOT the most difficult thing that has been done by space programs (both US and others).
That is why ‘Moon Hoax’ idiots are so comical.
No, of course not.
Anyone who could penetrate the Alien Force Field and fly over The Wall would be able to photograph the Secret Nazi Bases on the Other Side, which the Nazis access via Secret Untersee Doors through The Wall, where Adolph & Heini’s grandchildren have rendezvoused with space alien refugees from Area 51 in order to complete the tunnel system from the Parallel Universe Beyond The Wall to the Tunnel Transport nexus located deep below Dulce, NM in our universe.
Moon Landing Sceptic probably works for a US corporation and wants to keep his job.
BTW- the 8-minute video that documents published Jewish claims of ‘six million Jews’ dying or suffering before the outbreak of WWII (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=111&v=YqACgRA6XuI) does not include other published documents I have seen that come from the 19th century (!) concerning–you guessed it–‘six million Jews’ either dying, suffering, or in mortal danger.
The ‘six million Jews’ meme is a high-mileage, pre-owned kosher fantasy that was just waiting to be re-issued after WWII.
Is it any wonder why the Tribe doesn’t want any critical analysis of the granddaddy of all ‘conspiracy theories’? Of course not. These earlier fabrications speak volumes about the Jewish tendency to exaggerate, prevaricate and deceive.
The pre-WWII ‘six million Jews’ meme is a fatal embarrassment to today’s high-powered Holocaust Industry. And they surely know it.
This explains why Jews today have globally championed the criminalization of speech and ‘anti-Semitic’ political expression. The truth is not their friend.
The moon walk scenes were shot on the Grassy Knoll. Interior spacecraft TV transmissions were made from inside the Book Depository (for the Command Module) and the Dal-Tex building (for the Lunar Module.) Kubrick directed, but a man named Zapruder handled cinematography.
Hmm… Now I see what Ron means by fake conspiracy theories spoiling the real ones.
Verily. An uncountable infinity.
Nuffin, son. The proper word is nuffin.
MfG,
turtle
I suspect that the argument that the Soviets could expose the fakery is specious.
What could Soviets verify? How was the Apollo mission tracked? Was a passive tracking possible at these long distances for such a small object with radar or optical and/or microwave telescopes? Or was it done by transponder signals from Apollo by triangulation by the set of antennas on Earth? Were the transponder signals encrypted?
It seems that for Soviets w/o hacking of the US tracking stations they knew nothing and would not know where to look.
How did the Apollo crew know its position? They had a small telescope and a sextant (as a back up I presume) so they were supposed to see stars to the contrary of what they claimed later and presumably they were getting feedback from Earth after their position was calculated via the triangulation from transponder signals via Doppler shift.
How the US was supposed to confirm that Yuri Gagarin mission took place on a given date and that (1) it landed with a live human being and (2) that it was Yuri Gagarin?
My working compromise theory is as follows: There was no landing on the Moon with humans. The Apollo crew stayed on the Moon orbit and returned the same way as Apollo 9 and 10. It is possible some lander was placed on the Moon but doing it with humans was just too complicated and too risky. The US could not afford a failure though otoh a spectacular and heroic death of American astronauts on the Moon would give America the greatest sympathy boost all over the world for the open democratic society just as they did get it after the tragedy of Apollo 1. The tragedy of Apollo 1 demonstrated to the world that Americans are open and do not cheat unlike the Soviets who would report only the successful mission after their completion.. From the point of view of competition with the USSR Americans knew that if they do not cheat the Soviets would, so it was decided to out-cheat the Soviets. And they succeeded.
During the late 1950s and 60s, we were repeatedly told that US spy planes flying over Russia (then Soviet Union) at very high altitudes could easily read license plate numbers on cars parked on the streets of Moscow. Of course no proof was ever offered to prove it, but if that were indeed the case, then (as you suggest) why not put all the moon landing hoax rumors to rest by snapping a few pictures of footprints left on the moon, along with the abandoned Luner Rover, flag etc?
Why so emotional and rude old man?
You should come out of your trailer from time to time to get some fresh air and, perhaps, go and ask any honest mechanic about the reliability record of American
turdcar manufacturers such as Chryslers and Cadillacs or Teslas before accusing a British engineer of incompetence.Maybe afterwards you could tell the internet how the “new”, all American f-35 is doing, and while you are at it, explain how Boeing lousy engineering killed 300 people after fitting too big engines in an old fuselage to save $$$, and not happy with that and to compensate for the loss of air worthiness of such a flying turd added some moronic software, the sole function of which was “helping” the crew to bring the plane crashing down to avoid a stall.
Instead of insulting and mouth frothing you could try and answer the gentleman’s very legitimate question in a polite and respectful way next time.
Soviet space pig (A fun video – Not a documentary)
Wow!…
.
This, obviously, requires a JOINT legal exercise on the part of “trained” legal minds… with each of the members watching the backs of the participants!… yea, in constant communication with the members at all times!
.
Honestly!… this is very nasty stuff! And it should tear at the heart of thinking souls! Nevertheless, one can defeat this mountain of lies perpetrated by NASA!
.
MY suggestion, would be to hold a GLOBAL LEGAL CONFERENCE on the deception, and toward the development of a concise legal plan of approach!… and hopefully, one with professional security personnel in attendance! This evil has to end!
.
The pristine landing pads really caught MY attention!… and, of course, the inexplicable deaths of a number of astronauts. It’s time for action!… and resolution!
.
Please!… no emails!
So, Mr. Unz,
How long before you have enough data to write up the results of the psychology experiment known as Project Unzdot con?
Or is all to be kept under wraps to allow further development of the various avatars which “post” here?
DARPA must be keeping you in high cotton for this “experimental” web site to have gone on so long.
Live long and prosper..
🙂
This is actually quite funny. I have, in my reckless youth, owned a Triumph motor bike – luckily for me not the Bonneville. Naturally, I managed to smash it up and suffered minor cuts.
I also worked as a long range planner at Lucas/CAV – which at the time had the largest manufacturing plant in London. In Acton, to be specific.
This moon-landing business is so obviously an American con-job – carried out by a predecessor of Steven Spielberg.
The funniest thing of all is that NASA is now proposing to send a man to the moon again – with an unknown due-by date.
Apollo’s Legacy Is NASA’s Future
https://www.nasa.gov/specials/apollo50th/back.html
The fact remains that they needed a colossal amount of fuel to get to the moon and an almost invisible amount to return to orbit around the moon.
Including yourself, Parsons.
Thomm Deprives Us Of Info, Enlightenment–This Is Discriminatory
Thomm, the dink genius tells us:
Hey “thomm”: tell us what is thy academic degree is in “space” -matters–would that be cosmology? “Gravity well”?–gosh, sounds soooo scientific–too bad thou don’t know anything about logic, eh? How long have thou spent in “space programs”?–and what “space-program” were thou part of?–was it Nigeria?–Uganda?
I guess I’m “moon hoax” ‘idiot’ because I demand to know the PROOF there was manned moon landing–thou don’t seem to know of any, do thou?–but why is it “funny”? But we sure are lucky we have thou to inform us, I must admit. Talk to us; we need info for proof and evidence–don’t leave us hanging here–that would be too cruel and unusual.
So what are you doing here, then?
“compartmentalisation” = “need to know”
Capricorn One — the Elliott Gould/James Brolin/OJ Simpson flick about a Mars landing hoax, was made in ’77 — so the theme was certainly out there pre-internet.
Ron, the U.S. government denied the existence of the SR-71 Black Bird for nearly 30 years. The Black Bird was an engineering marvel, the fastest airplane ever built, one of the most technologically advanced and impressive aircraft in the history of aviation. Thousands of aerospace engineers, technicians, maintenance personnel, fuelers, pilots, radar operators, etc. worked on the top secret project. None of them came forward and revealed the existence of this airplane while it was classified. No one leaked about the Black Bird because they held security clearances and would face serious repercussions if they did.
Government spokesmen lied straight-faced to the camera and said there was no Black Bird. Then one day the Black Bird was declassified and now you can see it on display on Air Force bases and in front of museums. For decades the government said it didn’t exist and then one day it said it did. That’s the way it works.
The government said it retired the Black Bird and did not replace it because satellites can do what the Black Bird did. But many people don’t believe this and speculate that the Air Force replaced the Black Bird with a faster plane called the Aurora. Of course, the government denies the Aurora exists, says it’s a myth.
For decades now, something has been flying fast around the world causing huge sonic booms that register on the Richter scale. No engineers have come forward and leaked about the Aurora project, although thousands must have worked on it if it exists. If it exists, it surely flies over Russian airspace like the Black Bird did, although the Russians have not confirmed its existence.
Maybe some day the project will be declassified and we’ll see the Aurora on display in front of Air Force bases despite the fact that the government explicitly denies its existence and no one has leaked information about it. Like with the Black Bird, the government will say, yeah, we were just joshing when we said, Scout’s Honor, it didn’t exist, even though it did, but we couldn’t tell you, for national security reasons, you know. We’re allowed to lie about these things for the good of the nation.
As far as the moon landings, this is the one conspiracy theory that has the potential of really capturing the public’s imagination, especially overseas where American patriotism is not an obstacle. Fifty years have passed. Each year that goes by makes believing in Apollo that much more difficult, especially when it appears the feat can’t be replicated.
What’s going to prove the moon landing once and for all is if the Chinese or Russians can get someone out of Low Earth Orbit. Right now they can’t. Neither can we, even though the Constellation program was in the works to do that back in 2005, followed by the Orion program in 2011. Orion is a second attempt to replicate Apollo, but like Constellation, the project is facing all kinds of obstacles and setbacks.
One of the main principles of the scientific method is reproducibility. In science, if you can’t replicate it, then it’s not proven. No one has replicated the Apollo missions in 50 years. In fact, the Apollo missions are the only time humans have allegedly left Low Earth Orbit.
Orion was scheduled to take astronauts on a lunar flyby in 2021, but they pushed the date back to 2023. Trump is saying he wants Americans to land on the moon again. Apparently, he’s pushing for Orion to land on the moon in his second term if he’s re-elected. NASA is playing along. My money says NASA is going to keep pushing the date back, play for time.
Or maybe the government will finally admit that Apollo was a hoax, done for national security reasons, you see. But that might open a can of worms with the potential to bring down the government. Hopefully, they’ve thought this through.
If no one gets out of Low Earth Orbit in the 2020s, no rational person is going to believe Apollo was real. Only fools will believe it. Pay attention to the Orion spacecraft. If Orion can get astronauts out of Low Earth Orbit, that will be proof enough for me that Apollo was real. But I’m skeptical. And skepticism is the foundation science is built upon.
Almost everyone is familiar with the “military-industrial complex” meme from Eisenhower’s 1961 speech:
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
Yet the lines which immediately follow it in the same speech are largely forgotten:
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.”
https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-cia-and-nsa-research-grants-for-mass-surveillance/
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e
https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/
“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields…”
The legacy media regularly promotes the “military-industrial complex” meme as having great explanatory power. But does it make sense? Does it fit well with the reality that we see? For a simple example: within the US government, who has more power — the “military complex,” or the “State Dept./ intelligence community complex?”
The answer should be obvious. For anyone in doubt, I suggest that you look at the history of the US attack on Libya in 2011 — who supported it? Who opposed it? Who won?
Or read some (((Moldbug))). In particular, his suggestion that almost any time you see the phrase “international community” used in a legacy media narrative, it can be replaced with “US State Dept.”… without any significant loss of meaning. Think about it.
What about the “industry” part of this meme? Sure, aerospace/ defense industries still have some power. But what about banking/ finance? Take a look at the last few presidencies — how many cabinet members/ high level officials are (((Goldman-Sachs))) people? Now compare that to, not just any other single company, but any entire sector of manufacturing/ mining/ resource extraction… what do you see?
And what about the media/ academia/ NGO complex?
That doesn’t seem to be a thing, either — at least in within the constraints of The Narrative. Clearly powerless. Insignificant, really. The power to shape the beliefs/ worldviews of an entire population doesn’t matter at all.
Honest.
More Moldbuggery:
“The key to power in the Fourth Republic is that no one who has power wants anyone to think of them as having power.”
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/05/iron-polygon-power-in-united-states/
The Russians used to assume that the USA is a better place with a free unbiased media – because Hollywood and the Voice of America told them. They assumed that their media always lied about the USA. Heck, you could get a beautiful girl for a pair of crappy Levis. 🙂
Not so much now. LOL
If in Bavaria one could also reply with “Bitte” or “Bitte schön” if I remember correctly, no?
Isnt this another way of trivializing the discussions here? You put junk posts like these mixed with intelligent posts from Philip Giraldi and Alison Weir to make the people who visit this site look stupid to newbies. And to take away the importance of dissenting voices like Giraldis
That must have been the most talented engineer in human history. With just a glance he can measure the total takeoff mass, fuel mass, specific impulse of the engine, and then calculate the orbital injection trajectory in his head.
I take my hat off to him.
Wow – The Unz finally discovers a conspiracy theory that doesn’t float his boat.
Of course, he immediately insinuates that the promotion of this conspiracy theory must itself be a conspiracy, meant to discredit the conspiracy theories that *do* float his boat.
Come to think of it – that’s not *totally* implausible…
To me , it comes down to just one question. Did they or did they not fly through the Van Allen belts?
That’s all I want to know.
Maybe he’s like Obama’s uncle, who was in the Red Army apparently (having helped “liberate”’Auschwitz).
You do realize, don’t you, that no one gives a fuck that you’re getting all worked up over this?
What have the Jews done for us?
Day 1, Nisan 1, New years day in Israel’s calendar, Exodus 12:2 “This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.”
.
Nisan 1 corresponds with April 1 which is April fools day.
.
The Crucifixion of Christ on April1 [ April fools day ]
.
And know thou also that Christ dwelt [Fol. 43b, col. 2] in Mary, and suffered in Nazareth, and was born in Bethlehem, and was laid in a manger, and was carried by Simeon in the Temple of Solomon, and was reared in Galilee, and was anointed by Mary Magdalene, and ate the Passover in the house of Nicodemus, the brother of Joseph of Rametha, and was bound in the house of Hannan, and was struck with a reed in the house of Caiaphas, and embraced the pillar and was scourged with a whip in the Praetorium of Pilate, and on Friday, on the first day of Nisan (April 1 ), on the fourteenth day of the moon, our Redeemer suffered.
.
http://sacred-texts.com/chr/bct/bct09.htm
.
“The Sandy Hook school was closed in 2008 because of asbestos contamination, no one died at the school, FBI records for Newtown show no murders in 2012, it was a FEMA drill, look up Jim Fetzer and Wolfgang Halbigs reports on Sandy Hook.”
Which has been debunked.
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-everyone-must-check-in-sign-evidence-of-fema-drill.t6933/
Sanitary engineers aren’t engineers, although linguists do theorize that janitorial concerns have conspired to convince the public that they are some kind of technical professional, albeit with brooms and sawdust for puke, in order to command higher salaries.
Yes that is correct. The transit time through the belts was short so the total radiation dose was not harmful. You would not want to spend a lot of time though, in an unshielded space station orbiting in the belts.
There is however a serious issue with long duration space interplanetary flights. In earth orbit you still get protection from the fact that the earth blocks all radiation from one side, and the magnetic field reduces (somewhat) the rest. In interplanetary space your ship is exposed to cosmic rays and the solar wind. There are concerns about serious long term medical effects including permanent brain function loss and increased possibility of cancer. These ship would also need small heavily shielded shelters so the crew can survive severe solar flare events.
Overall though the probability of doing or or after an interplanetary flight are probably no higher than the death rates for Mt. Everest climbers which is around 3% , so you probably won’t have any trouble finding volunteers.
“Danke schön – Bitte schön” is all over Germany.
Exactly. American propaganda organs would have had their first mockery of a “conspiracy theorist”. No one in the West would have believed them, even fellow travelers. The Soviets, like the Russians now with 9-11, simply had no benefit in expressing any skepticism over this. Plus their own closets overflowing with skeletons.
FYI:
The Russians are still flying basically the same rocket that took Gagarin to space. The R7 family of launch vehicles.
Is ISS a fake?
My Opinion of the Unz Review has just dropped 60 points. What’s next, a defense of flat Earth???
Unz: Insidious Troll Master, Trainer
Ho ho ho–take a guess, sucker, ho ho ho ho–bang thy head against the wall, maybe it will get thy brain cells going, eh?–ho ho ho ho
Hint: HOW ELSE would thou be apprised as to the psy-ops going on here?–a veritable training-camp for Jew/Jewwy trolls and “pilpul” (casuistry) artists–do thou think? Purpose is to “normalize” Jews within the Jewwified society of Jew world order. “Golly gee, but there are good Jews and some bad Jews”–“Jews are like anyone else, after all”–“Gee whiz, but thou can’t judge all Jews by one or just a few.”
But I’m serious, genuine Christian, hence staunch anti-Semite (anti-Satanist), and I noticed the great contrast of the articles with–the utterly Jewwy-dominated comments pages, full of Jew and Jewwy trolls and pilpul artists and outright liars, Unz being one of them, pretending he’s for “free speech,” and first amendment–and lying, like typical Jew, telling the public he’s “light” on the “moderation.”
Doubt Unz has nothing but contempt for gentiles?–just read or re-read his “Open Ltr to Alt-Right.” The gentiles who are allowed to comment, including thou, I submit, are weak and insipid, accommodating these Jew monsters and liars.
I’m not saying I knew all this (above-noted) fm very first–I’ve only lately come to these observations and conclusions about the psy-ops and specific goings-on here.
You didn’t hear any rumors because you’re too stupid to be trusted with any sensitive information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
But millions of European Jews just nipped over to Siberia on holliers, eh?
Unlike on Earth though there is no atmosphere that would scatter light in all directions. By simply pointing the camera away from the sun and the moon surface, you would have gotten rid of all interfering light and would have been at leisure to adjust exposure to the stars, which should have shown in never before seen splendour. That should have occurred to them at least on the second mission.
Why? What does that tell you except that the problem of largely evading the radiation from/in the Van Allen Belt is manageable – as the relevant Wikipedia article explains. Or are you trying to set up reliance on such explanations as ridiculous because you are qualified to do so and want to?
What about the Army of Mars?
Do they have any part to play in this?
Inquiring minds want to know…
It’s cuck time!
Well, it happens to be true. Indeed, the whole Moon Hoax theory seemed so shocking and ridiculous to me that I even left a lengthy comment when I first encountered it back in 2017:
https://www.unz.com/article/hidden-figures-myth-dissolves-it-wasnt-blacks-who-got-america-to-the-moon-they-actually-wanted-to-stop-it/#comment-1761596
Why would I have previously heard about a Moon Hoax? It was never seriously discussed in my morning newspapers, nor on any of the “alternative” websites I regularly visited. I’ve never been a “conspiracy person” so I’ve never spent any time on “conspiracy” websites. I only had the vaguest notion of who Alex Jones was until all the stories came out about how he’d been banned from Social Media.
I do think I may have heard something about that Capricorn One film from the 1970s, but I’ve never seen it, and just because somebody made a Hollywood film about some woman giving birth to the Antichrist doesn’t necessarily mean it actually happened.
I still think the Moon Hoax is just as totally ridiculous as it sounded to me back in 2017. And as I mentioned upthread, one reason I was very glad to run this long article is that henceforth we can now justifiably trash all the irritating and totally off-topic Moon Hoax comments that always show up on any article having any connection to the Space Program. Meanwhile, all of you can use this thread to argue about the Moon Hoax until you’re blue in the face.
https://www.counter-currents.com/2014/04/dealing-with-the-holocaust/
“Corvy”: Outright Jewwy Lying Liar, Pure And Simple
Corvinus: the Jewwy liar now cks-in, ho ho ho ho. Unz decided it’s time for a full-out, blatant Jew liar to enter the scene–and yes, we know, “corvy,” thou “debunked” that too, eh?–ho oho ho ho.
But note that just simply contradicting some pt. being made, by means of assertion-without-substantiation is not true, real “debunking.” Such mere contradicting is more like “denial,” ho ho ho ho.
So instead of saying it was “debunked,” thou should simply say it was denied, ho ho ho ho
And Unz KNOWS “corvy” is just blatant, brute lying liar–but Unz has published no less than OVER a million words by this Jew liar.
Hey Ron, here’s a newsflash:
The government lies about EVERYTHING. Why would this be any different?
Let’s for the sake of argument say the moon landings were not faked. I do not believe that they were faked, but let that pass for now. One argument against their reality is actually total bunkum: “Why, if America could send six missions to the moon between 1969-73, has it never sent any since then?”
For simple reasons:
1. The technology of the time did not permit bases or even extended stays on the moon. It’s pretty pointless going back and forth just to make the point that you can. Especially since by the 1970s each expedition was doing only what the previous one had done.
2. The fact is that the entire moon programme was a Cold War political stunt to steal a march on the USSR. That point having been achieved, there was no point going on with it.
3. To this day Americans are, unlike the Russians, extraordinarily inept at long term space habitation programmes. Compare Skylab and the American modules on the ISS to all the Soviet, Russian, and now even Chinese orbital stations.
(I suspect that it is simply not in the American national character to plan for the long haul; spectacular short term attention grabbing stunts seem to take precedence over long term planning in all American endeavours, not excluding the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.)
4. The withering away of American heavy lift launch vehicle ability in favour of the (again attention grabbing, and utterly unsafe and uneconomical) space shuttle programme, which was focussed on low earth orbits and military applications. America could not now send a manned moon mission of it wanted to; it cannot even send a manned mission to the ISS.
5. And that point about military applications brings us again to the fact that in 1969-73 there *simply was no military utility in visiting the moon*. You couldn’t put missiles on it. You couldn’t put telescopes powerful enough to spy on China and the Warsaw Pact. You couldn’t mine it for resources. So what was the point?
In any case, you know you’re grasping at straws to prove your point when you devote a good third of your article to analysing a Kubrick horror movie to “prove” the moon landing did not happen at all.
Gus Flory –
Are you related to Jack E.C. Flory?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
No one cares what you think.
That’s what he said about the length of the film/video for Apollo 11 with 10 fps. He said more about the other missions with 29.97 NTSC fps and much much more about illumination, perspective shade distribution and some boring and uninteresting things like laws of physic and storage capabilities in the time “before the decade is out”.
The video is very dense. True believers of any kind are encouraged to ignore the arguments.
Fair enough.
Are all O.T. comments to be purged? Sounds respectable to me.
Re-routed sounds even better, so no one can scream “censorship.”
Create a catalog of “nut case conspiracy theory” rubber rooms for those who wish to indulge in such nonsense. You’ll need a classification system, analogous to Dewey Decimal, or Library of Congress.
For a man of your talents this should be child’s play. You could go down in history as the man who invented the Unz Standard Classification for diseased on line “discussions” by ignoramuses.
In which case, how about purging the numerous O.T. , foaming-at-the-mouth, “Jewish Conspiracy” rants which have turned up in (or should I say polluted, if that is even possible) this thread?
Alternative B: Give us (real soon now!) a blockbuster article titled “Nazi Death Camps on Mars – Truth or Fiction?”
Just sayin…
Rear Screen Projection.
Yep. Sometimes trying to tie Flat Earth to a particular dissident narrative they’re trying to discredit. Chemtrails seems to be similar.
There’s also a slightly different technique that involves promoting dubious theories specifically targeted at any alternative explanations/ skepticism directed at the establishment narrative for a particular event. See “holographic planes” and 9/11, for example.
With respect to the “moon landing hoax” theory:
1. No stars.
Explanation for this seems fairly obvious:
https://digital-photography-school.com/understanding-dynamic-range-photography/
https://infogalactic.com/info/Dynamic_range
2. The moon landers look funny.
Largely because it’s obvious from a common sense perspective that they’re not at all aerodynamic — they have pieces sticking out everywhere. Parts would start falling off once they got up to 50 mph or so. Except — there’s no air. It’s a vacuum. “Common sense” is misleading here.
3. A minority of “moon rocks” have been shown to be fake.
Theft/ practical jokes/ etc. Unless this applies to most or all alleged “moon rocks,” it’s not really worth much.
4. Soviets made no apparent attempt to debunk the story at the time.
This is less convincing than it might at first appear. There was considerably more behind-the-scenes collaboration between US and USSR leadership than the standard “Cold War” narrative would suggest. See Joseph Finder’s “Red Carpet” for a brief treatment of this issue, and Antony Sutton’s “The Best Enemy Money Can Buy,” and “Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development” for considerably longer ones.
Was Armand Hammer a “Communist” or a “capitalist?”
Sutton was fired by the “conservative” Hoover Institute for writing “National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union.” Kerensky, the man who handed over Russia to the Bolsheviks, then waltzed off to the safety of the US, had a lifetime sinecure there.
https://www.counter-currents.com/2013/11/joe-mccarthy-and-the-establishment-bolsheviks/
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/red-carpet-by-joseph-finder/
That said, it seems likely that any Russian knowledge of a putative moon landing hoax would have come out in the transition years in the early 90s, regardless of whether it was suppressed during the Soviet era. The Auschwitz death records were released, after all…
5. Van Allen belt — don’t know that much about the issue, but it sounds like the author is claiming that the radiation is so intense as to make adequate shielding impossible. The Van Allen belts are almost entirely made up of electrons and protons, with a few alpha particles, right? It’s not as if they’re trying to block gamma rays. Shouldn’t be too hard. Here’s the NASA report on radiation dosages from the Apollo missions — mostly less than 1 rad per person to skin.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf
Interesting to note that the mission limit was set at 400 rads (!).
6. Esoteric interpretations of “The Shining” — would seem to have considerably more entertainment than probative value…
For those who believe we went to the moon, please explain the following:
1) NASA claims to have “lost the technology” to go back to the moon. How is this possible? It’s like Ford saying in the 1960’s after introducing the automobile in 1914 that it lost the technology to manufacture cars.
2) NASA claims to have lost ALL evidence from ALL moon missions. The telemetry data of the lunar module for the world’s greatest technological feat has been lost, but not just for one mission but every mission.
NASA admits points 1 & 2 in this 2 minute video:
3) NASA claims “they don’t have the technology yet to safely transport humans beyond the radiation of the dangerous Van Allen Belts”. Yet they had no problem with this 50 years ago in the 6 manned moon missions.
NASA admits point 3 in this 1 minute video:
If you’ve watched the news conference with Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins, it’s clear as day that these are conflicted and guilty individuals.
When you think about this logically, it all falls apart. NASA brought a dune buggy to the moon! It was just that easy. Yet now they don’t have the technology and of course all evidence is “lost”. And of course no other country has gone.
When Bart Siebel tried to get any of the astronauts to swear on the Bible that they went, not one would. NASA is a masonic organization, thus secret society. This is just the tip of the iceberg, we’re (humanity) lied to about everything (science, history, news, medicine). The parasites who control the central banks control everything as money buys people and influence, and everything is compartmentalized so only those at the top know the ruse.
I look forward to how points 1, 2 & 3 can be explained away.
Lastly, here’s a good documentary outlining the moon deception.
A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon (46 minutes)
Not sure what to think. A few odd things have yet to be fully explained:
1) The missing original tapes. Why would NASA tape over something so significant?
2) The lighting of the photos: how could Buzz Aldrin be so bright when the sun is behind the lunar module?
3) The lunar module looks too flimsy to travel through space
4) The waving flag when planted on the moon, if there’s no atmosphere, how could the flag be waving?
5) Where are the stars?
I watched this original CBS coverage of the moon landing, it looks pretty hokey. How did they film the lunar module’s landing? From where? By whom? There seems to be lots of different camera angles. Did they have technology back then to transmit sound back to earth? The video footage is really blurry, how could the photos come out so crystal clear?
Clearly you have a Jew fetish. Anyone who opposes your line of thinking automatically is a Jew or Jew lover. It is really a sickness on your part.
Now, are you able to offer a cogent rebuttal to the source I provided, one that specifically addresses the issue, or are you going to be like your gal pal Beefcake and chime in without even thinking?
One of my “youthful indiscretions” was a Mostly Garaged, MGA 1600 Mk I to be specific. Definition of “money pit.”
Had the engine out for the nth time in 1/2 of 2-car garage rented from landlady, noticed a severely smashed BSA in the adjacent bay. Six months later, chap shows up with gf or wife in a Fiat 124 , she driving, he with one leg in cast up to hip. Solved the mystery of “who owns the BSA?”
Every time I have gotten an attack of “bike fever,” I have managed to meet someone with a permanent disability of some sort, cause of which was always motorcycle accident. Cures the disease, at least temporarily, at least for me.
Truly, there are two kinds of bikers – those who have been down, and those who will go down. Happy to hear you escaped with only minor injuries.
Cheers,
Further up the thread, I posted a table with the radiation dosages myself. The dosages received by the astronauts on most Apollo missions were similar to those seen on regular low Earth orbit missions. This does not prove that they managed to bypass the van Allen belt; instead, it simply proves that they didn’t leave Earth orbit. That graphics on the page you link to is nice and colourful, but misleading. Here is what the distribution of radiation intensity in the van Allen belt really looks like (from van Allen’s original 1959 paper):
You will see that, coming from an orbit with only 30 degrees inclination relative to the equator, they would have gone through some pretty heavy radiation. Whether lethal or not, this should have at least elevated their dosimeter readings well beyond those seen on low Earth orbit missions – but it did not.
If you don’t believe me that they never left Earth orbit, maybe you will believe your own lying eyes – here:
This sentence is ungrammatical – is that on purpose, like “nachts ist es kaelter als draussen?”
At least one German team used a 20-meter parabolic dish to record Apollo 16 video straight from the moon:
“Bochum Observatory tracked the astronauts and intercepted the television signals from Apollo 16. The image was re-recorded in black and white in the 625 lines, 25 frames/s television standard onto 2-inch videotape using their sole quad machine. The transmissions are only of the astronauts and do not contain any voice from Houston, as the signal received came from the Moon only. The videotapes are held in storage at the observatory.[24]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Check the diagrams and pictures (German) from Rohde & Schwartz.
I knew a guy who worked with an RF engineer named Ulrich Rohde.
http://www.classicbroadcast.de/stories/stories_sternwarte_bochum.pdf
I have thought about it. You’re definitely a cuck.
Ron, if you want to clean this site up, just go ahead and delete the accounts of everyone supporting the “theory” that the moon landings were a hoax on this thread. Instant improvement. There is zero to be gained from the participation of these kooks on your site.
I’d be careful about using that NASA video re. the Van Allen Belt. He seems to be talking about the difficulties faced by modern craft like Orion, not the original Apollo mission. NASA is 100% a PR/propaganda front (and likely a cover for weapons research), but my guess is they haven’t left a smoking gun here.
To make it simpler…what would be the point of going to the moon again.
Ahh, pig launchers are old news..
Three James Bond movies, y’know?
I’m sure he gives a shit about your opinion.
I suspect the technology for a manned moon mission exists, although likely the filming was sexed up since NASA is primarily a PR outfit. And yeah, given the state of the US economy after the early 70’s it’s probably not surprising the whole thing was discarded. However, given how angry the concern trolls and Outer Party members get over this issue, it’s hilarious watching them get overworked and provoked. Keep it up!
I think its beyond doubt man made objects landed on the moon and from the evidence of the moon rocks, which are also found in the antarctic, they returned.. The main issue is how many times have man actually touched down on the moon and made it back. Seems man has trouble even going into space to 200km up let alone 350,000 km up 40 years later..
I believe we landed on the moon.
The Van Allen Belts radiation thing is easily debunked because they didn’t fly right into the greatest intensity of radiation but flew around, and moved through the belts quickly. Many, many good educational videos on that topic out there.
But the real elephant in the room of moon lander conspiracy theorists is the landing sites. This fails all basic logic tests.
If we did not go to the moon, then there would be no landing sites on the moon.
And if there were no landing sites on the moon, for the conspiracy to remain successfully hidden to this date, almost all the astronomers on earth, in every country, would need to be “in” on the conspiracy because any high powered telescope on the earth with the capability of viewing the moon in detail would be able to verify if the sites were there (spoiler: they have verified it, and the images can be found online).
Also all the various missions to send probes to the moon (China just sent one last year) would have to “in” on it as well. With modern technology, the ability to fly a probe over the moon landing sites to see if they were there would be simple, and all of the space faring nations on earth would be capable of it.
The REAL conspiracy people should be talking about is why we once had but NO LONGER have the ability to go to moon. There is a real and tangible drop in the functioning of society, social cohesion, and IQ that are behind this. Think about who put men on the moon: it was an entire society of almost exclusively white men, who’s wives were at home taking care of the children, in an age where there was no endless hand-wringing and red tape, and things simply got done. I will let you ponder how we have “progressed” since then.
James Bond movies were forbidden in the USSR.
The issue is not the van Allen belts…the issue is cosmic radiation after you pass through the van Allen belts…every scientist working at NASA knows this and you can even find some talking about it on YouTube…start by looking up cosmic radiation in Wikipedia and you’ll find it’s considered a major challenge to manned, interplanetary spaceflight…
The van Allen belts contain radiation that has been trapped by the earth’s magnetic field, so it is somewhat more concentrated…but a manned craft passing through that is not going to spend enough time to be a problem…however, a week long exposure to cosmic radiation in interplanetary space is something else altogether…this is a problem that is right now considered as something yet to be solved, since it involves a robust shielding solution for the very fragile instrument called the human body…
The lunar ascent engine is a non issue, other than the somewhat good luck that they all fired without a hitch…however, there are indeed some serious technical issues that real scientists and aerospace engineers do find interesting…one of the most interesting I have come across has to do with the cooling capacity of the Rocketdyne F1 main engines…any large liquid fuel rocket engine circulates the fuel [RP1 kerosene in the case of F1] through the large, bell shaped thrust nozzle in order to prevent it from becoming a puddle…
In the F1 engine the entire nozzle is constructed of over 300 inconel tubes that have been formed into the bell shape and brazed together, through which the cooling fuel flows…now knowing the size and wall thickness of the tubes, the thermal properties of the tubing material, and the mass flow rate of the fuel, it is a straightforward heat transfer analysis to come up with a figure for the maximum amount of cooling, and just how much engine power that amount of cooling could support…
So here’s the interesting thing…I have in front of me a superbly rigorous such analysis [50 plus pages] by an honest to goodness top notch rocket engine designer…his numbers point to an engine of 1 million lbs thrust, not 1.5…having the thermal engineering background to fully check his analysis, I have to agree there’s a big problem there…the fact that NASA has ‘lost’ the engineering data, and hence a direct cross check on their numbers is therefore impossible, does not instill confidence…
This incredibly interesting analysis came as a huge shock to me personally…recalling the happy days I spent at NASA Ames in the 1990s…unfortunately, there may in fact be a ‘there’ there…although it’s not what most of these amateur ‘debunkers’ fixate on…including this absolutely ridiculous article…others have already recommended Dave McGowan’s ‘Wagging the Moondoggie’ and it’s a pretty good piece of journalism that mostly avoids the ridiculous blunders we see elsewhere in this genre…
The bottom line for me as an aerospace engineer with a background in thermodynamics is the engines…the Apollo was a generation before my time, so it was just accepted as a given…but now I’m not so sure…the Russian engine technology was light years ahead of the US at the time and still is…so for me if I’m going to put anything under a microscope, it’s going to be those F1 engines…right now I’m fairly persuaded they weren’t nearly as powerful as claimed…it doesn’t mean the moon shot didn’t happen…they could have had another rocket stage in there to give the needed thrust…
The electronics is not a big deal…you only really need communications gear which you can even do with vacuum tubes…mechanical gyroscopes of the era were good enough for navigation and control…the Russians were able to send unmanned return probes to the moon and even to Venus…
Aside from the engines, the really striking one for me is the demeanor of Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins in that post flight interview…something seriously wrong with that body language and just the overall demeanor…compare this to any mission coming back from the ISS…
There are others videos from NASA explaining that the technology is not yet in place to transport humans safely beyond the Van Allen belts.
Min 4- 4:45:
Here we have NASA Astronaut Alan Bean who was “the 4th person to walk the moon”, he has no clue whether he even went through the Van Allen Belts.!?! This is how ridiculous the whole thing is. They can’t even get their story straight. Just watch the first 2 minutes.
NASA is complete fakery and theft. If there was such a thing as the ISS, you would be certain they would film their trips to and from. But they never do :). Because they can’t. All they’d need to do is hold up an iPhone to the window and press record. But you’ll never see this because it’s not real.
Yo deranged nut job what the fuck does affirming that men walked on moon have anything to do with being a ‘Jewy Shill’? Your anti-semitism has fried whatever little brains you possessed. Do the Jooos control Earthquakes and Hurricanes also retard.
Buzz,
I’ve always said that the internet brings out your inner nut. The few of us here are simply not be going to handle the crackpot swarm, their position is unfalsifiable since they say all direct evidence is a hoax and indirect evidence like the retroreflectors were put in place without humans. It’s like arguing with a Solipsist who is convinced that the external world doesn’t exist and any proof you offer him is just a Hallucination of his. I am out of this thread.
Good point. Who’s filming the walk on the moon? I’m sure NASA will say there’s a camera attached on the outside of the lunar module. Keep in mind the moon is supposedly 238k miles away (another lie) yet they can transmit video footage to the MSM (in 1969). How?
Another time President Nixon called the astronauts from the White House while they were on the moon. You can’t make this stuff up and yet so many intelligent people believe it!
The video looks like an episode of “Lost in Space”.
My friend what these kikemasons do is they clarify a very simple non-argument (because it is so obvious there is no argument necessary).
In these type of situations I find it best to ask yourself simple questions, keeping this in mind. For instance:
“The automobile has been around for over 100 years, there are millions of them, in addition to all of the other uses for fuel, as well as the uses for petroleum. Now, do I believe that there were enough dinosaurs that died to power all of this machinery, everywhere, for over 100 years?”
Another one:
“If I am hurdling through the universe at 66.6 (wink) million miles per hour, while simultaneously rotating at 1,200 miles per hour, how come I can go to a still, placid lake? Why do I not feel like I’m moving?”
And finally:
“Which do I think is more impossible, that we could utilize 1969 technology to fly to the moon, or to improve the film camera.”
The turtles keep the flat earth surface firmly in place.
“They” also have this device that keeps us all walled in by collosal ice, and we are prevented from going to the ‘edge’ of the world.
Flights are secretly regulated to slowing down or speeding up, depending on the distance you’re headed over a flat surface, so that flight times are consistent with the time it takes travelling over a fake globe.
Also, did you know that our Creator ensured that only Earth is flat? The Holy Church was right to grill Galileo over what he saw: Do you believe us or your lying eyes? 😀
Your points, one by one:
1. NASA was stupid for deleting the tapes, but I doubt they imagined that fifty years after the event there would be people demanding proof that they went to the moon.
2. The angle of shadows shows that Aldrin was being photographed with the sun to his left, with the lander behind him. Therefore, the shadow of the lander is not on him. Therefore this is not a valid point.
3. This point would only seem valid to someone who is unaware that space has no air and therefore no friction. And to someone who is also unaware that until rising above the atmosphere and its frictional heat, the lander and orbiter were covered by a heat shield, just like every single satellite, space probe, and orbital manned mission ever bar the space shuttle.
4. This is one of the simplest “doubts” to, literally, blow away. The flag was not cloth. It was flexible metal to make sure it didn’t, you know, hang limply in the airless lunar conditions. The action of jamming and twisting the flagpole into the lunar surface set it to moving by simple inertia. Newton’s First Law.
5. The lunar landings all happened during the lunar day. In daylight, you don’t see the stars even on earth. And the light of the sun is *completely* reflected off the moon since there is no atmosphere for scattering, unlike earth. So the combination of sunlight, reflection glare, and photographic equipment that was fairly basic by modern standards = no stars visible.
Are you answer’d? What, are you answer’d yet?
What Wernher von Braun’s 1954 book apparently does is to (a) argue for the use of a space platform from which the moon bound vehicl would leave (b) pour doubt on the use of a single stage (i.e. “direct”) rocket from Earth to moon. His V2 was single stage: the Apollo missions rockrts weren’t.
See ‘ https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-wernher-von-braun-confirmed-that-rockets-cant-leave-earth.t9796
Don’t know what to think? Let me help you. It’s a total joke. With all of the obvious clues and inconsistencies, why would you think it might be real? Would the government lie about this? Of course, they lie about everything.
This is my theory: First the cabal kills Kennedy and gets away with it. Next they launch the moon hoax and steal billions of dollars in the process and get away with it. This emboldens them to do 911 which will give them absolute and permanent control.
Welcome to the Jew World Order. http://www.911nwo.com
“There is no such thing as society”.
No one sticks up for an institute – certainly no one murders for it – without individuals feeling there is something to lose.
But the Russian reflectors were remote controlled, NASA’s weren’t and the Russians take credit for putting the first remote controlled objects on another world. And what about the timing of these reflections – i.e NASA launches mission to Moon and independent tracking stations confirm them within a day of their installation. It’s not direct proof but pretty good secondary proof. But does it matter you guys assuming that you’re one of them don’t accept any proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#Apollo_missions_tracked_by_non-NASA_personnel
He has recently weighed in on that by misrepresenting (in the most embarrassing and ham-handed way) the mathematics that support TENS concepts such as a species rate of mutation fixing, and when this has been courteously pointed out to him, …. he refuses to acknowledge his basic math errors and instead goes ad hominem upon any commenter that won’t play along with his surprisingly juvenile subterfuge, and deletes these comments from his threads.
^False, except that he does delete comments…from people who don’t understand him.
How many probes launched in the last 60 years have succumbed to the Sun’s gravity well?
We went to the moon. Just not how it was shown. What was shown was a complete fake. We did with anti gravity craft reverse engineered from alien spacecraft.
Tell me of a single professor in structural/civil engineering who pointed out that the official version of 9/11 could not be true because Newton’s Laws of Motion would have been violated.
1- Every object in a state of uniform motion will remain in that state of motion unless an external force acts on it.
2- Force equals mass times acceleration
3- For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
So where did the energy (energy = work = force * distance) come to expel huge girders and chunks of concrete hundreds of feet up into the air?
I just looked at these and you can’t make out anything!
So what are those tracks that just happen to be visible at exactly the spots where Apollo 12, 14, 15 & 16 ostensibly landed? Worm signs?
Concerning stars and ozone.
All we have to do is ask astronauts.
Do astronauts see stars? Or the Hubel telescope does it sees stars?
The general outlook we must consider is limited to our own scope, as most cannot master the science and math as to whether the belt has astronauts only able to keep within its limited orbit.
Does the US government lie? If yes, how often? Why were ex-Nazis (Operation Paperclip) brought over to the US after the war in secret to be involved in the space program to begin with, if they are all above board? Will such men be in a position to come forth and say the truth? Or will they be outed as former Nazis, as is the purpose of blackmail of any kind.
Whether you believe one side or the other you must accept that lies come from governments, like the US, like breathing and so you deserve this if the landings were real , and if not you should not be so self-righteous to believe that this could not be done.
Weapons of mass destruction, Gulf of Tonkin and more means you have people rightfully questioning your TV agenda. All tech is kept and used years in advance before coming out to the public due to its profitability , so back dating what they can do now puts such things at hand in the 60s. Star Trek cell phones in the 60s means someone was in the know.
The pro side is for believing all important lies are true, and only white lies are to be accepted. Unlikely. The bigger the lie the more to be gained. It is for the teachers pets out there ( or sock puppets) to answer for the big lies of the teacher! You may give your apple to the teacher and get your A, but I prefer not to take the bite of the apple from such a forked tongue as you seem to do.
The Lunar lander had two stages the Descent and Ascent one, the lack of an atmosphere and the significantly lesser gravity of the Moon meant that they required much lesser fuel to undertake the operation. The descent module was abandoned and the Astronauts used the ascent module to join the command module orbiting the Moon. They were on the Moon for 21.5 hrs and not days.
I think that the next Satellites sent to study the Moon should photograph the abandoned Descent Modules to put an end to this Idiotic conspiracy theory but I suspect the deniers will call the photographs and videos Hoaxes made by Stanley Kubrik’s ghost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11
Ron, I think your government “cognitive infiltration” argument works for the “flat earth” videos that have become common on YouTube. I do not think it works on the moon landing. After I woke up to 9/11 in 2009, and spent a few years further studyimg that subject, I eventually found myself studying the Apollo missions. The more I studied them, the more I realized how completely absurd and impossible the official history is. As a divorced “empty nester” living alone, I had a great deal of free time on my hands, and spent literally hundreds of hours watching the elaborately detailed moon hoax videos produced by a young Australian named Jarrah White. While initially skeptical, I ultimately found them entirely convincing. I don’t think you have that kind of time, but you should at least review the materials mentioned in this piece. The documentary recently released by Massimo Mazzuco (who also created on of the best documentaries on 9/11) is also a must watch.
Finally, the single best easily digestible source on the moon landing hoax was written by the late Dave McGowan – it is a multi-part essay illustrated with photos called “Wagging the Moondoggie” and it can easily be found on the internet at a site maintained by his daughter. It has the advantage of being written in an extremely entertaining and humorous style; but McGowan is deadly serious — as hard as it is to believe at firat, we have indeed been lied to on this subject as on so many others.
Then the “modern craft” is inferior to the 1960s version. Really?
The Moon landings of objects with 1970s technologies may not be a hoax. What is hoax: manned moon landings with safe return of humans and loads of cargo back to Earth. No casualties, no blasts, no major faults. Everything always goes fine, even TV and phoning the ‘leader of a free world’. With 2 Space Shutlle catastrophes decade later, such a complex programme goes smoothly, like a jackpot many times in a row (finally, everyone is safe even in Apollo 13). And the moon landers spend 3 days on the Moon, with enough oxygen, food and other light support. They even report allergy on ‘moon dust’ and try to clean it out of their nails.
Some time ago, I searched all over the internet for the details of the lunar lander – gross weight, fuel weight, engine thrust and so on. This data seems to be totally absent. I wonder why?
Frankly, it is a lot easier to get such details for the top-secret F-35
BTW, all the details of the structures of 9/11 are also missing on the internet. Again, I wonder why?
I’m just worried that none of the oh so serious commenters have noticed the story’s byline is dated April 1st..rather elaborate but hey if you’ve nothing better to do!
After the jews crucified Jesus and were cast out of Palestine, God also revoked their power of discernment. This is why it is jews who suffer most from jewish sadism and greed, yet they cannot figure it out. It is this same lack of discernment that causes multi-generational satanic child abuse, where the evil suffering gets inflicted on generation after generation of jews, father and mother on son, then that son on his son, over and over for centuries. One example would be circumcision.
I would bet that most of the devout moon-beamers in this comments section are carrying jewish DNA that inhibits their discernment. I say this because there are hundreds if not thousands of ways to debunk the “moon landing”, just as debunking the holohoax is so easy. Some people are incapable of recognizing the truth, even when the liars admit to their faces that they have been lying. One example would be Auschwitz revising the number of deaths from 4 million to 1.5m, yet these discernment-voided jews and their brain dead puppets keep spewing da 6 gorrilion.
Building 7 is the knock-out punch for 9/11 and the “report” from the 9/11 commission. Anyone bitterly clinging to OBL and Arabs bringing down the towers is just as obtuse as the holohoaxers claiming 6 million.
For the moon landing the point when they jumped the shark was the “Lunar Rover”. Just one glance and you know that they did not transport 3 of these things to the moon.
Wiki claims it weighed 460 pounds, yet by my calculations the batteries alone weighed at least 150lbs. That leaves 300lbs for 4 motors, wheels, tools and the entire dune buggy and cameras and antennas. But the real joke is how they made space for this 460 lbs by removing the oxidizer tank. Hmmm. Then, with the push of a button, voila, your dune buggy is ready, sire.
If you can believe all that, then likely you can believe that you are one of god’s chosen people too.
Because it’s “fun”?! Flippant nonsense. There’s nothing fun about it. Waking up to this stuff is disturbing and causes all kinds of difficulties –personal, social and familial.
“Only a matter of time before other probes get close enough….” We have high mountain observatories with unbelievably powerful telescopes that are able to see into the far reaches of the universe. Ditto the telescope on the space station. And yet we have no clear photos unmistakably showing the “landing sites” on the moon. Think about this, folks. If the landing sites were real, and there was equipment still there left by the Apollo missions, they would show us photographic evidence. They haven’t and they weren’t.
Comments made so far: 439
Minds changed: Zero.
What a bunch of moronic horseshit! In the same goddamn article the author points out that the camera film was too sensitive for the high luminosity expected on the Moon and then expresses surprise that neither the astronauts nor the camera could see any stars because of high luminosity. Well, which one is it, you stupid cretin? btw. Consider that any city at night is less lit than the moon’s bright side yet no one even expects to see any stars.
Honestly, believing Moon landing conspiracy theory evidence can very well function as a litmus test for one’s common sense and ability to reason. I remember seeing one of those documentaries when I was 12 and laughing my ass off at all their “arguments”.
I wholeheartedly second this!
Here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlezone_(1998_video_game)
OK. Where are the geiger counter readings for the Van Allen Belts?
The lack of stars nonsense was perhaps the most ‘glaring’ early anomaly and was a problem for the Apollo 11 crew from the very start. It was always going to be impossible to explain away using real science and the crew knew that from the start. They
More generally the Apollo 11 crew and in particular Armstrong, were always extremely uncomfortable during the early press conferences. After watching their stilted and unconvincing performances, it is amazing that anyone of a sound mind could still believe that these people actually went to the moon.
I cannot see how the Wikipedia entry is relevant to this discussion, let alone why uniquely valuable telemetry records, including medical data, etc., would not be mined for generations: they were, after all, the scientific dividend of the entire program.
Its almost like they shielded the module against radiation, huh.
Let me know if it’s not. It would be a good to ask an engineer to verify von Braun’s figures.
My field is contemporary China and I can promise you that 99% of what Americans know about that vast, easily-visited country is flat out wrong.
That’s why I’ve found so many of these hoax debunkers interesting: I see the same tricks being performed every day in our media, being believed and being righteously defended by people with no direct knowledge at all.
You can watch Neil Armstrong not telling the truth here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmE62ru817w&feature=youtu.be
It would be interesting to see similar Q&A’s from other ‘astronauts’..
Nobody knows what the Wiz is on about, he gets paid by the word even if it’s gibberish, which it is so it’s all good.
Is it the word “free” or the word “speech” that you find confusing?
That’s partly true, of course. But what would have been the point? From anywhere in earth orbit, they could photograph the stars. And what would they have? Just another photograph of the stars. And in fact any photograph of the stars from the moon’s surface with a hand held Hasselblad would not have anywhere near the detail of the many photographs made via telescopes on earth using long time exposures.
This is a very good introduction to the subject. I confess to being a neophyte to it. I found Ron Unz’s comment very, how should I put it, peculiar. I am grateful anyway that he published the article, even though I couldn’t make head or tail of his alleged rationale for doing it, let alone his critique.
Anyway, people who say that a certain secret would be impossible to keep generally say it without any backing of facts or theory. Ironically, they always say it in a very peremptorious and dismissive tone.
Skepticism is alway a healthy attitude. When it goes against a power structure, it is at its healthiest. We must change the prevailing culture that tries to make skepticism be perceived as gullibility and vice-versa.
Even if we stick only to the consequences of our attitude, we have only to gain from keeping a very skeptic position in cases like the present one. I think we should establish some minimal grounds for believing the government. For example, I think we should believe the government in areas in which there is no reasonable doubt about his intentions. Vaccination, for example, is one. Why would governments would want to kill or make sick the entire world population, aided and abetted by the entire scientific community? It just makes no sense. The moon landings are different. There is nothing to gain in believing them unconditionally.
You people are incapable of arguing in good faith. It’s Ron’s site, he can ban whom he pleases. I recommend he ban you lot.
He agrees with me that you people are thoroughly bonkers, so that’s one point in my favor.
What I said is not “partly true” but entirely true. And I’m pretty sure that astronomers would have valued photographs of the stars taken without an intervening atmosphere.
“the moon hoax is the ideal starting point for reflecting on the hypnotic control that television and the news media have gained over our mind. It is not just a political issue. It is a battle for our souls.”
This illustrates perfectly how so many people are totally convinced that “The 911 Attacks” happened exactly as described in the TV news presentation of the government’s official story. What these benighted people see as gospel truth comes from TV broadcasts.
What a TV addict believes because he saw it on TV becomes an unshakable article of faith and any disagreement is viewed by him as heresy.
Almost, but not quite. The Apollo capsule was not even strong enough to contain one atmosphere of pressure – there was no spare carrying capacity for serious shielding.
Also note that the radiation dosages on Apollo 13 were not any higher than on the other missions – even though the 3 stooges were said to have travelled through space in the Lunar Module for much of the time. Was that also “shielded from radiation?” By what – the tin foil wrap?
Au contraire, they were compulsory viewing for KGB members.
You must be so proud of yourself.
Most people with no experience in public speaking are intimidated by the idea. Being “stilted” and “uncomfortable” before an audience of millions seems entirely natural to me.
Can you read and write Chinese what level of access do you have to their vast archives.
141 references to Jews in 496 comments in a thread about the moon landing hoax. Crackpot swarm indeed.
I never used the word “hoax” – I clearly stated that I had questions about the event that the mainstream media had not asked, let alone answered. I never claimed I had answers, only that I had questions.
You, on the other hand, in your failure to comprehend a short comment composed of simple sentences, have demonstrated your inability to read carefully and critically.
Good luck in life, pal. With your brain, you’re going to need it.
The article is complete nonsense and should never have been published anywhere but The Onion.
To save face you should say it was an April fools prank. You’d be in good company, Andrew Anglin published ‘Making the Case for Trump 2020’ on April 1.
The argument from silence is reactive and lame. Here is a better one … a photo of the Apollo 11 command module ….
And if the imbeciles on this site want to claim it’s photoshopped, you can see the actual module at
and all the others at various museums around the country –
https://airandspace.si.edu/explore-and-learn/topics/apollo/apollo-program/spacecraft/location/cm.cfm
The Moon Hoax, flat Earth conspiracy and Intelligent design agenda all stand as the biggest signs of how far the US/UK nations have fallen intelligence wise.
Even with those idotic asterisks around “completely,” your statement is completely wrong. According to Cornell Univ., only about 11% of sunlight is reflected by the Moon.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/145-why-is-the-moon-so-bright-beginner
It is possible to see stars from Earth during the day, other than the Sun of course, if one knows exactly where to look with binoculars or a telescope. The difficulty seeing stars from Earth during the day is a result of Earth’s atmosphere glowing blue from sunlight, which overwhelms most starlight.
The difficulty seeing stars at night in a city is a result of light from the city being bounced back by Earth’s atmosphere, which reduces contrast to the point where only the brightest stars can be seen at night in most major cities on Earth.
Thus, all difficulty seeing stars from Earth can be attributed to Earth’s atmosphere reducing contrast either from sunlight or from city lights at night.
Need I mention that the Moon has no atmosphere?
Since I’ve never been to the Moon, I cannot say for certain whether or not stars should be apparent on the photographic images allegedly taken there, but I do know some of the arguments being made here about photography are not valid.
The Hasselblad cameras used on the surface of the moon could be described in many ways, but “fairly basic” would not be one of them.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html
But was Apollo hoist by its own petard, I mean camera?
Everyone is stuck in “this OR that” on this issue. It’s really a “this AND that”.
It’s entirely likely that we *did* go to the moon, and *yes, the footage is fake*.
https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/01/05/dr-steven-greer-we-did-go-to-the-moon-but-the-footage-was-fake-video/
I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.
And this is command module of Apollo 7
And this is command module of Apollo 8
and his is command module of Apollo 10
What are you trying to prove with your picture?
I’d say a good deal of the Moon Hoax stuff is motivated by “rage against the Boomers”/Daddy issues.
“They lied to us about every goddamn thing” etc…
“a laser-reflecting mirror seems to indicate otherwise.”
Actually, a laser beam can be bounced off the moon without any “reflecting mirror”. Ask yourself how the purported reflectors are located as targets from such a distance away and from such a wide variety of locations here as starting points.
Hey, you finally answered my question. So you are a moon-hoaxer.
I am unsurprised.
Do you also – like your fellow traveller “Truth” – believe that there are no satellites, and that the Earth is flat?
I reintroduce my hypothesis again: There was Moon Mission but no human landing on the Moon
“Uh, sory. My Dad worked directly on the moon shot ”
How convincing. Why not also claim that your sister’s cat’s grandmother was one of the astronauts as well?
Because you didn’t actually look?
https://www.dfj.com/ApolloConstruction/Apollo_11_LM-5_Construction_Log.pdf
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM10HandbookVol1.pdf
There’s lots more.
I think the author makes a pretty good argument that at least the things that are supposed to prove that the moon landing happened do not. I remember watching the moon launches as a child and it was big news. It was aired live but I remember after the rocket launched and the various stages were shown dropping off from the rocket itself that it went to animation. Then we did see footage of astronauts on the moon. I question what was the need to create a fake moonscape here on earth just for practice purposes and of course not having been yet how would we know what it would look like?
This theory makes a lot of sense to me and would explain a lot. It basically means that only a small part of it had to be faked and limited to very few people who would actually be in on it. I think what needs to be looked at is what were the implications of the space race with the soviets? I think it was serious enough that you may try to fool them. If their people think we got to the moon maybe they lose some faith in communism. We knew that their hold on their people was tenuous and hoped by showing our technical superiority we could cause them to lose faith in their system. We also were in competition for other countries. Cuba was already communist as was Eastern Europe and we were very afraid of being encircled so it was a war for minds, loyalties, and people.
On the one hand, cognitive dissonance, affecting even the best of us (such as our esteemed Unz), but on the other hand, baseless allegations. Sadly, no amount of solid research will resolve the former and relegate said research to the latter.
How do you know he is an “honest to goodness top notch rocket designer”? What is his name? What has designed?
How do you know that NASA has “lost” the F-1 data? Have you looked for it?
McGowan’s ridiculously flippant work is full of nothing but blunders. McGowan was a blithering idiot.
You think “lightyear” is a unit of time?
Also called corner-cubes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector
I haven’t read all the comments, but one thing has become clear: regardless of the merits or demerits of the original article, its publication is an excellent way of understanding what drives people to accept horrible lies (and, again, I am not saying the moon landing was one of them).
The compulsion to accept everything the government tells us is a measure of the immense power that they have, simply because they are the government.
I will repeat here my caveat about things that should be believed because doing otherwise could endanger our lives: vaccination, for instance. There is no persuasive evidence that they are lying about that, so it is better to act as if we believe them.
As for everything else, there is no merit in believing anything the government, or “science”, or any other institutions tell us. Even when they are probably true, and there is no apparent reason for disbelieving them, the normal attitude should be one of permanent skepticism. (As long as that will not risk our lives or health — it is never too much to emphasize.)
The basic tenet we should keep in mind is: Power is primarily concerned with Power, and therefore one should defend oneself from power, always. Of course, because of their being so powerful, our well-being sometimes depends upon accepting the directives of Power (again, vaccination, etc.); we should be sensible enough to identify those situations.
That’s funny. And true. It is astounding that people believe this outrageous canard. Once the PTB got away with this they knew they could get away with anything. And now look what we have.
“He died on a heart attack, how did he now that?”
I hate when they die on a heart attack. After that, they don’t now much of anything anymore.
One of the engineers was going to be at his son’s baseball game and he didn’t want to miss Get Smart. They were they only ones in America with a VCR at that time.
So you’ve just discovered the Apollo Hoax a couple years ago. How much have you read in that time? Your objections are taken straight from CIA Document 1035-960 and can be applied to any conspiracy theory you find threatening. Not sure why you’re so close-minded about a subject you’re completely new to. Do you think it’s possible you’ve been duped by the very same Judeo-Satanic groups that convinced the world of the Holocaust, JFK, and 9/11? Is it possible you are the one who is unintentionally poisoning the well?
Yup, and people have a tendency to overlook NASA Satanic roots.
I have no moondog in this fight. But the existence of a record of government/establishment media mendacity- for well over a hundred years- is undeniable. The idea that government, and its sycophantic press courtiers does not lie copiously and constantly to its citizenry- and has not done so throughout history is absurd in the extreme.
From “Remember the Maine, to hell with Spain!” through the “War to end all Wars”, all the way to the weeping Kuwaiti nurse and the Iraqi soldiers who ripped the babies out of their incubators, 9/11, Bin Laden’s “burial at sea”, etc., government/media mendacity has been much more the rule than the exception. So, questioning the manned moon landing narrative is not only not irrational, but evinces, at the very least, a modicum of intellectual curiosity and independent thinking- provided it is done from the proper epistemological perspective. (Intellectual curiosity and independent thinking are not exactly in abundant supply among our so called “elites.”)
On the other hand, when someone uses the CIA inspired stock phrase “conspiracy theory” they are demonstrating complete intellectual laziness. And when the so called “debunkers” resort to obscene ad hominems, this indicates that their arguments are totally bereft of factual evidence. Those advancing such childish and ill founded arguments make the proles in 1984 look virtually Socratic by comparison.
They were not faked. As the old proverb goes: “JFK put men on the Moon; Team Neocon put Neo-Nazis in Kiev. This is Progress!!”
Men were men back then and The President was not a warmongering traitor to foreign interests; that’s why we went to the Moon and is also why we won’t be going back.
Russia or China will be the next to visit the Moon. Godspeed!!
I don’t happen to know any astronomers, so I won’t debate that point. But I am a photographer with 52 years of experience. You might want to discuss this with the photographer of your choosing. If you can find one professional photographer who thinks there’s anything suspicious about the moon photos, please let us know.
And I’ll ask again; why no uproar in August 1969 from the tens of thousands of working professional photographers who would have spent quite a bit of their spare time looking at the photos just released by NASA? Doesn’t their silence tell you all you need to know about whether the photos show evidence of a hoax? How do you explain this elephant in the living room?
It’s one thing for people who’s experience with photography consists of taking pictures of their kids in the back yard splashing in the rubber pool to be fooled by the ridiculous claims about the photos being fake because you can’t see the stars. We shouldn’t expect the average picture taker to understand exposure when all they’ve ever used are cameras that set the exposure automatically. But people who make their living making photographs have to understand exposure. All you have to do is ask one.
OK, we’re FINALLY getting somewhere.
So let me see if I understand this:
We cannot recreate 50-year old technology, in an era where your average iPhone has more computing power than a room-sized NASA computer, because we don’t have white men going home at lunchtime for homemade soup?
Am I getting this correct?
LOL.
This thread is devoloving by the minute. In another hour most of you will be monkeys again.
Here you can see it in action
Apparently, they didn’t need any fuel, just some coloured confetti – there is only a slight rustling sound as that powerful engine fires up, and a bunch of rainbow colours spraying in all directions (but no moon dust swirling up, of course). After that, the module just levitates homeward. Terrific.
I’ve seen your picture, Grasshopper, your head is wide, flat, and not connected to anything.
Tell you what…why don’t you go and find an actual rocket scientist who will give you the time of day and then get back to me…I don’t happen to have the time of day for you…
Don’t be so sure. I have never doubted and heard only one person in my whole life who did. Took my son to the Science Museum in London, watched there a 4D moon landing film many times, bought him oodles of books about space. I am rather sad now that it may not have been the wonderful true tale I thought it was.
The objective number one was the propaganda war with the Evil Empire for the hearts and minds of humanity. And it was believed (for good reason) that the Evil Empire did not play fair so….
Well, statistically Mr. Unz, your going the way the way of the flat Earthers.
It’s pretty obvious you won’t discuss those arguments on their merits. Instead you engage in ridicule.
So, you aren’t interested in dialog and discussing facts.
So, it begs the question: What are you doing here?
The obvious answer is you are attempting to distract those arguing here from a line of thinking.
You would do a better job by posting tranny porn, or perhaps bringing up how Hitler was a crypto-Jew, or…
All the initial part shown here is just an animation simulation (it even says so in the video), only the blurry last part in black and white with Neil Armstrong descending is (supposedly) real.
Now, that makes us question something. They had prepared animated simulations for the whole process, not to mention all the fake photographs and footage previously created in a studio that are very similar to the “real” landing, that means that the whole thing was really prepared before as a spectacle for the masses. So even if they did it for real, they had the ability all the elements to create a “fake” version of it as well, for entertainment purposes.
But what would happen if the very likely possibility that the landing had FAILED? Would they keep showing the fake images? Or would we watch the disaster? Or would there be just silence? I don’t know, but it seems that a lot was invested in the promotion part of it, and if they had the ability to fake it, then why risk making it “for real”?
Your conclusion sounds like the part of the Sherlock Holmes story in which the detective came to a conclusion based on his observation of a dog that didn’t bark. It’s an extrapolation from an observation. Thanks for the explanation.
The article mentions David Percy; there is also Marcus Allen, another Brit. You will find more if you simply look at Percy’s work.
No. You are simply appealing to herd instinct – which is the underlying cause of Schopenhauer’s famous observation:
“The fact remains that they needed a colossal amount of fuel to get to the moon and an almost invisible amount to return to orbit around the moon.”
No, see….once the spaceship breaks free of the Earth’s gravity, it will just fall all the way to the moon real fast. Then when it gets there, the gravity of the Earth will make it fall all the way back real fast. Don’t you even get it?
I’m not saying we did or didn’t go to the moon, but the reflectors are not proof that we did.
If the Russians could put reflectors on the moon without cosmonauts, then it’s entirely possible that we could put them on the moon without astronauts.
The Russians also landed a rover on the moon and there are pictures of its tracks on the surface that look similar to the pictures of the Apollo sites. Grainy pictures of tracks on the surface can’t serve as proof that NASA landed men on the moon if the Russians left similar tracks without landing men on the moon.
To paraphrase what I wrote in another post, one of the main principles of the scientific method is reproducibility. In science, if you can’t replicate it, then it’s not proven. No one has replicated the Apollo missions in 50 years. In fact, the Apollo missions are the only time humans have allegedly left Low Earth Orbit.
What’s going to prove the moon landing to me is if the Chinese or Russians can get someone out of Low Earth Orbit. Right now they can’t, despite having advanced space programs, large budgets and better technology than we had in the 1960s and 1970s. NASA doesn’t have the ability to get a human out of Low Earth Orbit either, and has even lost the capability to get humans into space and must rely on the Russians to do so. The Constellation program was in the works back in 2005, followed by the Orion program in 2011, but neither of these programs put a human into space. Orion is a second attempt to replicate Apollo, but like Constellation, the project is facing all kinds of obstacles and setbacks.
Orion was scheduled to take astronauts on a lunar flyby in 2021, but they pushed the date back to 2023. Trump is saying he wants to land Americans on the moon again. Apparently, he’s pushing for Orion to land on the moon in his second term if he’s re-elected. NASA is playing along. My money says NASA is going to keep pushing the date back, play for time.
If no one gets out of Low Earth Orbit in the 2020s, no rational person is going to believe Apollo was real. Only fools will believe it. Pay attention to the Orion spacecraft. If Orion can get astronauts out of Low Earth Orbit and pull off a lunar fly by, that will be proof enough for me that Apollo was real. But I’m skeptical they can do it. And skepticism is the foundation science is built upon.
I made some cigarette pack calculations of if the landing module could get to the orbit and it should not be a problem, the whole return trip should require only 2000-3000 kg of kerosene, so that is not a limiting factor. The reason for the big rocket on the earth is the atmosphere, not gravitation. So, your compromise many not be needed. If the astronauts got to a moon orbit, they could have landed and taken off. There is still the Van Allen belt and the question why Russians and Chinese have not gone there and the USA not after 1970s. I know the arguments that the Van Allen belt is mainly charged particles and not so terrible, but nowadays one cannot trust anything coming from some countries.
OK. In my first post on this topic I described how anybody with a camera having manual exposure controls can test the claim that stars ought to be visible in the moon photos. If you want to know the truth, you can do the test yourself.
Good luck.
Even if all the arguments put forth by the article’s author are wrong, i.e. there are absolutely no inconsistencies, or implausibilities, in the official version about the moon landing, it is absolutely possible that is all a hoax, and it is more probable that it is a hoax than not.
The problem is that power is an incognoscible entity. Of course the press sells the opposite notion, because thus it will sell also the notion that it is a useful — in fact, an essential — tool in achieving the knowledge of those in power. But, however useful the press might be, it will never really know the entrails of power. If it does, it will be at the cost of its independence, which means that it will know but will never reveal.
Power being this incognoscible entity, the best we, as powerless beings, can do is to throw suspicion at it. The burden of proof will never lay on us. We are merely defending ourselves.
How will you know that Orion gets astronauts out of low earth orbit? Will you simply believe what the USG says? What will you say to all the folks who are likely to insist that Orion is a hoax as well?
You identify the most basic problem – not the proactively hateful enemy who seeks our genocide because we are the out group they most fear in their secret but well-founded guilt – but the traitors within our own group, the shabbot goyim.
And you are correct. We are confronted with a very simple binomial reality: #DestroyShabbotGoy or perish.
Kennedy was not a traitor! You are sadly mistaken my friend.
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/un/do.htm
Occam’s razor doesn’t apply when the supposedly simpler hypothesis is essentially impossible. It would have been far easier to fake the six manned landings than to actually carry them out with late 60s technology with no loss of human life in space.
Let me see if I understand the brilliant NASA genius’s argument:
“You conspiracy theorists were right! All that crap we showed you in 1969 was completely fake… But we did really go to the moon, we just didn’t show you, and well, have no evidence…”
Is this what I missed here? Admittedly I didn’t watch it when I read the description. Some of this shit, even on this site, is just to stupid for me to indulge.
Gee, I dunno… Let me guess… Is that the tracks made by the people when they were marched into the gas chambers?
“I believe we landed on the moon.”
Ah, finally we have an actual astronaut weighing in on the subject. I’ve been wanting to ask you boys something for a long time: How did y’all manage to shit while you were in those suits?
I have other questions, but I’d rather not take up too much bandwidth asking them.
Yeah, man. I think you guys have the right to a “safe space” just the same as any other group!
There are suspicious aspects to the official versions of the deaths of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
I’m not sure what you mean by “a suspected or known Israeli fanatic.” Possible/likely deep state connections can be seen behind every political website with a moderate or greater level of visibility. This includes the alt-right. We have to ask ourselves what the risk is. How risky is it to anonymously state your opinion on a website? Probably not as risky as showing up at an in-person event like Charlottesville. Someone may be collecting information from cookies, IP addresses, etc., but there is safety in numbers.
OK Bro, you wore me down. Beyond my better instincts, I decided to go back and actually watch your video…
AND I’M PRETTY F-N GLAD I DID!
OK, so this asshole contends that the moon landing was faked because the real story was the Neil Armstrong and the boys went up there and ran into The Man in the Moon. Some alien race that threatened them and told them to leave, did I get this right?
Homie, you made me spit water on my keyboard! that was the funniest thing I have seen in 5 days!
And the best part of it was, the Fuqquer in the video, he looks like he’s already halfway devolved back to an Orangatang.
You guys are going to kill me.
Well, as I’ve repeatedly emphasized, I think the whole Moon Hoax theory is totally wrong and even ridiculous. As a consequence, those who endorse it have certainly lost quite a bit of credibility, which may have possibly been the intent of “disinfo agents” if they were the ones who originally promoted it.
But I’m not sure about banning Moon Hoax supporters. My strong impression is that in the past you have personally advocated lots of theories that I also regard as totally wrong and even ridiculous. So are you suggesting that I ban you as well?
What gave you an idea I was concerned about the weigh of fuel? I was concerned about four probabilities: (1) Safe landing on Moon, (2) Survival on Moon, (3) Safe lift-off from Moon and (4) Safe rendezvous on Moon orbit. But indeed NASA was concerned about the fuel so after Apollo 11 they used CSM to help decelerate the LM before landing to use less fuel of LM for landing, iirc.
Perhaps. you should redo you calculations on the box of cigars. I do not believe that atmosphere resistance account for the difference that much. Escape velocities of Moon and Earth are like factor of 4.
https://history.nasa.gov/FINAL%20Catalogue%20of%20Manmade%20Material%20on%20the%20Moon.pdf
‘A terrible, terrible thing’: NASA said India’s satellite destruction created so much space junk it now threatens the safety of the International Space Station
Be afraid, mooners, be very afraid. Mother Nasa will simply have to take your guns away to make sure that space stays safe.
That is exactly my feeling, my experience, and my message to Ron.
This thread has been very enriching for me. One thing I noticed is that the believers are generally much more aggressive than the skeptics. That is easy to explain: all skeptics were at one time believers, so we sympathize with believers. We’ve been there, we understand their anger. I myself, about 10 years ago, insulted someone who tried to talk to me into the moon hoax theory. It takes some time to start to consider it as a possibility.
I notice that Ron’s and many others’ counter-arguments are not technical but socio-political: they question the very possibility of such a massive lie: “someone would have talked”, “the Russians would have protested”, etc. This is a normal reaction provoked by cognitive dissonance. But this is not the way to analyse the problem. These objections are legitimate, but they break down once you get acquainted with the accumulation of technical impossibilities and start to see the moon landings as, literally, a miracle, that is, an impossibility. When I started researching for this article, I still felt unsure, but the more I researched, the more I became convinced. I am very happy to have had the chance and the honor to open up the issue here, and also grateful for what I learned (for example, McGowan’s work). I am confident that, among the most angry and unkind commentators, some will soon start to dig into the issue, at the beginning in the hope of finding where the hoax theories fails, until at some point, they will start to wonder. I wish everyone a wonderful journey.
Nations, and perhaps civilizations, are like a family: just like family lies and secrets poison the spiritual and psychological atmophere that children breath and make them neurotic or even psychotic, State lies of the moon hoax, JFK or 9/11 magnitude are very deep poisons in the American psyche. The world will be a very different place, I hope, when these lies will be exposed publically. It is painful, but liberating.
His ‘rebuttal’ is meant to address anything technical or anyone, for that matter, other than true looney tunes believers, the poor things. It is clear that Ron really does have a wicked sense of humour.
Ron really does have a wicked sense of humour.
Only Apollo believers were meant to take Ron seriously.
Funny thing is Hyams went on the make the sequel to 2001 a Space Odyssey, with Kubrick’s permission.
Keep in mind that they would also have to carry the oxidizer, which would actually weigh more than the kerosene.
Exactly the same number as the number of men who failed to get off the surface of the Moon once setting foot there.
Your point?
How stupid could you possibly be?
The proof is in the thousand of people who were involved.
You still failed (in pure cowardice) to rank which space agency accomplishments were real and which were fake.
Let’s start with the easy ones. Were the following all fakes?
Mariner I
Mariner II
Pioneer 10
Pioneer 11
Voyager I
Voyager II
Galileo
Cassini
Two Mars Rovers
Dozens of Man Years lived on the ISO
New Horizons
Kepler Space Observatory
Which of these are hoaxes, and which are real?
Entertain us with your stupidity some more :).
This rather playful and interesting article, published on the first day of April, sadly seems to be lacking the author’s signature.
Perhaps not a clue, was Ron being ever so ready to be first respondent, with what to me is a clever but fact free rebuttal, seemingly designed to entice in the stalwart band of Apollo believers to rush in and show their true colours, despite facing overwhelming odds of technical impossibility, surely a measure of true faith. If this was the plan it has been a huge success and a joy to behold.
God I love this site.
Oh please, nothing I’ve ever posted here could fairly be characterized as a recognizable “theory” the way moon hoax blather can. Even if what I’ve advocated strikes you as idiotic, at least I’m willing to be reasonable and rational in a way that these lunatics don’t come even close to, and you know it. Review the names here and you’ll see that it’s many of the very same characters who make an utter mockery of the pro-white, race-realistic and judeo-critical perspectives that this site traffics in. (I doubt many people seriously come here just to read, say, Tom Englehardt.) And if you’re sincerely convinced my own posts discredit your site to the same degree, then sure, ban me too.
Yes I do. It’s first hand knowledge of the fact immediately after viewing the so called ‘moon landings’ live on TV in 1969. The Soviets immediately said it was faked and they were ridiculed in the media as being sore losers.
Governments have always been controlled by elites and are connected to each other in that way. Exactly like Royalty worldwide – these are the world’s rulers and they stick together. I do not have the link but I have seen an explanation by a Russian as to why the Russian government did not pursue the claim of fakery at the time : The US government gave the Soviets something they wanted in exchange for their silence.
The real shocker here is Ron Unz’s take. Difficult to believe he only became aware of
‘moon landing conspiracies’ two years ago. Very difficult. Even more difficult to believe are Ron’s and the majority of the commentators thinking that the moon landings were real.
I believe the faked moon landings, more than 9-11 or any other false flag would be the most damming to government credibility worldwide if understood as lies. Similar to the endless and relentless reminder that we need governments to save us from nuclear armageddon. Nuclear bombs that split the atom in every warhead produced since 1945 have never existed, do not exist today, and are another complete and monumental LIE.
Governments are the enemy of humanity because they are run and controlled by the predator class. Their one and only job is to keep convincing us that they work for and exist on our behalf. Ron Unz is either a dummy dupe believing government (predator class) lies, or complicit in fooling the people.
Re 1. No stars.
Screw the photography lesson, it is my understanding that the astronauts were equipped with those optical thingies whatever they’re called, Oh yeah I remember, EYES.
Yes, it seems they certainly chose the three right people to enlighten the world. Nobody at Nasa would have ever expected that the three intrepid space travellers would become big time celebrities.
I would add though, that Yuri Gagarin never displayed such total ineptness in public as our three muted heroes.
And exactly what evidence do you have to support your strange theory that human eyes — unlike every other known optical receptor — have infinite dynamic range, hmm?
You’re welcome to cite any actual evidence (your feelz don’t count) that you have to support this odd delusion.
Go ahead — no one’s stopping you.
https://www.youtube.com/user/LivermoreLab/videos?view=0&sort=dd&shelf_id=13
For those who claim that more fuel was required for lift off from the moon than could have been carried, it should be pointed out that the Soviets did send unmanned return missions to the moon, including bringing back samples of moon rock. You would have thought that their robotics based moon exploration technology was actually more advanced than sending people to the moon to do the work.
A main argument against the moon landings being a hoax is that it seems a waste of a hell of a lot of money. Not the fake filming of it but the entire NASA R&D just for the sake of some PR, although I suppose there have been other S&T benefits of it and subsequent commercial developments.
Why the Soviets kept quiet about the hoax can be countered that their space exploration was a hoax too, and some are arguing that it is all indeed a hoax, and any claims by whoever in the future will be a hoax too.
It does seem inconceivable that space exploration could be a hoax, but those who claim so are making some valid criticisms of the science and I don’t think they have been properly answered. Those involved in space exploration tend to be dismissive of criticism and don’t seem to be able to explain properly some of the points raised.
After reading all this I’ll stick to the Apollo moon missions being a hoax.
Well, let me further clarify a few things…
First, as I mentioned I’ve never frequented “conspiracy” websites, nor did I ever have any interest in the Space Program. That’s probably the reason I never heard about Moon Hoax theories until a couple of years ago. Since I never paid any attention to the Space Program, I don’t have the technical expertise to evaluate the claims, nor any interest in investing the time to do so. But on the other hand, if the Moon Landing turned out to be a hoax, I’d be very surprised, but hardly shattered in my world-view since it was a topic I never followed. I don’t care all that much one way or the other.
But here’s a further question. During the 1960s and (especially) the 1970s, the JFK assassination and Watergate had made “conspiracy books” enormously popular, and vast numbers of them became huge national best-sellers. These even included all sorts of books with a space-connection, like UFO conspiracies, “ancient astronauts,” aliens, and that sort of thing. Meanwhile, the Space Program was still one of the biggest national news stories.
Yet during all those years, no one seems to have ever published a single Moon Hoax book, and apparently the first and only such book ever published came out in 2005, long after the overwhelming majority of the tens of thousands of direct Apollo participants had died or otherwise left the scene. Why didn’t someone jump on such a huge, unfilled market, especially since so many thousands of NASA employees would have been aware of the hoax and gossiped about it to their friends and relatives.
I think the only plausible explanation is that if any Moon Hoax book had been published earlier, many thousands of the rank-and-file workers in the program with first-hand knowledge of its non-fraudulent nature would have gone public and denounced the book as totally ridiculous, and their obvious sincerity and personal eyewitness testimony would have shattered any hoax claims. It’s very suspicious to wait until almost all the eyewitnesses to a huge historical event have died or become extremely elderly to declare something a hoax.
With apparently not a single eyewitness whistleblower to the alleged hoax, the attacks are therefore almost entirely based upon alleged “scientific impossibilities.” Okay, maybe, but I just don’t have the personal expertise to evaluate those claims. And just because a few random (and mostly anonymous) people on the Internet say that something is “scientifically impossible,” doesn’t necessarily make it so.
Since the scientific impossibilities are supposedly so numerous and so blatant, based on radiation, fuel/lift and various other things, surely it wouldn’t be too difficult to set up a website and persuade a couple of hundred respectable professional astrophysicists and aeronautical engineers to declare the Moon landing a scientific impossibility. And also maybe a couple for hundred professional photographers about the un-starry Moon sky photos and such.
But until that happens, I really won’t pay any attention to the silly issue, and I doubt any sensible people will.
It does sound plausible to me, but I was hoping for some sort of book or magazine article for illustration. So far I haven’t found any.
Re nuclear bombs – I happen to share your scepticism; with respect to Hiroshima at least, there is a great deal of hard evidence to show that no nuclear explosion took place (although there may have been a dirty bomb). The case is very strong, but I somehow doubt that Ron would publish it, even on April 1st 😉 people who won’t even let go of the Apollo tale will surely see this as heresy squared.
(Not hard evidence, but an intriguing parallel to the moon hoax is the lack of repetition – not since Apollo did we go to the moon, and not since Hiroshima/Nagasaki were nuclear weapons used.)
I see no reason to doubt the existence of fission bombs. Fission is clearly a readily-accessible source of energy. If it weren’t, then nuclear power plants would not be possible.
Fusion bombs are another matter. I am guessing that their yields are greatly overstated by all countries that claim to have them. This also fits with the hypothesis that both sides of the Cold War were secretly controlled by the same people.
First this is pure rubbish – the US government went to the moon and landed on it – PERIOD. It went multiple times over several years. It is impossible for all those events to a hoax. Going to the moon was a huge expense. To go and not to attempt a landing is ridicules. Everything was real time – choreographing a total hoax was impossible. The computers that could accomplish that today, did not exist then.
The number one argument against the “moon landing hoax story” is that the US government is simply incapable of pulling of this hoax. I do not think that even today’s deep state could pull off that big of a hoax.
There is a dark cynical element to the “moon landing hoax story” – it is a political attack on white male America. This is an attack on America’s cultural bold “can do” image. And it is an attack on the varsity and honesty of America as a whole.
The left hates America’s can-do positive attitude about life – to gain power it must destroy our optimism – what better way to attack that, then make a lie out of America’s premier achievement.
Art
1. Long-exposure photo from hand- (or chest-) held camera = nearly worthless.
2. Photographs of stars taken through an ordinary lens — without a telescope — are of very limited value to astronomers, atmosphere or no. With an ordinary camera lens, the optics and the grain of the film are the limiting factors for resolution, not the atmosphere. There’s a reason why the telescope was invented…
“Danny” Jew-boy: don’t thou think thou are the one who might “think things over”? Thou are just ANOTHER stupid kike troll on the Unz Troll site, sucker.
I am pro-white.
When your race is being destroyed and collectively can’t even think clearly enough to defend itself, that should tell you that something is seriously wrong. A wise man flatters the fool. The same people who gave us the Moon landing hoax have also given us various ideological conceits. The mainstream left and right are both controlled by the same people.
As I said, you bring in legitimate questions. And what you see as “the only plausible explanation” for the lack of books on the subject is indeed a plausible explanation, though not the only one: another plausible explanation is that the case is much better made by a documentary film, since it requires analysis of films and pictures. With the poor-quality photos included in his book, Wisnewski cannot make his case as convincing as can a documentary film. Unlike in the JFK and 9/11 cases, the questions of “who did it”, why, etc, which can be addressed in writing, are quite simple in the case of the moon landings: the most important issues are technical, and they require analysis of the photographic and video evidence (plus film interviews). If I wanted to explore the case deeper, I would definitely try to make a film, not a book.
As for the lack of whistleblowers, it is also disapointing, I admit. But we have to consider that NASA is a super-secret military corps: NASA people just can’t talk. But we can count Bill Kaysing among the whitleblowers. And what about those NASA engineers and astronauts admitting the impossibility of manned flight past the Van Allen Belt, such as Don Petit saying NASA “lost the technology to go to the moon”. Some would include Armstrong himself with his cryptic remarks about “removing truth’s protective layers”. And definitely Kubrick. That’s already and few.
Who needs infinite dynamic range to see stars? You don’t even need full dark adaption to see them, you can see them easily just after sunset when there is still a lot of light around. Your argument works fine on photographs when you are taking pictures of other stuff, either you see the stars or everything else is totally overexposed. Given the fact that they were there for days, and given the fact that they had the shadow of the moon lander to help, I can see no logical reason that simply by blotting out the sources of glare that they wouldn’t be able to see stars with their eyes. There is no atmosphere to diffuse the light after all.
I am not impressed with your straw man arguments at all, “odd delusion” be damned.
The key problem is not the energy but the containment. As soon as the nuclear chain reaction starts building inside the bomb, the heat and pressure will increase and cause to expand – which in turn will abort the chain reaction. You need really strong containment to prevent this premature, abortive explosion. This would seem most easily achievable by going underground. It appears that noted expert Dr. Strangelove agrees with this assessment:
With an air burst device it’s another story entirely. In the case of the Hiroshima bomb, it has been claimed that of the 50 kg of uranium contained in the bomb, about 2 kg actually fissioned before the the bomb blew apart and chain reaction stopped. It can, however, be shown from various lines of evidence that even this limited detonation did not take place.
“Thommy” buddy: this is thy proposition, quoted fm thou,
And by golly, I’m glad I’m a “white trashionalist,” and not a monkey-like dink w. a monkey-like brain, like thou, buddy, ho ho ho oho oho
I wish to apologize for attempting to confuse you with the facts.
Exactly, so why didn’t they set up a telescope on the moon instead of picking up 300 kilos of rocks?
In fact, as I wrote: “I have read about a telescope installed by the Apollo 16 crew, but it seems that no one has ever seen what came out of it. In any case, not a single picture of the NASA archives show any star in the sky.”
Well I am not convinced one way or the other but I am pretty sure it would have been much easier to pull off then than it would be now. There was no internet. Access to various forms of media were severely limited or did not exist. I mean correct me if I am wrong but did not all the information regarding this event run directly through NASA? It was not like reporters were able to independently verify this event by taking pictures, video, rock samples and classified information on their own. So all we have is their word, a few relics from then and that is about it.
What we really have is that they say they did it.
Indeed. I was thinking more about detectable wavelengths (UV) than resolution. I just looked it up, and it seems NASA had already launched several telescopes into Earth orbit in order to get around the atmosphere’s absorptive properties, even before the alleged moon landings. So, I concede that at that point in time the scientific value of pictures of the start taken from the moon would indeed have been limited.
Ok, so what prevented them from bringing a telescope?
“I’m pretty sure that astronomers would have valued photographs of the stars taken without an intervening atmosphere.”
It’s called Hubble and before that,
https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/03/20/the-history-of-space-photography-copy/
“Look ma, the earth the moon and no stars.”
“Look ma, lousy moon photo.”
Artie-Boy: Stupid, Lying Moron
“Artie-boy”: thou are soooo notoriously stupid it’s waste of time and effort talking to such as thou, but then there are other readers who could use the entertainment.
Thy entire first paragraph is NOTHING but assertions-without-substantiation–why do thou waste thy idiot time, sucker? Then thou tell us,
But Artie-boy, proof is they in fact pulled it off, sucker–remember, for a good, effective hoax, one doesn’t have to fool absolutely EVERYONE–no less than 9/11 which didn’t fool anyone–they merely, simply fooled ENOUGH people to get by, dumbass.
Then thou says (so typically stupidly), “…it is a political attack on white male America. This is an attack on America’s cultural bold “can do” image. And it is an attack on the varsity and honesty of America as a whole.” No, thou dumb bastard, though it is an attack on Jew S A, thou ignorant moron. “White male America” died in 1860s, thou stupid puke, moron.
Thou concludes w.
The lie is purported manned moon-landing, sucker–AND THOU ARE THE LIAR, among many others. Thou has no proof there was any such landing, and if thou says thou do, then thou are just lying more, like a filthy, stinking kike.
As far as whistleblowers go I think that it is naïve to think one can just decide to blow the whistle so to speak on the moon landing. First I believe very few individuals would actually know it was faked. Everyone is going on information being broadcast from the module. Secondly who are you going to with this information and how is it getting disseminated to the public? Third, do we know for sure that no one did try to expose a hoax? I believe there would be containment measures in place.
Niel Armstrong(1930-2012) served as an adjunct professor at the University of Cincinnati School of aeronautical engineering from 1971-1979.
He hit the ceremonious first tee shot on June 16th, 1979 at Shawnee Lookout Golf Course(Hamilton County Park District course.)..which has announced it will close after summer 2019.
When he finished, I said how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know.”
And he says, “Oh, uh, there won’t be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness.” So I got that goin’ for me, which is nice.
There’s literally dozens of former astronauts, pilots, military, and NASA employees testifying to this on camera and audio at that article, among other evidence.
But, that’s not good enough for you, so nothing to see here people, move along, don’t go check that out now citizen, you don’t want to have too much to think now…
KYS
Given that the manned Moon landings were faked (which I believe to be the case), it is likely that people with first-hand knowledge are monitored for signs of wavering and bumped off before they go public. Bill Kaysing thought that this is what happened to the Apollo 15 astronaut James Irwin, for example.
It is said that there have been many suspicious deaths associated with the Apollo program, but I don’t know of a good site/page for this off-hand. There is a YouTube video “Study: What’s behind the mysterious deaths of Apollo astronauts?” describing how Apollo astronauts have five times the rate of death from heart attack of other astronauts. It would be interesting to do a study of untimely deaths among people associated with the Apollo program, and lunar science, more generally, in comparison other groups. I know of two examples: Thomas Mutch, who died in the Himalayas, and Wolf Vishniac, who died in Antarctica. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to look into this sort of thing systematically.
Frustration Of Stupid Puke–Pathetic
Gee whiz, thou stupid kike filth scummy lying puke, but all thou need do is to PROVIDE PROOF, sucker–know what it is?–PROOF–scum. But thou HAVE NO proof, and that’s why thou are sooo frustrated, eh, scum? And thou are additionally frustrated as thou can’t even grasp the concept of proof, thou don’t know what proof is, and further, thou can’t even imagine WHAT would be proof of the pretended “moon-landing,” sucker–this all is the source of thy frustration, gross ignorance built upon gross, utter stupidity. Same goes for thy Jew friend, Unz.
I’ll admit I just don’t understand that argument…
The main claim made by all the Moon Hoax people is that the supposed Moon Landing mission was totally impossible for scientific and engineering reasons. Okay.
But NASA employed many, many thousands of scientists and engineers tasked with overcoming all the various technical obstacles, and surely they must have been aware that they had failed and the purported achievement was an impossibility, with the announcement of a successful Moon walk by the top NASA people being just a hoax.
Are you saying that almost none of NASA’s own scientists and engineers were aware of the hoax as it was actually taking place, but it was only discovered decades later by random non-scientists browsing around on Internet websites and watching old Stanley Kubrik films?…
🙂
If anyone hasn’t used Google Earth to look at their own house or apartment they probably should. You will see your own car parked outside. You may even be able to see the license plate. With that level of resolution you should be able to see pretty much anything on the moon very clearly and in fact the resolution and clarity should be much greater.
There are supposed to be features over a mile long on the moon’s surface but we have no way to examine them in detail.
There are other uses for hires pics of the moon. For example, counting the craters and seeing how often new ones show up.
“I wish to apologize for attempting to confuse you with the facts.”
Since there has been no previous communication between us as far as I can tell, I can only presume that either you are talking to the wrong guy or you are getting your sock puppets confused.
“If for the sake of argument we accept the presence of laser retroreflectors on the moon, . . . ”
Which {unmanned} mission placed the reflectors?
1. At least you’re now admitting that the “Hur, dur — dere ain’t no stars in dem dere pictures!” point is completely worthless, and that the reason for it is obvious to anyone with even an elementary knowledge of photography… or of basic physics.
2. So why is it presented as an “argument” over and over again by people who should know better?
The only possible explanations are:
– They’re deeply dishonest, or
– They’re morons.
3. Or course, when the worthlessness of this “argument” is pointed out to them, they invariably drop the original “argument,” pretending that they were “just kidding,” and immediately retreat to the motte of “B-b-but I claim that they didn’t SEE any stars, either! And everyone knows that the dynamic range of the human eye is infinite, because reasons!”
Uh huh.
4. Your continued pathetic failure to comprehend my (very basic) point is duly noted. Once again — the reason that you can’t see stars in daylight is due to:
– the level of ambient light relative to the brightness of the stars
– the dynamic range limitations of the human eye.
The presence of an atmosphere diffuses the light, but does little to affect the overall level of ambient light.
Your failure to comprehend this very basic point can only be due to a cognitively-crippling combination of deep ignorance with a profound lack of intellectual curiosity. Allow me to assist:
https://lmgtfy.com/?iie=1&q=dynamic+range+human+eye
You’re welcome.
The inconsistencies don’t mean a NASA moon landing hoax but they should be looked at anyway. For example, the moon rocks given to the high school says someone was hoaxed, But it could just as easily been that someone stole the original rocks and sold them to a collector then put fake moon rocks in their place.
Having undoctored high resolution moon pics, browsable like google Earth, would be nice.
You never know what you might find.
So, how do you explain all the astronauts backing up the story? Were they just wanting attention?
Your cointelpro sucks, btw. I guarantee you anyone stumbling on this will check it out now.
Or you could just be an idiot. But again, it’s likely another this *and* that instead of this *or* that.
“First this is pure rubbish – the US government went to the moon and landed on it – PERIOD. It went multiple times over several years. It is impossible for all those events to a hoax”
Seek help before you snap and kill us all.
You mean the Wally whose positions you cannot refute, hence your obvious frustration.
http://www.codoh.com
So all we have is their word, a few relics from then and that is about it.
What we really have is that they say they did it.
MacNucc11,
“So all we have is their word” — why is that not good enough?
Why would all those technical types and science types lie to all of us? That goes totally against charctor.
It is totally unrealistic to think that they would all lie for some national political goal.
Today computers can create all manor of visual things. Not so in 1969. The technical tools to create a real time event like that did not exist.
Art
p.s. Hmm – just thinking – how about moon dust – how they explain away moon dust?
The author’s claim about the Van Allen Belt (below) struck me immediately since it would bypass the iffy other claims.
IOW, what he claims about the belt is either true or it is not.
He said:
So, is this a methodically, empirically established scientific fact or is he simply wrong?
What “NASA engineers” say what the author claims?
Help me out here.
Thanks.
Stupidity That’s Positively Funny
Artie-boy says,
Artie-boy is soooooooooooo incredibly stupid, it’s positively funny. And “moon dust” or “moon rocks” don’t require a MANNED moon-landing, thou stupid, brainless, moronic scum.
Think about compartmentalization of knowledge. Anyone who has worked on a large development project will be aware that most people are only working on a small piece of the project, and they do not see the big picture. It is entirely plausible that a small handful of people at the top of the Apollo project kept most workers in the dark.
In small development projects, involving a few competent and dedicated people, it is possible to accomplish a predefined goal within a preset time frame. This becomes more difficult as the complexity of the goal increases. There are more and more things that can go wrong, and communication and resolution of inconsistencies become the main limiting factors.
The law of diminishing returns is sometimes mentioned in this context. There was a fixed goal and deadline, i.e., putting a man on the Moon within a decade. Deadlines for complicated projects are usually not met, especially when it is something that has never been done before, i.e., putting a man on the moon. (Gus Grissom, an astronaut, expressed skepticism about the ability for the goal to be met on time, and he died on the launchpad in a supposed accident.) Even if money and personnel were an unlimited “resource” here, the law of diminishing returns would still apply. Throwing unlimited money and personnel at the problem does not work with a very complex problem and a strict deadline. This is because the effort needs to be coordinated, and this does not just happen automatically.
One example of a corner being cut in the Apollo program is that there were no tests in which animals were sent through the Van Allen belt to see what would happen before sending people through it. As Bart Sibrel has pointed out, it is hard to believe that in a serious program things would have been done that way. Probably, some people who worked on Apollo had this same question, but rationales were provided to them, and it appears that most of them accepted the rationales. The problem of the Van Allen belt would have been outside of their area of expertise, in most cases.
There are many other bizarre things about the program, like how there was no airlock on the Apollo 11 lander. Also, consider how the astronauts supposedly drove the moon buggy (included in later missions) more than a mile from the lander. Would that be wise, given the possibility that the buggy would break down? How did the camera the astronauts left on the Moon follow the lunar module as it lifted off and ascended from the Moon? How did the lunar modules reach the orbiters after blasting of from the Moon? Why was so much data (telemetry, original video) lost? I could go on, but I don’t want to risk repeating what others have said already.
No relation.
Why take what the government says at face value?
Laser reflectors are not evidence that man landed on the moon if the Russians could put them there, too.
Why not follow the evidence where it leads?
And they even made a movie like that!
There is no amount of proof possible to convince a conspiracy theorist that his favorite conspiracy theory is false.
I still remember, a little over 25 years ago, when I was younger and more naive. I was in graduate school in chemistry at one university, while teaching a class at a different university.
I used to love to read the British publication New Scientist while wasting time in the science library.
One day, I saw an interesting article in New Scientist. The person who developed a conspiracy theory admitted to it! After the USSR fell, a lot of the old KGB documents were being released. The KGB agent who made up the conspiracy theory that AIDS was developed in a US laboratory came clean and admitted it.
I thought that interesting, and decided to share that information with a science class I taught the next morning at a different university.
Big mistake.
Realize, I had read any number of articles, in New Scientist and elsewhere, that essentially disproved the AIDS conspiracy theory. For example, the Brits had frozen some tissue from a sailor who had been in African then had died in 1959, turns out 30 years later they were able to determine the poor fellow had died of AIDS.
So, I tell this interesting tidbit to my class. Next thing I know, about half the class is screaming at me. I mean, this was not reasoned discussion. If I had gone to a class of devout religious folk claiming to have proof their religion’s founder was a hoax, I would’ve gotten about the same reception.
At one point I noticed a Nigerian woman glaring, looking extremely angry. She came up to me after class, and I was wondering if she was about to rip me a new one.
No, she was angry at the American conspiracy theorists. She mentioned that the traditional healers in what is not Nigeria had treatments for AIDS for the past few centuries. Meaning they were treating AIDS in Africa before there even WAS an America.
I wound up getting the worst evaluations as a teacher in that class for any class I ever taught, which did not help my teaching career. That is one of many reasons I no longer teach. If students want to believe garbage, and an instructor wants to challenge their false beliefs, that instructor may not be long for the world. In fact, I knew a lady who used to teach HS biology in a small town in the Bible Belt. She was told NEVER to mention the words “evolution” or “Darwin” in the classroom. She actually taught the students the Theory of “Changes” as she called it, without ever mentioning the words “Darwin” or “Evolution”, and nobody was wiser. Had she mentioned either one of those words, she would’ve been run out of town.
Thou has no proof there was any such landing, and if thou says thou do, then thou are just lying more, like a filthy, stinking kike.
Apollonian,
(“like a filthy, stinking kike.” – you know how to hurt a guy.)
Oh my – Thou does not like me – a man who was defending white Americans.
Thou’s website says that Thou do not like blacks, Jews, Hindus, Asians, gays, and monkeys.
What are we to think – what are Thou – aren’t Thou a space alien pissed off because we have invaded and landed on another interplanetary object?
Art
p.s. We cannot wait for Thou’s reply.
Are you being dishonest? or have you just not read my posts properly or something.
Why can you not understand that by the simple expedient of standing in the shadow of the moon lander and using your ARMS (say) to exclude the view of the moon’s surface from your view you have eliminated damn near all the light, except that from above the horizon. You could do the same on earth if there were no atmosphere to diffuse the light. Assuming that you adopted my procedure, where would the ‘ambient light’ be coming from? The only light on the moon would be from other astral bodies and the actual lunar surface (which you would be blocking) I’m not at all convinced that you understand the implications of the absence of an atmosphere with respect to ‘ambient light’.
So far you have attempted to explain why the astronauts couldn’t see the stars from the moon by talking about a different subject, photography. When I point that out, then you accuse me of having the delusion that the eye has infinite dynamic range (a second straw man argument) After that you have nothing but repetition and insults. Perhaps you might consider an honest, rational and (hopefully) polite response this time?
And “moon dust” or “moon rocks” don’t require a MANNED moon-landing, thou stupid, brainless, moronic scum.
Apollonian,
Is that so – how does dust get from the moon to the Earth in sufficient gatherable quantities to match what the Apollo missions produced?
Me still thinks Thou are a pissed off space alien – mad because we Earthlings have invaded and landed on an interplanetary object. You sure are an angry space alien – let us say – “mad at the world.”
Art
“Paleo moron” tells us,
This is known as “question-begging” fallacy, assertion without substantiation, gross, putrid, moronic PRESUMPTION, “non-sequitur,” etc.
The stupid POS can’t figure-out that central-banking (see Mises.org for expo; use site search-engine) is literally legalized counterfeiting, a screaming criminal enterprise, but too many, over-populated, stupid shits want INFINITE fiat-currency, rather than REAL, legitimate (commodity-based) MONEY.
So the stupid scum are complicit, by simple means of their endless stupidity, to their own murders, enabling the bankers to exterminate them by means of Agenda-21 and 2030 GENOCIDE, among other methods too, like the poison vaccines forced upon people, the poison prescription drugs, glyphosate poisoning, “geo-engineering” and “chem-trails,” etc.
Don’t give us thy stupid lies and moronic platitudes, thou brainless puke–just give us the PROOF, if thou understands meaning of the word, for the manned moon-landing, dumbass. Thou cannot do it (giving the proof), and thou probably don’t even understand what the word, “proof,” requires (sense-perceptory evidence, sucker).
The puke actually calls himself “liberal,” so one KNOWS he’s dumber than dirt–like admitting one is “Jew,” or child-molester, or psychopath, ho ho ho ho ho.
Endless Stupidity By The Dumbass
The stupid shit, proven by his own words and writing in his own entries, now asks,
Answer is it doesn’t require a MANNED moon-landing, dumbass–it could be un-manned moon-landing, dumb, brainless moron. Keep talking, thou stupid puke scum, ho ho hoh o ho.
Ron, you say:
“Yet during all those years, no one seems to have ever published a single Moon Hoax book, and apparently the first and only such book ever published came out in 2005…”
This is categorically false. Bill Kaysing’s book was published in 1976.
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/We_Never_Went_to_the_Moon.html?id=N1Gcfdj81T4C&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
And Ralph Rene’s book was published in 1994:
https://www.vinnysblogbookcom.com/uploads/2/8/0/1/28018637/ralph_rene_-_nasa_mooned_america.pdf
And there were numerous others that i cannot cite automatically. As for whistleblowers, Bill Kaysing was one such. He worked for Rocketdyne and procured parts for distinct areas of the Apollo programme. And this was how he was able to determine the infeasibility of it.
A whistleblower even closer to the matter was Virgil “Gus” Grissom, who was burnt up with two of his colleagues in 1967. Grissom – the second American to ever fly in space – was an outspoken critic of the Apollo programme, and claimed at a press conference that NASA was at least a decade away from even contemplating a moon landing.
His family believed he was murdered:
“In 1999 the charred remains of the test module that trapped Grissom and his two colleagues was opened up for his family to see. Scott noticed a fabricated metal plate behind a switch on one of the instrumentation panels. He believed that the switch was used to deliberately create a spark that would have ignited the cabin, killing Grissom and the other astronauts.
This story was supposedly backed by an aerospace contractor who worked for McDonnell-Douglas, a company that later merged with Boeing. Scott Grissom believed that NASA didn’t want his father to be the first man on the moon after his botched Liberty Bell 7 landing. He said he believed that NASA might not have trusted him and was likely upset with Grissom’s outspoken frustration with the technical difficulties in the Apollo program.
But Scott Grissom said that he’s not exactly sure why NASA or the government would want to prevent his father from continuing in the program, to the extent that they would sabotage him, but he believes it was intentional. And Gus Grissom’s wife, Betty, also agrees with her son, saying that she too believes her husband was murdered.”
https://www.gaia.com/article/the-apollo-1-conspiracy-did-nasa-covered-up-gus-grissoms-death
I really don’t care if you and your children die of diphtheria Scarlett fever and pertussis polio, end up brain or physically handicapped because of scarlet fever and polio whatever.
But take your unvaccinated self and family to a remote leper’s colony somewhere where you can’t infect me and mine with smallpox, Scarlett fever, cholera yellow fever typhoid typhus pertussis diphtheria tuberculous measles mumps chickenpox shingles and other horrible diseases.
Like the rest of the anti vaccine morons, you’re neither a medical person nor anyone who’s has experience with at of the deadly crippling and horrible diseases that have been eradicated by vaccines.
Hope you get diphtheria and Scarlett fever and die quickly instead of polio and spend your life in a hospital where the tax payers have to pay for your care
Would you please explain what you mean by “commodity based money” and what are its distinguishing merits. In doing so can you please explain where on your money spectrum you put a bill of exchange issued and/or endorsed by a merchant bank to finance the purchase of coffee in West Africa, or wherever, especially when that bill may lose its commodity backing by reason of a ship sinking while the latest holder of the bill can still use it as money so long as the issuing or endorsing bank remains solvent or generally thought to be so? You see I am interested in your focusing on the “commodity” concept.
Most lunatics pick just a few causes. Apollonian is embroiled in dozens of lunatic fringe causes. I checked into this moon hoax thread for a few laughs waiting for a ham to bake. It didn’t disappoint.
“For example, the Brits had frozen some tissue from a sailor who had been in African then had died in 1959, turns out 30 years later they were able to determine the poor fellow had died of AIDS. ”
There is not really an HIV conspiracy theory that runs from Russia. That is not the argument. And your example of the 1959 sailor, I think was a businessman and they did not have his blood sample. The Royal Academy of Science tested a batch of serum — which they claimed was from the labs in question. There is no evidence that they tested the correct batch or that they even had a batch from the period on hand.
But that is a more complex issue. The 1959 case does strongly conform to the contention that HIV is the result of careless lab management and serum development as well as possible use of test subjects of the polio vaccine using strains from monkey kidneys. All of that research was conducted in the late 1940’s through the 1950’s where the man considered the first case (at least in Europe) was visiting.
It has nothing to do with a Russian concocting tales. I would start with The River and proceed from their. That book provides very solid background on the issue of where HIV got its start.
Since then the argument has been advanced that HIV begun in the 1920’s in Kinshasa. I find the claim dubious because it suggests that the virus has been in hiding for thirty years. And while incubation is possible, it’s a jump in logic that suddenly intimate relations in the 1950’s brought it to life when based on how it operates it would have been a consistent and persistent issue. The records of Kinshasa simply don’t make any sense.
Maybe the conspirators attaches super super magnets to the outside of the space ship. Some moon rocks had enough iron and other metal to fly to the ship and attach themselves to the super magenta and stick to the super super magnets till the ship landed and the moon rocks were detached and displayed.
I know that theory is true because I just thought of it.
In the 1950s a teen boy died of a mysterious disease in St Louis Mo. because the disease was so strange tissue was preserved. The tissue was analyzed in the 198os and was diagnosed as AIDS.
The boy had been a homosexual prostitute for years before he died.
I don’t know if you are one of those who think Wikipedia *totally* untrustworthy or riddled with Jewish lies but, if you are remotely serious about this you should be able to satisfy yourself within 10 or 20 minutes that the radiation exposure from passing through the Van Allen Belt was calculated to be acceptable. And bear in mind that an astronaut offered a chance of great fame might well shrug off being told that the calculations were subject to a large error margin and that there might be a 20 per cent chance of the radiation being dangerous.
Excuse the Author’s name for the River is Edward Hooper — a very solid read. It is not a conspiracy in the traditional meaning of the term. What happened in the search for a cure for polio was accidental. The conspiracy if one wants to call it that has been in avoiding the truth by manufacturing a host of unsubstantiated origins including the UCSD researchers claim regarding DNA to Kinshasa.
It’s thou art and thou sayeth, not thou are and thou say.
And thou and thy are terms to be used only with intimate friends and relatives, not internet enemies.
It’s thou thinkest and thou art.
Kike troll scum: ck Mises.org; use their search-engine for particular terms.
Excuse the Author’s name for the River is Edward Hooper — a very solid read. It is not a conspiracy in the traditional meaning of the term. What happened in the search for a cure for polio was accidental. The conspiracy if one wants to call it that has been in avoiding the truth by manufacturing a host of unsubstantiated origins including the UCSD researchers claim regarding DNA to Kinshasa.
Mr Hooper’s response to Kinshasa contend
http://pages.ucsd.edu/~jmoore/publications/hivhooper2001b.html
Again the conspiracy if one exists is to the response, not that any scientists deliberately set out to biologically contaminate any particular population as a goal.
You add, with a little more thought, another compelling argument and credible formulation of it. But, OT, doesn’t it send a shiver down one’s spine to imagine learned counsel waking up a week after his client has been convicted of rape and murder realising that there was a compelling angle – including perhaps a brilliant metaphor – that could have penetrated the minds of even the dimmest jurors if only he had uttered it. (I am still, atheist though I am, affected by Cardinal George Pell’s conviction for something I am 98 per cent sure he could not have done by a 12-nil jury verdict three months after an earlier jury had voted 10-2 for acquittal. The distress of his famous – Jewish – counsel was very visible).
You’re not serious, are you?
1. See comment #589 (immediately above yours):
https://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing-a-giant-hoax-for-mankind/#comment-3130376
2. You might also wish to look into the relationship between mirror size (reflecting telescope)/ lens size (refracting telescope) and resolution — and the implications of this relationship for simply tossing in a state-of-the art telescope as an add-on to a moon mission.
3. Moon is useful for UV astronomy (UV is almost entirely blocked by Earth’s atmosphere):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_Ultraviolet_Camera/Spectrograph
https://airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/apollo-to-the-moon/online/later-missions/apollo-16.cfm
But so is space — and it’s easier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet_astronomy
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/10/25/why-dont-we-put-a-space-telescope-on-the-moon/#78693cf0777f
Scummy, Stupid Puke Merely Want Dictatorship Using Excuse/Pretext Of “Vaccination,” “Climate-Change,” Etc.
Dumbass: doesn’t it occur to stupid puke like thyself, thou HAVE NO RIGHT TO DEMAND/REQUIRE ANYONE BE “VACCINATED,” stupid POS? People who are “vaccinated,” like thyself, thou stupid scum, have nothing to worry about, thou brainless filth–right?–so WHY is it so necessary to FORCE others to be “vaccinated” w. poison vaccines?–brainless moron.
It doesn’t take “medical” person to know it’s dictatorship to REQUIRE by force of law people be “vaccinated” w. poison vaccines–which is KNOWN to have happened, fool–just google or use some other search engine, brainless piece-of-shit filth.
But we know puke like thou are same scum who want dictatorship forced on others for non-existent “climate-change” excuse, eh, stinking, moronic trash.
Did any of those books sell in significant numbers or get enough favourable reviews to rouse some of the participants to shout “nonsense”?
Exactly my thought Apollo and the moon landing we’re the great achievement of White American men building on the science and technology of centuries of White men’s achievements.
The liberals are busy tearing down all of White achievements. Columbus and Isabella were homocidal evil catholic genocidal murderers. FDR was responsible for the holofraud because he didn’t declare war on Germany in 1934. Jefferson was a rapist on and on to denigrate White men
I really think that’s what the moon landing hoax is all about
If all the other characteristics of the moon landing were the same but it was Israel that did it and not the US, many of the commenters that affirm the moon landing would be calling it a hoax.
The copes by the ‘moon affirmers’ are whack. All of the original data and video footage was lost/destroyed by NASA. Priceless material.
Massimo Mazzuco has recently made the film. It’s called “American Moon”.
Ron, you can say the same thing about 9-11 though.
Isn’t it plausible that if 9-11 really was perpetrated by the government or foreign elements that there would have been people leaking it?
Because an operation that size would have surely involved people from the Pentagon, NSA, FBI/CIA, etc. And yet you don’t see anyone leaking anything.
There are people who know better who don’t want to be killed or put their pension at risk. And there are people who speak out and are silenced.
Yeah, righto, shit-for-brains “lunatic” moron: people can read what Art says, and they can judge what a stupid little bastard he really is–and then thou too, as thou defends the dumb puke, eh? Ho ho ho ho ho ho
It doesn’t matter if it was a hoax or not because nothing ever came of it. No one has gone back because there is no reason to go there. A good looking philandering President with a pain killer problem convinced us it was a grand idea, it at least was a good idea compared to the stuff he was actually doing like Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Diem assassination and we remember Him fondly because of Apollo and because he died young like that other over rated Thespian James Dean.
Sorry you conspiracy theorists have to watch The Shining over and over, it’s even more boring than a Patriot/Rams Superbowel.
The Van Allen belts? Just stupid, they’re only a problem if you park one of those ridiculous tin can starships NASA burned our tax dollars on in the middle of a belt and try a few days of charged particle tanning.
2001 A Space Odyssey had by far the best special effects of any space movie ever made. No other space movie has ever paid any attention to the laws of physics, and CG effects are stupid and cartoonish yet all you conspiracy theorists eat that crap up and go back for more.
Well. I see I need to go and search for New York Middle School Teacher’s topless selfie, very curious to see if they are real or just maybe, a hoax.
According to Wikipedia, the astronauts slid past the inner Van Allen radiation belts, getting only a teeny-tiny dose of radiation in the outer belts—less than the typical nuclear plant worker. It didn’t provide any proof of unicorns. They did not have advanced graphics software back then, so they did not shop the images. But the camera issues are puzzling.
If this was a hoax, you’d think the media would jump at the chance to break the story. It is not like the US media thrives on uncritically patriotic, my-country-right-or-wrong stories. If anything, they take the opposite approach, relishing critiques of the power brokers, especially the Republicans. But like leaving behind 1,205 POWs in Vietnam, maybe, this escaped the media’s claws due to the obsession with Watergate.
The best argument for a hoax is the fact that the feat has never been equaled. Once a lunar landing occurred, why wasn’t it followed by other landings? People often comment with amazement, wondering how this technical accomplishment could have occurred so long ago. I prefer to believe the story, but it does make you wonder about the Challeger event in the Eighties. Were they sending ordinary people through the Van Allen radiation belts, with average-Jane teachers just signing up for that type of dangerous excursion?
But Ron, there ARE NASA scientists saying that it is impossible. You are simply not looking into it.
This, for one.
On one hand you say that you refuse to read moon landing denial materials, on the other you complain that you haven’t seen X evidence! That’s some SERIOUS cognitive dissonance you are suffering there. Dave McGowan’s ‘Wagging the Moondoggie’ is a one stop shop for moon landing denial. Read his essays about the moon landing and then see if you can refute it.
http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/
All of the objections that you have made on this thread have already been dealt with by McGowan and more.
HIV and AIDS are the result of men sticking their penises into rectums where the membrane separating the feces from the blood stream is only 1 cell thick. Long, long before AIDS was diagnosed it was well known in every county and state public health department in the country that gay men, not even female prostitutes had the highest rates of STDs.
Gay men even created venereal
warts and mushrooms which bi sexual men passed into the general population.
Gay men created AIDS through sexual transmission.
It’s almost impossible to transmit AIDS via vaginsl sex. Because the cabins is built for childbirth and to ward of germs and virus. The vagina lining is 28 layers thick. It’s like a fan belt; horizontal vertical diagonal circular and Ivan layers that can withstand a lot of battering. Plus the vaguna like mouth nose and eyes is continuall bather in salty antibiotic mucus.
Contrast the cabinet with the rectum. Only one cell thick, receptor cells with little hooks grabbing every bit of nutrition and medicine. It’s the perfect place to insert foreign substances into the body. Until hypodermic syringes came into wide use, Drs nurses and everybody knew that inserting medication into the rectum was much faster acting than swallowing.
Rectum lining breaks easily. Any and all substances inserted into the rectum are easily absorbed.
AIDS was created by anal sex. It remained so rare it was unknown. And then in 1980, after 20 years of incubation in the gay bathhouses of California New York Memphis Chicago Denver Omaha all the big cities the new disease created by anal sex burst forth.
You should read up on anatomy and the way new germs and virus develop
And spread. BTW condoms don’t help. Viruses go right through them, then right through the rectum membrane through the capillaries veins and arteries into the blood stream.
In response,
http://www.aidsorigins.com/sites/all/files/pdfs/Wikipedias_Strange_Certainty.pdf
it’s not how much one reads, but how accurate the information.
It’s thou defendest. I’m just looking for a few laughs while waiting for the ham to finish baking.
“HIV and AIDS are the result of men sticking their penises into rectums where the membrane separating the feces from the blood stream is only 1 cell thick. Long, long before AIDS was diagnosed it was well known in every county and state public health department in the country that gay men, not even female prostitutes had the highest rates of STDs.”
As usual you are off to the races. And I am going to eschew my usual politeness of entertaining your intrusion. My comments are not about contracting HIV, but rather the origins of the virus. The virus was transmitted by the homosexual community. However, it is unlikely that they had anything to do with creating it.
The relevance here to the Moon Landing is how easy it is to manufacture confusion when the issue is technical in nature. As is the case for HIV origins and the Lunar Landing.
Governments do have the right to make and enforce certain laws, especially public health laws. What’s your opinion on city governments requiring every habitation be hooked up to a sewer or septic tank instead of a filthy fly and disease breeding outhouse that sends feces and disease into the ground water? Or car seats and seatbelts for children.? You probably think you have the right to kill your children because you don’t believe government has the right to order you to put seat belts on your children.
I think all the anti vaccine parents and their kids should be put in some kind of HIPA air filter cave where they can watch their children die of the many fatal and crippling disease prevented by vaccines.
The ham’s done. Thanks for the entertainment while I waited for it to cook.
I suggest you contact the San Francisco public health department. They have 100 year old records of various STDs created by gay men in San Francisco as the viruses and germs mutated and developed into all sorts of new disease including AIDS.
Probably not. And “favorable reviews”? Seriously? Did any of the numerous books on the S-11 attacks receive favourable reviews? Even the credible ones such as those of Michael Ruppert or Nafeez Ahmed?
NASA was never interested in shouting “nonsense” until around the turn of the century, because prior to that time, this kind of dissenting material only had very limited circulation. The internet, of course, was the game-changer.
Satanic World Gov. Is Bit Of Problem For Humanity, Suckers
The stupid moron writes:
Thou poor, brainless fool: the entire Western culture, including Jew S A, and the entire world, is literally RULED by a criminal conspiracy, called, CENTRAL-BANKING (legalized counterfeiting) which issues practically ENDLESS fiat-currency, NOT real MONEY, commodity-based (see Mises.org for expo; use site search-engine).
Needless to say, this criminal conspiracy is a MONOPOLY which creates and controls ALL the other sub-monopolies including the Jews-media, Big (Jew) Pharma, currently mass-murdering the people by slow-kill methods, like poison vaccines and poison prescription drugs (just google or use some other search-engine, sucker), big Agriculture growing poison GMO foods, “chem-trails” and “geo-engineering,” etc.
Only thing NOT totally monopolized is Internet, and they’re working to control that too. So therefore, by means of simplest extrapolation, it’s absolutely guaranteed that the so-called “manned moon-landing” was hoax/fraud–just like EVERYTHING else tainted by the criminal ZOG world dictatorship, fool.
Merely as scientific exercise and moving fm basic definitions, the PROOF of the manned moon landing would be some kind of perceptory evidence or something as close as possible, for which the careful scientist or citizen searches. BUT EVERYTHING we come up w. SCREAMS fraud, hoax, scam–as we always get fm Jews and ZOG–it never ends, does it?
And this criminal conspiracy which presently rules the world–Jew world order–enforced by UN, NATO, etc., will continue to consolidate long as the stupid, over-populated puke of the world, called “people,” continue to allow the criminal enterprise, central-banking, to continue. Thus we’re guaranteed to have war–war against these criminals, Satanists, and Jews is what’s going-on as we speak–waged against the people in guise of “Agenda-21 and -2030” GENOCIDE.
Thou needs desperately to trying to attempting to endeavor to getting a brain–perhaps thou needs to pray–for thou are truly desperate case in need, for sure.
I’m inclined to believe the landings were real, but the photographs faked (for propaganda effect). But you can’t possibly be serious about musing over the media being honest enough to investigate skeptical stories?
Newsflash, shit-for-brains: the “ham” is thou, sucker, ho ho ho ho oho, and yes, the readers can and will judge for themselves, won’t they?–ho hooo ho ho ho
This guy’s talking about lengthy manned space missions, not quick passage through the Van Allen belt.
“I suggest you contact the San Francisco public health department. They have 100 year old records of various STDs created by gay men in San Francisco as the viruses and germs mutated and developed into all sorts of new disease including AIDS.”
There is no evidence that HIV originated in the city of San Francisco.
Answer is it doesn’t require a MANNED moon-landing, dumbass–it could be un-manned moon-landing, dumb, brainless moron.
apollionian,
Oh dear – you are just too excited to think straight. (Does that happen to angry space aliens a lot?)
Did an unmanned moon landing and return happen before Apollo, if so, how come after Apollo we had a whole lot more moon dust?
Art
p.s. Is Apollion in the Milky Way galaxy?
Well, that already means your IQ is just 70. You have confirmed that with your ‘Moon Hoax’ idiocy, and you dodged my request in the typical cowardice expected from you and your ilk.
Just because White Trashionalists like you could not have gotten past the Bronze Age does not mean functional white men like me didn’t put a man on the Moon.
Hiding behind the typo of the person crushing you is a stunning admission of defeat. Then again, you are used to that.
It is telling that WN wiggers like you are also Moon Hoax nuts. It is even funnier that your name, ‘apollonian’ has a tie to the very Apollo program that you claim was fabricated.
Heh heh heh heh
Re: “The relevance here to the Moon Landing is how easy it is to manufacture confusion when the issue is technical in nature. ”
The management of perception is often just as easy in non-technical matters. How many people really understand the nature of the 1990s Yugoslav wars, for example, or the pipeline politics behind the war in Syria? In cases like those, it is not so much a matter of technical/technological expertise but of sufficiently digging into a subject, detecting incoherence and having a “nose” for when the authorities are bullshitting.
I am glad that you bring up “The River”, as it certainly is the definitive treatment of the origin of the AIDS epidemic, and one that not even the scientific establishment could ignore upon first publication. I’ve saved your link on Wikipedia’s “strange certainty” re AIDS, but it’s not even necessary for me to read it. Wikipedia consistently defends the status quo on each and every controversy that threatens vested interests.
Righto, dink: people can read thy entries and see what genius monkey thou really are, eh? Ho ho ho ho
In the 1st place, there was plenty of controversy and debate at the time, at least outside the US, though I recall that Popular Science (may have been Popular Mechanics) carried a debunking series in the ’60s/early ’70s so there may have been some controversy in the US itself.
FWIW, the Soviets did cry “Fake!”, and probably made some hay with the claim in the ME, S. America and elsewhere, though the Mighty American Wurlitzer likely drowned them out in the US and its most important vassals.
I recall watching the 1st moon landing in a room full of adults and kids, with (IIRC) the adults split roughly 60/40 between those who thought it was faked and those who thought it was real. My own father, a technically accomplished man was adamant it was a fake and said the Soviets would have a heyday with it. He turned out to be half right.
The moon landings narrative shares a defining trait with the Holocaust, 9/11, Iraq’s WMDs, Assad’s baby gassing, JFK, Russian meddling and a host of other socio-politically important memes. Namely, the lack of any corroborative hard (physical or documentary) evidence that supports the socially dominant narrative which one would expect to be available in copious amounts given the temporal and physical proximity of the events. Yet, as with the Holocaust, 9/11, and Iraq’s WMDs, we’re left biting air.
When we ask “how can that be?” we’re told the Nazi’s blew up the gas chambers, national security concerns trump physical explication, Saddam sent the WMDs to Iran/Syria, or in this case, that NASA disposed of the mountains of engineering documentation it generated and/or collected from its subcontractors “sometime in the ’70s” and we have no idea what happened to them.
Yeah right.
Rather than building a museum and archive documenting for the public record the greatest feat of human engineering in history, they tossed the entire lot along with the engineers’ empty pizza boxes and coffee cups when the gig ended. If we had those documents today, and they were available for study, we’d know within hours whether Americans went to the moon or not. As it is, we don’t and so we can’t say they did.
Just as we know more about what some cave-dwellers 50,000 years ago cooked in their firepit in Borneo than we know about the millions of human bodies burned in Europe’s “death camps” within living memory, so we have more engineering documentation about how the Pantheon was built 2,000 yrs ago than we have on the workings of the lunar lander.
The salient result of that means we can build a cooking fire and eat what the cave-dwellers ate, but we can’t figure out how to incinerate millions of humans without leaving a trace, and it means that we can build a Pantheon today (though we haven’t), but we couldn’t build a working lunar lander (because we might as well never have).
Minds that can overlook that glaring discontinuity don’t normally accept the intrusion of reason into what amounts to the mythology that underpins their world. Everybody needs a mythology, it seems, and they’re welcome to theirs of course, but myths should enter the world of rational men only as a subject for study and explication.
1. Are you still desperately attempting to promote the long-debunked “But dere ain’t no stars in dem dere pitchers!!” canard? Or are you finally admitting that this “argument” is complete BS — and that your insistence on repeatedly promoting it can only indicate either severe cognitive limitations (or deep dishonesty) on your part?
Anyone who leads with an “argument” that is easily debunked scientifically, but has some intuitive/ emotional appeal, is either:
– significantly lacking in intellectual firepower
– ignorant of the particular subject in question — and lacking in intellectual curiosity about it, or
– intellectually dishonest.
Which is it?
If you’re still confused about how moronic the “no stars in dem pitchers!” argument is, I suggest you review the concept of “dynamic range”:
https://digital-photography-school.com/understanding-dynamic-range-photography/
https://infogalactic.com/info/Dynamic_range
See my comment #636:
https://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing-a-giant-hoax-for-mankind/#comment-3130759
Absence of atmosphere is far from the only factor affecting the resolution of a telescope. I suggest you look into the relationship between mirror size (reflecting telescope)/ lens size (refracting telescope) and resolution — and the implications of this relationship for your casual assertion that they could have just tossed a state-of-the art telescope somewhere behind the seat of one of the moon landers.
You’re apparently attempting to refer to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_Ultraviolet_Camera/Spectrograph
https://airandspace.si.edu/exhibitions/apollo-to-the-moon/online/later-missions/apollo-16.cfm
It was a far UV camera; not really much of a telescope. Far UV is almost entirely blocked by Earth’s atmosphere, so images from the Moon were useful even without much magnification (though it’s mostly more practical to use satellite-based ones).
But you can find data from it in the form of “pictures” if you actually bother to look. Here, I’ll help you:
https://lmgtfy.com/?iie=1&q=Apollo+16+AS16-123+UVC+Far+Ultraviolet+Camera/Spectrograph
The Chinese also sent a UV telescope to the moon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang%27e_3#Lunar-based_ultraviolet_telescope_(LUT)
As I noted above, it’s pretty pointless to send a visible-spectrum telescope to the moon — to gain significant data beyond what can be obtained from other locations, it would have to be too big to be practical.
So that’s how the Israelis are boosting Beresheet Moon Lander!
>OK. Where are the geiger counter readings for the Van Allen Belts?
Who cares? You realize it was the 60s right, so things weren’t computerized. Perhaps the astronauts had better things to do, such as navigating to the moon, as opposed to staring at this thing and taking notes:
https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/meter-radiation-survey-portable-apollo-11
But they did measure and/or calculate the radiation exposure of the astronauts and the information is available. And the health impacts of the radiation was also followed:
https://observer.com/2016/07/space-radiation-devastated-the-lives-of-apollo-astronauts/
The radiation thing is a red-herring, designed to fool the ignorant who imagine “radiation” to be some kind of face-melting scene they have seen in a movie that nobody could possibly survive. Humans survived Chernobyl for crying out loud.
How to obfuscate on the internet:
Step 1: employ a flashy 10th grade level meme.
Step 2: take a single statement and re-package and completely misrepresent the original point.
Step 3: at all costs, do not mention the original topic at hand at all, such as being able to verify moon landing sites with telescopes.
It seems to me that in a real mission, technical competence would count for much more than a flair for public speaking.
In a fake mission, however, technical competence – beyond a basic familiarity with the concepts – would not count for much.
So, if the moon landing was faked, why DIDN’T the government choose a more convincing trio of PR flacks? Or at least do a better a job of training the ones they settled on – they would certainly have had plenty of time, since there wasn’t any actual mission to “prepare” for.
…And every one of them is a phony, lying POS.
So I take it that you are completely unable to answer my question or defend your assertions.
I believe I know more about the topic than you do.
I assume you were referring to Gennady Ivchenkov. Were you? Whoever you are referring to, why don’t you summarize his argument, rather than saying “I have here before me……….and trust me, it’s right”.
You’re a lying POS. I don’t think you are a phony though. I really believe you are the crude, amoral, witless moron you present yourself to be.
Bill Kaysing was an English-Major who worked as a librarian for Rocketdyne. His area of expertise was the Dewey Decimal system, not rocket engineering.
Why is it that you seem to be incapable of ever just giving a straight answer? Why don’t you ever just say what you f**king mean? All you ever do is traffic in spergy passive-agressive socratic bullshit, as if you’re some kind of crank zen-master. Until, that is, somebody dares to question you. Then you become a raving, drooling maniac ranting about disloyal “s**t-eaters”. It is not enough to agree with the mighty Revusky! One must agree with him in just the right way! There is a reason that you are a marginalized, uninfluential loser.
“The management of perception is often just as easy in non-technical matters. How many people really understand the nature of the 1990s Yugoslav wars, for example, or the pipeline politics behind the war in Syria.”
I think there is certainly room for manufacturing perceptions or projecting events with a particular view of historical events. But the record to those events, such as war, is not hinged on whether a camera angle was 30 degrees off, the image was cloudy, the sun was rising or setting, the fuel amounts or the chemical residue in brick in morter. No one that I know questions whether there actually were conflicts in Yugoslavia.
I think your observation is well put. But it is on the technical aspects of HIV that the established community has been able to hide the simplest and clearest explanation. We know that the polio vaccine was produced using kidney’s of infected monkies and those vaccines were injected into human beings and unlike human monkies, those human beings they developed HIV. There is no guarantee but the liklihood is certainly more plausible than HIV hanging around with discernible and persistent cases for thirty years. These types of technical aspects become cliche talmudic discussions.
Dude, are you really discussing Little Green Men on the Moon with me? This is what you are now arguing right?
LOL
I don’t think you understand Ron’s point, which has nothing to do with compartmentalization of knowledge.
The Apollo project wasn’t some big government secret, it was all out in the open. The scientists and engineers working on it were perfectly well aware that the objective was to land a man on the moon and bring him back.
Now, moon hoaxers claim that the moon landing was physically impossible. In that case, it’s well worth wondering why literally none of the actual scientists working on the project at the time pointed out that they were all wasting their time, since it was impossible. Why did it take non-scientists to only point this out decades later?
Aaaah, the King Commie got post #666. That’s apropos.
“Perhaps. you should redo you calculations on the box of cigars. I do not believe that atmosphere resistance account for the difference that much. Escape velocities of Moon and Earth are like factor of 4.”
I did not redo them but can give them so that you can point out what you do not believe. As said, these are just fast first calculations. I use Saturn V as a case of the US technology of those times.
Saturn V lunar rocket weighted 2,950,000 kg and carried (in the plans) 118,000 payload to a low earth orbit (LEO), that is 2000 km. The work form moving mass m from the radius R to 2000 km is W=GmM(1/R – 1/(2000 km+R)). Moving to a point P where the gravitation of the earth and the moon are equal (about 0.9 of the distance from the earth to the moon) is very closely Wt=GmM/R, R=6,371 km. Thus, moving from the earth surface to LEO takes
W/Wt=2,000/8,371=24% of the work. Yet it requires 2,950,000-118,000 kg in fuel and metal. Saturn V had 950,000 gallons of fuel, almost all were used to get to LEO.
Then when it was in the LEO it was planned to be 118,000 kg and to carry 41,000 kg to the moon, so 77,000 kg was fuel. Not all of it is kerosene as a part of it must be oxygen. Let us say, 50,000 kg was kerosen, the rest oxygen. Kerosene gives about 45 MJ/kg, so 2.25*10^12 J from 50,000 kg.
The work to move 50,000 kg from the earth surface to the moon is Wt=GmM/R, roughly 3*10^12 J, m varies but can be approximated as about 50,000 kg. So 76% of this work is the trip from LEO to the moon. Just about 2.25*10^12 J, just what the fuel says.
The work to move 1 kg form the moon surface to the point P where moon gravitation equals the earth gravitation is 1/24.45 of the work to move from the earth surface to P. The point P is 0.9*a from the earth center, a being 384,000 km. Thus, to move 41,000 kg from the moon surface to P takes some 2000-3000 kg of fuel and from P it can even free fall to the earth, fuel is needed only for steering.
From these calculations, Saturn V needed 25 kg of fuel for each kg of payload to get to LEO. It was very poor performance, today you can do it with much less (say 2 kg of fuel for payload 1 kg). This was 24% of the work for the whole trip and thus the energy was needed for the atmospheric friction.
From LEO to the moon the rocket consumed what was to be expected, the fuel had the Joules needed to get to the moon, and it was 77,000 kg of fuel for 41,000 kg payload.
Again, you have been outmatched so completely that your pathetic flailing merely advertises your inferiority. As I described before, you really are just the wastematter of the genetic process.
Your cowardly inability to answer my simple question in #565 proves it.
That Moon Hoax idiots also tend to be WN wiggers surprises no one.
Now get off my lawn, faggot!
Heh heh heh heh
Likewise. The moon landing was never questioned by the European scientific community and within the space industry in particular, despite freedom of speech was incomparably better at the time. There always was this rumour of Stanley Kubrick shooting the landing in studio, because the original footage got lost or damaged, but this propaganda detail does not entail such great achievement. Technological prowess is a thing for which the US is much admired by us foreigners !!! And our admiration does not come cheap 🙂 🙂 . Best, dear Mighty.
LOL
Or maybe it would be the opposite, half of those claiming it is a hoax would be saying it’s true, because they would have laws in place that could prosecute you for denying the moon landing hoax. And probably throw in a few more accusations like anti-semitism, hate-speech, etc.
Definitely. AIDS originated in the gay community in San Francisco and that threw the US establishment into a panic as their nation would be blamed for this scourge on mankind, especially as their gays travelling around the world were spreading it and many countries were trying to protect themselves by banning those infected with the virus from entering their countries. So they tried to find someone else to blame, so it went from Haitians having sex with pigs to Africans having sex with monkeys. Of course they try to blame those at the bottom of the world’s pecking order, the most disorganised and lowest on the intellectual ladder with the least opportunity to defend themselves from these gross accusations: the blacks. And Americans fought tooth and nail to have travel restrictions lifted on HIV carriers and AIDS patients as if it was some human rights issue: not the human rights of the healthy to protect their human health but of the sick to infect them. And now they flood Europe with Africans carrying this and numerous other diseases without any controls and without even placing them in quarantine. The world has indeed regressed since the 50s and 60s when this kind of attitude and policy would have been unthinkable.
Indeed not everybody watching the moon landings live believed it. I watched it and believed it to be true at the time but the very next day heard people dismissively saying it was filmed in Hollywood.
“What gave you an idea I was concerned about the weigh of fuel? I was concerned about four probabilities: (1) Safe landing on Moon, (2) Survival on Moon, (3) Safe lift-off from Moon and (4) Safe rendezvous on Moon orbit. ”
Nothing gave me the idea that you were concerned of fuel. It looked to me that you were concerned of the possibility of landing to the Moon from Moon orbit and getting back to the orbit. Simple fuel calculations seem to show that there is no problem in getting back from the Moon. That does not only mean that fuel is not a problem but also that it does not seem to be a big effort, nothing comparable to getting from the Earth surface to LEO. If so, there should not be serious problems with a safe lift-off from the Moon and a safe rendezvous with the module on the Moon orbit, which are your concerns. Likewise, it the force to exist the Moon is relatively small, landing on the Moon should be relatively easy and not pose serious safety concerns. This is what I meant, not the fuel. But they follow from fuel considerations.
“Escape velocities of Moon and Earth are like factor of 4.”
If you want to shoot a bullet out of the planet gravitation field you need to give it the escape velocity, but if you use a rocket, this concept is not pertinent. Consider this, if you compensate the gravitation force on some altitude exactly with the thrust of the rocket motor, no force affects your rocket. It means that it can move with any speed from zero to near the speed of light and it can exit the gravitational field with any speed you choose. The module on the Moon orbit must have the speed to keep it on the orbit, but a spiral orbit for the landing module should give it time to adjust to the orbital speed. That is done in the space station close to the earth, so it is certainly possible to do with manned rockets. Survival on the Moon is no different than survival in the space in a space station or a rocket, so I cannot see it as a main problem.
I may be wrong that it is the atmosphere. The atmosphere is already quite thin at 10,000 m and LEO is at 2,000 km, but for some reason it took much too much fuel for Saturn V to get from the surface to LEO, while from LEO to the Moon it took just what the burned kerosene gives. Much of the weight must be the structured of the stages, but the amount of fuel was 950,000 gallons. That is mostly not in the 118,000 kg payload, so it was burned to get to the LEO.
In comment 471 I illustrated how, using photos from wagging the moondoggie, the lunar rover proves the entire hoax, yet Unz, Art, 257, and all the other useful idiots will not even take a look at it. Lets face it, they cannot handle the truth. They will bitterly cling to any plausible deniable “fact” Nasa throws their way.
The term “Congnative Dissonance” doesn’t do it justice, mind controlled fits far better. Or jewish lack of discernment.
And then miraculously there was room left to stick a dune buggy in too!
“Keep in mind that they would also have to carry the oxidizer, which would actually weigh more than the kerosene.”
Yes, I did notice that, but in this simple calculation I just estimated some part to oxygen, like from 77,000 kg 25,000 would be oxygen. It can be changed to more than half. The result is still the same: the fuel 77,000 kg for Saturn V to get from LEO to the Moon is reasonable,
and then I calculate like this: this 77,0000 kg is 76% of the work to get from the Earth surface to the point P where the gravitation from the Earth and the Moon are equal (that is 0.9*384,000 km from the Earth). Because of a smaller size and smaller radius and because the Earth gravitation is still a bit significant close to the Moon, the work to move from the Moon surface to the point P is 1/24.45 of the work to move from the Earth surface to the point P. Therefore it takes about (1/24.45)*0.76*77,000 kg of fuel, 2,400 kg. I do not need to divide it into kerosene and oxygen in this estimation.
Thou art an ass.
Another excellent article, big thanks to Mr. Unz for this site, one of the few places on the Net where free debate is still possible.
Do you plan post some materials about the so called “nucular weapons”?
Supposed unstoppable superweapons that were supposedly built by all great powers of the world, but never ever used in war – are they it for real, or is it another hoax hoisted on the world for 70 years?
I don’t take what the government says at face value. The USG lies about a great many things, such as Weapons of Mass Destruction, North Vietnam attacking a US destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin, etc. The USG is willing to lie in order to make huge profits for the defense industry and the banks, without regard for how many innocent civilians die in the process. Politicians and bureaucrats are generally despicable. I think that extreme skepticism is in order whenever a politician or bureaucrat opens his mouth.
In the case of the moon landings, I cannot possibly prove that the USG is telling the truth. However, I am able to evaluate some of the claims made by those who say the moon landings were faked, or were impossible. All of the claims regarding the photographs are absurd, and can easily be shown be absurd.
Anyone who has photographed the night sky knows that the exposure settings required are radically different from the settings required for photography in direct sunlight. Anyone photographing a scene with a wide dynamic range knows how difficult it can be to get the optimal exposure. It’s always a compromise.
One of the favorite claims of the hoaxers is that the photographs show evidence of multiple light sources, because shadows on the lunar surface appear to align in multiple directions. But every experienced landscape photographer knows that this is only an illusion caused by the ground not being flat along with the camera not being pointed directly away from or towards the sun.
To an experienced photographer, these and other claims by the hoaxers are silly. I’ve tried on multiple occasions to educate hoaxers about the basic principles of exposure and perspective, in order to help them understand why their claims regarding the photos are groundless. But they never listen. They never perform the simple tests I suggest.
The moon landing hoax is like religious faith. People believe these things simply because they want too. Not because of the evidence. If you refuse to test your “evidence”, you can’t really know if it’s valid.
I don’t have an opinion about the Van Allen belt issue, because I barely know what it is. But when I see people making goofy claims about no stars in the lunar sky, and when I show them how to test these claims, and when they refuse to do the tests and just carry on spewing nonsense, I’m not inclined to take their claims about radiation seriously. I’m inclined to think that they are just as sloppy in their thinking about radiation as they are demonstrably sloppy in their thinking about photography.
That was due to the ultra-lightweight construction the Americans had mastered. The Soviets never got their heads around the techniques involved in constructing interplanetary spacecraft from bits of thinsheet aluminium, a few tubes and some gold foil.
They thought the moon was a brutally harsh place, so they built a tank of a lunar module. Not only was it built like a tank, they built it for only one cosmonaut. How ya gonna take selfies with a camera strapped to your chest?
No wonder they didn’t get anywhere. Hopeless.
https://media.wired.com/photos/5b189cfe7169727a89c69bae/master/w_660,c_limit/mai-lunar-craft-2-russo_0.jpg
Anyways, when they saw it could be done for a fraction of the design, engineering and construction time, they folded their tents and gave up.
Lot is a different commenter and a lesser grade one too. Try to focus.
Thanks. But why the insults? What makes you so angry?
Nope, there are people and programs that can track the positions of the stars relative to one another both in the past and the future so a fake would be promptly exposed as such.
The unit of time that you mention is actually right there in your very own words, so yes, it is. Fuckwit! It is also a measurement of distance, so?
Thanks a lot. I’ve just watched the trailer: it looks great! I’ll get a copy.
If by that you meant to say that Revusky doesn’t suffer fools gladly, I would have to agree and add that that is understatement worthy of an Englishman.
Banning people that you don’t agree with is reasonable and rational in your galaxy? Wherever it is it seems to be a very long way from America. Tell me again which part of the words free and speech is just not within the scope of your understanding?
Oh come on, who doesn’t love a good gas chamber joke? I know I do.
On the contrary.
Just show me the hard evidence or point me towards it’s location.
The telemetry data or the original footage would do.
I would also accept a physical explanation for how humans in a tin can survived the radiation of the Van Allen belt.
You only have to look at the Heath Robinson monstrosity, rather quaintly, called the lunar lander to understand that Nasa’s technical competence was indeed exceeded by the eloquence of the Apollo 11 crew.
Not only was Nasa faking it, but it seems fairly clear that it wanted at least thinking people to know it. All the clues are out there for anyone who cares to look but most won’t or daren’t. For most people (US only) though, their conditioned cognitive dissonance will never let them see through this obvious and blatant fraud. All very understandable, for once the Apollo lie is seen exposed, reality itself may take on a matrix like quality. Reality though, is just far too real for those conditioned from birth to put trust.
NASA people were watching old computer screens with blurry images and very slow feed just like with the poor quality audio. Data is being fed through to their respective screens and they all believed it was happening because the excitement was massive, so massive that it didn’t even seem real to the actual participants even at the time and then they saw it for themselves on TV so it must be true.
The impossible tale must be true, unless one factors in what the word impossible means.
Dear Nosey,
Please tell us what ISO, shutter time, and f stop you would use when photographing the night sky. If you need those terms explained, don’t hesitate to ask. I’m here to help.
Wikipedia is a bigger fraud than even you Wizzle (rhymes with fizzle)
Hmm…. well, that’s an interesting statement that would need some clarification to explore. There are (a) things one does not understand because one tries one’s best and fails. Then there are (b) things one does not understand because one does not even try. And then there are (c) things one does not understand because one very much does not want to understand them!
(I suspect a combination of (b) and (c) in this case.)
The argument being made is not very complex. The point is that in a vast mega-project, almost everybody involved is working on their little piece, some sub-sub-system of the overall thing. They have no way of knowing based on their own involvement whether the overall project is technically feasible or even real.
If you are working on a new automobile and your specialty is the brakes or the windshield wipers, then you just work on your piece. If you later see on the news that this new automobile was put into production, you would proudly say: “I designed the brakes in that car!” Suppose the automobile in question was a hoax and never produced, based on your own personal involvement, how would you know that it was?
Do you really not understand the argument?
I think the above argument is actually fallacious. The vast majority of the many thousands of technical personnel involved would not be in a position, based on their own personal involvement, to call out the overall project as a hoax. If some realized that it was, they would come to that realization based on a generalist considerations, not on their own hyper-specialized contribution to the project.
So, the number of people in a position to know would be much smaller, and they would be quite high up and hand-picked for their reliability, no? So, basically, you are expressing astonishment at the idea that such people would not commit career suicide by coming out on this issue.
I am reminded of the defenders of Holocaust orthodoxy whose argument is that the entirety of the academic establishment backs the official narrative. I find such arguments incredibly naive and obtuse.
And then there’s 9/11. How many people working in architecture, civil engineering, and such have called out 9/11 as a hoax? Now, it’s true that there are some, but even the thousands of signatories to the Architects and Engineers petition is a very very small proportion of the relevant group. But also, consider that 9/11 is a different beast because it was used as the casus belli for a whole set of military adventures causing untold death and mayhem and a moral person in that position might feel much more morally obligated to say something — though again, only a very small minority are willing to stick their necks out. A moon landing hoax would be considered comparatively benign.
Also, 9/11 occurred when there was an Internet and the doubters could much more easily find one another and communicate.
What I would like you to address is how you can make sense of the fact that both the Chinese and Russians have stated their intention to send men to the moon and both countries’ space agencies have delayed the mission to the mid-2030’s. Isn’t there something rather odd about this?
To think that the Chinese and Russians are behind the USA technologically is tenable, but 50 years behind?
I recall you alluding to Columbus sailing across the Atlantic in 1492. By 1542, there were major colonies established in the New World. I googled up a bit out of curiosity. Mexico City dates its founding to 1521. The city of Cartagena, Colombia was founded in 1533. Lima, Peru was founded in 1534.
What if, contrary to fact, Columbus went to America half a dozen times at the end of the 15th century, but in the following half century, nobody had sailed more than ten miles off the coast?
Would it be strange if people started doubting Columbus’s feat at that point?
Thinsheet aluminium and tinfoil got America to the moon, but now the technology is lost. Too bad, so sad. Even today Elon Musk can’t construct an 200 kg electric dune buggy that folds into a suitcase. But hey, engineers were so incredible then it was like Magick!
Speaking of Magick, there are lots of links between Nasa and Satanism. Aerojet was founded by Jack Parsons, an acknowledged follower of Crowley and Satanist.
https://savageplane.wordpress.com/2017/04/12/the-occult-roots-of-nasa-and-the-ongoing-fraud/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Parsons_(rocket_engineer)
Correction, should be
(1/24.45)*(1/0.76)*77,000 kg of fuel, 4100 kg of fuel. Anyway, not so much.
No, I was saying that he is an idiot. And one who can’t be bothered to make a simple declarative statement.
And don’t forget the cardboard 😉
Indeed, just looking at those contraptions passed off as “lunar landers” on NASA’s own HD photos should have anyone in stitches … they look very much like the set of a school play.
It is the distance that light travels in a year. It is a unit of distance.
Idiots like you, and apparently “FB”, never get that. If you you can’t even keep units of measure straight, why should anyone give a damn what you think about any technical subject.
Nitwit.
Why Russia did not expose the hoax is because it is useless to do so. People who are programmed to believe their government and television will do so no matter what. If you are not fully programmed it will be obvious to you and if you are programmed there is no hope for you. If Buzz Aldrin confesses no one will believe him and he will be shunned.
Another of the “you only have to look at…………” arguments.
Why anybody should care about the opinions of ignorant people is beyond me. You most likely don’t know how an MRI machine works. Or, for that matter, the very computer on which you are now typing. Do those not work? Are MRI machines and computers “hoaxes” too?
Indeed. Adam Smith said that there is a great deal of ruin in a nation. Apparently, there is a great deal of stupidity too.
Thanks. Excellent comment – one of the best.
That was my conclusion also. Someone grabbed the wrong kind of monkey, either to save money or because they didn’t know any better.
The coverup was to keep the vaccination program alive. If they admitted they had injected people with aids accidentally, no one would ever trust them again.
That’s actually evidence for the landings not being a hoax.
The actual lander bore so little resemblance to space vehicles as portrayed in science fiction that if the government was going to stage the landings it would have made more sense to make the lander look more like what people would have expected it to look.
So they only wanted to fool the dummies. But it was “fairly clear” they wanted the smart cookies to catch on to what they were up to.
This is getting quite exquisite.
I would agree that the moon shot and landing would at least be theoretically physically possible for there to be anyone in the world to believe it ever happened. However something being physically possible is a long way from saying it actually happened. Of course in 1969 how would anyone know for sure that it is physically possible without ever having done it? A lot of what we believe now stems directly from the fact that we believe it to have been done.
Banning people who carry on the way moon hoaxers do (regurgitating the same dumb arguments no matter how many times they’re refuted) is perfectly reasonable. If this were my site, I’d have banned you in a New York minute, because your very presence brings it into disrepute. But you have nothing to fear from me; it’s Ron’s site, and he’s apparently content to have you around.
Free speech doesn’t enter the picture here. You’re perfectly free to discuss the issue to your hearts’ content elsewhere.
Being banned from a site like this cannot be likened to being banned from Twitter or FB. Those have become all but indispensable communication tools, so being banned from them is like being banned from the telephone service (not just a particular telephone company, from all of them). That is much more of a free speech issue.
How would anyone know if any of it is “real time” I am pretty sure even back then something could be filmed and broadcast over television because that is actually what they did. Whether it was done in real time as you say or just a production the result coming across the television screens would be the same. I would even think it would be harder to prove false if that were the case because no one at home would have a computer to analyze the footage. As far as why would they lie? I believe most of them are not lying and are telling the truth as they know it and if it is a hoax then they are being hoaxed as well.
Another question occurred to me about the moon dust. I was wondering how can the surface be a light weight substance like dust but in such little gravity not be airborne? You would think the whole thing would be a cloudy dusty airborne mess. In this photo of the lunar buggy you can see a small cloud of dust and it is clearly making tracks in what looks like generic dust like material but wouldn’t it throw up a huge cloud and stay suspended for a long period of time?
No one has picked up on this, so let me try to deconstruct the process of Apollo lunar photography:
According to this description, for some reason — maybe it would bang against the ladder? — the Hasselblad camera was not affixed to the astronaut’s spacesuit until he had egressed from the LM and was down on the lunar surface, meaning he had to attach the camera to its chest-mount by himself, after removing it from the cord.
No word on how the cord was attached to the magazine and camera. Perhaps some type of climber’s carabiner was used, although a simple hook would seem to be the easiest to manage for the astronaut with those bulky gloves, which were apparently no obstacle to affixing or removing the camera from its mount on the front of the spacesuit, or to removing the exposed magazine from the camera – camera in one hand, magazine in the other apparently — and then putting the exposed magazine back on the carabiner, or hook, so that it could be hoist back up to the LM by the LM pilot who emerged with his cord, or the cord may have been simply hanging there to be hoist at the astronaut’s convenience.
But wait, that wouldn’t work because the guy on the surface needed a new magazine to keep on shooting all those great shots. Whew, it was a lot of work to take all those stunning pictures. Good thing they had that hanging cord!
So much work in fact that photo analyst Jack White did a time-motion study of all the lunar photos and determined that there are so many photographs that astronauts had to have taken one photograph for every 50 seconds they were out on the lunar surface, so its a darn good thing they had the cord and the hook and the easy-to-attach Hasselblad even with the bulky but deceptively facile gloves to make all this rapid fire lunar photography work so easy, and wth such excellent results.
Uh huh.
Night photography on Earth to capture stars and constellations requires longer exposure times than for normal photography. The length of time the shutter must be kept open depends on local conditions, the lens aperture, and film (or sensor) speed, usually measured now in ISO, but previously with an ASA number, and of course the camera must be mounted on a tripod. None of that was done on the Moon, so no one should be too surprised that stars are not visible in the Apollo photos.
Scum-Balls: All Thou Need Do Is Present Proof, Evidence–Know What That Is?
Dumbasses: note the science of metaphysics (Aristotle) entails BASIC notions, premises, principles–whatever thou wants to call them. Thus all things are ultimately proven by a principle which itself IS NOT provable, but can ONLY be assumed.
Thus Aristotle posed the principle of OBJECTIVE reality–idea that there’s an outside reality, outside the consciousness (“truth is out there”–X-Files)–AGAINST Plato’s subjectivism (“transcendentalism”), which Plato said was the real reality, “transcending” fm some unknown source. Either-Or (Kierkegaard).
Thus objectivity leads to identity (A = A) and then non-contradiction, and we have logic and science, and everything works, right?
BUT, problem w. objectivity is it leads to DETERMINISM, idea all things happen necessarily (absolute cause-effect)–NO (perfectly) “FREE” WILL–which moralists reject, because they have to virtue-signal, virtue-signaling being their entire life and reason for living.
So thou see: that basic principle is up for choice (btwn objective or not, hence subjectivism; and mysticism is subjectivism, for practical purposes). Jews choose extreme subjectivism (“midrash” and “Oral Law Tradition”): idea that reality and Torah is product of mind/consciousness, making themselves God, the creator–Satanism by definition. See Talmudical.blogspot.com, RevisionistReview.blogspot.com, and Come-and-hear.com for best expo on Talmud.
Thus Satanism begins w. simple philosophy, elaborated then to “religion” or mysticism. Christianity upholds the objective principle, Christ = truth (Gosp. JOHN 14:6). Jews dominate Satanism by means of their COLLECTIVIST subjectivism, Jews most dedicated, motivated, organized, allowing them to dominate the more isolated, “individualist” Satanists/subjectivists among goyim, even though goyim far out-number Jews (so far, anyway).
Now regarding Moon hoax, there’s simple problem of proof and evidence, which requires some perception of the otherwise abstract/theoretic proposition–is there any perceptory link to the notion of actual manned moon landing?–doesn’t look like it, but some evidence might come up.
On other hand, THERE’S TREMENDOUS EVIDENCE of hoax hoax hoax hoax hoax, fraud fraud fraud fraud regarding moon hoax–as one would expect in a Jew-dominated (subjectivist, hence evermore satanified) culture, featuring CENTRAL-BANKING (see Mises.org for expo; use site search-engine) as we’ve had, ever-growing and now peaking, since French Revolution and installation of the Rothschild monarchy which has ever since striven for absolute domination and consolidation as through Jew world order and world dictatorship (see “Protocols of Learned Elders of Zion”).
Do thou expect Jew, Ron Unz to admit moon hoax?–thou are an idiot–it’s amazing enough he seems to indicate admission of the holohoax, which he does as means of “modernizing” his Jew people (since holohoax is now an obvious loser, Jews exposed as the pathologic liars and psychos they really are).
Otherwise, I must say it’s entertaining and sooo interesting to listen (reading) to all these poor scum moaning, complaining, and chewing the proverbial rug for the horrendous tragedy that people won’t beeeeeleeeeeeeeeeeeeeev the dear old moon hoax–good golly, but what is the world coming to? All these poor morons need to do is to GRASPING what is “proof” and evidence, and then simply saying what it is. So “retro-reflectors” absolutely need humans (to being there on moon) to have installed them?–but then how and why?–which they can’t seem to explain. Oh well, ho ho ho ho ho.
Baiting the conspiracy theorists:
* The world is run by Jesuits
* Flat earth
* 9/11 was perpetrated by aliens
* Aliens everywhere, nazis in antarctica, nazis on the moon,
nazis everywhere actually, alien nazis, nazi aliens, the moon
is hollow etc.
* Chemtrails
* And, of course, the moon landing hoax
All the while with Alex Jones, of all people, but also Stefan
Molyneaux (sp?) denouncing Pizzagate, a conspiracy theory that has
real legs to it.
The need for baiting the conspiracy theorists must be really big.
That’s perhaps the only glimmer of hope in all this.
Hi Iris,
I read the three links of the nuclear demolition theory. Francois Roby’s paper is very interesting and seems to be correct, though I am not familiar with nuclear explosion equations (but he has the calculation in the annex and it was convincing, at least to me). His energy estimation seemed justified and it does point to big nukes. But he discards the cavities that were found as the cavities from nuclear explosions, which means that the real cavities should be somewhere, and there is the problem with seismic signal strength, as the existing seismic data is confusing and signals are too weak for nuclear explosions of that size. So, not clear yet. I hope to write a short post on it when I think more of it. But the big nuke theory cannot be discarded as absurd, that is for sure. Thanks for the links. BR, j2
Proof that the hoax was carried out in a huge vacuum chamber? Yeah, that’s it! 😉
A lot of Conspiracy Theories make valid points (except Flat Earth), but let’s break it into pieces.
A. The first piece goes something like the consensus or official narrative is wrong.
B. The second piece goes something like here is what really happened.
The logical fallacy is that A implies B. A =>B
The official narrative is often suspect and should be. That doesn’t mean the counter narrative is correct. A lot of commenters believe that their narrative is the only narrative and become highly vituperative when their narrative challenged. It might be best to keep an open mind and cultivate a disinterested interest.
Hasbarists can’t help but being hasbarists.
– The facts about Wikipedia are rather well known, it IS in fact “riddled with Jew lies”. But hey, I’m just the messenger.
How Israel and Its Partisans Work to Censor the Internet: https://www.unz.com/article/how-israel-and-its-partisans-work-to-censor-the-internet/?highlight=wikipedia
from the horse’s mouth:
Zionist Wikipedia Editing Course: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139189
– IOW, you avoided my questions and you have no scientific, empirical explanation of the Van Allen Belt.
McGowan makes the point that the entire landing would have made a gigantic crater in the dust, yet in all the photographs the dust underneath the lander is untouched.
I just find it amazing these astronauts would spend all their time staring at moon dirt and pickin’ up moon rocks and never even once try to photograph the wonderful image that the stars would have presented. I know you’ll give me the standard exposure crap, but that does not explain why photos were not taken by the command module pilot while on the dark side of the moon.
No one is saying A=>B. They are saying !A <> A. Its really quite simple but mooners seem to suffer from acute brain fog.
If it was impossible to fit a dune buggy into the LEM, then Nasa is lying. If it was impossible to squeeze the dune buggy in along with enough batteries, oxygen and fuel to get back off of the “moon”, then Nasa is lying. If it is impossible to assemble a dune buggy wearing a space suit in extreme temperatures, then Nasa is lying. And so on, and so on.
Now, once you have established that Nasa has been lying about the moon landing as much as jews lie about blood sacrifice and the holohoax, that is when you start trying to figure out what stunt Nasa really pulled. One can select from any of an number of possible explanations, but Nasa’s fake dune buggy on the moon story merely proves that Nasa is a liar and never went there. Their lies have nothing to do with the search for the truth.
You are missing my point, which is not surprising given that you have been stridently arguing in favor of the Moon landing “theory” for a number of years, assuming that someone else wasn’t using the name “silviosilver.”
My point was about specialization of knowledge. Just because one thinks the component of the project one is working on will do the job, that doesn’t mean that it will work correctly with the other components and that the overall mission will work as advertised. Only the people at the top know what is really going on.
It is hard to believe that you wouldn’t understand something so obvious. I know that there is no point in trying to convince you, but perhaps someone else with an open mind will read this.
What an idiotic statement, but it is not surprising coming from the Nazi mooner.
Unlike Twitter or FB, Unz review allows completely anonymous comments, so they cannot be banned. If you haven’t noticed all the anonymous comments here then clearly you are a dolt. If you haven’t noticed that there are no capticons and no validation emails to start commenting under a named user, then you are a raving imbecile. If you parade around like a jester spewing nonsense about Unz banning people, then you are a raving jerk. If you think that your devout mooner faith somehow is justification for trying to stifle the free speech of everyone else who clearly have far superior intellect and judgment than you, then you are a narcistic Nazi megalomaniac.
What exposure settings would you have used if you had been standing on the moon 50 years ago? In other words,
What ISO film speed? Or ASA, take your pick.
What shutter time?
What aperture setting?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Nice work entirely missing my point.
I didn’t talk about the Command Module pilot, nor can I explain why somebody didn’t do something. That’s a strawman.
What I did try to explain were the various difficulties in handling the camera and its magazines that would have presented themselves to the Apollo astronauts on the Moon who were wearing a bulky spacesuit and gloves, and whose downward vision would have been restricted somewhat by suit, helmet and visor.
The CM pilot did not take any photos from the Moon’s surface, nor did the guys on the Moon’s surface use a tripod, nor did they take any long exposure photos which process would be required in order for stars to appear in the images.
I introduced my comment by saying:
So why not address what I said in my comment, rather than something I didn’t talk about, or what you find amazing?
I note the use of the conditional mode above, “would have”, “would have been”… Do you mean “if they were there”…
Of course, I realize you could still use the conditional in that spot if you thought they were really there (of if you were unsure…) so I finally just thought to ask you:
In your considered opinion, were they there?
(I mean, if no astronauts were ever on the moon, then how difficult it would be for them to take the photos is kind of a moot point, no?)
Well, it’s not your site, so please, fuck off.
“That was my conclusion also. Someone grabbed the wrong kind of monkey, either to save money or because they didn’t know any better.”
I won’t comment on that. But it unlikely that HIV is the result of people eating monkeys or monkey brains.
Laughing.
good greif,
in the age of digital photography, one doesn’t need to know such things.
But in a previous response and based on the old school methods of photography, that all depends. I doubt the astronauts had use for light meters given their task. Which was very simple. Cover as much Lunar surface as possible, plant the flag, s\take some stills and live action and get home – bring home some rocks.
If you do a simple review there are plenty of photos of the moon in which no stars are visible. In fact, since Apollo there have been plenty of photos of space with no stars visible.
————————————————-
There are far too many moving parts requiring the cooperation of a myriad of personnel to hold the conspiracy together.
Anything is possible, but the massive hoax scenario is unlikely.
You tell em’!
These clowns do this shit way to often.
I’m not crude!
Really clever, man.
Ron Unz Rocks! It’s clear that you are a professional, paid to debunk the Moon Hoax Theory by meddling it up (in very refined way, I must concede: I suspect you’re a woman; or in any case, someone with a history of using chocolated shrooms).
Cheers
…You going on foreign vacation remedies 56% of this issue.
Since you’re obviously either:
– having very severe difficulties in comprehending very simple concepts, or
– simply dishonest
I’ll make one more attempt at an even simpler explanation before writing you off as wholly ineducable (or deliberately disingenuous).
Let’s review:
– I pointed out the obvious — that the “Dere ain’t no stars in dem dere pitchers!!!” point is easily explained with a basic knowledge of photography/ physics.
– Enraged that someone should actually employ logic and easily-verifiable facts about objective reality to debunk (yet again) this moronic excuse for an “argument,” you erupt in an explosion of ignorance and emotional incontinence, sputtering: “B-b-but it’s NOT FAIR to point out the obvious! You must FORGET that OP every put forth this canard as a serious attempt at an argument, and address my equally moronic claim that the human eye has infinite dynamic range! Because reasons!”
– I was kind enough to humor your idiocy, and merely asked you to produce some actual evidence to support this additional strange claim.
– You got even more hysterical, and (yet again) demanded that I ignore your previous claim.
– That brings us to where we are now.
Your current (and equally moronic) claim can be summarized as:
“ALL light is either direct light from the sun, or indirect light diffused by the atmosphere. Reflected light from the surface of the Moon (or the Earth) simply doesn’t exist — because I say so.”
If you can’t understand the self-refuting nature of this claim, I can’t help you.
Perhaps the problem lies in a misunderstanding of these two simple concepts?
https://infogalactic.com/info/Daytime
https://infogalactic.com/info/Night
I suggest you review the above links in order to clarify your understanding, as it appears that you are operating under some sort of simplistic heuristic akin to “sky black = stars should be visible unless clouds present” — which works fine on Earth, but renders you incapable of understanding the true meaning of “daytime” when applied to moons and other celestial objects that lack an atmosphere.
As a side issue — if you feel obligated to erupt in further incoherent, emotionally-incontinent, comically-confused rants (you will), you might wish to “explain” how you acquired your “knowledge” of the “fact” that none of the Apollo astronauts ever saw any stars, ever.
Is it based mostly on your experience as an Apollo astronaut/ personal communications from the other astronauts? Or does it derive more from your putative mastery of the esoteric art of mental telepathy?
Don’t Forget: We’re All Supposed To Be Niggers Now, Just Accepting ZOG’s Word For Thangs
They can’t simply explain what proof or evidence they have for manned moon-landing, so they get mad at the scientific folks who hold-out for proof or evidence.
For the moon-landings happened, they say–do thou think ZOG would lie? they ask.
“”Climate-change” is a fact,” they say, “all the gov. paid scientists say so.”
And holohoax is a fact, they insist, otherwise deniers or doubters, or those holding-out for proof or evidence are “anti-semites.” And gee whiz, but thou don’t want to be labeled “anti-Semitic,” do thou?
“But what about “retro-reflectors”?–but they don’t say why that would require manned moon-landing.
Funny thing is they (a) don’t know what proof or evidence for such “manned moon-landing” would be–(b) and that’s because they can’t distinguish actual “proof” or “evidence” fm just someone saying that it’s so–they imagine that say-so is itself “proof.” Ck above # 565 by “thomm,” who says,
So apart fm the actual subject-matter of “manned moon-landing,” this discussion is useful exercise for the meaning and substance of what “proof” and “evidence” entail in general, scientific, philosophic terms (a), and (b) how sense-perceptory evidence confirms the abstraction/theory/allegation (of “manned” moon-landing) in an objective reality–or not.
I find this thread exceedingly interesting, esp. for the revealing expositions of the people who “beeeleeeeeeeeeeeeeev” the manned moon-landing happened, like “Artie-boy,” and the various criticisms of the supposed evidence, including the excuses for no stars showing in any of the pictures.
Exceedingly funny is the admission of the present incumbents and “officials” to effect, “oh shoot, by golly, but we just lost all the data and sheeyit,” ho ho ho ho–and they expect this to get by, ho ho ho oho, as if everyone is just dumbed-down niggers now, fm Africa–like the movie, “Idiocracy,” ho ho hoh o ho.
I was with you until you got to vaccines. TPTB have no problem bombing, shooting, poisoning or sanctioning/starving humans for profit, apparently. The epidemics of allergy and autoimmunity which are clearly linked to mass vaccination have led to blockbuster status for anti-inflammatory drugs like humira and remicade. Gee, who would think that a product specifically designed to hyper-stimulate the immune system would cause allergy and autoimmunity?
As to why the “scientific community”goes along with whatever disinformation program, the pro-vax biomedical crowd has major denial resulting from blood-drenched hands, in addition to the usual money and status motivations. It becomes ever more difficult to reconsider one’s positions, so we pick sides, target opponents, fight to win. Truth and reality are no longer the objective.
You might wish to familiarize yourself with:
– The existence of this invention:
https://infogalactic.com/info/Telescope
– The relationship between mirror size (reflecting telescope)/ lens size (refracting telescope) and resolution.
– The implications of this relationship for the plausibility of your suggestion that astronomically useful images might have been obtained by the Apollo astronauts — using the sort of telescope that would easily fit behind the seats in the lander or the command module.
I’m not versed on the whole moon hoax thing, and I’ve never given it a lot of consideration, but I did skim though these comments looking for something on the cars they took up there, and I see you posted a couple photos of these ‘rovers’.
My thing is simply this: Show us the cars.
With all the technological advances with telescopes and satellites that can count how many freckles are on my arm from orbit, then why is it that none of these, including the probes sent to the moon, no one has had any interest in taking high resolution photos of what the cars look like today, sitting there on the moon’s surface, pock-marked by small asteroid hits, or just covered in dust. Whatever, just show us the damned cars, and put an end to the whole charade.
They say they’ve photographed the moon landing sites, but they’re way too blurry to make anything out.
I find it hard to believe that with all our modern technology, that there’s no way to see up-close images of what the cars look like today, (unless they’re not there).
.
You’re welcome.
Mockery =/= “anger.”
The (apparently sincere) attempt to promote “But dere ain’t no stars in dem dere pitchers!” as a serious argument is largely what prompts the mockery.
Of course, we’ve all seen this “I’m incapable of addressing your substantive points, so let’s talk about my telepathic perceptions of your putative emotional state/ motivations instead” technique before… haven’t we?
See any legacy media article which engages in promiscuous use of the word “hate” as part of a propaganda narrative, for example…
LOL
I wrote above, and I truly believe, that either through god, or their never ending lies spanning centuries, that jews have been robbed of their sense of discernment. They cannot recognize a hoax because if they had that ability they could not remain jewish.
Just take these latest revelations about jews being the driving force behind the japanese internment during WWII. In the comments they talk about jews grabbing japanese assets after the internment. Of course anyone a little bit aware of the Hollywood propaganda against Japanese during the lead up to the war would see just how sinister the war in the Pacific really was.
These russian asjkenazi jews locked up the japanese americans in concentration camps, stole their land, started an aggressive war with their homeland, firebombed Tokyo, nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and then turned the raping Russian hordes loose on Korea and the northern Japanese Islands.
Then, when it was all said and done, the claimed that they were the victims. And if you complain you will get fukushima’d.
https://www.rightoftheright.com/book-admits-jews-fingered-interned-japanese-americans-as-subversives/
I would also like to mention that it is you, apollonian, who is the only person in this comments section to carry on a discussion with me. I am too extreme for them. Thank you for showing them that although we have plumbed the depths of the left, social justice, cultural marxism, intersectionalism, LGBQ, you name it, there has never been a discussion of what the various flavors on the right might really be. It is simply not allowed, so either you are a progressive or to the left of it, or you are a Nazi. This is what these mooners really are trying to accomplish, to stifle any true discussion among those who aren’t taking their sheckel.
I’m afraid that vaccines are a problem too. The responsible government agencies are controlled by the pharmaceutical industry. Safety studies tend to be flawed. As Del Bigtree repeatedly points out on the High Wire program, new vaccines are never compared to inert placebos in safety studies. The movie Vaxxed describes how the CDC repeatedly and dishonestly manipulated a certain data set in order to get the result it wanted.
Back in the late 80s, vaccine lawsuit liability was removed from vaccine manufactures. The number of vaccinations children are required to receive has grown astronomically since then, and pharmaceutical companies are now making billions off of them. It is one of their main sources of revenue, in fact.
The problem goes deeper, however. The supposed benefits of the smallpox vaccine, introduced about 200 years ago, have always been exaggerated. This is described in Suzanne Humphries’ book “Dissolving Illusions,” which I recommend. The original smallpox inoculation process spread the disease, and despite later refinements, smallpox vaccination continued to do more harm than good. Most of the dreaded diseases which vaccines supposedly eliminated, according to popular belief, were actually eliminated by improved diet, hygiene, sanitation, living conditions, etc. The truth is that we don’t need vaccination. Some argue over whether certain vaccines are beneficial, but personally I don’t plan to ever get another vaccination again.
Actually, you look like the one who’s angry.
Jews: Satanists Deliberately Destroying Humanity
Hey thanks tremendously for that link/citation thou gave for the Jews behind the WWII Jap concentration camps–it’s like one of those things I KNEW (almost), but didn’t know I knew, and now thy notes and link thou gave made it so poignant at the top of my conscious mind now–thanks again, buddy–this is REAL info one can use–and it CONFIRMS so much more.
Absolutely, for sure–it’s PRECISELY what Jews would do (regarding Jap concentration camps), have done, and will do more in future if we gentiles don’t get things together.
Thus our nation descends ever deeper into SATANIC idiocracy–and WHAT actually are Jews?–they’re topmost, foremost, leading SATANISTS (extreme subjectivists), literally, leading all the other, gentile, Satanists/subjectivists (queers, transgenders, etc.) to intimidating all the rest of poor fools and ignorant, over-populated scum who can’t figure-out the deliberate satanification, corruption, and cultural collapse of Jew S A, not to mention the economic collapse due to the criminal enterprise of the CENTRAL-BANK (see Mises.org), literal legalized counterfeiting, controlled and manipulated by Jews.
He’s angry because the real issue here isn’t between belief and non-belief (I tend to believe the landings were real), but between those who need their belief constantly reaffirmed and validated, and those who don’t. I.e. it’s between those who accept illusion and those who don’t.
Well, if no astronauts were ever on the Moon, then the Apollo lunar astronaut photos were faked. If the photos were faked, then there may be evidence of the fakery within the photos themselves, just like on 9/11.
AS14-68-9486/7 LM shadow anomaly
http://www.aulis.com/nasa4.htm
Mike P,
What do you think of this blogger’s text?
http://www.aulis.com/orion_vanallens.htm
This is not an anomaly. This is simply shadows on an uneven surface, viewed from a position not in line with the light from the sun. If the shadows were on a flat surface, like what you would often have in a parking lot, they would all appear to be parallel from the viewpoint of the camera, regardless of where the camera was positioned.
This is another phenomenon which can be easily seen right here on good old planet Earth on a sunny day. All you have to do is go outside and look. Just do it somewhere other than a parking lot. Please don’t take my word for this. Go outside on a sunny day and LOOK!
The aulis.com website is a classic example of a person being willfully ignorant. In his case it’s undoubtedly because he’s making a good living selling his books and videos to people without the technical background to know any better. Notice that he’s even got a quote from that fraud Uri Geller on his home page. I wonder if he thinks that Geller’s spoon trick was real?
There’s the minor point that gravity is generally a bigger issue for planets than moons, of course. As you noted, gravitation at the Moon’s surface is roughly 1/6 that of Earth’s. Mars’ is 38% of Earth’s. From one of your other posts:
https://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing-a-giant-hoax-for-mankind/#comment-3131272
and
So it’s not just the additional gravitational force — you have to accelerate to make the trip back after making it off Mars, rather than just “falling” to Earth.
The Soviets did “send a probe back” from the Moon in 1970:
“Luna 16 was the first robotic probe to land on the Moon and return a sample to Earth and represented the first lunar sample return mission by the Soviet Union and the third overall, following the Apollo 11 and 12 missions”
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraft/display.action?id=1970-072A
https://infogalactic.com/info/Luna_16
And the Russians are sending one to Mars now, that’s supposed to return with samples:
https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/a-russian-probe-was-launched-today-on-a-three-year-return-mission-to-mars/news-story/3715992cec5e5f9ef51a9e28ee29d546
It’s not actually landing on Mars, though:
“A RUSSIAN probe has blasted off on a three-year return mission to Mars that aims to bring the first sample of the Martian moon Phobos back to Earth.”
Gravitation on Phobos’ surface is less than 1/1000 of Earth’s. Escape velocity is something like 11 m/ sec.
But for the most part, for more distant targets (especially planets) it rapidly became obvious that on-site analysis made more sense than flying samples back.
The 1976 Viking (Mars) mission included a GC-Mass Spec.
https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/planetary-probe-viking-gas-chromatograph-mass-spectrometer
Analytical equipment on a more recent Mars mission:
https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/instruments/spectrometers/sam/
Etc.
Sure, but the reasons put forward by hoaxers for why the landing was “impossible” are relatively simplistic (relative to the level of detail involved in the effort), so it really doesn’t matter if only the higher ups knew what was “really” going on. Scientists are a curious bunch by nature, so isn’t it amazing that they apparently failed completely to notice the very same factors noticed by our intrepid (and quasi-illiterate) googlers that allegedly made the mission impossible? “Whoah, waaaaait just a second. This project I’ve been working hammer and tongs at, why, when you look at the thing as a whole, it can’t possibly work!!”
Again we see the repeated, desperate attempts to divert from facts and basic science to quasi-Freudian attempts at long-distance telepathic “perception” of others’ purported moods and motivations.
To be fair — if I were to find myself in the unenviable position of promoting idiocies like the notorious “Dere ain’t no stars in deme dere pitchers!!” fallacy, I might be tempted to resort to similar diversionary tactics…
You’ll have to take that up with the hoax theorists, because they’re the ones claiming it was impossible.
Excellent, thought provoking work, as we can expect from UNZ.COM!
Keep up the good work,. Mr. Unz, there is much more to do! There is many more things still hidden behind the curtains, for example UFO mystery. Are UFOs CIA psyop, Pentagon psyop, KGB psyop, or is there really something out there?
I would like Unz and Unz community weigh on this phenomenon.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/unidentified-flying-object-navy.html
https://www.wired.com/story/what-is-up-with-those-pentagon-ufo-videos/
Its as if they are laughing at us with these dune buggies. It is so frigging absurd, yet the faithful mooners sop it all up over and over while they yuk it about the stupid idiots, over and over.
One also must remember the timing, those dune buggies were roaming the “moon” while Playboy and other jew porn rags were pushing a new free-love life style where everyone was driving a hippy dune buggy. It all was part of the psyop.
I congratulate you on your powers of trans-interwebz vision.
On the other hand, your ability to construct coherent, empirically-based arguments in support of your position (whatever that is) clearly needs some work.
I don’t have “agree” privilege currently, but I would like to say that I agree and that you explained the counter-argument to the “thousands of employees would have known it was fake” argument very well. I made a similar argument briefly and used it as a jumping-off point for an argument about how unlikely it is that the Moon landing mission could have been carried out so successfully in such a short amount of time. In a way, this is the other side of the same coin. It is difficult to bring all of the pieces of a large project together in a way that produces the desired result, but comparatively easy to deceive the participants into thinking that it worked, provided that the final test is carried out by relatively few people.
Hey, all educated people understand that gravity and air resistance/ drag are exactly the same thing.
These attempts to conceptualize them as two separate, independent forces are clearly ridiculous, and can only be motivated by “hate” and “anger.” It’s obvious.
Thanks very much for the pointer, j2 – excellent find! The article makes exactly the same point I was trying to make with my earlier comments. However, I wasn’t even aware of the “Orion” mission that this writer documents, and which actually proves:
Travelling through the van Allen belt, even for a short period of time, results in far higher radiation dosages than those reported by all manned spacecraft so far, including the Apollo missions.
It bears repeating that the orbital inclination of the Orion mission was very close to that of all the Apollo missions, so the latter would have been exposed to very similar radiation intensities on their supposed trip to the moon – but for longer periods of time.
Yup. I’m just seething with hate. Can’t cha tell? 😉
Be well, my friend.
You cannot broadcast a TV signal 234,000 miles from a 40 ft high spacecraft, even if the whole thing is an antenna. The power expenditure needed for this would be almost incalculable. This would have been physically impossible 50 years ago, and it is impossible today. Even across open terrain, you need a realy every 50 miles or so.
End of discussion .
Just a few comments that I hope are helpful:
Look at any and ALL video recorded from the 1960s, and you will see that the image quality is very poor. Video transmissions were often used on the Moon missions to inform people on Earth as to what was going on. They are of poor quality….. no surprise.
Camera exposure settings are necessairly very different for getting correct film exposure for moon/landscape images, compared to star images. You have to very much reduce the amount of light hitting the film for moon/landscape pictures to get good exposure for clear images. However, in order to get good star images as points, the exposure time must be greatly increased, and then if the camera is handheld, you will not get stars as points of light; the camera needs to be fixed on a tripod for that. The astronauts were not going to the Moon to take pictures of stars.
Nikons and Hasselblads were used almost “off the shelf” by the American space program for astronauts in space. A lens can be set to what is known as its “hyperfocal” distance setting to get clear, focused images without the need to focus for every image taken. Nikons could be set to an automatic exposure option with additional equipment which altered the lens opening. I don’t know about Hasselblads in those days, but I suspect it was also possible.
Astronauts going to the Moon did not have to pass through the Van Allen radiation belts.
These belts are compressed against the sun facing side of the Earth, and trail out behind the Earth in a straight line formed by going from the Sun, to Earth, to full Moon, caused by the solar wind streaming past the Earth. The solar wind from the Sun is formed by electrically charged particles, so when this interacts with the Earth’s magnetic field (forming the Van Allen belts), it stretches the field out toward the full moon location.
Astronauts heading for the Moon would have been within the cone formed by the belts stretched out by the solar wind. I would also expect the Apollo craft was able to pass through the belts with no harm to itself or humans.
“Ethelred” Is Not Only Cock-Eyed, But Anti-Semitic Too–Horrors
“Ethelred”: I gotta pounce upon thou, buddy, as thou are just toooooo stupid and smug at same time. The picture thou refers to SHOWS AN “ANOMALY,” without any doubt, sucker, ho ho ho ho. Who do thou think thou are kidding? Thy explanation makes little sense:
So goddam what, sucker?–the shadows still ought to pt. same direction, moron, at least roughly–they’re off by at least 45 degrees, I’d say, ho ho ho ho oho.
Thy second paragraph is brilliant–talking stupid, then telling us not to take thy word (don’t worry, moron), and then emphasizing that we “look!”–ho ho ho ho ho, like thou are parent-figure talking-down to children, ho ho ho ho. But dipshit, the shadows still should pt. same basic, general way–NOT like what we see in this plainly ANOMALOUS photo.
Then, in typical Satanist, “liberal,” Jewwy-friendly style, thou lectures us about the “person being willfully ignorant,” ho ho ho ho–as if thou are not willfully moronic and patronizing, eh?–ho ho ho hoo.
Then thou talk about
But what would a brainless moron like thou know about “technics” or “technical background” when thou are obviously deficient in simple common sense to know shadows ought to be pt-ing same way?–ho ho ho hoh o ho What a dumbass.
And what?–thou don’t beleeeeeeeeeeeev Geller’s spoon trick was real?–well, that does it, doesn’t it?–now we see thou are an anti-Semite–no wonder, hoh o ho ho ho ho.
LOL.
You didn’t disappoint.
Rock on brother.
America has re-photographed the Apollo sites quite convincingly, getting a low lunar-orbit satellite a mere 10 km above the surface, and the photos can distinguish between the double tracks of the moon-buggy and the single track of human boot-marks. Also the Chinese and Indians have I’d say admitted, that their lunar satellites have also seen the Apollo remains. So yep I agree with Mr Unz.
Also, the recent Chinese ‘Chang’ lunar lander photos show a lunar surface looking just like the Apollo photos.
I once long ago read some guy who characterized it a little differently.
He said while they were shaving down the size of the astronaut’s tooth brushes to save on weight, they also decided to take these ‘cars’ up there, because at the time, America (Detroit, et al) were in an automotive economic boon, and it was a huge part of the Americana culture to want (need) a car.
So what better way to show those Ruskies a thing or two about American can-do swagger, (and promote the auto industry) than to go to the moon and bring your (always necessary) car with you.
here’s a scene where they’re doing a ‘rally’ with the little bugger
and here the “Grand Prix”
yee haa!
>>><<<
Just show us the cars! And put the whole thing to rest.
Another point I forgot to make earlier is that I think it’s perfectly fine to question the landing. No problem with that at all. But let’s say you question it, or you come across some hoaxer material that asks questions you can’t answer, and as a result some doubt is now created in your mind – why immediately rush to the conclusion that it was a hoax or conspiracy? In my experience, whenever I’ve had doubts or questions about something that interested me enough to think about it, I have found that asking the relevant experts clears up my misunderstanding. There’s no need for the tedious intermediate step of assuming it’s a hoax or a conspiracy.
Now, I’ll grant it’s possible that the experts could all be lying. But when I compare the presentations of the experts to the presentations of conspiracy theorists, I have to say I find the former far more reassuring. Just look at the guy in the vid linked to in the original post presenting the “interrogation expert’s” opinions. I doubt I could trust that guy enough to buy a lollipop off him, let alone an entire conspiracy theory.
Righto, “Danny” Jew-boy, ho ho ho ho
Here’s a great example of my earlier point.
Apparently, no scientists or engineers fifty years were of this. Or they were, but every single one of them decided to keep quiet.
Luckily for us, Truth is on the job. Attaboy.
If Lying Doesn’t Work–Just Tell A Bigger Lie, Ho Ho Ho
Another Jewwy troll strikes–note these folks have CHUTZPAH (effrontery), suckers–they don’t hesitate to tell WHOPPER lies–it’s what Jews do.
For the real Kollerstrom would know enough to give at least a citation, but all we get is the typical Jewwy blather, ho ho ho ho
One has to marvel at how the self-appointed defenders of the white race are the very first to denigrate and belittle one of the greatest accomplishments of functional white men like me : putting men on the Moon and returning them safely.
Yet, these 70-IQ White Trashionalists hold themselves out as defenders of civilization. You will never find a greater example of Dunning-Kruger than this other than in the ideology of the women of this wastematter subrace : the fat feminists.
Most functional whites are unwilling to do more than keep these degenerates out of polite society and confined to the lowest possible social status, but I think overt eradication of these parasites (who have predatory designs on the resources of prosperous whites) is both desirable and necessary.
The concept of “dynamic range” has been repeatedly explained to the Apollo denialists in very simple terms by Ethelred the Unready and others — the denialists just ignore it, or claim that anyone who understands this very basic fact about cameras, human eyes, and any other type of optical receptor is “angry,” “full of hate,” etc.
Note that we see all sorts of whining about muh Van Allen Belt — yet none of those posts make any attempt to quantify anything? Terms like “rad” or “gray” or “sievert” are conspicuously missing from their screeds, along with information about the thickness of the Van Allen belts in various locations, time to transit, type of radiation (charged particles/ gamma/ neutrons)… they skip over these “minor details” entirely, let attempting to come up with any relevant numbers. Their “reasoning” with respect to this issue apparently amounts to a simple heuristic along the lines of “Ionizing radiation = DEATH! Everyone knows that! Actual numbers would only confuse people. QED.”
It’s possible to be right on the feasibility of overcoming particular engineering challenges in spite of being utterly incapable of understanding simple technical issues — and profoundly incurious about them — but it’s not the side to bet on.
Your explanation for how Apollo supposedly managed to get to the Moon without passing through the Van Allen belts is too vague. A quick look at any diagram of the Van Allen belts should be enough to convince anyone that it would be difficult to get to the Moon without passing through them. The only gaps in them are over two circular regions centered on the two magnetic poles of the Earth. Schematic diagrams of the trajectory of Apollo show it traveling in the orbit plane of the Moon, so it does not look like it would have been possible for the spacecraft to leave Earth orbit through the gaps near the poles. The Moon was in a crescent phase. The idea that the belts would have been compressed enough so that they could have been passed through safely is not believable, as far as I am concerned. The missions were during the maximum of the 11 year solar cycle, when radiation levels are higher. If you can come up with a reference with a serious explanation of what you are claiming, please provide it.
It would be all too easy for NASA to fake the images to which you are referring. It is interesting that other countries have provided such images, but they are not very convincing. I wouldn’t assume that there is no collusion in secret between space agencies.
Thank you for proving my point perfectly.
So in addition to your other skills, you’re also an internet grammar Nazi. Impressive.
For those saying that a video cannot be broadcast that distance, remember that Cassini-Huygens broadcast a video of the Huygen’s probe’s descent into Titan’s atmosphere.
Titan is about 3600 times further away than Luna.
Even better, New Horizons published videos of its flyby of Pluto. Pluto is 20,000 times further away from Earth than Luna is.
“Thomm”: Should Be “Eradicated” For Impersonating A White Man
“Thomm,” buddy: thou are NOT “white” in any way, sucker–“functional” or any other way–thou are obvious dink, sucker. Thou don’t think like a white person, and thou don’t express thyself like a white person–thou are just a moron dink, sucker–thou think like one, and thou speaks and expresses oneself like typical monkey-brained dink.
So because we REAL whites ask for serious proof and evidence for the fake manned moon-landing, we should be “eradicated”? What about a stupid dink like thou?–impersonating a white man–as thou don’t even understand what proof and evidence are (a), or (b) what it would be for manned moon-landing.
For thy previous attempt is gross failure, sucker (fm # 565, above),
But aren’t thou presuming the very thing to be proven?–involved in what?–the hoax? And thou indicates we should just take people’s word for it all?
Thou are nothing but a dink w. brains of a monkey, sucker–thou are a laughing-stock. Thou should do world favor and extinguish thyself, scum. If thou were real white person, thou would be soooo ashamed. No white person does idiot, stupid crap, saying stupid b.s. that thou do, moron–thou don’t fool anyone, dumbass–get a brain, fool. Ho ho ho ho ho
You are right that most of us are not experts on the Van Allen belts and on the levels of radiation that are harmful to life. I base my opinion on circumstantial evidence. For one thing, no animals were ever (officially) sent into the belts to see what would happen. For another, no humans have been sent above a few hundred miles since the supposed Moon mission. Next, videos linked to above establish that the problem of getting through the belts is a serious one being worked on by NASA scientists. Next, von Braun said that it was impossible to get through the belts without a much more complicated approach, involving launch vehicles many times the size of the Apollo launch vehicle and assembly in-orbit. There are other things, like the Space Shuttle astronauts seeing flashes of light in their highest mission, which was only a few hundred miles, approaching but below the inner belt. This was not reported by Apollo astronauts, although some claimed it later, after the Space Shuttle missions.
Are you aware of any detailed, scientific explanation for how the astronauts got through Van Allen belts without any apparent harm? Argument from authority is not enough. You are trying to belittle other commenters, but I don’t see any scientific/technical specifics in your comment either. The questions are:
1. What were the particle flux spectra in the region through which the astronauts passed?
2. How long did it take them to get through these regions?
3. What are the physical effects of particles at the different energy levels in these spectra?
4. How much of this would be blocked by the spacecraft? What about secondary radiation?
These are complicated questions which cannot easily be reduced to single numbers. Since I already think NASA lied about the mission, I am not inclined to accept glib answers.
Truly, believers must remain ever-vigilant. If people start doubting the moon landings, they might also start doubting the gas chambers or whether burning jet fuel can bring down skyscrapers.
Oh wait…
There is no such place.
You mean not in line with the spotlight.
The divergent shadows can only be cast by a relatively near-by light, or by more than one light source.
Do you really think they can’t know if they like? Further the simple fact that 2 light sources make 2 shadows?
They don’t want, that’s all. A child 3 years old can disprove this idiotic shade argument. You waste your time trying this on adults. They are able to use a keyboard and type words. This is far more as needed to understand the impossibility.
Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain.
F. Schiller 18th century
You can find similar sayings very much older
I disagree with you on this issue, Buddy, but your’e still, hands-down the funniest guy here.
Same problem as with magnification in microscopes. There is a simple fact that resolution is limited by the wavelenght of the light.
You can find this answer easy yourself, if you really want.
Hmm… My experience with scientists is exactly the opposite. They’re the most closed-minded, mentally trapped of the professional classes, unimaginative to a fault. 99.9% of science is “digging the same hole deeper” and 99.9% of scientists spend their life digging some tiny corner of it. They almost never “look at the thing as a whole” when their interest is in whatever particular corner of the whole they’ve been tasked with digging into.
The reality is that today’s scientists say it can’t be done with today’s orders-of-magnitude more sophisticated technology. Why? Because we now know things about space that weren’t then known. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread, but they don’t survive long in space.
The only answer we’re offered to the question “How did we do it 50 yrs ago?” is a shrug, followed by “Giants walked the earth in those days (and they didn’t keep notes)”.
WTF? Ya can’t be serious.
One day, when China/Russia judge that it’s time to throw the first shovel of dirt on the American myth’s coffin, they’ll send one of their lunar rovers on a drive to Tranquility Bay.
Here is one example from NASA:
Looks convincing, eh? Except:
1. The parallel tracks left by the dune buggy (LRV) are much more distinct than the dune buggy itself, which looks amorphous except for its very dark shadow (whose outline is also much sharpter than the shadows we see in all those little craters).
2. There is only one LRV track between the descent stage and the LRV, and no footprints. How did the astronauts get back to the lunar lander after parking the LRV? Levitation?
3. The inset shows a 3fold blow-up of the descent stage (shown below on the left). If we crop the descent stage from the full picture ourselves and blow it up three times, the result looks different (below right):
And again, the shadow in the blow-up is very dark and sharply delineated; out of step with the shadows created by the moon surface itself.
4. The contrast of the tracks does not change appropriately with changes in direction. Here an illustration of what it should look like:
As in the NASA picture, the light is coming from the West. Accordingly, tracks (grooves) running in North-South direction create dark shadows, whereas those in East-West direction are only weakly highlighted. In the NASA picture, however, most tracks run East-West yet have very high contrast, and the few that run in a more North/South direction don’t have any higher contrast.
Overall, I just don’t buy this – it simply is more NASA image fakery.
Very reasonable response from RU.
But I gotta say, that thing made of pipe legs and foil and rusty bits of metal standing on the moon does look like an effing TinkerToy held together with duct tape.
And how do they send back images from Mars and space probes 4 billion miles away? According to the inverse square law that signal should be very faint by the time it reaches earth and they still pick it up.
I mentioned I was a skeptic but I had a closer look at some of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
I would have thought that satellites had better resolution than that, and anyway those in lunar orbit should be closer to the ground than those in earth orbit and in the absence of an atmosphere the images should be clearer. So … if you believe, they put a man on the moon.
If by “funny” you mean “retarded ape”, then yeah, I agree, he’s fucking hilarious.
If there ever was a good example of how gullible the American public is and how powerful the media propaganda machine is and how totally corrupt this government is, this must be it.
The entire canard is laughable (NASA lost the most important video tapes ever taken, and the ones central to it’s mission and very existence). Nobody, and I mean nobody, but a fool would believe that.
I think it’s a hoax….first of all there is no air up there!!
Laughing. People have been doubting the moon landing for so long, it’s hardly unique.
Anything is possible. But I suspect it will be some time before head back as there really isn’t much benefit to it. In the meantime, China, and others who are making those missions via uninhabited vehicles should provide some support that the effort is plausible and doable.
The debate itself has very little value.
—————————————
I wouldn’t invest to much in the poor performances of astronauts public appearances. Public engagement is not their strong suit nor should it be.
I’ve heard almost all what was presented in this article before, and after still ongoing analysis, and after so many red flags, I too am almost certain that there were no manned missions to the Apollo space program. Couple other points to add to the article as well as further links for the reader’s own research.
Manned missions never went past 500 miles above Earth orbit (low-Earth orbit) because of the Van Allen radiation belts that start at 1000 miles above Earth and extend to ~26,000 miles above Earth. There is enough evidence to prove that the Apollo Moon missions were filmed on Earth and reproduced as ‘Manned Moon landings’ in a Hollywood like studio conditions. There are myriad of photo/video inconsistencies from the Apollo missions to prove they are frauds, but one has to have an open mind and investigate. It takes 1.3 secs for sound to travel one-way to the moon and then another 1.3 secs to travel back to the Earth. On at least three occasions from the Apollo missions the recorded communication between Astronauts and mission control is UNDER 2.6 secs (***not including the time to process the questions in the human mind before producing and answer). Thus a 4 secs delay would be considered normal.
Great link with follow-up material for research:
https://flybynews.wordpress.com/2013/06/27/moon-landing-hoax/
Massimo Mazzucco ‘American Moon’ trailer:
and interview:
Massimo Mazzucco on his long awaited “American Moon”__on Kevin Barrett’s Truth Jihad Radio
http://noliesradio.org/archives/153999
http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/one-giant-lie-mankind-amazing-nasa-confession/
Van Allen Belt radiation levels and human doses:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/15/radiation-exposure-levels-guide
Right, it’s fun watching the DoublePlusGood crowd get their panties bunched up, but in some sense this issue is rather minor because while the landings are probably true, the whole operation was nothing more than a Cold War PR stunt. Since there’s nothing much up there besides some rocks, I’m actually a bit surprised the Americans went up there more than once, esp. given the obscene cost. That might make for an interesting conspiracy theory.
The shadow of the lunar module with Neil Armstrong at the beginning of the article does not look like it was shot on the moon. The shadow reaches very close to the horizon. You can’t do that shot without being very near a knoll or a very large crater. There should be more moon. It looks like if Neil went to the edge of the lunar modules shadow and made one more step he’d be a goner as if they accidentally landed 40ft from the edge of Half Dome, Yosemite.
The polio serum for the vaccine was clean and tested clean in New York by the WHO. It was then sent to Africa and spun up using monkey kidneys as the medium. At some point it got contaminated with the HIV virus. Probably because they ran out of Chimps and started using Green Monkeys.
They laid a map over the aids outbreak and found they matched the polio vaccination sites.
There were other problems with vaccines in the 1960s causing cancer. Again leading to another coverup. For years scientists denied that viruses could cause cancer. Now it is more or less accepted.
There seems to be no limit to what evil people will do for the greater good.
Here’s a good discussion by Jay Weidner, who believes the landings were real, but the films faked:
http://whale.to/c/how_stanley_kubrick_faked.html
No, you misunderstand, Old Sport.
The scientists were well aware of it. They just felt that their government K-12 indoctrination camps were sufficiently going to dumb down the population back then, and 50 years into the future to where it would not matter.
And, well…
The Wistar polio vaccine in question was amplified in local *chimpanzee* kidney tissue culture, not in “monkeys”. And the viral zoonosis in question would have been SIVcpz, not HIV. HIV itselfs is an adaptation of SIVcpz to human cells.
Unfortunately, the key information demonstrating local amplification of the vaccine was not discovered until Hooper’s book was already at the printers. So this crucial piece of evidence did not appear in the first edition of his book.
IT’S…ALL….PHONY!
Here are your satellites, Bro.
It’s hard to wrap one’s mind around this concept Bud, took me quite a few years, but the truth is; if you see it on the news, it’s a lie.
They certainly are NOT. Science has become political, and “scientists” have become political hacks. They avoid any non-Politically Correct subjects, and all sing the exact same tune. The jew admissions scandals shows how science got so debased, but it is the constant “97% scientists believe in global warming” blather that proves it.
I would be ashamed to call myself a “scientist” in the US in this day and age.
I wish they would make that trip, as it would pretty much deep-six the “why haven’t we done anything since?” Everything involving tech is faster, better, and cheaper now, yet I’ve been somewhat suspicious that all we do these days is send probes and dick around with the ISS.
There are many problems with the photos produced by NASA, but the most compelling for me are the imprints of tire tracks from ‘moon’ rover, inconsistencies in the footprints (pattern, distance relative to each other, and absence at times where there should have been), shadows cast, illogical reflections from the visors of some of the astronauts (based not only on the supposed objects that should have been there, or unexplained ones in some instances, but also the number of astronauts present given the group), and defects, cracks in the lunar modules.
I’ve seen photos of the lunar vehicle that has chevron (to halves of 45 degree angled that converge on the tires, yet the imprints in the dirt the vehicle supposedly traveled on are somehow parallel ***cannot seem to find on internet anymore, but I’ll continue to locate and post if I find it again.
They ones still on the net (Notice: I’ve just encountered some of these photos, yet whenever they are present, many have inconsistencies–even if viewed for the first time–arise almost immediately. ***Note: many of the photos made available on NASA’s official Apollo website have been removed or simply cropped so the previously mentioned inconsistencies are removed***):
1)
Notice the tracks are visible from the behind the rear tires, but notice the absence of tire tracks in between the front and rear tires (Pay very close attention to the marks directly behind the contact surface of the rear tires and compare that to the absence of those behind the front tires). Don’t be afraid to zoom in! There are other inconsitencies, like the clear difference in foreground surface and background mountain (front-screen projection–a Kubrick specialty)
Here’s another one:
2)
Notice a set nice of outlined footprints just behind and to the right (from his perceptive). Also notice the American flag behind and to the right, yet there are NO visible footprints anywhere near that flag. So how did the flag plant itself into the dirt? (Also front-screen projection here and an unexplained reflection in the visor and no visible reflection of the astronaut in the reflection who is taking this photo)
Just compare the #2 pic to this and notice the abundance of foot prints present in this one:
3)
Notice the lack of tire tracks again (We are looking at the rear of the vehicle were tracks should be present–especially on the right side of the vehicle (rear and front both) where light is abundant). The shadows of the vehicle and the inconsistent pattern one would expect–especially looking the astronauts visor (half dark and half light along the horizontal axis)
Will the intrepid Ron Unz respond to my challenge? What say you? No, worries …. there’s more ….
I have the utmost respect for you Ron.
When I am finally able to do some serious reading I turn to Unz.com for the insightful articles and intriguing comments.
I am just diving into all these comments now and I don’t know if anyone has yet mentioned the fantastic PDF of Dave McGowan’s “Wagging the Moondoggie”?:
http://www.whale.to/c/Dave%20McGowan%20-%20Wagging%20The%20Moon%20Doggie.pdf
Dave did some very deep digging when he researched “The Moon Landings” and it is a very informative and hilarious read. I have re-read the whole thing probably six times just for a laugh!
Anyhow, I wanted to share this PDF with everyone because Dave McGowan was a wonderful political researcher and a very good writer, certainly worthy of Unz.com
Hmmm….where is Wikileaks on 9/11??
“then you are a narcistic Nazi megalomaniac.”
Not bad, but I would still go with ringmeat mongoloid dickweed.
My wild guess is that “The Shanksville Plane” was “supposed” to hit WTC 7 and for “some reason?” it didn’t.
The building was wired to implode just like the other two did and, voila! it came down that afternoon because….it HAD to. Plane or no plane.
Just call me a nutty conspiracist. But that seems like a logical explanation to me.
Certainly better than WTC 7 just exploding and “falling into its own footprint” magically due to “a few isolated office fires”.
Consider what was “in” Building 7……
Speaking about “FOX” making a video about 9/11, this one is a DOOZY!:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51334.htm
Yes, the return trip or takeoff from the Moon is not the problem. I have discarded it already as a problem and am now checking the potential Van Allen Belt issue.
Laugh out loud hilarious!!!
Thank you!!! 🙂
I thought William Casey died of a brain tumor in the hospital due to aspiration pneumonia and a swallowing dysfunction??:
https://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/07/obituaries/william-casey-ex-cia-head-is-dead-at-74.html
Assuming that there is a technical obstacle for Apollo to have traveled to the Moon, it must be raditation, because it cannot be anything else: astronauts have been in LEO where temperature already varies much, and landing and starting off from the Moon requires so much smaller energy than starting off from the Earth that the problem should not be there.
Thus, the only potential problem is in radiation. This radiation can be behind the Van Allen Belts or in the belts. An indication that it is in passing the first (proton) Van Allen Belt is that NASA in Orion investigated the dosage coming from touching that belt, and also from Russians who have questioned Moon landings because passing the Van Allen Belts is a problem. The bigger problem should be the first belt, the proton belt, containing enough protons that can pass 14 cm of lead.
Apollo, according to information given and tracks shown, avoided the first Van Allen Belt by passing it not so far from the Pole. But strangely they did not pass it exactly from the Pole and avoid the belt totally, they still crossed from a low intensity corner. There is another oddity: today NASA does not investigate this logical and tested track but tries with Orion to pass the first Van Allen Belt from a place that gives 1000 times as much radiation as you get on the LEO.
So, my working hypothesis is that there is something terribly wrong in passing to the outer space through the Poles. While it is true that Van Allen Belts do not extend to the Poles, there is something else terribly wrong with them. Van Allen Belts contain trapped charged particles which oscillate on spiral tracks. Such tracks indicate that they are not extremely energetic particles, but some are still very bad being able to pierce 14 cm of lead.
But what about the Pole regions? There are auroras on both Poles. These auroras are created by charged particles coming from outer space that are deflected from their track by the Earth’s magnetic field. Thus, they do not get to Van Allen Belts. They get to one or the other Pole. I would imagine that some of these charged particles are extremely energetic. Maybe that is the reason why the pass through or even close to either Pole is even worse than passing through the first Van Allen Belt. If so, then obviously Apollo did not take such a track.
I do not know this topic, what do you think, is it dangerous to of fly through the Northern Lights?
I didn’t watch your video, as I don’t give the tiniest shit what you have to say.
Have you calculated it? What is it then? You’re just talking out of your ass. Or mouth. Same thing.
TV transmissions are line-of-sight. The surface of the Earth is curved, you nincompoop. There is a direct line-of-sight to the Moon.
Of course – jibberering idiot that you are – you don’t think the surface of the Earth is curved, do you?
I don’t know whom I hold in greater contempt. You, or all the nitwits here who – knowing full well what a ridiculous clown you are – make common cause with you.
The whole cretinous lot of you deserve each other.
No, lots of people knew what all was needed, even if they themselves were not working on it.
Are you kidding? They fly (more-or-less) straight up at first so as to get out of the thickest part of the atmosphere as soon as possible. It wouldn’t be possible to get to the required speed (about 18,000 mph) 0therwise.
There is even a movie made from the POV of one of Uday Hassain’s body doubles:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1270262/?ref_=nv_sr_1
“Fate of Saddam’s look-alikes remains unknown…”
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/dec/16/20031216-102509-5288r/
TrustNo1 is Fox Mulders password. One of the more famous lines from the show is:
“To deceive, inveigle and obfuscate”.
I’ve typed out a transcript of what the bloke in the first video, Terry Virts, says in that excerpt:
Not even today’s astronauts themselves believe that it was possible to go to the moon fifty years ago.
I’ll repeat this, slowly, in case anyone missed its significance:
Not. Even. Today’s. Astronauts. Themselves. Believe. That. It. Was Possible. To. Go. To. The. Moon. Fifty. Years. Ago.
Of course, NASA has produced an explanation for why there is fifty-year-old footage of men playing golf on the moon when these days they can’t even get out of low-earth orbit. That explanation is: ‘We destroyed the technology, all the blueprints, all the guys who worked on the project forgot everything about it, and so these days it’s too painful to re-create’.
‘We destroyed the technology’ – Jesus fracking Christ why????? What the hell happened???? In the middle of a fight to the death with another superpower, you destroy your most advanced technology????? Are you fracking kidding me?????? Who believes this garbage?????
‘Too painful’! Not costly, or difficult to assemble the crew, etc – too painful!
I’m not going to offer an hypothesis as to what is going on here. I will just ask those who think those asking questions are conspiracy-theory morons – aren’t you at least curious as to what is going on here? Can you not see that there is something going on here that seriously doesn’t make the least ounce of sense, and that the official explanation for it is a bunch of crap?
The Moon is airless. Lunar regolith that gets thrown up falls right back down. There is no air for it to be suspended in.
Was that true in the 1960s though?
And is supporting the moon landing narrative a politically correct cause then? Is that why they’re keeping mum today?
My Triumph was the 200cc.
Later, I had a BSA Gold Star (500cc). I came off it on a patch of oil in London’s Picadilly Circus. Luckily, it went a different way. As I sat up unhurt (and without a helmet), lots of tourists were busy taking my photo. Someone helped me push the bike to a quiet street nearby.
I had to catch a flight to Athens the next morning. I asked Zack, a Jewish “friend”, to collect it and keep it until I got back. When I came back from Greece, Zack had vanished. Strangely enough, I had accidentally witnessed Armstrong “stepping on the moon” at the house of Zack’s mum the previous month.
Years later, I was going down the stairs at Nottinghill Gate to catch a train and Zack was coming up the stairs. He reassured me that the BSA was worth “nothing” and he had dumped it. I was rather glad by then that he had stolen it. 🙂
Not significanly longer periods of time. The Apollo vehicles only made two traverses through the Van Allen belts – once out, once back in. They didn’t linger there. The total radiation dose incurred was comparable to a whole-body CT scan.
No, that is not true. No mission envisions having people linger in the Van Allen Belts – they pass through them quickly. They get a dose. The Van Allen Belts might be a serious problem for unmanned cargo missions using electric propulsion systems which would spend a lot of time in the Van Allen Belts. The radiation problem that NASA has been concerned about recently (under the auspices of the Constellation/SLS programs) is the Galactic Cosmic Radiation – the flux of very high energy particles to which a long-duration mission in deep space would be subject, without any protection provided at all by the Earth’s magnetic field.
There is lots of information available on the web on those topics. There is information available from NASA. You can look it up. But – no – it is not couched in terms of “let us explain to you how we really went to the Moon to all you people who don’t believe us”. For the same reason that the average person doesn’t say to you “I’m not a murderer or a sex criminal – let me give you evidence to proove it”.
It did cross my mind but that means that the conspiracy isn’t just American and Russian but now involves even China, India, and other minor countries that launch satellites. This would imply the reach of masonic secret societies well beyond just the white and Jewish races to include all others and also considerable expense by some poorer countries that could hardly afford it (in the sense that they actually do build rockets and launch them and spend money building all these satellites that presumably don’t work). I gather that they could well control the United Nations and many international organisations but why bother to fool us all and pretend they have more advanced technologies than they actually have?
“For example, I think we should believe the government in areas…”
Should you? Should you really? Should you actually, honestly?
Well, if you believe those pictures prove anything, then you can believe any theory….
Mike P,
What do you think of Big Bertha, the lunar sample. It has been shown that the stone is from the Earth and the present theory is that 4.5 billion years ago the Moon collided with the Earth (as it did) and this 9 kg Earth stone got to the Moon. Fine, that explains why it is in the Moon, but it does not very well explain how an Apollo astronaut found this stone since a stone that has been on the Moon surface for 4.5 billion years would be covered with some layer of Moon dust, would it not?
How much dust might there come in 4.5 billion years? I found a claim that in 1000 years the dust layer of the Moon grows by 1 mm. Seems reasonable, you need to wipe the dust every millennium. So, we would expect that an Earth stone that got there 4.5 billion years ago is under 4.5 km of dust. But this was on the surface of the Moon, meaning that some volcano or a moonquake moved it on the surface. Moon volcanoe were last time active probably 65 million years ago. From that time there would be 1 m of dust on the stone. That would stop the astronaut. So we have to conclude that a moonquake moved this Earth stone on the surface maximum some millions of years ago and the lucky astronaut found it. Because otherwise it looks a bit like the petrified wood stone.
This “we did not go to the Moon”conspiracy looks initially totally absurd, but when one checks the evidence, or more like lack of evidence, it may finally not be so absurd. Should it be true, it has some unique features, like no echos can be heard from the Moon.
You wrote: “If our Moon landing were just a fraud, it seems totally impossible that the Soviets weren’t aware of that, and they could have totally destroyed America’s international prestige by revealing the hoax. Yet they never made a single such claim at the time. Unless this gigantic issue is effectively addressed, any Moon Hoax theory can be immediately dismissed.”
There is no basis on which one can claim the soviet had the technical means to properly track and record the hoax, in such a way that they would have been able to convince the american people subjected to propaganda by western medias.
The Chinese recently (Jan 2019) sent a mission to the moon. Below is an article (translation) from a french intelligence site that suggest they didn’t find any trace of Apollo missions on the supposed landing sites.
THE GREAT TOTEM FELL
The first fifteen days of the year 2019 saw the collapse of the great totem without anyone noticing.
The history books of the future will dwell a great deal on these two weeks during which a great Totem of contemporary history has collapsed without sound or crash.
The Chinese mission to the far side of the Moon, Chang’e 4, had a secret component.
In addition to the official objectives of the mission, secret data collected by the probe and the satellite relay in orbit around the moon were transmitted to a secret conclave of the highest authority of the Chinese Communist Party.
President Xi Jinping deemed the case very sensitive, as a threat to China’s national security but nevertheless authorized a debate on the issue within the governing bodies. Now, the secret data collected by Chang’e 4 has just cleared an old controversy.
In a rare occurrence, 2000 Chinese delegates have just signed a petition to President Xi Jinping for China to formally demand explanations from the United States about the Apollo missions.
This petition, hitherto confined to the opaque bodies of the Chinese Communist Party, has triggered a reaction in both chambers of the Russian parliament, where members of Parliament are agitating for the disclosure of the truth, the whole truth about the Apollo missions and what one head of a Russian parliamentary committee has described as a falsification of history on an unparalleled scale.
From reliable sources, Beijing does not want a direct casus belli with Washington on events that occurred between 1968 and 1972. However, if the pressure of the US Deep State against China increases, China could use the Apollo map and reveal secrets about it from the tribune of the United Nations.
The Great Totem just fell.
https://strategika51.org/archives/22602
Everyone who was around surely remembers how AIDS spread from the gay community in San Francisco to other gays in USA then worldwide, to junkies and blood product users, through bisexuals to prostitutes and promiscuous heterosexuals. If it came from the polio vaccine it would have spread more uniformly through the population and not targeted those specific communities in that order. It would even be more likely that it was a bio-weapon specifically used to target those communities than some accidental result of medical polio vaccine R&D.
It seems there is historical revisionism going on to divert the blame from those with whom it originated. So blame it on blacks in some jungles instead of on American sodomites. Nowadays it is more widespread in sub-Saharan Africa but it was not so in the early days, and it is clear that the transmission of AIDS was from America to Africa and elsewhere, and not from Africa as they now try to claim in their most convenient theory.
There is a lot of truth in it.
That proves only that you know nothing about radio transmission.
Why all the stupid scientific analphabets try to discuss themes with crazy arguments beyond any knowledge (and totally false too)? Just because you can do it in anonymity?
Myself never discuss Netflix series or the newest trends in sunglasses or shaving foam.
Because my knowledge is on the same level than yours in technology. Know nothing about it. If I am interested I will ask instead of making silly theories that makes a fool out of myself.
So you mean they put a crane in the studio just to avoid the tire tracks?
Why?
True where science meets the public.
One of the reasons you can read here. You trigger enough stupid people with published versions. They will prove their crude theories always. Don’t want to read the details and if, they just take out some details to support there own – always much better than anybody else- model.
If they you disprove (what they can easy do them self if they were interested) they change subject just to came back the next day with another website to postulate the same thing again.
If you disprove them again the show the typical signs of cognitive dissonance.
It’s useless, so there is a “official” path (even for politics) and other.
Correct, Soviets had no means of tracking the Apollo mission. So the argument that the Soviets could expose the hoax is specious.
https://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing-a-giant-hoax-for-mankind/#comment-3128542
Yes the director would have had to use a crane. Probably Stanley Kubrick wanted to leave some clues and NASA did not check everything properly before releasing it for public viewing. Many other inconsistencies were also deliberate so we would now debate whether NASA sent men to the moon or hoaxed it. The great director had a conscience after all. His 2001 also looks far better than his Apollo series. After all he wasn’t going to surpass himself on NASA’s behalf. And “Eyes wide shut” is also a clue as who is behind it at the top and how they enforce their code of silence.
To quote a line from Star Trek:”Make it so!”
Gobalism asserts itself as macrocosmic, yet it is all about the control and reduction of
the microcosmic, enslavement of the human genus for its own -Luciferian- ends.
Indeed. There is an absence which is quite compelling.
No commenter seems to have noticed the fact that the USA’s lunar missions were closely observed by hundreds of thousands of amateur astronomers and ham radio enthusiasts. Powerful amateur telescopes were trained on the lunar missions and observed their takeoffs, their journeys to the moon, and the launch and landing of the lunar module. Ham radio enthusiasts monitored all radio communications and their locations throughout all the missions. The vast majority of these “amateurs” have practical experience exceeding that of many professionals in these areas. There was extensive coverage of their observations in various amateur journals. I personally knew a ham radio hobbyist who tracked communications from the lunar missions. As far as I know, none of these people detected anything phony about the lunar missions or wrote about any suspicious observations they made of the lunar missions. That’s pretty damn strong evidence that the moon l;andings were not a hoax.
Of course, you are right. Every woke person knows that Soviet technology was a total fake, starting with the fake Sputnik launch. The myth of Soviet technology – including the fake Sputnik” satellite – was a CIA operation to encourage more funding of the MIC. (/sarc/)
This Nosey character really can’t help himself. After all his efforts to persuade us, and himself, that he isn’t a pathetic little creature whose Daddy showed off with a Bentley (leaving NtD with a nagging need to emulate his betters) but some kind of man of the world who once shook the hand of a lord, or Royal or US Senator who remembered his name for two minutes he can’t even get value out of Wikipedia but has to rely on the juvenile logic which say Wikipedia can be distorted by some editing so is useless for all purposes.
I think that the people posting the nonsense they read on sites like aulis.com have given up on critical thinking. I would put them in the same category as the people who killed themselves, believing they would end up on the mother ship beside the comet (Hale Bop?) a few years back.
But there are also people reading unz.com who are intellectually curious, and might find the arguments from the hoaxers plausible, simply due to a lack of technical knowledge regarding photography, radiation, Newton’s laws of motion, etc. It’s for these people that I post about the photography. Unlike radiation and physics, it’s a subject I understand.
How do you know that the visible tracks are due to shadows? What if the tracks are visible simply because the dust has been disturbed by the vehicle’s tires?
.
That wasn’t written by an astronaut. It was written by a PR flack. And by the way, it is SLS rocket, not the “SOS” rocket. What it says is that we can’t send people beyond LEO today. Not that we never could.
No, that isn’t what is claimed, and you can’t find any quote to that effect either. We didn’t “destroy technology”. Space vehicles are very specialized. Building one kind doesn’t mean you have the facility to build another. Something you haven’t built for fifty years can not just be readly replicated. The people who built it are dead. The dyes and tooling – and yes, some of the blueprints – have been lost. The suppliers of sub-components have moved on to other businesses or have gone out of business altogher. M-1 carbines used to be manufactured by IBM. Do you think, if you called IBM today, that they could whip you up one to order? If you don’t have the complete set of all of it, you’re back to, well, maybe not square one, but square eight or ten perhaps.
It wouldn’t be possible to build a 1935 LaSalle either – not without a large effort.
The Apollo missions did not exit “close to the poles” – the Earth orbit inclination for all of them was close to 30 degrees relative to the equator. Taking off tangentially from that orbit would have led them through intense radiation. Regardless of whether or not that radiation would have been survivable, it inevitably would have resulted in far higher dosimeter readings than reported for any of the missions (which were actually very low – only about 1/1000 of a lethal dose).
Therefore, we can conclude that they simply did not leave Earth orbit. This is also directly evident from the footage shown in Bart Sibrel’s movie “A funny thing happened on the way to the moon”:
In case the video doesn’t start at the intended time, go to 32 minutes.
Ron Unz won’t address Kubrik or the “Lunar Rover”. Those paths in his brain have been shut off with a mind control switch(es).
Youtube appears to have deleted an interesting analysis from crowhouse where he shows clips of the path of the New Zealand shooting (no blood or violence). He tracked Tarrant’s movements on the streamed video, and he pointed out how several weird occurrences happened moments before Tarrant would take an abrupt turn and start new actions. A car-trailer with a flapping red flag, two fat guys wearing red shirts, a row of red and turquois cars. It was quite interesting, but now it is memory holed thanks to people like silviosilver.
Run Unz seems to be acting like Tarrant in that sense. When he sees one of these red-flag cues, Kubrick or the “Lunar Rover”, his brain switches into some kind of defense mode. Similarly, Nasa and the ZOG have programmed many other “brains” in these comments to freeze up whenever someone dares question the mooner religion in any manner at all. Silviosilver says we should be damned into Unz exile for merely doubting.
Agreed. They have to do better than secret messages embedded in the movies of Stanley Kubrick. The only real thing they have is some fake moon rocks, the most likely explanation being theft and substitution by bureaucratic underlings.
To All!
Linked below, an article on how Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin were influenced to plant a British flag on the Moon. Fyi, and as a “Homelander,” I never knew about this planting.🤔
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8787751/neil-armstrong-buzz-aldrin-plant-british-flag-moon/
Indeed. Way back in the late 1950s and early 60s (when I was a teen-ager) the Pentagon routinely reminded everyone that they had cameras on spy planes that could read license plate numbers on cars parked on the streets of Moscow. So what’s the problem photographing abandoned dune buggys on the moon?
China sent up a remote ‘rover’, and it takes up close photos of the moon’s surface
https://watchers.news/2016/02/05/china-publishes-new-high-quality-images-of-the-moons-surface/
but no one has any interest in what the cars look like today?
If I were a Chinese scientist, the first thing I’d want to see is what the cars look like, because that would tell us all kinds of things about conditions on the moon’s surface, since we all know for how long the cars have been up there, and so they’d be invaluable for understanding what goes on at the moon’s surface.
If we can send a rover to Mars to see up close what it looks like,
why not send a probe to the moon, and take a look at the cars?
It’d be worth it just to put to rest all the loony conspiracy theories, no?
I am assuming it from the pictures taken then and there that you so highly value – we see impressions (footprints and tire tracks), but we don’t see any noticeable difference in colour between those impressions and the adjacent terrain.
Also notice that most tracks seem to fizzle out somewhere all by themselves, without connecting back to each other in loops and circles; and there are no signs of the vehicle having backed up either. These “tracks” are clearly phoney, as are the “LRV” and the “descent stage” with their false beards for shadows. It’s a photoshop job, and an amateurish one at that.
From ResearchGate you find
Andreas Märki Radiation Analysis for Moon and Mars Missions
Figures 7 and 8 give the path of Apollo 11. The path quite well tries to avoid Van Allen Belts, and the paper wonders why NASA does not use this path.
tac says: “There is enough evidence to prove that the Apollo Moon missions were filmed on Earth and reproduced as ‘Manned Moon landings’ in a Hollywood like studio conditions.”
The fake moon landing movies [like all of the fake atomic bomb test movies] were most likely all made at the top secret US govt. Laurel Canyon CA movie studios located on Lookout Mountain:
Lookout Mountain Air Force Station
Lookout Mountain Air Force Station (LMAFS) is a former defense site which today is a private residence in the Laurel Canyon neighborhood of Los Angeles, California. The USAF military installation produced motion pictures and still photographs for the United States Department of Defense and the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) from 1947–1969.[3]
The 100,000 sq ft (9,300m) facility was built on 2.5 acres in 1941 as a World War II air defense center to coordinate Los Angeles area radar installations.[3] When the studio was established in 1947, its purpose was kept secret”……. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lookout_Mountain_Air_Force_Station
Regards, onebornfree
Take a breath…. Think Wikileaks (and where it gets its stuff from).
Hubble telescope resolution is 0.05 arcsec. Distance to the moon is 240,000 miles. This gives you (if my estimate is correct) about 90m linear resolution. To discern a 10m object would be possible only with multiple exposures and some super-resolution deconvolution processing. A single picture would not be good enough.
“How are we going to get to the moon if we can’t talk between two or three buildings?” Virgil “Gus” Grissom, immediately prior to his (and his colleagues’) death by incineration in Apollo 1.
There is no physical evidence that a manned space mission ever went beyond low earth orbit. Ghostly images on a flat screen, and the authoritative voice of Walter Cronkite do not constitute anything resembling irrefutable physical evidence.
The same is true for so called “debunkers.” Refuting counterarguments (whether strawman or not) is not proof that anything really happened.
Traversing the Van Allen belts is barely the beginning. What about the radiation in unprotected space?What about the extreme temperatures on the moon’s surface? How could the men have survived with their ridiculously insufficient “space suits”?
Answer: You don’t get to win an argument through “debunking.” You win an argument by methodically documenting that something has happened because, x, y, z. And this is not the case with the alleged manned missions to the moon.
To that, the freemasons reply (advance to 1m 13s:
Freemasonry: “When man reaches new worlds, Masonry will be there.”
“33rd Degree Flag carried by Cooper”
“The Masonic Supreme Council Flag”
A Strange Ritual and Secret Ceremony
True, a small replica of our proud U.S. flag was dutifully carted off the Eagle lander and posted for all to see. But, then, a strange ritual of an entirely different sort, of a dark and ominous character, took place at Tranquillity Base on the moon. It was not beamed to the earth via television, for this ritual was carefully crafted beforehand as a secret ceremony, to be hidden and seen only by the eyes of the adepts of the Illuminati and its Masonic fraternity.
Astronaut Neil Armstrong carefully took out his Masonic apron and held it up for the cameras over his space suit as if to cover his genitals area-the power center, or dynamo, of Luciferian energy in Masonic ritual. Today, a photograph of Armstrong holding his occultic apron hangs on a wall at the House of the Temple, the sanctuary of the Scottish Rite, in Washington, D.C.
http://www.texemarrs.com/032003/eagle_has_landed.htm
Astronaut Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin took this Masonic flag to the moon on Apollo 11 in 1969 and conducted a secret ritual.
Next, brother Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin, at the time a 32° Masonic initiate, planted on the moon’s surface the real flag intended for honor, the flag the Apollo 11 had carried in its storage compartment, the flag with the Scottish Rite’s emblem of deep and mysterious spirituality, the doubleheaded eagle.
And you are an astrophysicist or some other and what scientist qualified to make your assertions confidently? Would you be accepted in court as an expert witness whose opinions are authoritative?
There are two factors that make understanding of these things extremely difficult:
1) The sheer, astonishing size of the conspiracy, in terms of people, money, organizations, and nations
2) The interconnectedness of all things broadcast on TV.
So in a nutshell, yes, all space agencies are involved, as are all governments, and yes, the moon landing conspiracy is interconnected with crack in the ghetto, the me-too movement, WWII, the slave-trade, the zionists, the immigration caravans, the prison system, duh man holdin’ white men down, etc. etc. etc. all connected.
Once you get that, you get the the “why” and “how” questions, and that’s where things get interesting…
Ephesians 6:12 King James Version (KJV)
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
LOL!
“What is says is that we can’t build a 1947 go-kart today, not that we never could.”
Thanks, j2, good find.
He estimates a total dose of 39 mGy for Apollo 11, when the reported value is 1.8 mGy. This estimate is based on best-case assumptions for solar activity, shielding, and flight path.
The flight path given in Figures 7 and 8 is wildly implausible, however. It takes off almost perpendicularly from the plane of the initial low Earth orbit. Thus, it forgoes the slingshot effect that a tangential egress from the orbit would provide, and thereby needlessly squanders oodles of rocket fuel. If you planned to exit Earth orbit above the poles, you would of course assume an initial orbit that traverses the poles right away.
So to sum up, even in this wildly implausible best case scenario, the minimum dosage still is 20 times higher than what is reported. This just can’t be – it is indeed another nail in the coffin.
Like all the other amateurs and lay opinonators here you have to resort to relying on some source you imagine to be reliably authoritative. But what you do achieve is to show other amateurs that relying on the Van Allen Belt’s dangerous radiation as proving that no human has passed beyond it and returned is a non starter.
Doesn’t the US have satellites (equipped with cameras) in close orbit around the moon?
Congratulations in chopping off and burning to ashes one infected branch if the ridiculous conspiracy tree.
Jew Filth Insists Truth Is Mere Matter Of Subjectivist, “Authoritative” Declaration, Ho Ho Ho
Kike troll: of course, human reasoning is foreign to thou satanic murdering filth, who pretend thou are, collectively, co-equal w. God, but the way reasoning works, according to Aristotle, is that conclusions are founded upon premises, premises ultimately founded in sense-perception. So if the logic is valid, and premises true, verified in sense-perception, we deem the conclusion is reasonable and hence true, always subject to further observation and verification–scientific method, sucker.
Kike filth, of course, once they’ve taken-over the culture by means of their central-banking criminal enterprise and fiat-currency, install a completely diff. regime consisting of arg.-fm-authority declarations pretending to special titles and “qualifications” (ho hoh o ho) by which thou declares and asserts as to what is true–like holohoax and all the other typical lies and frauds of Jew filth.
So kike filth, rightly hated by all humanity: take thy subjectivistic, satanic reasoning and flush thyself down the toilet where thou belong, where humanity of all races, throughout all history has repeatedly consigned thou scummy, stinking puke.
See #841. A French website of unknown reliability claims they did.
And it was claimed that 1970’s Soviet spy satellites could read the writing on a dime on the New York pavement. According to wikipedia the best satellite resolution is now about 40 cm. And apparently google maps is done from low flying aircraft. A lot of what they show us as satellite images are actually done from planes, balloons, and drones. Satellite imagery should have greatly improved since the 50s, 60s, and 70s yet it doesn’t seem to be the case. Something not quite right there.
Congratulations on leaving the smartest comment in this thread. You went to the core of the issue: that the burden of proof is upon the one making the (positive) claim.
Whenever UFOs and other odd phenomena are reported, we are habitually reminded that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. For some reason, this claim is dropped when it comes to the Apollo programme. And an extraordinary claim it is, since a novel technical enterprise allegedly succeeded on its very first attempt, and was not replicated by anyone else for the next 50 years, despite unprecedented technological progress in all areas relative to such a mission. A cheap, digital watch now has a million times more computing power than was available to the entire Apollo programme, and yet curiously space exploration has not taken humans any higher than 400 miles above the earth’s surface since those glory days.
It’s baffling that anyone takes this story seriously. What will happen when we reach the 100th anniversary and we *still* haven’t gone back? Will the true believers still defend Apollo?
I know it’s claimed by those who investigate such matters that it’s ancient, this whole conspiracy thing. And to think that they could keep their evil thread going all through history to today. All by initiating some initially clueless people into their rites through the generations. With those at the very top it’s probably passed on.
I have a suspicion that the capabilities of satellite imagery are one of the closest guarded secrets that there are.
They did go as far in the Hollywood movie (I know, I know) Enemy of the State, to indicate that the ex-CIA operative, (Gene Hackman), didn’t look up when he was outside, out of knowledge that a satellite could see his face and with facial recognition (something we all take for granted now) in seconds have his entire life’s dossier on a NSA screen for perusal.
Hollywood suggestion of satellite capability-
https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.-zhX8YPVTpVN7FZoioN6cAHaFS&pid=Api&rs=1&p=0
And that was 20 years ago.
Are we to believe that the CIA / Mossad / NSA / MI6, etc.. (with unlimited budgets) have no real interest in being able to see what we’re all up to?
If they spent 1.5 billion on the Hubble to see what’s out there, how much would they spend to see what their livestock (and potential enemies) are doing down here? I’d estimate at least a hundred times that amount. And not just the government, but the psychotic, control-freak scumfucks at Google as well.
Enemy Of The State – The NSA Can Read The Time Off Your F**king Wristwatch!
Or, I guess they’d never use taxpayer money (how many trillions are missing from the Pentagon?) for secret surveillance purposes that further empowers them over us, that we’re not all privy to.
That would be wrong.
The weakest argument of all is that it couldn’t be faked. What? Do these people not even know that the War of the Worlds broadcast was believed by many to be real? Because no one believed something coming over the radio could be faked. I would suggest that based on the response from that it was realized it could be very easily faked.
Here’s a “genuine” moon landing video to get a good laugh out of – the Apollo 17 lunar module lifting off from the moon’s surface while the unmanned camera on the surface tracks it perfectly by panning upwards to follow it in flight!
Priceless! Contrary to popular myth, Nazis obviously have a very well developed sense of humor [ or at least they did way back in the 1960’s and ’70’s ]:
Regards, onebornfree
Yes Stanley was a genius.
But tell you what, after all this I will confess what really happened. Surely Stanley did it, but he insisted to film on the original places. So NASA had another problem.
My Granduncle. a former STASI officer, double agent of KGB, CIA, BND aso. told me.
NASA give all the money to the Soviets and they did the moonshoots instead.
Kennedy find this it out, that’s the reason the killed him.
Further about the spread of HIV/AIDS. Surely some of you remember the scandals of those European blood banks that were knowingly selling HIV contaminated blood products to the third world. Some German and French firms were exposed but I’d think many more were involved. They invested money buying blood from intravenous junkies, prostitutes, and gays, and then when tests showed it was contaminated they just sold it for export to Africa, Asia, and who knows where else, maybe even to their own populations. Nasty business.
Rurik says: “And not just the government, but the psychotic, control-freak scumfucks at Google as well. “
This just in: Google is, and always has been, a government-run psy-op. [masquerading as a “private” corp., granted.] Same with Facebook, Amazon et al. [ and the entirety of the old-school mainstream media, of course.]
Rurik says: “control-freak scumfucks”.
A good description as far as it goes, I suppose, but a tad on the mild side, when all’s said and done, I would suggest. 🙂
Regards, onebornfree
How about you read the actual date instead of your tin foil conspiracy sites. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf
And before you bring up “But muh NASA scientist and Air Force pilots said this and that” keep in mind the same group also think there are aliens living on the dark side of the moon.
Also, why we never went back?
1: NASA had their budget reduced to a bare minimum to feed the military, industrial and Congressional complex with its ever expanding wars, covert espionage, weapons development and so on. Those 500 million dollar a piece F35s don’t pay for their own 12 trillion dollar development costs you know.
2: The space race was won, people were losing interest and the costs were sky rocketing. Not going back was the smart thing in a period where sending up a single satellite had become a bacon bonanza for all those private contracts lobbying everyone in power for sweet, sweet contracts.
As for the radiation, NASA admits there was radiation and Astronauts have developed symptoms that you get from increased radiation.
Frankly, you moon hoaxers makes me wish I could shoot the lot of you. So many people worked their butts off, pushed the frontier of science and risked their lives only to have a bunch of basement dwelling psudoscience freaks call them liars and frauds.
You people are the same lot who 600 years ago demanded that anyone who said the earth revolved around the sun should be burnt at the stake for heresy.
Interesting question, but I really know nothing about moon geology (or whatever you would call that field of study).
As I have already opined a bit OT the fact that such cogent reasoning can pop up so late makes it hard to believe fervently, as many do – often I think to avoid cognitive dissonance – in the jury system as dispenser of justice.
Aww, you’re so sweet.
I was not necessarily looking for that. If 18 or however many astronauts actually were sent through the Van Allen belts with no obvious harm (which I think is not true), then the reasons for this are worth discussing in detail, including in peer-reviewed journals. The discussion would have to include all four areas I listed at the same time. Which websites do you recommend, by the way?
I would have applied the Agree button but for your brutal Second Amendment preference. Surely working them to death in Sisyphean mode while listening to readings of Other People’s Favourite Conspiracies would be about right.
But they and their Russian successors have long had intelligence operations and even at this moment may be hacking archived diaries and correspondence.
Thanks for the link.
What exactly am I supposed to learn from it? There is no quantitative information in there about shielding or any other parameters that would affect exposure to radiation.
The “tinfoil conspiracy site” that I pulled my information from is known as PubMed, the U.S. National Library of Medicine’s scientific literature database. That information alone led me to infer that there is a problem with the officially reported radiation dosages. So far, I see no reason to revise that assessment, but I remain open to counter-arguments.
Yes, but further back didn’t it come from eating chimps, or some other primates?
Thank you Erebus,
I missed that one.
But it confirms my view that if the Chinese sent a rover to study the moon’s surface, that they’d have certainly wanted to check out the cars. (as I like to call them ; )
And of course all the other stuff at the site, like the flag and such. How poignant it would be to see what the flag looks like after all these decades.
But alas, none of it remains.
You had previously claimed that
Just for the record, and to flesh out your conjecture here a little, could you please explain how one gets to a position that is “not in line with the light from the sun”?
AS14-68-9486/7 LM shadow anomaly
Yes shadows must follow the contour of the land upon which they fall, but still those shadows will be directly behind the object casting the shadow with respect to the Sun, irrespective of the lay of the land.
Be that as it may, the scene depicted in the NASA photograph shows no such significant or marked depressions or elevations between the photographer and the LM. The even illumination of that area testifies that it was generally pretty flat with no large shadows that would be created by significant terrain features, so no, your rationalization is a non-starter.
All shadows from objects illuminated by the Sun are parallel. Non-parallel shadows are a signature of artificial, or studio lighting.
It is impossible to create parallel shadows from all objects throughout a scene using a single artificial light source. If you want parallel shadows with artificial light, then you must use multiple light sources, but even using multiple light sources is still no guarantee that all shadows will be parallel in an artificially illuminated scene.
Corrupt, Self-Righteous, Pharisaic Puke Typically Has It All Backwards
Punk-brains, moron scum, good friend of kike filth tells us:
And to remind thou scum: “consp. theory” is essence of New Test. story wherein thou Pharisaic puke conspired to murder TRUTH (= Christ, Gosp. JOHN 14:6)–foundation of all present Western Civilization that continues to survive. And such consp. theory is also literal foundation of late, great USA, now hi-jacked Jew S A, as recounted in US Dec. of Independence, wherein Jefferson explicitly described CONSPIRACY of King and Parliament against N. American colonists, sucker.
THOU are the TRAITOR, scum, and it carries a grim penalty which thou surely shall not escape, sucker–people are getting tired of Pharisaic filth like thou, punk–take heed, filth.
To repeat: the Soviet or Chinese ability at the time to track Apollo is almost completely irrelevant to whether they, or Wikileaks, could expose a moon landings myth in recent years .
That I’ve come to the debate late hardly affects the relevance, truth, cogency, or logic of what I wrote.
At least you’ve done better than utu, who was so utterly incapable of dealing with a fact-based argument that he resorted to the TROLL button, a convenient way the less intelligent have for dealing with challenges to their fantasies.
I’ll give those, who believe the lunar landing was faked, a head start in ridding themselves of this delusion:
Such individuals should conduct Google searches on: “ham radio operators and the Apollo missions” and on “amateur astronomers and the Apollo missions”. Then sample all the decades of information, going back to the first missions to the Moon, and confirming the direct observation of the Apollo missions by tens of thousands of independent observers scattered all around the globe.
I hope I will have assisted some in ridding themselves of a sad and rather pathetic delusion.
The CGI on that Chinese mission was so cheesy that I would assume the entire mission is fake too.
You may be no loss if you succumb to a disease that could have been prevented by vaccination and it could be of benefit to society if it inhibited the spreading of your kind of irresponsible insouciant ignorance. I refer to
” The original smallpox inoculation process spread the disease, ”
Every ordinarily educated person knows that the 1796 innovation by Jenner was to inoculate against smallpox with cowpox.
The sun is in position “A”.
The rock is in position “B”.
If viewed from directly above “B”, the shadow will be cast on the side of the rock away from the sun, “A”.
If viewed from the side of “B”, the shadow will appear to be cast on the side of the rock away from the sun if the ground is flat. If the ground is not flat, the shadow will appear to be cast at some angle away from directly opposite the sun.
Now, I may not be explaining this very well, I admit. That’s why you should ignore my explanation and go outside on a sunny day and look at shadows. Just go outside and look. It ain’t rocket science. It’s not difficult at all, assuming you have normal vision. You don’t have to take my word for anything. Just look at the real world.
Actually it comes from eating pork. (See what I did there?)
I am sorry if you misread my compliment to you. I wasn’t criticising your coming up with a good argument late on a matter which you had no duty to address. But it did confirm my imaginative understanding of one of the ways litigation, not least jury cases, could go wrong – a minor issue in Australia perhaps where Cardinal George Pell (a friendly acquaintance of this atheist) has just been convicted of something almost impossible – but a big one I would suppose in a country with the death penalty and anachronistic Grand Juries.
It’s pretty hilarious that you think your “advice” is decisive.
This is from Wikipedia:
Evidently, “ordinarily educated” people like you “know” some things that are not true.
I’m always open to reconsidering my position on everything, and expect to become further acquainted with both sides of the vaccines issue, but for the time being I stick to my original opinion.
The lies-for-profit argument does not convince me for two main reasons: (1) even evil governments need a relatively healthy population to serve them; (2) in communist countries the official stance on vaccination is identical to that on the capitalist ones.
For economy reasons, I am not reposting this response to the other commenters (Peredur and Mishko) who kindly replied to my comment. It applies to them too.
I think you have that backward don’t you? It would be the moon hoaxers claiming the earth revolved around the sun, not the masses as you suggest, or are you agreeing with the premise of the article that now hoaxers as you call them are the majority? Just for the record, regarding “worked their butts off.” I am very appreciative of all the work that went into pulling this off. Pure Genius. Oh, and lets see “pushed the frontier of science.” What frontiers would that be? The program they abandoned because the military needed money? As far as F-35s not paying for themselves, well if you want to push banksterism on the world air superiority can help and I am pretty sure they think it is worth it. Now come out of your mom’s basement, take off the Apollo 11 jammies, wipe the snot bubbles off your face and have mommy make you a pbj and a hot cocoa while you make out your Christmas list to Santa.
Let me add to the late-in-the-day arguments the speculation that the Russians and Chinese might have had various odd motives for not blowing the whistle on the fake story. Amongst several of some complexity would be the simple one that their scientists wouldn’t want to hurt their chances of getting big fat budgets for their work.
Keep riding that one cowboy but watch out for a bumpy landing.
could be or course
do you assume the same thing about the Mars rover?
And if we can send one to Mars, how much more easy and cheap to send one to the moon?
here’s a list of all the man made stuff on the moon’s surface
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_the_Moon
why hasn’t anyone shown any interest in sending an orbiting satellite (or rover like the Chinese thing) that can view these objects as they are now?
look at all the interest in something like the Titanic, and the expense people go to in order to see what it looks like on the ocean floor. We are curious by nature, why the conspicuous lack of curiosity about what these iconic man-made miracles look like on the surface of the moon?
You should make allowances for a ” bad photoshop job” after all it was it was fifty years ago.
Be still my heart!! Ham radio operators and amateur astronomers!! .
I really don’t know. From what I’ve read, there are many theories about AIDS including some conspiracy theories. Now if RU would publish an article on anything to do with HIV/AIDS and open that can of worms we’d maybe see a debate as heated as this one. So much confusion.
Don’t worry yourself over that point dear. I haven’t. Nor is there any reason I should when you go on repeating the same special pleading that I’ve already debunked.
If viewed from anywhere the shadow will still be cast on the side of the rock or LM away from the Sun, but in the photo, the rock shadows diverge from the LM shadow where they should be parallel with the LM shadow, ie with the bottom edge of the photograph.
Note that the part of the LM facing the phtographer is illuminated and visible, but that part of the rock (bottom center) facing the photographer is black.
To repeat. The surface is relatively flat where the shadows are being cast in the two Apollo photos I’ve posted, so your rationalization does not apply.
The shadows diverge and therefore cannot have been cast by the sun.
Just as a side note for your edification. I’ve been a photographer over 60 years. I’ve taken 1000s of photographs outdoors under the Sun, and also in a studio setting using artificial light, large and small format film and digital both, and in all of the photographs the light and shadows behave in the very same way just as I’ve explained above, so your attempt to lecture me as if I were a blind child does not meet with a very favorable reception here, I must tell you, Ms. Unready.
This is your (#853) comment, isn’t it?
“Of course, you are right. Every woke person knows that Soviet technology was a total fake, starting with the fake Sputnik launch. The myth of Soviet technology – including the fake Sputnik” satellite – was a CIA operation to encourage more funding of the MIC. (/sarc/)”
So, Sputnik did not exist but Apollo 11 did? Interesting that Ron Unz highlighted your reply to that Australian buffoon who haven’t yet contributed anything constructive on any thread here at UR. Perhaps Ron Unz should have article and the greatest hoax of Soviet space program with you in the starring role.
I labeled you as a ‘troll’ chiefly for this #853 and indeed your #852 comment could have warranted an answer however, earlier in the thread I wrote in the #379 comment that pretty much addressed the specious argument of Ron Unz that Russians would have known which directly addresses your nonsense about amateur ham radio operators that you claimed would also known. You have stated
“I personally knew a ham radio hobbyist who tracked communications from the lunar missions.”
Do you know the meaning of tracking?
To tell you the truth I do not have a dog in this fight. I know that nobody now can produce a convincing proof that (a) there was a landing on the moon as we were told and nobody can produce a convincing proof that (b) the landing did not occur. The evidence for either (a) or (b) is out there but we do not have it here and certainly your ham operators do not present any evidentiary value.
I am more interested in mental states of participants here in the discussion (including that of Ron Unz mental state) who seem to know and are so certain about either (a) or (b) and arguments they present somehow thinking that the arguments are full proof like that by Ron Unz’s that Russians would have known blah, blah.
In #379 I present a scenario which can’t be excluded and it is a full proof to Ron Unz’s argumentum ad Russian and your confabulations or not about your friend ham radio operators. Here is the scenario:
I was hoping that someone would ask the obvious question:
The answer is that just as with Judaism, freemasonry depends on the blind obedience of its members. As with so many other aspects of human nature, it is the elites, now known as “influencers” and “stars”, who really shape opinion.
It was imperative that the upper level Masons kept the hoax hidden from the mid and lower members, and that the lower members truly believed in the hoax. Just like the holocaust. Or 9/11.
It is the influencing of the influencers that is critical to understand here. This is where all these secret and esoteric masonic and judaic rituals are so important. Rabbi’s MUST believe in the holohoax, and freemasons employed throughout the government MUST believe that the US landed on the moon. There is no room for doubt.
This is why with so little effort one can find loads of information on these masonic rituals, artifacts, and most importantly that high level masons were part of the “moon landing”. Only when it is part of the Illusion will you ever find this kind of proof of Masonic control. It was the same all the way back in Columbus’s day.
And independent of NASA Germans using a 20-meter parabolic dish received 2 Ghz microwave Apollo 16 television transmissions from the lunar surface and published such a picture in the 1970s. See for yourself how they did it.
http://www.classicbroadcast.de/stories/stories_sternwarte_bochum.pdf
Could someone prevail on Elon Musk to launch a probe on his rocket at the moon to check? He smokes weed so it should interest him alongside the publicity.
“The world has indeed regressed since the 50s and 60s when this kind of attitude and policy would have been unthinkable.”
Thanks for the laugh.
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20100409.htm
1950 In an experiment to determine how susceptible an American city would be to biological attack, the U.S. Navy sprays a cloud of bacteria from ships over San Francisco. Monitoring devices are situated throughout the city in order to test the extent of infection. Many residents become ill with pneumonia-like symptoms.
1951 Department of Defense begins open-air tests using disease-producing bacteria and viruses. Tests last through 1969 and there is concern that people in the surrounding areas have been exposed.
1953 U.S. military releases clouds of zinc cadmium sulfide gas over Winnipeg, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Fort Wayne, the Monocacy River Valley in Maryland, and Leesburg, Virginia. Their intent is to determine how efficiently they could disperse chemical agents.
1953 Joint Army-Navy-CIA experiments are conducted in which tens of thousands of people in New York and San Francisco are exposed to the airborne germs Serratia marcescens and Bacillus glogigii.
1953 CIA initiates Project MKULTRA. This is an eleven-year research program designed to produce and test drugs and biological agents that would be used for mind control and behavior modification. Six of the sub-projects involved testing the agents on unwitting human beings.
1955 The CIA, in an experiment to test its ability to infect human populations with biological agents, releases bacteria withdrawn from the Army’s biological warfare arsenal over Tampa Bay, Florida.
1955 Army Chemical Corps continues LSD research, studying its potential use as a chemical incapacitating agent. More than 1,000 Americans participate in the tests, which continue until 1958.
1956 U.S. military releases mosquitoes infected with Yellow Fever over Savannah, GA and Avon Park, Florida. Following each test, Army agents posing as public health officials test victims for effects.
1958 LSD is tested on 95 volunteers at the Army’s Chemical Warfare Laboratories for its effect on intelligence.
1960 The Army Assistant Chief-of-Staff for Intelligence (ACSI) authorizes field-testing of LSD in Europe and the Far East. Testing of the European population is code-named Project THIRD CHANCE; testing of the Asian population is code named Project DERBY HAT.
1965 CIA and Department of Defense begin Project MKSEARCH, a program to develop a capability to manipulate human behavior through the use of mind-altering drugs.
1965 Prisoners at the Holmesburg State Prison in Philadelphia are subjected to dioxin, the highly toxic chemical component of Agent Orange used in Viet Nam. The men are later studied for development of cancer, which indicates that Agent Orange had been a suspected carcinogen all along.
1966 CIA initiates Project MKOFTEN, a program to test the toxicological effects of certain drugs on humans and animals.
1966 U.S. Army dispenses Bacillus subtilis variant niger throughout the New York City subway system. More than a million civilians are exposed when army scientists drop light bulbs filled with the bacteria onto ventilation grates.
1967 CIA and Department of Defense implement Project MKNAOMI, successor to MKULTRA and designed to maintain, stockpile and test biological and chemical weapons.
1968 CIA experiments with the possibility of poisoning drinking water by injecting chemicals into the water supply of the FDA in Washington, D.C.
1969 Dr. Robert MacMahan of the Department of Defense requests from congress $10 million to develop, within 5 to 10 years, a synthetic biological agent to which no natural immunity exists.
That’s the edited highlights of the 50’s and 60’s.
My original statement was
The original smallpox inoculation process was variolation, which did spread the disease. The later use of cowpox material in vaccinations also did more harm than good, as is documented in Suzanne Humphries’ book. You tried to imply that I didn’t know what I was talking about, but you were wrong yourself, in that Jenner’s method was not the original inoculation process.
On the contrary, it is you that ignored what I actually wrote and took no advantage of my attempt to provide you with just the sort of help you indicated (to Ron Unz no less) that you needed. Moreover you didn’t even attempt to relate your typical anti-Jewish rant to the issues about the Val Sllen Belt. Still, thanks for small mercies: no mention of the 6 million you are obsessed with so maybe some medication is working.
No, this is supposed to be more recent satellite photography. But considering how professionally even Comrade Stalin had his photographic records altered, I am disinclined to make allowances anyway 😉
I’d love to see a reply to you from Wizard of Oz, who has, rather unsurprisingly, gone very quiet on this one.
“That wasn’t written by an astronaut. It was written by a PR flack.”
I don’t know that. I do know that it was spoken by an astronaut.
I can’t even.
I usually use that phrase ironically. But this time I truly am lost for words.
Don’t take my word for it: let NASA astronaut Don Pettit to put you right:
Even today, Germans are not independent, never mind in 1969. Give us a break!
The author calculates the results with 4 mm aluminium radiation shield. In 1990s NASA planned on using 2-5 g/cm2 shield. That is 7 mm to 20 mm shield, but it seems to be so that in the Apollo program there was no radiation shield, the CM only had a heat shield. The author kindly interprets the his results that maybe they had 7 mm protection.
But I found a MSc thesis from the Technical University of Lissabon by Joao Sabino on the topic, from the year 2012.
https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/395144831767/dissertacao.pdf
The author simulates Apollon 11 and Apollo 17 missions. Please, take a look at the tables 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4. Table 5.1 on the page 39 shows that if there is no protection, radiation values are about 100 times higher than for 100 mm aluminium shield protection.
From the radiation table with Apollo missions, which is also in this post explaining the Orion program
http://www.aulis.com/orion_vanallens.htm
we learn that the mission dosage announced for Apollo 17 is 5.5 mGy.
But the simulations give a different result. See 5.3 and 5.4 for a simulation of the mission dosage for Apollo 17 mission. The mission dosage is 9mGy for a solar minimum and 5.2 mGy for a solar maximum. This agrees nicely with the announced value, but there is a serious problem. These simulation values are assuming there was 100 mm shielding.
There was practically no radiation shield in Apollo missions, only a heat shield. Therefore these
simulations give the result that Apollo 17 would have got about 100 times larger radiation dosage than what was announced.
The problem is radiation and Apollo did not solve the radiation problem. It is incorrect to think that six manned missions could all have had enormous luck and avoided all radiation. The only way six manned flights could all avoid radiation (especially as the year 1969 was a radiation maximum year) was that they never passed the Van Allen Belts. The proofs, like moon stones, do not show that they did, nor do the photos.
Yes, I think this conspiracy theory is true.
I can’t let this one go. I really can’t even.
Developing the technology to allow humans to pass through the Van Allen Belts and survive in heavily radiated space may have been the single greatest scientific achievement in history, given what it then allowed us to do – to go to the moon. No matter how good our rockets and everything else were, if we didn’t get that right – no visit to the moon. Nada.
Do you honestly think, that in the 1970s, when the United States was facing off in a cold war with a nuclear-powered adversary, that the military, let alone the government, would allow a technology which allowed people to survive in environments full of deadly radiation to just, sort of, disappear? Do you think they would say ‘Nah, don’t need this stuff’ and destroy it?
Do you honestly think this happened? Do you honestly think this is a plausible explanation for why we can’t return to the moon?
NASA has said it itself: we can’t get out of low-earth orbit because of the danger that radiation poses to human beings. It’s the number one constraint on manned exploration of the galaxy. But fifty years ago, beyond a shadow of a doubt, we had this problem licked, and demonstrated the efficacy of the technology multiple times.
Do you honestly think that 1. we gave up that technology willingly and completely, and 2. with all of the resources at our command today, many more than were available in the 1960s, it would be ‘too painful’ to rediscover and re-create that technology?
Are you serious?
It has the makings of a great Hollywood script. There should be a Russian conspiracy, which succeeds in first infiltrating NASA and having all those tapes erased; and later on in sowing discord by posting moon hoax conspiracy theories the interwebz. The populace is getting restless; public trust and tranquillity are further undermined when a hastily arranged emergency moon mission, piloted by Elon Musk himself, crashes into the Statue of Liberty. (Elon, of course, survives, because he always does.)
In this dark hour, Rachel Maddow saves the day by pledging her virginity to the first person to unequivocally prove that The Apollo Moon Landings Were Real. Immediately, a stampede of wizened ham radio operators and amateur astronomers descends on MSNBC headquarters to take her up on it.
Unfortunately, however, while each and every single one of them could have given iron-clad, unassailable evidence, it turns out that they are all straight white guys. Rachel Maddow reneges, and fate takes its course. The End.
I hope you realise that in comparing the rate of heart related deaths of Apollo astronauts with other astronauts you have not even remotely a large enough sample to give a meaningful statistic. And that’s wiylthout counting such factors as the possibility that astronauts who were never chosen for expeditions may not have been followed up reliably.
I do not think so. You can check here:
List of missions to the Moon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon
Thank you J2. What about the Lunar Rover?
I suspect that some people who persistently argue against the manned Moon landing hoax hypothesis, especially on Internet comment threads, are not being forthcoming about their true motivations, which could involve secretly getting paid to reinforce official versions of events. Any intellectually honest person can see that there is something suspicious about the claim that people were put on the Moon, especially after sixty years. Some are emotionally invested in the manned Moon landings being genuine, but I don’t think that can account for the level of persistence and hostility in some commenters.
I agree with what you wrote. Space weather is a big subject, and yet there don’t appear to have been any studies of the effects of space weather in the radiation belts on living organisms. It is acknowledged that it is a factor limiting human space exploration, but I am not aware of any peer-reviewed scientific articles explaining exactly what made it possible for humans to have been sent through the radiation belts on the way to the Moon and back. If someone wants to prove me wrong (as far as the existence peer-reviewed scientific articles) they are welcome to it. I would genuinely like to see such an article, if one exists.
Hear hear.
LOL
Keep in mind that the IQ of the average American has decreased considerably since The War of The World and Moon Landing hoaxes were both mistaken for the real thing.
So how come NASA keeps telling us we can’t get out of low earth orbit, ie that we’re confined to the area under the Van Allen Belts?
“What about the Lunar Rover?”
What do you mean? It’s OK, it was on television.
You evidently don’t understand the meaning of /sarc/, which doesn’t particularly surprise me.
You might try following the guidance towards the bottom of my post #902. There’s a reason Ron Unz highlighted that post. It provides difficult to refute evidence of the Apollo missions’ realities and successes, i.e., contemporary reports of visual and radio confirmation by thousands of unbiased observers across the globe. But your posts here lead me to suspect that you are essentially a not-too-bright knee-biter, who’s not really interested in a logical and evidence based discussion.
Imagine if surveys had been taken in a dozen African nations in 1970 what the results would have been concerning the moon landing. Those results would have been 100% in the disbelief category. Nothing, no amount of evidence, is ever going to change the hoax believers. What do the cannibals of New Guinea think, even today?
Thanks for yet another great find. Yes, the simulation results are similar to officially reported dosages, provided that there is a shielding of 100 mm aluminium. NASA is mum on this point, but from pictures the Apollo command module does not look as if it had anywhere near that amount of shielding.
Anyhow, we don’t need to worry too much about the question of shielding. The reason is this: while most Apollo missions were, allegedly, lunar missions, Apollo 7 and 9 were merely dress rehearsals that officially stayed in low Earth orbit (LEO). Thus, whatever the shielding was on those Apollo capsules, the dosages on these two missions should have been much lower than on the proper lunar ones. Yet, the radiation dosages measured aboard the LEO missions were only slightly lower than those of the proper lunar ones, as shown in the table I posted earlier. Here it is again, for convenience:
And, once more, how about that lunar lander? It certainly did not have any heavy shielding. On Apollo 13, much of the travel time was allegedly spent in the lander – yet, again, the reported measured dosage is in the same range as with the other Apollo missions.
The “conspiracy theory” is in fact the only one that can account for these observations.
My bad. And my apologies to you. I did not properly parse your comment.
BTW, looking over most of the subsequent replies to my post and replies to those and… I’m really amazed that few seem willing to examine, yet alone objectively analyze, the evidence I pointed the way towards. It suggests that the crack pots are out in force here. As Schiller wrote, “Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.”
I’m retiring from this madness. As an old American saying goes, “There’s no sense trying to perfume a pig. It just makes the pig mad and leaves you covered in pig shit and smelling like a sty.”
Latest moron suck-along to ZOG lies tells us (my notes inserted, bracketed):
Crashing a rocket into Liberty island will set off a whole new conspiracy theory. Can Gary Sinise pull Musk out of the buried capsule?
Perhaps NASA gave its astronauts really strong sunblock lotion.
” contemporary reports of visual” – only possible on low near Earth orbit.
“radio confirmation” – what does radio confirmation confirm except that you get a signal. You do not know where is the signal source.
You have no evidence.
You don’t differentiate between what you know and what you believe. A common mistake. You do not know that the moon landing was not a hoax though your belief in moon landing might be actually correct but you have no proof. Your stories about ham radio operators or backyard star gazers are just meaningless stories.
Have you heard about a new technology called photoshop?
It allows you to add rover tracks to any photo you want!
Here’s a question. Suppose someone claimed that Wyoming or perhaps Ecuador doesn’t really exist, and was just a hoax invented by the Deep State for its own devious reasons.
I’ve never been to Wyoming or Ecuador, and even if I thought I had, well, perhaps I’d actually been somewhere else instead.
Since books, maps, and photos can be so easily fabricated, how would you go about proving to the people on this comment-thread that Wyoming and/or Ecuador actually existed?…
We probably can’t afford Steven Seagal, so Gary Sinise it is.
Wow, that was deep.
If Unz, Satanist, Jew, Denies Objective Reality, Then Anything Goes
Unz is Jew (Satanist, and loyal thereto), hence, by religion hates Christ = TRUTH (Gosp. JOHN 14:6), truth necessarily founded upon OBJECTIVE reality. According to the objective view, the “proof” of any assertion or abstraction, or idea is the PERCEPTION of the objective fact under-lying.
The answer to Unz’s idiot, typically kike question is WHETHER THERE’S OBJECTIVE REALITY GIVING FOUNDATION/REALITY TO THE ASSERTION/QUESTION Unz asks, and the connection btwn the reality of assertion and “proof” is sense-perception.
Note Unz pretends to have “training” in “theoretic physics,” but tragically lacks any grasp of objective reality, a necessary premise/assumption. Evidently Unz imagines the ultimate foundation for any “truth” is the fiat of the rabbis, as held by Talmud–to which Unz is loyal.
Lol.
So these amateurs jad telecsopes powerful enough to see a dune buggy on the moon?
One can travel to these places and see for oneself unlike the past or the moon. There is the testimony of those who have done so. It comes down to trust and whether inconsistencies in accounts of these locales represent deceit rather than innocent mistakes. Regarding written documents, pictures and artifacts, the sheer volume and independence of sources should count in their favour. The Apollo materiel originates at one U.S. federal agency.
Ron Unz says: “Since books, maps, and photos can be so easily fabricated, how would you go about proving to the people on this comment-thread that Wyoming and/or Ecuador actually existed?…”
You can’t prove it, but seriously, what has that got to do with anything? At least the moon is visible. Presumably everyone here has seen it, even yourself.
What are you trying to suggest- that because we cannot prove the existence of Wyoming or Ecuador here that that means we went to the moon?
Is this an example of Unz “logic”, or am I missing something here? 🙂
Here’s a “genuine” moon landing video to get a good laugh out of – the Apollo 17 lunar module lifting off from the moon’s surface while the unmanned camera on the surface tracks it perfectly by panning upwards to follow it in flight!
Priceless! Contrary to popular myth, Nazis obviously have a very well developed sense of humor [ or at least they did way back in the 1960’s and ’70’s ]:
Regards, onebornfree
Drive there.
It’s possible that Wyoming is a hoax. I can’t prove that Wyoming exists. Nor can I prove that it doesn’t exist. What I can show is probabilities. Is it probable that Wyoming exists? Yes. Since I can’t think of any reason why anyone would create the hoax that Wyoming exists when in fact it doesn’t, and since I have memories of driving through Wyoming, I’m happy to believe that it really does exist. But I think it’s important to always be willing to consider the possibility that it doesn’t exist. It’s possible that Wyoming is just an elaborate hoax.
So I’m also willing to consider the possibility that the moon landings were a hoax. I’ve looked at much of the evidence presented by hoaxers that the moon landings never happened, but were in fact hoaxes. Some of what the hoaxers present as evidence I lack the expertise to evaluate. But some of the evidence, the photographs in particular, I can evaluate. And I have found that every single example that the hoaxers present as evidence that the photographs are fake are in fact consistent with NASA’s claim that they were taken by humans on the moon. All of the claims made by the hoaxers about the photographs are demonstrably false. And I’ve explained how any person can test some of those claims for himself.
The claims about the photos are clearly wrong, and even silly. But the hoaxers never bother to test their claims. They just believe them. They think they have evidence, but since they won’t test that evidence, it really isn’t evidence. It’s just a series of claims. The hoaxers, for whatever reason, want to believe. But in order to convince me, they’re going to have to test their claims, and describe in detail how they tested their claims, so that I can attempt to replicate their results.
Ecuador, on the other hand…
lol
Wsrwd3dWell I am sorry I was a bit rude but you were aggressively pushing an anti vaccine line and I thought it disingenous use for your argument unsuccessful rather than successful vaccination/inoculation.
I checked by Googling “what was the original smallpox vaccine” and the first URL listed supported my memory in these words
First vaccines. Edward Jenner invented a method to protect against smallpox in 1796. The method involved taking material from a blister of someone infected with cowpox and inoculating it into another person’s skin; this was called arm-to-arm inoculation.Mar 7, 2019
Vaccine History: Developments by Year | Children’s Hospital of …
I have now added a query “did the original smallpox vaccine work” and, at http//www.historyofvaccines.org and found this, inter alia
Available Vaccines and Vaccination Campaigns
People have been using smallpox vaccine since Edward Jenner first tested his idea that inoculation with matter from a cowpox sore would protect a person from smallpox. Jenner’s work eventually led to widespread production and commercialization of smallpox vaccine.
But I admit Google’s Artificial Intelligence seems to presume that people are more interested in vaccines which work than in unsuccessful experiments although I did also find this
“With both types of variolation, people usually went on to develop the symptoms associated with smallpox, such as fever and a rash. However, fewer people died from variolation than if they had acquired smallpox naturally” which I suppose logically allows wriggle room for variolation spreading the disease despite the fact that it stopped people dying….
Oyyy veh.
Goodness gracious. The minute those who claim the moon landing was a hoax based an argument that such is impossible grant that unmanned vehicles have made journeys to the moon, mars, fly bys of other planets, landed on asteroids . . . and continue zipping through space past Pluto, the discussion of a vehicle inhabited by a human being is really moot.
The longest manned vehicle to travel via self contained oxygen (life support systems) systems was the Triton submarine which was submerged for 111 days. Probably much longer, but that is the public record.
The lunar round trip lasted around ten days.
Does NASA keep telling us that? I am not motivated to spend more time on this 1st April moondoggle which won’t even affect the value of my few American investments but someone can presumably give a comprehensive and up to date answer on it.
It would of course be critical if as absolute as you suggest. Cp. the logical consequences on 9/11 theories if it were proved that the WTC buildings were deliberately demolished.
LUNAR EAVESDROPPING IN LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY
by C. Graney
Jefferson Community & Technical College
Otter Creek-South Harrison Observatory
[…]
http://observatory.jctcfaculty.org/APOLLO11/Default.htm
Not gone quiet at all but sometimes a couple of hours sleep is required especially after having just had a kidney stone blasted out at third try. (Damn useless vaccines for same. Even washed down with carefully unmeasured doses of Cabernet Sauvignon they only work for about 8 to 10 years before recurrence). You will see that I have replied. I favour successful vaccinations rather than sentimentality over old methods which did less to disrupt the demographic explosion 🙂
I had no idea this subject was such a big deal. The comment count is 964! That’s hilarious. I don’t think an article about Trump completely surrendering on the border issue and Jorge Ramos saying on Univision–Tuesday!– that the solution to the migrant crisis at U.S.-Mexico border is to just legalize illegal immigrants because ‘nobody can really stop them’ from entering the United States would get as many vehement comments.
Nonetheless, in the spirit of going along with the gag…is there any dispute about the series of unmanned missions to Mars and the deployment of the Spirit and Opportunity, the semi-autonomous vehicles that explored the surface of Mars for six and fourteen years, respectively. With regard to technological achievement, it seems on par with the moon landing.
Manned Moon Landing Hoax Indicated By Simple Lack Of Proof; Evidence For Hoax Is OVERWHELMING, Requiring Dis-Proof
Dumbass: manned moon-landing is hoax–inductive evidence supports this conclusion so well it is now necessary to PROVE the hoax proposition is false–which cannot be done.
Further, note it isn’t necessary to say manned moon-landing is/was “impossible”–it’s sufficient to just note THERE’S NO PROOF, period. And evidence for hoax is OVERWHELMING. Q.E.D.
Nevertheless, an Apollo 16 transmission of astronauts on the moon not of NASA origin appears to exist.
Just like the USA Surveyor 3 camera that was returned from the moon (How do naysayers explain the reappearence of a piece of unique manufactured equipment?)
Micrometeroite impacts on the glass surfaces mean it was in an extraterrestrial environment, so let’s not hear about FAKES and how it was replaced somehow on the way to or back from the lunar surface.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1971LPSC….2.2781B
Title: Micrometeoroid flux from Surveyor glass surfaces
Authors: Brownlee, D., Bucher, W., & Hodge, P.
Journal: Proceedings of the Lunar Science Conference, vol. 2, p.2781
That French site looks pretty wobbly to my eye, as most so-called “intelligence” sites do. It claims that the current Chang’e 4 mission to the far side included a “secret component” that had them looking at the Apollo landing sites. Maybe, but from what I know of Chang’e 4, I see no hint of that “secret component”.
Still, as I said somewhere above, several countries now have it in their hands to destroy this myth. It would be almost trivial for them to do a low pass fly-by with a Hi-res camera, or even land a rover nearby at one or two Apollo landing sites. Of course, nobody’s gonna spend $Bs to find the truth of Apollo out of idle curiosity, so there’d have to be a significant core value to the expedition to drive it, with exposing Apollo being a low-cost bonus.
Russia & China, as America’s primary “rivals” may (likely will) find it geo-politically advantageous one day to expose it. The website says the Chinese plan to do it at the UN, which would be the most devastating venue of all as it couldn’t be ignored.
We’ll see if they do, and I guess we’ll see the reactions of either the true believers or the non-believers if/when that happens. For my part, I’d take whatever evidence such an expedition generated at face value and move on.
Sorry, wrong reference about the glass surfaces.
The impacts on the Surveyor 3 were from:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720019081.pdf
Except you did not answer my questions and you did not state what actual scientists say about the Van Allen Belt.
Your views mean nothing. Please step aside and let someone who knows the science do the talking,
BTW, you’re one of those anti-science guys that claims the Einsatzgruppen shot countless numbers of Jews into mass graves where it is claimed that the alleged enormous human remains exist in precisely known locations, even though there are no such human remains to see.
Not exactly rational, scientific thinking, but hey, consider the source, and we must remember you are a faithful True Believer, so all is good.
Cheers.
I’ve seen that one being posted into discussions of this subject. It’s even more ridiculous than the bullshit about men flying to the moon without enough fuel to make more than a few orbits of Earth, and then landing on the moon in a ridiculously short time, getting out in their Playtex made “spacesuits” and fucking around taking museum quality pictures.
That excuse for never repeating the moon landings sounds like something a teenager would come up with after watching a couple of Transformers films. Seems that some people will believe anything as long as it’s shown on TV.
Very funny and definitely worth a read.
Perhaps Ron can find the NASA documents to publish them here at UR.
As for “hoax taint” each hoax or conspiracy theory is siloed.
just because I am pretty sure there was a conspiracy to kill JFK doesn’t automatically mean that I believe in the contrail theory. But if I did believe in the contrail theory, that wouldn’t immed. nullify the possibility that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK.
In fact, I think we should classify, or index, conspiracy theories.
That JFK was shot in a conspiracy would be a 10. It is for sure true.
Someone else will have to choose what would be a 1.
That JFK Jr was killed as a result of a conspiracy might be about a 4.
That the Zionists are trying to take over the USA would rank at maybe 7.
Well, I guess they have done so already, so I guess that is also a 10.
The veracity of the Moon Landing is looking increasingly shaky.
After reading Moon Doggie I rate the Moon Landing conspiracy at ca. 7.
How can one and the same agency get men to the moon and back and yet fumble knowing where the tapes are? It would be far more likely that they would lose track of the moon walkers themselves than of the tapes. Like, forgetting where they put the cheat sheet with the directions to get the guys back to Earth.
Well, I’ll let smarter guys sort out this one.
Come to think of it I have always that a nagging question in the back of my mind: How come no one ever went back to the moon?
I remember where I was when I heard about the landing: hitch-hiking with my brother on a deserted road in I think it was Somerset. We were trying to get to St. Ives, Cornwall. We had heard the news on the radio of some fellow who had dropped us off in this empty spot and there was no traffic. Night was falling. No cars coming along. So, we looked up at the sky . . .
Wonderful!
What is the story behind that?
Is that all, or is there more?
There is no “pseudo-science” that I am aware of in questioning the manned moon missions.
What is more pseudo-scientific: questioning a government/media narrative or virtually ignoring the potential fatal hazards of lower earth and deep space radiation, or implying that of all existing technologies, space travel is the only one to have devolved? What evinces the intellectual curiosity and inquisitiveness that are the mothers of true scientific inquiry more- the somnolent and credulous acceptance as truth of what is seen on a flat screen- a known vehicle for deception and fantasy- or the demand for solid physical evidence?
The archetypal dumb American infotainment consumer’s mind is certainly a favorable habitat for the legions of Hollywood bullshit demons to inhabit.
“That’s pretty damn strong evidence that the moon l;andings were not a hoax.”
None of that is evidence at all. it’s all just you saying that this or that is common knowledge. You TV believers have no standards at all for evidence in support of your bullshit.
Amateur band operators listening to something being broadcast doesn’t prove that they were listening to radio transmissions from the moon or from space at all. Amateur astronomers can’t see any more than what the NASA fraudsters can see of the surface of the moon even today. That entire post of yours is nothing more than claims made by some anonymous retard. It’s evidence that you’re retarded; pretty damn good evidence at that.
That wasn’t even a good try.
Damn, boy. It doesn’t take much to make you want to kill people, does it?
Whizzer, what are you struggling to say with that incoherent run-on sentence? You really should refrain from huffing toluene before posting.
You should come to the realization that this idiotic article and thread, and the 9/11 recommended book, that claims Guiliani knew the towers would come down and announced it before the fact, are making this site look like a joke. You are destroying the credibility of the site, wittingly or unwittingly. Many of the idiots posting in the thread are no doubt real idiots, but perhaps some of them are faking it and posting with the purpose of discrediting the site. If you allow it to continue this idiocy will become the primary focus of the site. I recommend: delete the article and the comments, delete the recommendation for Griffin’s book. Be careful about posting obvious nonsense.
Well, I hope that you get professional help for your extreme delusions of relevance.
Ron, With all due humility, I was 45 years ahead of you on JFK, 15 years ahead of you on 9/11, and maybe five years ahead of you on the Holocaust. But I only started to seriously doubt the Apollo moon landings last fall after watching Mazzucco’s American Moon. https://www.unz.com/audio/kbarrett_massimo-mazzucco-on-his-long-awaited-american-moon/
Mazzucco’s film features several of the world’s leading professional photographers rolling on the ground laughing at how obviously fake the photos are. You don’t need technical skills to evaluate what they’re saying, look at the photos, and conclude they’re probably right. As for whether the missions could have been real even though the photos are fake, I’m agnostic, but it no longer seems such a stretch to be skeptical.
So since it takes you on the average about 25 years to catch up with me on these issues, I predict that you will start to doubt the moon landings story in 2034. (Assuming the Chinese keep postponing their mission, instead of going to the alleged Apollo site with their detective kit and proving it one way or the other.)
Wait a minute….I saw that movie.
You’re right, it’s a joke. While I still see no reason to seriously doubt the reality of the landings as such (other aspects were doubtless fake), the reactions of the true believers here is just appalling. Clearly many people have a deep-seated need to believe in the sanctity of the “space program”.
There is apparently some indication that the Apollo astronaunts suffer heart disease at a higher rate than expected:
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep29901
NASA Technical Report Server – NTRS. This might be a good place to start:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19760005580.pdf
The comments have now passed 100,000 words, so I decided to take an hour or two to try to casually read through some of them.
Overall, I think the Moon Hoax case seems extremely weak.
My impression was that three of the supposedly strongest pieces of hard evidence cited by advocates were the photographs lacking stars, the impossibility of the return vehicle taking off from the lunar surface, and the deadly radiation of the Van Allen belts.
Lacking any specialized knowledge, I couldn’t really evaluate these claims. But offhand, it looks like some of the commenters here do have such specialized knowledge, and they totally demolished the photographic and fuel/lift arguments. If all the Moon Hoax people have been citing those arguments to each other for ten or twenty years and it took just a few outside readers with some expertise to quickly annihilated them, that hardly suggests any serious competence within the Moon Hoax community.
Meanwhile, the Van Allen radiation argument has been argued back and forth, and although the anti-Hoaxers seem more persuasive to me, I can’t really say it’s been settled.
But there’s another question that I always ask myself when considering any “unorthodox” hypothesis. What are the names of the most highly-regarded experts who have publicly endorsed the Moon Hoax hypothesis, people like serious scientists or journalists? Offhand there doesn’t seem to be a single one.
As far as I can tell, all the supporters are just random “conspiracy people,” almost none of whom have virtually any relevant technical background. Most of the Moon Hoax commenters seem like anonymous Internet activist-types, many of whom come across as total crackpots. They point to a photograph with a few squiggly lines and say that the squiggly lines prove that the Moon Hoax is true.
If the Moon Hoax people haven’t managed to convince even a single acknowledged technical expert in fields like aeronautical engineering or astrophysics, why should I or anyone else bother to pay any attention to them?
As I mentioned, I’d never even heard of the Moon Hoax theory until a couple of years ago, and based on very general arguments it seemed extremely unlikely to me.
But now that I’ve casually read through some of the conflicting back-and-forth arguments on this very long comment-thread, I’d say that the likelihood has dropped by another 90% in my eyes.
No technology was developed to shield Van Allen belt radiation. Well, maybe – aluminum smelting developed in the late 1900s or thereabouts. They got whatever shielding they got from the skin of the spacecraft. They rocketed through it quickly, in a few hours, so as to minimize the dose. That’s all it is.
No, they said it is a constraint for prolonged exposure to the deep space environment. The Apollo missions lasted about a week or so. Constellation was planned around 7 month stays on the lunar surface. A Mars mission would last about 18 months. The duration is the difference.
Sure. We’re all being paid to argue with insigificant nobodies. It’s important.
That’s just another way of saying that you and your crackpot ideas are important.
But they aren’t.
I often wonder at the persistent hostility to facts and rational argument by your lot.
Shut up already with the “feces” shit. What the hell is with you boomers and that ugly fake-laboratory word “feces”????? For centuries it was simple SHIT or DIRT or FILTH.
I dismiss everything written or said after that stupid word is inflicted.
Also, if you believe the U.S. government story / claims about Apollo I have good news for you: Mueller is said to be VERY UPSET that evil AG Barr is MISREPRESENTING his meticulous and damning report that EXPOSES THE TRUTH ABOUT ORANGE MAN.
People use the term technology loosely. The knowledge? Yes, we have that. Actual flight-ready hardware? No, we don’t have that. Because it’s highly specialized and you don’t build it on spec. The reason there is no vehicle that can now carry people to the surface of the Moon is that nobody has payed for one since about 1970.
You don’t really think he gives two shits about your concerns, do you?
We.
Who exactly is the “we” you speak of incessantly? Are you part of we? How do you know anything – did you witness it with your own eyes? Why should you be taken at your word? Because someone read you something from a book?
Gullibility seems to be your strong point.
Try to stay on topic, Wally.
They had a camera operator in Houston who practiced the uptilt, with the communications delay factored in. It isn’t magic.
But I guess – to the ignorant – everything is magic.
Thanks for the info. I was aware of only a few of those. Absolutely evil but I suppose still mostly controlled experiments.
There was even more on the website you quoted, stuff like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala_syphilis_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment
You remember that? That’s pretty interesting given that the laser wasn’t invented until 1960.
What was it a guy once said? If you can lie about one thing, you can lie about another, and another, and…
So you argue with “insignificant nobodies” for free? You have nothing better to do than shit your pants over someone doubting the moon landings? I’d say you’re the real loser.
Can you tell us exactly what the so-called “amateur astronomers” OBSERVED beyond take-off and flight into low-Earth orbit? Were they plotting the trajectory and OBSERVING those inflection points at expected time intervals with their telescopes, or were they glued to their telescope continuously spinning around following the path around the Earth’s orbit and the entire trajectory to the moon confirming the flight patterns? Or where they simply listening to what was RELAYED to them as described by NASA?
But wait for it…you’ve been ‘honored’ with a golden outline for WHAT EXACTLY? Who do you think you’re foolin’? Congratulations it is akin to Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize.
But better yet the ‘impeccable’ voice of proof, peer review, and need of a qualified witness in a courtroom before a judge and a jury finally decides to chime in: WoZ, the only caveat–ONLY WHEN IT SERVES HIM AND HIS GROUP’S interests….How about it WoZ, can we finally apply those same stringent requirements that you constantly whine about to the areas where people are jailed for simply trying to apply scientific principles to ‘historical EVENTS’??? I won’t hold my breath for your hypocrisy knows no bounds ….
A lot of people believe that Stanley Kubrick directed the “fake” Moon landing, drawing on his experience making 2001: A Space Odyssey. There is even a thoroughly debunked video of an imposter posing as Kubrick admitting this. They even go so far as to say that making 2001 was part of the whole plan.
This is what the Moon looked like in 2001:
This is what it looked like to the crew of Apollo 16:
If Kubrick made both and made both to fool the public, why do they look so different?
No. Cost/benefit crap bore down hard on the first lunar whatever. You don’t get out of it this way.
“Clearly many people have a deep-seated need to believe in the sanctity of the “space program”.”
You damned idiot, I worked on the space program.
Marcus Allen’s presentation at a few conferences questioning the Apollo Missions (worth while to listening to):
That’s truly the best argument in support of a hoax: if a moron like you was working on it, the damn thing never would’ve gotten off the ground.
You totally miss the point with respect to the photographs. It’s not a matter of “squiggly lines”. There is clear and unequivocal proof that the images presented to us were not taken on the moon. Shadows seen from a 90 degree angle must always run parallel if the sole source of light is (as NASA states) the sun. You cannot have wildly diverging shadows which clearly demonstrate a nearby light source. Additionally, there are multiple photos from a given mission that were taken at distinct locations but use the exact same backdrop (see AULIS.COM). Some of these will show – on the same mission – the Lunar Module present in one area, and then far away or missing, as if it had been moved like a set-prop. There is no valid explanatoin for this, just as there is no explanation for how the camera film somehow managed to survive 500 degree-temperature swings as the astronauts moved between light and shadow areas.
Most ludicrous of all was Charles Duke soppily placing a family photograph on the moon… in a transparent plastic bag! We’re supposed to forget that the average surface temperature of the moon is 225 degrees fahrenheit. Yet the photo and bag are completely unaffected, not even curling:
There’s a good reason why so many of the principal hoax theorists are photographers and film-makers (Bart Sibrell, Massimo Mazuco, David Percy etc.). They can easily spot how it was done.
As for the lack of “highly-regarded experts who have publicly endorsed the Moon Hoax hypothesis”, you can apply that exact same objection to 9/11. Who in their right mind (amongst those truly privy to the deception) would speak out? They would have nothing to gain and everything to lose. And every one of them would have been keenly aware of the fate of Gus Grissom and his colleagues.
Keep putting up the pictures (and Ron can LOL all he wants), but can you (or Ron for that matter) answer a few points of contention in the bottom so-called ‘Apollo Mission’ picture you’ve presented?
1)
Trace the footprints from the ‘astronaut’ back. …all seems fine with ALTERNATING footsteps in the fore ground until in veers off picture to the right …. (but ladies and gentlemen do continue to trace the so-called footsteps ALL the way back to the lunar vehicle?) Do you notice a pattern in the background as these ‘footsteps’ re-emerge? HINT: Do they alternate now? NO THEY DO NOT! Now, instead they follow a hop-pattern (like a bunny–with both feet next to each other at EVERY interval)! Do, however, continue to laugh, but do also ZOOM-IN!
2)
There are TWO ‘astronauts’ in this photo: an ‘photographer’ AND the ‘subject’ of the photograph. CAN you or LOL RON show us EXACTLY two distinctive foot patterns from the lunar vehicle all the way to the ‘photo shoot’???
LOL…Ron…I’ve noticed you’ve managed to simply skip or disregard my direct question to you previously in this thread….will you answer, or will you simply post a LOL according to your preconceived belief?
How about back-and-forth foot patterns from both? LOL! They had to go back
Sorry, when I said back-and-forth it did not mean to the vehicle, but to the place to where the subject of the photo was in the vicinity of.
The so-called ‘photographer’ never seems to look back at his subject for the best perspective to take a HISTORIC picture of (while walking away and in front of him to get the perfect shot) judging by the footprints. Simple nonchalant footprints without a second thought to the HISTORICAL nature of the event. How many have you who ever taken a picture of someone have done this–IRRESPECTIVE OF SUCH A HISTORICAL EVENT?
To give us humble readers some perspective on your judgments and opinions might we hope for a note of your achievements and proven competences?
He is on topic, his only topic 24/7.
Who said book burning was a thing of the past?
There is much in the following words of yours that are baffling
“WoZ, the only caveat–ONLY WHEN IT SERVES HIM AND HIS GROUP’S interests….How about it WoZ, can we finally apply those same stringent requirements that you constantly whine about to the areas where people are jailed for simply trying to apply scientific principles to ‘historical EVENTS’???”
Presumably you are referring to some European cases where people have jailed for blasphemy on the Holocaust but does that have to do with an Australian obviously very concerned about injustices to individuals even in Common Law countries trying people with juries? And what, with the study you imply that you have given, can you say to justify the words you have shouted in CAPS? What interests? What group? You claim to have read the WoZ stuff so you shouldn’t try and wriggle out of proving that you are not just careless and abusive when you think someone disagrees with you.
Sorry, again missed part of my post …. namely WHERE is the evidence of TWO distinct (photographer and subject) astronaut’s footprints sets coming IN from the lunar vehicle? LOL! Ron, anyone else? cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias? which is it? What do you have to say in return?
Yes, of course you did, Baggy. Toddle off and have your nap now.
I’ve stated and responded to: WoZ’s vacuous assertions and his/hers demand for scientific and peer review, nonetheless, WoZ has not ONCE–not a SINGLE TIME–demanded nor expressed such scrutiny when it comes to the WWI & WWII ‘review’ of the so-called ‘history’ of the mater! I wonder why? because WoZ is a hasbara sayanim: a FRAUD of epic proportions! IOW: WoZ is simply an (((Australian))) supremacist [yet that is somehow in doubt, given the myriad of lies and non-sequesters, deflections or outright denials] much like that of (((Trump))) in the US.
If you would like the proof presented of the many aspects of the holocau$$$t simply look back at my posts (especially against WoZ and in early 2018) and then you’ll be witness to what I’ve stated now.
Ron, seeing the moniker “appolonian” may be enough warning of what is to come but do you really have to indulge him on the ground that Tourette’s Syndrome with symptoms of Coprolalia is a regularly classified mental illness which would entitle him to be classed as under a disability?
I find the whole “Moon Hoax” thing riscible and offensive. It’s a matter of pride.
I’m not trying to convince you. I’m trying to convince those whose minds are not made up. Although – to be honest – if they are stupid to enough to fall for the rank ignorance displayed by your camp – then I should just say” eh, f**k ’em.”
And, by the way, you ARE an insignificant nobody.
Except that is a lie.
A review of this site reveals that I comment on most topisc covered.
The fact is that you cannot refute what I post and you’re bothered by it.
Cheers.
http://www.codoh.com
Given your laughable record in attempting to debate your absurd & impossible “holocaust” narrative makes it understandable why you want that subject censored.
http://www.codoh.com
Just an OT thought I had previously recorded *on a much more important topic than moon landings* and which was prompted again by someone coming up with a good argument late. Think of yourself as overworked, ill or overtired defence counsel in a murder case where the complicated but true line for the defence to take only strikes him during his first break from work a week after his client has been sentenced to death. I wonder what counsel for Cardinal George Pell in Australia recently thinks went wrong in a case which, however unlikeable some may find Pell, was a travesty of justice rather well dealt with by the atheist editor of Quadrant Magazine at length in the l test issue (which, going even further off topic, I note is particularly concerned by the UK and now Australian police engaging in trawling for complaints; not something I had previously considered).
Yep agreed.
And – I should have known better than to try to discuss with a person who thinks it’s impossible to replicate 1960s technology.
My excuse is that the plain idiocy of what was being said had caused my mind to melt.
He’s still here rationalising away any counter-arguments LOL.
This is probably the best place to record relevant links I have found and all the other amateurs relying on the Van Allen Belt to keep us all Earth bound could have easily found by asking Google “what is the minimum radiation dose that a person would receive while passing through the Van Allen Belt”
https://www.space.com/33948-van-allen-radiation-belts.html
https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts#page-2
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/29579/can-we-survive-van-allen-belt-radiation
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2017/06/16/astroquizzical-van-allen-belts-barrier-spaceflight/
and many weightier .pdf files all of which c seem to give the lie to the statement that NASA says it can’t be done.
Picking the right parts of the Van Allen Belt and choosing, if possible, a time when the VAB is least threatening added to travelling very fast through the belt with adequate shielding seem to the keys to safety. Of course that would have required a bit of luck in the early 70s when the state of knowledge was thin.
“And, once more, how about that lunar lander? It certainly did not have any heavy shielding. On Apollo 13, much of the travel time was allegedly spent in the lander – yet, again, the reported measured dosage is in the same range as with the other Apollo missions.”
The lunar lander and the suits the astronauts wear could not protect them against radiation if there was any sun activity, and their missions were long. The only possibility is that they got lucky and there was no sun activity all the time during the mission, but you cannot get lucky six times in a row. It is a negligible possibility, as those years were not minimal sun radiation years and 1967 was indeed a maximal radiation year.
“The “conspiracy theory” is in fact the only one that can account for these observations.”
What seems clear from those links I found is that all professional people on the field know that Apollo missions did not land to the Moon. They say it clear enough in their papers, only they do not spell it out too loudly and the mass media is silent about it.
But an author, who clearly is an expert on the topic, calculates Apollo 11 dosage as 20 times larger than the announced one when using 4 mm protective shielding, then from a table concludes that to get the announced dosage they must have had 7 mm shielding, or from Table I over 20 mm shielding (Table I is more correct as the later calculation by this author assumes that there was no sun activity and no radiation outside VAB. The MSc thesis does not assume zero sun activity and gets a higher dosage for Apollo 17), and at the end then this author says: I do not know what shielding they used, from the construction information is looks like they may have had 7 mm.
Then you know that this is an academic insider joke: the author knows very well that Apollo did not have any special radiation shielding at all (I verified that this was the case from other references) and what protection the heat shielding gave must have been minimal. And if NASA when planning Orion seems also to know it, and even a MSc Thesis supervisor in Lisbon seems to know it, and the Russians have asked the USA to explain how they got there, then everybody knows it. Only we have not been told, but that is nothing new.
So, there is absolutely no chance that Apollo missions took humans to the Moon.
This does not exclude that Apollo missions could have been unmanned missions to the Moon. Americans set radio responders to the Moon, therefore they made unmanned missions to the Moon. Apart from the radiation risk to humans, there is no technical objection to going to the Moon.
“We’re saying Ford can’t build an Edsel today, not that it never could.”
What’s so funny about that?
(Of course, if the incentive was there, I’m sure For could indeed build an Edsel today. Just proving to Truth they can do it is not incentive enough, alas, for them to drop everything else and do it.)
Truth (= Christ) Is Anti-Semitic, Never Doubt, Ho Ho Ho
Ho ho ho ho, and now we know absolutely, without any doubt, thou are Jew, couldn’t be anything else, utterly, absolutely TERRIFIED of truth, thy greatest enemy, and of free expression in effort towards such truth, too. Thy fear of such truth and free expression towards it is palpable, sucker, ho hoh o ho hoho ho–and thou haven’t seen ANYTHING yet, scum. Ho ho o ho ho ho ho–Indeedy-do, thou have EVERY reason to be sooooo terrified, thou stinking filth, ho ho ho ho.
I haven’t done any research on the background of this scene from Diamonds are forever: Is the scene in Ian Flemming’s novel, or was it added by the director Guy Hamilton? I guess that can be counted as some kind of whistleblowing coming from Hollywood.
“Meanwhile, the Van Allen radiation argument has been argued back and forth, and although the anti-Hoaxers seem more persuasive to me, I can’t really say it’s been settled.
But there’s another question that I always ask myself when considering any “unorthodox” hypothesis. What are the names of the most highly-regarded experts who have publicly endorsed the Moon Hoax hypothesis, people like serious scientists or journalists? Offhand there doesn’t seem to be a single one.”
You are quite correct, yet there are a few references that contain calculations can can be checked. You publish theories that take lots of time to check as they usually are from some specialized field. A contraversial issue cannot be solved by reading lost of articles/books and voting in your mind on the more reliable/better sounding. The only way is to have to find some hard, often mathematical, claims and check the logic and calculations/derivations/simulations, and that is some work. I will give you three pointers in case you decide to check the theory instead of trying to feel what it seems like.
One I found is claims of NASA Orion program and dosages measured in that program.
http://www.aulis.com/orion_vanallens.htm
The author is Mary Bennett. She introduces herself in the blog and claims having PSI ability. The author is not an expert of the field and has no publications in scholar.google.com. However, in this case the claim to check is only that the flight path of Orion and the dosage data are given correctly. The essential issue with this dosage data is that in Orion, just by flying a bit to the lower VAB they got much more radiation (even having shielding) than Apollo. Apollo dosages are given in so many references with the same table that we can assume that the table is correct.
The second is a preprint written by one Andreas Märki, MSc, with his own consulting firm on space issues. That does not sound promising. In scholar.google.com A.Märki has only one arxiv preprint and a patent. Märki’s paper is difficult to check since he does not give the calculations, but there are the references in the paper. The claims he makes are very clear: the radiation dosage for Apollo would have been much higher than announced.
Finally there is a MSc Thesis by Joao Sabino
https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/395144831767/dissertacao.pdf
It is always possible to check a MSc Thesis as supervisors insist that a student writes down the theory in an understandable way. The practical part here is simulations, but simulations of that type can usually be checked with rough calculations. I have not read the thesis, but usually a supervisor does read the thesis (though not always so well). The mathematics of this field does not appear to be difficult, so it should be possible to read it.
I do not right now have time to check these references as I promised to look again at the nuclear demolition hypothesis of the WTC. (Look, it is you who pick up all these topics, not me.) If you want to do it, please do. It is useless to expect that anybody who has an academic career would touch controversial topics even with a stick. You have to wait until they are on pension and willing to be considered a crackpot by their former colleagues. Few want that. But you can check yourself. My opinion is that there is a good starting point, the radiation issue, with good and precise enough claims that either are true or false. It is nothing like fuzzy photographs, this is simple equations. Just estimate the radiation on the known path of any Apollo flight. And it is not only VAB, it is also further, why expect zero radiation in the Moon, we can see what the astronauts are wearing, it is not more than 1 mm aluminium shielding, probably less.
Very disingenuous Ron. Tac, Rurik and myself all wrote long comments about the sham Lunar Rover, and tac directly challenged you. Even math loving J2 weighed in and said sardonically that “he knew Lunar Rover wasn’t fake because he saw it on TV”.
I think you ignore the Lunar Rover because there is no plausible deniability to back you up. That is why I said it was the moment when Nasa really jumped the shark, it is objective reality bitch slapping you across the face in the same way Building 7 does in the 9/11 hoax. Where did they find the extra capacity to bring a dune buggy along? When did they turn the Honda Civic into a Winnebago with a car trailer? Inquiring minds would like to know.
So when you ignore the Lunar Rover, you are pulling a Rumsfeld (when he was asked about building 7):
Sure.
As long as we pretend the intensity of ionizing radiation within the belts doesn’t vary, and pretend that radiation doses on most of the moon orbiting missions were not obviously significantly greater.
NASA
Never A Straight Answer
Nuf said
I write shit all the time here, you filth. Cut the crap.
Oh please, don’t encourage them.
Still, the thread hasn’t been a complete waste. I learned here that Hiroshima was a hoax too, which I’d never considered before.
Ron cleverly turned the article into an April Fools’ Day joke by posting it on April 1st and unleashing a comment section full of fools and their opponents.
He is allowing the dialectic to prove his point that moon hoax claims are ridiculous — and he is showing how such obviously idiotic “conspiracy theories” can facilitate conflation and public ridicule of investigations into real conspiracies.
It’s quite brilliant. I doubt there is any risk of this site looking like a joke.
Dear Ron,
When I first started reading about the moon hoax ten years ago it was just for entertainment. Like you, I didn’t put much stock in anything I read. It was just entertaining. But after a while, the sheer weight of all the nonsense which comprises the official story started to make an impression. After a lot more reading the light bulb came on: the official story as presented cannot be true. I began asking people if they believed the moon landings were real and they all said yes. When asked why they believed it, the response was always, “Because I saw it on TV” . Think about that.
I don’t need to tell you that casually skimming the comments here is a far cry from putting serious time and effort into actually studying the moon hoax from all angles. By your own admission you have not done that.
Judging from your writings on other subjects I do not believe you to be unhinged. Your ability to analyze complex subjects is I”m sure way beyond mine. And so I will venture this: If you do undertake a rigorous study of the instant subject and still claim to believe the official story, I will eat my hat.
Great stuff.
I can now better appreciate how Florida swampland was sold.
I read Fleming’s novel years ago: it happens in South Africa, The Netherlands and Las Vegas and concerns a diamond-smuggling scheme and the mob. It has no Howard Hughes figure or research centre with a lunar vehicle. It was published in the mid-fifties when lunar landings were far-fetched sf dreams.
Actually, I think the example you describe are extremely different, both in my own case and generally.
First, with regard to those other “conspiracy theories” it’s not that I had previously looked into them and found them wanting, it’s that I never paid any attention to them. As I eventually discovered that numerous prominent and credible people believed them, I gradually became more and more suspicious and finally read various persuasive books on the subject that provided copious strong evidence.
For example, I was absolutely shocked 15-odd years ago when I learned that a couple of reasonably credible people believed that the Holocaust was all a hoax, and that made me somewhat suspicious. Over the years, I gradually came across numerous other highly-credible skeptics, and eventually decided to look into it by reading some of the very detailed books on the subject, all written by serious academics, historians, and other scholars, which seemed quite convincing.
The Moon Hoax situation is entirely different. The Moon Hoax advocates claim the Official Story is obviously scientifically impossible. Okay, but if that’s the case, why can’t they provide the name of a single reputable scientist in related areas who has publicly declared that he agrees with them? Just about the only supporters seem to be anonymous conspiracy-activists apparently lacking any scientific or engineering background who point to photographs with squiggly lines as their major proof, or maybe cryptic messages secretly embedded in old Stanley Kubrick films.
I started to become suspicious about 9/11 when I discovered that just a couple of years after the attacks, a high-ranking former CIA official wrote an article saying he’d looked into some of the evidence and thought that the official story made absolutely no sense and seemed impossible. He’d been in charge of 200 CIA analysts, being exactly the sort of person a president would have normally consulted after a 9/11-type attack. Similarly, an anti-Truther friend of mine mentioned that a very highly-regarded former French Defense Minister had privately said the same thing to top French media and political elites. All sorts of recognized experts have taken that position. Maybe they’re all mistaken, but I do think their views should be treated seriously.
A few alleged discrepancies here or there won’t do it. What the Moon Hoax people need to do is produce a sufficiently strong scientific case that at least half a dozen highly regarded astrophysicists or aeronautical engineers are willing to publicly declare that the official lunar landing story was scientically impossible (and I’m not talking about incompetent TV celebrities like that deGrasse Tyson fellow). Then I’ll take them seriously.
I’m not really surprised that at least some of the most energetic Moon Hoax commenters on this thread also seem to be “Nuke Hoax” people, claiming that nuclear weapons are also a hoax, presumably along with nuclear reactors, nuclear power plants, and nuclear submarines. Given our crazy government leaders, I’d very much like to believe they’re correct about the non-existence of nuclear weapons, but I just can’t.
The apparently substantial overlap between Moon Hoax people and Nuke Hoax people seems quite suggestive to me…
A FAKE PHOTO HEADS UP THIS ARTICLE!:
I don’t now if anyone else has pointed this out in this long comments section, as I haven’t read all the comments, but the photo that heads up the article is an obvious fake. Just look at the earth image [ top right] fer chrissakes! And there are stars too!
Regards, onebornfree
Ironically (I think) seeing this piece on the Moon Hoax was the first opportunity I encountered to consider the possibility that it actually was a hoax. Definitely one of those things I “never thought about before.”
The “scientists for moon landing truth” standard is a reasonable one.
Like, where are they? The scientists, I mean.
What is the scientific story on the Van Allen Belt or whatever it is called?
I do think that those who analyze videos are a species of forensic expert.
It is too rich and even poetic that the moon has always been associated with loss of common sense, werewolves, **visions**. The moon has strong occult power! Very likely based, from a natural science p.o.v., in the fact that the moon exerts a pull on all liquids on earth, whether on land or sea or within an organism, so to speak.
In this case it is not 100% clear to me which side are the true lunatics.
It’s further advanced than we think. 25% of Brits thought the original landing was faked at the time. Today, 56% think so.
Actually, Andrew Mathis IS Wally.
My skill is antagonizing modern-day Parsons, like yourself. I’m actually quite good at it.
Hey, thanks!
SOVIETS WON THE SPACE RACE
Uh, and they don’t even exist any more.
If we are to believe what we are told then I don’t see the Soviets as having lost the race to the Moon. Soviets landed the first craft on the Moon. So the US landed men on the moon yet the Soviets accomplished the same with robots and had a remote controlled Moon rover up there. So what are the Yanks so proud of about winning some Moon race which they clearly lost. It’s like cheering some old manual car plant as a greater accomplishment than a robotised automated plant. Really pathetic. And the Soviets were the first to land a craft on Mars, the first to have a space station, and the first to launch a satellite, and so many other space records. I’m not trying to denigrate any US achievements in space if true, but choosing to present the landing of men on the Moon as the major accomplishment of the space race is so retro.
Dosage per day was 10% higher for Apollo 11 (lunar) than Apollo 9 (LEO), total dosage the opposite (Apollo 9 > Apollo 11). Had Apollo 11 indeed crossed the van Allen belt, its dosage should have been far higher.
Haha. This can’t get any better.
Ron,
Have you ever pondered the meaning of the story of the emperor’s new clothes?
You know the story, surely. The courtiers, all the sycophants basically, they ooh and ahh over the fine new clothes that the king is wearing. And then a little boy points out (truthfully) that the king is naked.
I would pose the question: what special expertise or qualifications did that little boy in the story have?
So, basically, if the little boy grows up and gets multiple ph.D.’s and a professorship at Harvard or some such place, then you’ll take him seriously.
Well, fine, but I would point out, first of all, that either the king was wearing clothes or he wasn’t, irrespective of what the little boy’s CV looks like…
Of course, the most likely denouement of the story now is that, when the little boy grows up and pays his dues and joins the royal court, he disavows his previous claim that the king was wearing no clothes. He was naive child at the time! Now he knows better! Of course, the king was wearing a splendid new suit of clothes!
You see, like the courtiers in the story, current day engineers and scientists have a lot invested in their careers. They would be disinclined to throw it all away. This is why the entirety of the “respectable” academic establishment backs the Holocaust narrative and the so-called deniers are a motley crew of outsiders who, on paper at least, do not possess such impressive qualifications.
But, again, whatever is true is true, regardless of what so-and-so says or doesn’t say and regardless of that person’s CV.
The case of the moon landings actually looks pretty straightforward to me. Earlier, you mentioned Columbus’s “discovery” of America. Suppose the year is 1542 and it is claimed that Columbus and his crew sailed to the New World 50 years earlier several times. However, it is also frankly admitted that nobody, before or since, has ever sailed more than 10 miles off the coast.
Would that not give a thinking person pause? Would it be so crazy in that scenario to doubt that Columbus made it across the ocean?
This is precisely analogous what is being claimed. The Apollo missions went something like 230,000 miles into outer space, landed on the moon, came back, and no manned space flight, before or since, has gone more than a few hundred miles into space.
One sensible take on this would be that, even assuming that they really did go to the moon, given the basic fact that I outline above, it would hardly be crazy to be skeptical of this. You’re basically saying that there is some huge onus on the people who doubt the story to make their case. And then your “proof” that the story is true is going to be that the Establishment is still saying unanimously that it is.
I have no idea what you’re talking about, Ron. I have never observed any such substantial overlap.
Ron,
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Could you at least point to the specific comments in which (in your opinion) said arguments were demolished?
Thank you very much for the link. I took a few hours to read the whole series. Quiet an enjoyable read. He was a good writer. He is also probably correct when he stated ten years ago that the Americans never have sent a manned flight to the moon. There is not much known about him on the internet. From his website and writing I found out that he was born in 1960 and died in 2015, only 55 years old, so still quiet young.
yes, and I also suspect that they have many satellites orbiting around with powerful telescopic photography capabilities (spectrometers and God knows what else) far beyond what they’re disclosing, looking for sites for future military equipment, or just keeping an eye out for what rival countries are up to.
Don’t know about this one.
There seems to be a global ‘gentleman’s agreement’ with all of these potentially contentious subjects. Like governments are sort of like the world’s farmers, and they all have an agreement between them, that no matter how much they may argue between themselves over which ‘cows’ (Germans, Ukrainians) have their brand on them, or whose watering hole belongs to whom, (Crimea, Golan, etc..), they all seem to agree to never let the cows see the slaughterhouse (know the truth). Lest they become restless, and forget who the cows and who the farmers are.
So they all protect each other’s lies. There may be a few rogue ex-ministers of governments here or there pointing out that 9/11 was a false flag, but never a sitting prime minister or president.
In fact, I suspect the whole ‘Russia hacking’ brouhaha was an angry response to Russia breaking the ‘gentleman’s agreement’ over the Victoria Nuland phone conversation discussing the next president of Ukraine.
Of course the ZUS perpetrated the putsch in Kyiv. Duh. But how dare you involve the cattle!!!’
Some things are supposed to be sacrosanct. All governments know they are using their people like chattel for the benefit of those in government. Duh. So it’s in their collective interest to keep the farce going, and Russia broke with that covenant by leaking the phone call.
At least that’s my take on it.
Because we all know by now that Germany never had homicidal gas chambers operating day and night in a calculated agenda to ‘final solution’ all the Jews of Europe.
It always was a ‘big lie’. But it suited (and suits) all of the governments on the planet to maintain this lie. Perhaps the occupation government of Germany today more than all of them, because the only legitimacy that occupation government has is the guilt the German people feel for having personally committed such a heinous ‘crime’.
Anyways, so yea, my cyphering of the realpolitik tea leaves convinces me that they all have an unspoken agreement on certain crimes that they all accept as part of the narrative necessary to keep their respective farm animals in line.
They all know that Germany was not responsible for WWI, and that the ‘Holocaust’ (as it’s described), is a monstrous blood libel, and that Hitler did not want war, (he simply demanded a corridor to Germans in Danzig).
They all know all of that. But it serves all of them to continue with the fraud, because they all benefited and benefit from dismembering Germany and helping themselves to her respective limbs.
What nation on earth would benefit by a general debunking of the Holocaust fraud? Russia? Poland? England? The ZUS? Not even China would want to rock that boat, because they’d just alienate their main trading partners, and for what? So some skin heads in Germany could say ‘I told ya so! Sieg Heil!
No, no. All of these crimes and frauds are always protected by Rothschild’s anointed governments.
The lies about WWI & II. The lies about the ‘Holocaust’. The lies about JFK. The lies about all the pretexts for war from the sinking of the Maine to 9/11. Because it’s the nature of those in government to want to stay in power. And so why rock the shekel boat?
What difference, at this point would it make if the Apollo missions were faked or not?
How would it benefit China or Russia to enter into that particular fray? Prestige?
Russia has even let the lies about MH17 slowly die away. (or ‘the Skripals’ idiocy, and a dozen + other provocations) Better to play along, than to be too recalcitrant, and risk Rothschild’s ire, when you’re already playing with fire in Syria.
Rambling.. I know 😉
I understood that going through the belt is not the problem, it’s what lies on the other side.
NASA says Earth’s atmosphere and magnetic field block about 99.9 percent of space radiation so it would be 1000 times more powerful on the moon’s surface.
Thermal, long wavelength radiation, which I assume is part of the total, presents heating and cooling challenges that, even today, seem insuperable. No-one I know of has demonstrated that they’ve solved it or are even close.
Anyone?
So they would fool the public?
I get it: Ron wants the assessment of reputed professionals. Why not, then, break the issue into separate pieces, and ask specialists to tell us, not if the moon landings are scientifically possible, but if it is scientifically possible that the moon photographs were taken on the moon. Do we have statements from reputed photographers that the photos are fake? I think we can easily come up with a dozen of them. Besides David Percy, Marcus Allen and other pioneers in this research, the new film by Massimo Mazzucco (himself a professional photographer), American Moon, provides quite a few statements from reputed photographers. Of course, that the photos are fake doesn’t prove we didn’t go to the moon (they could have been staged on the moon!). Even Jay Weidner, who believes Kubrick filmed the Apollo footage on earth, nevertheless (claims that he) believes we went to the moon. Still, that is, perhaps, the best starting point to fulfill Ron’s demand. But, I hear him say, a dozen reputed photographers is a far cry from the 2000 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. That’s true.
But to conclude on a hopeful note, I notice that Ron has already moved from
to
That’s already more than a small step.
Neither you nor Paredur have offered any challenge to my arguments. You follow the usual algorithm of Moon Hoax proponents: bring up 1, when that is rebutted, ignore the rebuttal and bring up 2, when that is rebutted, bring up point 3, etc.
You aren’t serious people, and that Beefcake idiot did have one valid point: it is utterly pointless arguing with you retards. And you are retards. Stupid, stupid retards.
Ron Unz says:“What the Moon Hoax people need to do is produce a sufficiently strong scientific case that at least half a dozen highly regarded astrophysicists or aeronautical engineers are willing to publicly declare that the official lunar landing story was scientically impossible (and I’m not talking about incompetent TV celebrities like that deGrasse Tyson fellow). Then I’ll take them seriously.”
Basically you are saying that you will defer to the opinion of some so-called “experts” whose credibility you would trust, because ta-dah! they’re “experts”. .
Nothing less than an admission that you are only susceptible to “argument by authority”, in other words.
This just in:
Fuck the “experts”!
You don’t need any so-called “experts” to tell you what to think. Just take off your blinders of prejudice, open your eyes, and just closely, without bias, examine the many photos submitted here by various posters.
The blatant anomalies and contradictions in the claimed visual records for every Apollo mission are too numerous to dismiss.
Study the visual records, and all will be revealed. You don’t really to even need to think about the more complicated scientific arguments involving radiation belts, fuel capacity, speed of communication signals etc. etc.
The Apollo mission photos and films are all fakes – most of them quite obviously so. [For example, the very first photo used in the article, showing a detailed earth in the background- plus stars.]
All government psyops [ie lies] to a large degree depend on confirmation via photos and videos. That’s why we have fake movies and films of : the JFK assassination [e.g. Zapruder], Nagasaki, Hiroshima [plus all subsequent nuclear tests], the RFK assassination, the MLK assassination, 9/11, Sandy Hook, the New Zealand mosque murders and many others.
The sooner the individual learns to open his eyes, look critically without pre-bias at the claimed visual records of these and other claimed real events, and then think things out for themselves, the better [for them].
Regards, onebornfree
Ralph B. Seymour says: “And so I will venture this: If you do undertake a rigorous study of the instant subject and still claim to believe the official story, I will eat my hat.”
Don’t hold your breath – Mr Unz apparently needs “experts” to tell him what to think 🙂
Regards, onebornfree
Which is it – “produce a scientific case”, or obtain the endorsement of “at least half a dozen highly regarded astrophysicists or aeronautical engineers?” As it stands, the sentence makes no sense.
You probably have seen charts like this
All you have done here is to place yourself firmly to the right of the “big, scary chasm in question.” I guess it takes all kinds.
As to the guilty-hoax-by-association idea – does it disturb you at all that some moon hoaxers are also 9/11 hoaxers and holohoaxers? Are you at all able to debate – and, heaven forbid, possibly have to concede – a specific point, or are you always evading and just grasping at anything at all in order to “prevail?”
once- long, long ago, I too used ‘sigh’ at what I thought was Mr. Unz’ stubbornness when it comes to certain official narratives.
But not any more.
For all of my skepticism, and I have a friend who sends me videos periodically that seem to render the moon landings impossible- like astrophysicists, speaking on issues unrelated to the moon landings, who say mater-of-factly that humans are as yet, unable to cross radiation belts outside earth’s atmosphere without dying in the process, and yet I still am not 100% certain either way.
If they simply show me what the cars look like today, then I suppose I’d be satisfied, and dismiss the radiation thing as a distraction. (I’m certainly no astrophysicist, so what do I know).
So my point is please give our host some time, as the moon landings are very much part of our collective narrative, we’ve all grown up with for most of our lives. And are accepted in most quarters as obviously true. Just like Germany started WWI, and tried to take over the world and gas all the Jews during WWII, until America decided to go over there and singlehandedly save Europe and pull France’s chestnuts out of the fire, and how America is the ‘exceptional’ nation that only uses nuclear bombs when its moral to do so. And only bombs countries when they are evil and bad, and only drones and tortures people because they deserve it, for hating us for being free…
Lord I could go on quite a while with our precious narratives, I suspect..
Israel, Palestine, Panama, Serbia, Kosovo, Iraq, WMD, Libya, Syria, Iraq, etc…
all deserved what happened to them because of America ~ of landing on the moon!, and granting civil rights, and singlehandedly crushing Nazi Germany, and liberating Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the villagers of My Lia, Vietnam and doing so much good all over the planet…
are all part and parcel of our narrative as the exceptional people!
Who do exceptional things, which are all morally good and exceptionally praiseworthy, because it is America that’s doing them, you see?
How else could men like Dubya or Mike Pence strut around the UN and menace Third World countries, and hector the world’s people on their moral failings, unless we continue to demand fealty to our devil’s narratives?
And that, I suspect, is why narratives like the moon landings need to be protected. As all part and parcel of the delusion that America is somehow great, because it is good.
(now I have to go spew)
Ron Unz says: “What the Moon Hoax people need to do is produce a sufficiently strong scientific case that at least half a dozen highly regarded astrophysicists or aeronautical engineers are willing to publicly declare that the official lunar landing story was scientically impossible “
And another thing! 🙂 :
The complete and utter naivete of Mr Unz’s statement above simply boggles the mind. Does he really, seriously believe that “half a dozen highly regarded astrophysicists or aeronautical engineers”, who would all presumably be directly sucking on the giant teat of government subsidy[ if not direct, full-time employment], would actually come out in public and declare that “the official lunar landing story was scientically impossible” and risk the cancellation of their very own personal [“scientific research”] welfare checks?
Sorry, but that’s not how the world works. Grow up, Mr Unz.
Regards, onebornfree
Unz Review Site–Same Old Normalization Of Jews For Jew Purposes
ANOTHER kike troll (“buzzy” boy) writes in and tells us,
I wouldn’t call it a “joke”–it’s rather well-done dis-info and psy-ops in the comments sections. The amazing collection of the anti-Semitic articles (such as they are) is outstanding “hook” by which to use as bait and attract those who appreciate the articles–quite a brilliant stroke on part of Unz, actually, which I’ve always admitted.
It’s the comments pages however, where we find Unz’s main efforts in most intensive censorship and screening (though Unz, typical Jew, lies about it), Unz the absolute control-freak, ck-ing over every entry, the purpose being in “normalizing” Jews, pretending Jews are humans “like anyone else”–when of course, Jews are actually a criminal conspiracy of psychopaths working for ruling/destruction of the world. Just find-out about the Jew Talmud–see Talmudical.BlogSpot.com, RevisionistReview.BlogSpot.com, and Come-and-hear.com for expo.
For in the comments pages, like this on the NASA fraud/hoax, we find the Jew, Jewwy and Jew-friendly trolls are absolutely LEGION, this being Unz’s very purpose. The rest of the commenters, the gentiles, are required to be “respectful” towards kike monsters, and here we see Unz’s obvious purpose and intention–to “normalizing” Jews as (a) “human, just like everyone else,” (b) as after all, “there are some good Jews along w. some bad,” and golly, but “one can’t judge all Jews by one or just a few,” ho ho ho ho.
So the interesting thing is, regarding the Unz comments pages, as I’ve pt’d out, the amazing LACK of the (proper and indicated) anti-Semitism–hence Christian advocacy and orientation–in the comments pages, in gross CONTRAST to the anti-Semitic articles everyone is supposedly commenting upon, which articles being the “bait” which attracts the commenters in the first place.
Unz is, like typical Jew he admits to being, absolutely TERRIFIED of that general Christian orientation and philosophy–Unz quails to even admitting any philosophy to Christianity, pretending it’s all “religion,” ho oho ho ho ho.
So as I note, Unz site is NOT a joke, but really a carefully set-up and functioning Jew-oriented, Jew-serving psy-op, pretending to the usual, ostensive, Jewwy “reason and rationality,” etc., essentially patronizing the gentiles (to grasp Unz’s real hostility towards gentiles, see his “Open Ltr to Alt-Right”), most of whom are allowed to present isolated “complaints” about Jews, and NEVER entertaining any genuine, serious Christian pt. of view (which is not mere “religion,” but actually quite philosophic), Unz site actually against any serious analysis of the real cultural problems like the continuing satanification, hence Jewwification of the culture which Jews lead, Unz Review being outstanding case-in-pt. as I describe–this is what’s really going on here at Unz site.
On YouTube there is a video wherein Nvideo engineers demonstrate a highly detailed graphical simulated analysis of the famous picture of Buzz Aldrin descending the ladder from the LEM, taken by Neil Armstrong already on the ground. They show that there is sufficient light reflection off the moon surface to light up the dark side of the LEM as Aldrin descends. They also prove that with that much light at the surface, the camera Armstrong used would have used needed to close down the lens aperture to avoid washing out the image. This results in the stars, being much dimmer than the ambient light conditions, are invisible. Anyone who has experience with an SLR camera that doesn’t have an automatic exposure lens would be aware of this.
This might also be the reason the two astronauts on the ground noted they didn’t see stars (while on the surface) — they were always on the light side of the moon and their pupils also needed to close down to avoid being blinded by the light on the surface. Once back on the return craft they would have had no problem seeing all the stars, but in the interview shown in this item the astronauts are asked about seeing stars while they were on the surface.
Very well stated. Thanks.
I can tell you want a kiss. But I have to tell you: I’m not that kind of guy, I’m sorry.
I didn’t even know about that “moon photo” these clowns really love to ridicule the stupid.
“I understood that going through the belt is not the problem, it’s what lies on the other side.”
If you read the links to the MSc thesis and the preprint I added to my answer to Ron Unz, you notice that:
1. Radiation beyond the Van Allen Belts can be very much higher than anything in the VAB, but if you are lucky and there is no sun activity during your trip, then there is only cosmic radiation (which is low but may contain very energetic particles/photons)
2. Passing VAB alone gives quite high radiation even if one uses the path announced for Apollo 11, which tries to omit the proton belt center. It seems to be so that nobody wants to pass from the polar area where there are no Van Allen Belts. I assume it is because they do not want to fly through aurora. Aurora is mainly low energy, but the intensity is so high that even if it is mainly something, it may very well contain deadly enough amount of high energy radiation.
The issue is simple, one should just sit down, read the MSc thesis (I supervised over 200 MSc theses, they are quite easy, though often dull, to read if you have engineering background, no matter if it is astrophysics or any other technics) and go through the references of the preprint. Either you verify their findings or you locate an error in both of them. Some days work.
Yeah, because your job making fries at Dairy Queen in 1970 was so integral to the moon mission.
As you job making fries at Dairy Queen in 2019 in integral to the Trump presidency.
A crew of decent mechanics and machinists could build an excellent, totally faithful, Edsel today in a few weeks.
Yup, just a wink and a laugh.
Close:
Well, not on this post, anyway.
Man tends to leave his garbage everywhere so if we can find some man made garbage on the moon we’ll have proof that we sent something there.
I am not as familiar with UR as you, since I’m relatively new here. But even if what you say about RU’s intentions is correct I can’t see what effect it has. As far as most posters go few will change their mind about much, and many of those anti-semites who comment here also comment on many other sites, including those with a more Christian slant. Many even have their own websites and still find the time to engage in discussions here. I guess it’s not possible to please everybody. Let’s say a site dedicated to current affairs and geopolitics starts to favour Christian viewpoints, then the pagans could say that they’re being marginalised and squeezed out and demanding for more representation. Or the muslims, or whoever. If he is purposefully deleting Christian oriented comments to give a different impression about the commentary content, then it is to earn points with whom specifically? There is more sense in claiming that RU acts as an agent provocateur trying to draw out unPC, anti-semitic, and hate speech type comments as another commenter claims.
I’d rather not get into these matters but I wonder how you think this commentary section should be moderated.
We really should be careful to distinguish two questions:
1. Is the radiation above low Earth orbit survivable? It probably is, depending on the solar activity at the time of travel.
2. Is the Apollo dosimetry record compatible with any of those missions having gone beyond low Earth orbit? The answer to this question is no.
The writer could have simply post this well writen article WAGGING THE MOONDOGGIE: PART I
BY DAVE MCGOWAN | OCT 1, 2009 to spared us reading hundreds of same comments here that he had answered, repeating from impossible Van Allen radiation belt, to camera issue, no stars theory, and of course that hard to believe tin foil lunar module.
http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/
Its surprised Ron had chosen to believe the hoax blindly posting such strong comment, that’s really wipe out all his long time credibility as a thinker & theoretical physicist.
Could anyone believe such duct taped junk lunar module ever can carry all the state of arts space equipments, 2 astronauts in clumsy space suits, a near same size buggy rover, with a world ever most complex powerful lunar rocket & enough fuel to propel 63 miles up to moon orbit, rendezvous maneuver precisely to dock with the space command ship orbiting at tens of thousands miles high speed, not even today’s technology can achieve. But Ron did.
The rugged foldable buggy- rover running on battery to add fun of moon roaming. But not to worry – according to NASA, the rovers (pictured below) folded up to the size of a large suitcase(forget the wheels).
Rover beside lunar module for comparison.
These are extra things to be squeezed inside that tiny module, besides carrying food to feed the astronauts for wk, relief their nature calls, sleeping space, etc.
Look at the multi spot light shadows going all directions. That junk tin foil lunar module wrap in Christmas wrapper was able to prevent fuel explosion, equipment damage and astronauts instant death under extreme radiation & temp (facing sun=+260F, shadow=-280F).
So well lit is their space suits under complete dark shadow, in a moon vacuum that supposed not to disperse any light. Complement of Nasa studio state of art lighting.
This is what it took to blast off from earth to orbit height, with special launch pad, months of hard work from thousands of crews monitoring with many trial run on earth, often ended with failure to rectify.
This is how NASA Apollo lunar module capable of propelling itself 69miles to escape from moon gravity 1/6 of earth, with its junk tripod tin can foil, wrap in Dupond Christmas wrapper. Successful at first trial, with every missions done flawlessly without launch pad, no thousands of crews to check & trial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvw&v=cOdzhQS_MMw#
We would expect to see lots of earthly junks left behind by multi Apollo missions, but all probes sent there found nothing. Not even the shits bags left behind by Armstrong.
But don’t worry, astronauts had magic space suits, with everlasting duracells powering its super climate control.
Van Allen Belts radiation
.
Don’t worry about extreme radiation, temperature,and vacuum, NASA had the magic space suits built by makers of Playtex bras. Bras maker knew how to make best space suits better than latest technology available.
On those camera adjusting disputes: why no star? Because astronauts said they never see any. And the 1960’s manual camera & Kodak film work fantastically with high precision shot in 540F temp fluctuation & ultra high radiation.
http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-4/
Look how superb the lunar module with a curb weight of 33,000 pounds, 10,000lbs engine nozzle( no adjustable throttle) landing completely undisturbed to moon surface dust.
After all, a pocket size 4digit calculator was the cutting edge technology then. But the lunar module with a processing power about a casio watch with 78kB memory, managed all these feats no one can repeat even now, not even when we can produce a smart phone millions time more powerful than whole Apollo space craft.
Any motivation for all these russ to fake a moon landing? Divert attention of Vietnam war scandals after scandals, My Lai….and Soviet winning in every space program.
Yes, “no stars” is a great place to start. If someone can tell me honestly that those three on the stage during the press conference following Apollo 11 actually did what they said they did, I would love to hear from him.
It’s clear to me from their body language that they look like school boys who have just been scolded and told to wait outside the principal’s office for their punishment. Their faces tell the entire story.
There is so much more to this hoax and it seems almost daily that more is being discovered. My favorite is the complete inability to broadcast live from the moon. They simply did not have the battery power to do so.
Brilliantly said.
Ron let you post your article first & call it a BS, that’s very interesting.
Those who have no time to read up this whole excellent article, can go to #4 on photography.
http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-4/
thank you Carroll
The Apollo program started in 1961 and almost miraculously it supposedly achieved its aim just about seven years later.
Now we have the Orion program, which started as long ago as 2006 and its first manned flight is now expected sometime around 2022 or 2023.
Those who are not smelling a plague of rats by now, need to get their sinuses cleared.
Unz Review In Context–What Really Goes On
Note Unz himself says (a) he believes in free speech, 1st amendment; (b) he also says he’s “light” on the moderation–THESE ARE LIES, the typical lies of typical Jew liars.
Unz effectively runs a training “camp,” as it were, for fellow Jew trolls, after attracting the gentiles by means of the anti-Semitic articles (such as they are), the Jew, Jewwy, Jew-friendly trolls here appearing in regular, amazing numbers, as thou can easily see.
So one of my main pt.s is to noting the great contrast for the ostensive anti-Semitic articles–and then looking at the comments in comments pages w. all the numerous Jew/Jewwy trolls. And I assure thou Unz CENSORS and deletes entries extensively–Unz is actually very picky for what postings he allows. Sure, he has favorites or “regulars” who are allowed to posting without too much censorship, evidently.
And another pt. I make is Unz’s anti-Christian bias, pretending Christianity is mere “religion,” when really the core of it is quite philosophic, Christ = truth (Gosp. JOHN 14:6), the object of worship–against Jew/satanic lies, lying, and liars (JOHN 8:44). Note truth is meaningless without the necessary OBJECTIVE reality serving then as basis/premise/criterion for such truth (= Christ).
Judaism/Talmudism features “midrash” (interpretation) and “Oral Law Tradition” SUBJECTIVISM, wherein only what rabbis say is “truth.” So thou sees the PHILOSOPHIC conflict, which Unz, typical Jew, wants to mis-represent as mere “religion.”
Don’t tell us thou can’t see the gross mis-representation, or the amazing contrast of the anti-Semitic articles vs. the pro-semitic tenor of the comments pages, rife w. numerous Jew/Jewwy trolls and trollery of the gentiles, the gentiles allowed to post being mere apologetic milque-toast types–serious, genuine anti-semites and Christians censored and removed.
So thus it’s the usual Jew/Jewwy Satanism (extreme subjectivism by which mind/consciousness is held as source of reality, making oneself God–Satanism by definition) which is effectively defended and promoted at Unz Review. And again, note the core of this Satanism is strict philosophy, not “religious” at all–simply (extreme) subjectivism, easily understood in perfect reason. The Christian critique is absolutely CENSORED and mis-represented as “religion” and/or mysticism.
After all, what’s the cultural problem if not the Christian civilization, including reason and science, being destroyed and satanified, this done most actively by these Jews, led by Jews?–how can anyone deny this fact?
Necessary anti-satanic response must be removal of Jews–ALL Jews, not just some individuals–for this collectivist -type effort is the way of war, proper and necessary. But Jews, and Unz want to subvert this necessary collectivistic campaign against Satanism, hence Jews, by means of pretending (a) there are “good” Jews (as if there are “good” psychopaths, child-molesters, and Satanists), (b) “Jews are like everyone else,” (c) “thou can’t judge all Jews by just one or a few.”
Judaism is Talmudism, and people need to face this fact. And anyone expressing such loyalty, as Unz, to Judaism is THE problem, regardless Unz pretends he’s “not religious”–he upholds the satanic philosophy, extreme subjectivism, expressing loyalty to it, proving it, sponsoring all the Jew/Jewwy trolls as thou see.
So thou need to wake-up to (a) the real cultural problem, and then (b) Unz’s place and what he does in this context. Unz is running an effective “training-camp,” for his Jew troll buddies, Unz the big troll-master at the top, and serious, genuine anti-Semitism, esp. the true Christian pt.-of-view, which is perfectly rational and philosophic, otherwise consistent w. the “anti-Semitic” articles Unz publishes, is actively CENSORED.
I’ve never asked for anything to be censored. I just want you to stay on topic. You know, like the rules at CODOH say, unless the poster is “Hannover,” who apparently both runs the forum and debates there. Guy musta been bullied fiercely in high school — pushed into lockers, swirlies, the whole nine yards, amirite?
Yeah, no.
Thank you, but reading it, I feel it was a little disjointed, and unclear on why exactly I was defending Mr. Unz reluctance to just sweepingly disregard that part (moon landing) of our iconic legacy as Americans.
And that reason is specifically because I’ve seen over the years that Mr. Unz is careful, and studious, like your typical academic, about all these issues of contention.
He never rushes to judgment, and relies on experts, because that is what careful and scholarly types do.
Unlike myself, for instance, Mr. Unz has a reputation as a man of letters, and is respected in the halls of academia and the lengths and breaths of the intelligencia (for good reason). That is not to be tossed away on a trifle.
And yet unlike the vast majority of his peers, Mr. Unz is uniquely able to come to certain conclusions that his peers are too craven- with snivelling moral cowardice- to even consider, lest they question some sacred cow. And ruffle the wrong feathers somewhere.
There was a time when Mr. Unz could not accept that so many people could continue to be willingly complicit with a 9/11 false flag, but in time, unlike most academics, he bravely (understatement) began to ask verboten questions.
So to that point, I’ve sort of become his unsolicited champion when it come to his intellectual integrity. A thing of great and ineffable value in a society like ours, when intellectual integrity is as rare as accountability for the USS Liberty, (another sacred cow that Mr. Unz has skewered)
I don’t always agree with him, (hardly). But I also have as much respect for his integrity as I do Phil Giraldi or Paul Craig Roberts, or the handful of other notable personalities with reputations and something to lose. Who’re nevertheless willing to put it on the line for the advancement of truth.
(With my sincere apologies for taking the liberty to expound on what I personally consider to be Mr. Unz motivating principles without his express permission, and regrettably, in my deplorably hackneyed prose).
Its not the stubbornness, and there is plenty of that, it is the willful ignorance coming from a man who many claim is a genius and an intellectual. I say willful because Ron Unz is refusing to even acknowledge the questions concerning the Lunar Rover.
It does remind a little of J2, who ends his holocaust calculations with the caveat that “The holocaust of 6m did happen, even if only 2.5 million died”
Ron Unz is basically saying “We went to moon, even if you prove we didn’t, because the US elites believe we did”.
I have to agree. Beyond that, I believe the question can be reduced to a common sense determination without the need for name brand experts that Ron prefers to rely on.
I quite agree. You don’t need anything more than common sense to solve this fraud.
Common Sense and the overwhelming evidence. I don’t believe in the tooth fairy either.
Well, let me belabor my point one more time…
In casually through the thread, I’d say that just about the only pro-Moon Hoax commenter who has any credibility is “j2.” He plausibly claims to be an academic at a university, his statements seem quite careful and measured, and he makes references to various published articles and MSc theses about radiation issues. But I also think he’s supposedly a historian rather than a scientist, and if so, he’s looking at issues far outside his area of personal expertise.
Nearly all the other Moon Hoax people seem like they have absolutely no scientific or academic background whatsoever, and indeed, a large fraction of them come across as Internet crackpots, who probably also believe all sorts of other highly implausible things like nuclear weapons being a hoax or the Cold War being a hoax, concocted by the Masons who secretly controlled the governments of both the US and the USSR.
Let me repeat a very simple point. If the Moon Hoax people, who themselves apparently lack any serious scientific background, go around emphatically stating that the Moon landing was “scientifically impossible” I really do think it’s their responsibility to locate at least a couple of actual scientists who’ve examined the evidence and publicly agree with them on that remarkable claim…
Please do read through the comments. Your Wyoming/Ecuador comment suggests to me that you have not read and thought about the the arguments being presented.
The issue with Wyoming vs. the Moon is the number of people who would have to be in on it in order to maintain the deception. Commenters had already talked about the number of people who would have to be in on the Moon hoax. There is no point in debating with someone who isn’t taking the time to understand your argument.
I don’t read him that way.
I’d posit that what he’s saying is that he’s not convinced that we didn’t go, which is a quantum leap from insisting that we did, and that he’s ready to prove it with convincing evidence.
I know a lot of very smart people who believe in God. And not just ‘a’ God, but a specific God.
Even if I consider such beliefs to be in error, or lacking proof, I don’t question all these people’s integrity out of hand, or their intelligence. There are lots and lots of really, really smart and honest people who would tell you not just that God exists, but even what His name is.
So if there’s a certain reluctance on the part of Mr. Unz to study the feasibility of the cars being taken to the moon, hot-rodded around and then left there in obscurity, I can forgive someone for failing to take the time and energy to sift thought the minutia to find out if that was really a physical possibility, when so many physicists (all?) seem to agree it happened, if by nothing more than their unanimous and uniform consent by default (silence).
Some of us have a more heretical bent than others. We tend to look at the generally accepted orthodoxies with a jaundiced eye. Knowing all too well the lies that have been sold to mold and mollify and control the masses, that goes on even today with a vengeance.
So we should resist the temptation to impugn all ‘normal’ people who tend to go with the flow, as ‘lemmings’ or worse.
How many Christians do you know who are fine and honorable folks, but who’d be loath to ever question their cherished belief systems? Do you badger them with questions about Jonah living inside the whale? Or the possibility of building and domiciling the Ark?
Probably not, but not because they’re too dishonest or ‘willfully ignorant’, but because these ‘truth’s are part of their identity, and are not dismissed on a whim.
I too am not 100% convinced the moon landings were a fake. I consider it likely at this point, but only after I’ve been barraged with videos and other information for quite a while now, but most of the people I know (some of them quite intelligent and open-minded) would utterly scoff at any suggestion that it was all faked.
It doesn’t take a scientist to realize that you can’t broadcast a TV signal 243,000 miles with a satellite dish smaller in diameter than a hot tub.
Ron Unz says: “Let me repeat a very simple point. If the Moon Hoax people, who themselves apparently lack any serious scientific background, go around emphatically stating that the Moon landing was “scientifically impossible” I really do think it’s their responsibility to locate at least a couple of actual scientists who’ve examined the evidence and publicly agree with them on that remarkable claim…”
First of all, I don’t even care if you become persuaded that the moon landings were faked, or not.
I appreciate the fact that you were at least open minded enough to publish the article here, which has a good summary of the main arguments .
As I have had previously mentioned [ post 1053] it is not even necessary to involve oneself in the scientific theory issues surrounding stuff like radiation belts , radio transmission times, moon rovers, etc. etc.
All you really need to do is to closely examine the photographic record with an open mind and an eye for detail. You don’t need any claimed “scientific experts” to tell you what to think.
Your Own Evidence Review Pre- Bias and Circular “Reasoning”
I would just like to point out that you need to become aware of your own pre-evidentiary review biases, because, as for anyone else, they must inevitably skew your conclusions to date , and I don’t think you understand this very important issue.
You appear to believe that it is a part of correct scientific investigative procedure to start from the assumption that the photos/ video clips are all genuine [ without it being proven] and to then briefly review them, and then try to “prove” them fake in your own mind ,when, via your own biases, all you’ve really succeeded in doing is confirming what you already “know”.
Pure circular reasoning, and, as for many, this is all you’ve done to date.
It seems to me that correct scientific inquiry procedure must proceed from an honest, consistent “I don’t know if they are real, and I don’t know if the are fake – and therefor I need to first establish their authenticity before I can draw any worthwhile conclusions from them” position.
In other words, the scientific methodology inclined reviewer must necessarily start from an entirely neutral “I don’t know” position with regards to trying to establish the authenticity of the moon landings via the imagery records, before those images can be claimed to be trustworthy evidence of alleged moon landings
Regards, onebornfree
http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/
Per the publicly available debates at CODOH, this ‘Hannover’ guy simply demolished you at CODOH’s forum.
But then that’s the main reason why Zionist liars & Jews who have fantasies of supremacism demand that there be no debate or free speech about their impossible “holocaust”. It simply falls to pieces when rationally, logically, & scientifically debated.
http://www.codoh.com
I can’t read all the articles and I tend to avoid ones with “Jew” in the title so I haven’t noticed. I understand what you’re saying although you can be long-winded and go about it in a roundabout way.
Basically Jews killed Jesus and there can be no peace between Christians and Jews. I suppose even that could be overlooked if they repented, but no, given a chance they would do it over and over again and again, so it is a fight to the death, a war of total and complete annihilation. Unfortunately most churches have compromised and sold-out on this question and are cooperating with Jews instead of building a complete alternative system, alternative communities, alternative education, etc. completely cut off from the global Jewish talmudic one. And we as individuals have to live and get on in this world as it is, so I don’t know what answer I can offer. The churches are powerful and rich enough to have built this alternative to confront the Jewish power but they’re not doing it. And since the Holy Land is in the hands of the Jewish Israel, they are basically being held hostage. And so many priests and bishops are more interested in getting more powerful and richer and fiddling with kids, and Christians are divided into so many conflicting churches, cults, and sects, so the prospects are bleak. I don’t want to sound defeatist but it’s hard to keep up one’s morale in a struggle nobody else, or very few, want to fight.
J2 is a genuine scientist, and one of a very high calibre too. His background is principally in mathematics and technology; history (I think) is just a hobby to him.
His profile is public:
http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/about/
His research articles can be found on Researchgate:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jorma_Jormakka
Seriously, these Apollo lunar module landers look shoddy & worst than what we had built in high school for exhibition.
Yet there are hundreds of millions Americans including Ron Unz believe they could fly through 300,000miles at 20,000miles/hr speed 2way through space, surviving landing on lunar surface, blast off to moon orbit with 10,000lbs rocket nozzle underneath, survive the reentry into earth atmosphere with above 2,000deg heat.
It must be a very scary space journey for all the astronauts holding so tightly to its frame, incase they might lost balance & drop out accidentally from the 2mm thin foil taped to fragile pipes.
If he was so good at debating, he wouldn’t have to rig the debates, now, would he?http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/02/codoh-forum-that-moderated-itself-to.html
Replace “Moon Hoax people” with “Holocaust revisionists”
Replace “scientific background” with “historical training”
Replace “Moon landing” with “Holocaust
Replace “scientifically impossible” with “a hoax”
Replace “actual scientists” with “actual historians”
There ya go.
Here is Carl Sagan (distinghuished astronomer) talking about the moon landings.
It is quite interesting: Sagan never says the moon landings DID happen. Instead he says that the moon landings looked beautiful, were of ‘Unreal quality’ that they are inspiring and that with the moon landings we entered an ‘era of myth and legend.’ I can agree with all of that even though I think that the moon landings are a hoax, perhaps Sagan did to.
As to the reason why none of the distinghuished astronomers never bluntly say that the moonlandings are a hoax, one can only guess. But it doesn’t help ‘the cause’ when they decide to not answer skeptical questions, as for instance is the case with this famous astronomer: Prof Brian Cox
http://www.aulis.com/brian_cox.htm
I would love to see how Trumps purposely embarrass NASA 3yrs from now, without even a working space suits & a decent looking lunar lander.
The lunar modules survived reentry into Earth’s atmosphere? Interesting. Perhaps you might provide a citation for this claim? Who — other than you — has ever claimed this, hmm?
Exactly. Why, anyone with a basic understanding of physics and astronomy must realize that the air resistance of th Moon’s atmosphere would have torn off the thermal blankets!
Nice start. Since the comments are about 30% mooners vs. 70% hoaxer, you have started by insulting 65% of your readers.
So “nearly all” of the 65% of readers here are “crackpots” without “academic background”. You are really on a roll, Ron, why stop here.
That is one pathetic strawman coming from an “academic”.
I will take credit for that. Not one person backed me up or debated me on that point. So lets say that you have beat a strawman you created (I do not concede that it is false) that represents about 60% of the readers here. Well done, bravo.
You didn’t mention the 800lb Gorilla of Jewish Supremicism. If whites say “whites have a right to exist”, that is white supremacism. If Ron Unz calls 65% of his readers ignorant crackpots, that surely never could have anything to do with Jewish Supremacism.
Yes, you are correct. It is not a question of whether Apollo astronauts could have survived or not. It is simply a question of if the announced dosage valued are correct. If they are not correct, then there is some foul play. And that is the whole goal of checking the preprint and the MSc thesis. I must say, having been a thesis supervisor so often, that my initial assumption is that the supervisor did check the claim of the student. It is so that if a student claims something extraordinary, like that the Apollon astronauts did not go to the Moon, a normal supervisor of the thesis does check the results. I would certainly do so. Everybody would, it is your name there as the supervisor.
Completely correct. Strategika51 is merely a blog, managed by a former/retired military. He generally has decent political positioning, but no scientific insight vis-a-vis the information he picks up from the web.
I have read some hilarious claims there, about North-Korea having secretly developed a range of fantastic weaponry. Wishful thinking, at best.
And yet we got pictures of Pluto just a few years ago, which is a hell of a lot further away than the Moon. Guess that was faked too.
Of course, a true person actually does research so they don’t sound like a fool online.
https://www.popsci.com/how-nasa-broadcast-neil-armstrong-live-from-moon#page-2
You are refering to the French “mockumentary” called Dark Side of the Moon, directed by William Karel, aired on Arte channel in 2002.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(mockumentary)
It was in fact made with the aim of discrediting the whole moon hoax theory with bogus testimony and deceptive editing of interviews of Don Rumsfeld and Henry Kissinger. It is a good example of what Ron calls “poisoned bait”. The idea is to produce some phony conspiracy “proof” that is easy to debunk, in order to claim that the whole theory is debunked. Apparently, you have fallen into the trap yourself. Now the good question is : why would a mainstream TV director like William Karel get paid to produce such a mockumentary, and why would he get permission from Rumsfeld and Kissinger (and a few others) to misuse their interviews ?
Very witty.
I am probably beating a dead horse, but to me it is like the truth about Katyn Forest coming out in 1990 being the end of the Holocaust hoax, or Building 7 being the end of the 9/11 hoax, so is the lunar rover the end of the moon hoax.
This is the point when you realize that a liar has been lying to you all along. At that point only a fool, or an academic, keeps listening as the liar spins more lies.
Until we have addressed Building 7, until we have addressed the Germans murdered to cover Katyn Forest, until we can get to the bottom of this dune buggy on the moon business, I am not interested in listening to jewish elites and their propaganda organs spin this in dozens of directions simultaneously. For a good example of how jews behave when caught in a lie, then look no further than Trump’s ex-lawyer Cohen:
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-04/michael-cohen-dangles-mystery-dirt-trump-if-only-house-democrats-will-keep-him-out
NASA was established in 1958, succeeding the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA).
The National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) was a U.S. federal agency founded on March 3, 1915, to undertake, promote, and institutionalize aeronautical research. On October 1, 1958, the agency was dissolved, and its assets and personnel transferred to the newly created National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Does any of the Moon Hoax believers actually do any research or are they like the flatearthers who look out a window and say “yup, can’t see a curve, so its totally flat.”
So what was the supposed motivation behind faking the Moon landings again? Could any of the Hoaxtards explain that to me? Not once mind you, but six times!
“International prestige” or some shit like that. Seems like a very risky, expensive and overly elaborate way to go about it, if you ask me.
Go outdoors on a moonlit night on a snowy day and tell me how many stars you see. I did it once and couldn’t see them from the reflected light from the snow
Next, go out on a sunlit day and tell me how many you see.
Heck, go out on a normal day in the city and tell me how many stars you can see in the sky.
I just love how moon hoaxers think the lack of atmosphere means you can see stars all over while the sun is also in the sky. Its like trying to see the light from a lighter one mile away on a bright sunny day.
Thanks. Much as I thought, he does seem to have a solid academic background in mathematics, military technology, and systems analysis. But just as I suggested, those areas do seem somewhat removed from aerospace engineering or astrophysics, and I’d really want to have at least a couple of professionals in those fields carefully investigate the evidence and endorse the Moon Hoax theory before I’d take it seriously.
As I emphasized in my first note, my own original professional training was in theoretical physics. But I’d regard myself as totally unqualified to evaluate the technical issues involved in Moon Hoax claims, centered upon the alleged “scientific impossibility” of the lunar landing.
I googled around a little, and apparently in the US alone there are probably around 100,000 aeronautical engineers, astronomers, and astrophysicists. Yet as near as I can tell, not a single one has ever looked into the Moon Hoax evidence and endorsed the theory. Why do you think that’s the case?
I made a similar point at #367.
Sorry, it was at #327.
https://qphl2.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4da4c47f0c161249f4059cb226a4c77b-c
https://qphl2.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d3060bfe27ac31db67888b2eeb2db64f-c
That’s how they got the “car” up there, Hoaxtards.
In its simplest form, the argument can be reduced to this:
– some Apollo missions stayed in low Earth orbit (LEO), while most are said to have travelled to the moon
– since the LEO missions were dress rehearsals for the lunar ones, we can assume that the capsules on both types of missions carried the same kind of radiation shielding (testing that shielding would have been an important objective in a dress rehearsal)
– radiation intensity is far greater beyond low Earth orbit than within; therefore, the dosages measured aboard the lunar missions – whether dangerous or not – should have been far greater than the very low dosages measured aboard the LEO missions
– the reported dosages were, however, very similar, which contradicts the claim that the “lunar” missions ever left Earth orbit.
Thus, we can make this point even without knowing how much shielding Apollo may have carried. But from the comparison with dosages measured aboard Gemini and other vehicles, we can infer that it was unremarkable.
And you believe that those pictures actually came from Pluto…why, exactly?
Oh, yeah, because someone told you to. Strike that.
Nay, it needs some reputable scientists & NASA guys to convince Ron its a common sense to believe. The rest are just internet crackpot.
Btw, for Mars manned flight, NASA Space Radiation Element Scientist Lisa Simonsen should just use some alu foil, tape & Christmas wrapper to shield the astronauts from dangerous radiation & GCRs(highly energetic particles able to tear right through metals). Didn’t Apollo did that 60yrs ago? You don’t need a scientist to duplicate what a grade one could do. ; p
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/space-radiation-won-t-stop-nasa-s-human-exploration
NASA Space Radiation Element Scientist Lisa Simonsen, Ph.D.
Next scam after F35 by Lockheed Martin – lunar lander.
This was a MSc thesis work carried out at the University of Lisbon, capital of Portugal. Portugal is a long-standing EU member; it joined a long time ago in 1986.
EU academia is very integrated: this was made necessary to obtain the EC fundings, and to facilitate the free employment of EU citizens in any European countries.
The EU’s Erasmus Student exchange program started as early as 1987, and all EU academic qualifications are listed on common databases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_Programme
An Astrophysics/Engineering professor endorsing a controversial thesis would put themselves under scrutiny by the entire EU academia, will risk losing funding and foreign students, and damage the institution’s reputation. The findings within this thesis are likely to be correct.
well, as I said with my first post to this thread, if they have the capability to photograph the landing site where the cars are with high res, close-up photography, (something I consider highly likely at this point) and yet they refuse to do so, I’d say that is pretty compelling evidence by default, that there are no cars up there. And if there are no cars, well then…
Academics tend to be careful. Most are tied to some kind of sinecure that they’d sacrifice their first born to keep flowing in the $lop trough. Mr. Unz is not one of those, being independently comfortable, and I wonder if that hasn’t had an effect on his intrepid bursting of holes in sacred cows like 9/11 or Holocaustianity.
In fact, I don’t know of another website with such a commitment to free speech and appreciation for the open mosh-pit of ideas.
If he’s reluctant to challenge the accepted dogmas of all known astrophysicists, then I don’t begrudge him that circumspection.
well then at least consider that it is none other than a Jewish elite (of sorts, would Mr. Unz quality as an elite? He did run for the Senate..), whose ‘organ’ of “propaganda’ is responsible for debunking more lies about things like the Katyn forest, the Holy Holocaust, 9/11, dishonest ((media)), USS Liberty, Jewish supremacism at Harvard, and more shibboleths of Jewish supremacist lies than I can recount here on this comment.
So, I feel there is a slight irony in your choice of venues to lament ‘jewish propaganda organs’.
It’s not that I don’t know of what you speak. For decades they tried to blame the horror at Katyn on the people who liberated that region. We’ve all marinated in a matrix of Jewish supremacist lies all our lives. I get that.
But this site, provided by Mr. Unz, is remarkable for it’s eagerness to explode all the lies and mendacity that we’ve all suffered under for so terribly long.
And I for one, am grateful for that.
http://www.hist-chron.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/24_moon-films-radio-transmissions-aliens-fake-ENGL.html
This goes beyond being gullible to Cold War propaganda.
The international scientific and engineering community profoundly admires the US for its scientific and technological prowess, which is undeniable.
The Apollo mission was seen as an astounding technological breakthrough which inspired the professional vocations of millions. Nobody wants to renege on what galvanised their dreams and influenced their formative years into becoming accomplished professionals. Call it fidelity to one’s value system, may be.
This is a fair question. If you follow the subject long enough you well eventually hear about some people like this who have gone public with their opinion on the Moon hoax. Dennis Cimino is one example. I am not sure what his exact professional qualifications are, but he appears to be an engineer.
There is an “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” but not a comparable organization for the Moon hoax. Why is that? It is partly because most people who would know something about the fields involved rely extensively on government funding for their livelihood. They probably do not want to rock the boat. Generally, people are only experts in one piece of the puzzle, which gets back to the issue of “compartmentalization of knowledge” which I wrote about earlier. How many people are experts on the subject of the effects of Van Allen belt radiation on living organisms? How many of these do not rely on government funding for their livelihood? Of course, it must be exactly zero.
Something similar can be said about every other piece of this puzzle. Consider the challenge of returning to the lunar orbiter with more than a hundred kg of rocks and leaving various items discarded on the lunar surface. Do we just trust the astronauts and mission leaders when they say that the astronauts piloted the lander back to the orbiter by sight with no computers? Not being a specialist in orbital mechanics, it is difficult for me to assess this claim. Who knows enough about orbital mechanics to assess this claim and is not dependent on government funding?
There are other aspects to this, like how the Apollo program took place during a time when the flow of information was more centrally controlled, but I would be repeating what other commenters have already said if I went into this.
Generally, it takes a while for people to see the light on true conspiracy theories, but one at least expects people who have woken up about some conspiracies, like Mr. Unz, to be more open-minded. My impression is that just about every conceivable objection that could be raised has already been addressed, so it may be time to walk away from the discussion for this particular article.
He also has a tendency of making extraordinary claims like solving four or five Millennium Prize Problems (btw, I am not doxxing him as his website was here advertised by himself on several occasions and more recently by Iris.)
And how he accomplishes it? Using special problem solving methods developed in military technology or so he claims.
Here is his comment to the note in Spanish about his accomplishments:
Then why does he state that all hoaxer arguments are self-invalidated without “academics” to back them up?
Look, I am very grateful to Ron Unz for what he has offered us. It is a forum where we can debate almost anything. I have been surprised to see my last several comments, many highly critical, make it through.
But this is once again an opportunity to present a case to real thinking people. I think Ron Unz understands this, and part of his stance is providing us the chance to knock down the very arguments that “academics” are presenting.
I also believe that nothing I could write will harm Ron Unz, so I think he is presenting me the opportunity to take my best shot. As pathetic as many might consider it, this thread represents my best shot. Thank you for that, Ron.
For Apollo, LM was nose docked to CM after leaving earth orbit instead of remained inside the CM. There it went all the way to moon. And it return to earth with similar docking for reentry.
On reentry of Apollo13 failed mission, the command module navigational platform alignment was transferred to the LM for reentry… i might have misread it? Then my apology for wrong quoting.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/missions/apollo13.html
If there was to be one, and only one motto in academia, that would be: One can only be judged by his peers.
Frankly, Utu, I am sorry to say that you are making a fool of yourself.
Being able to provide just an attempted mathematical proof to the Navier-Stokes equation, albeit this proof being possibly flawed, requires one to be at genius level. You don’t even have a grasp of that, because you have no clue how complex mathematics are at such level.
As per the Spanish commentators you translated, they display a typical country-bumpkin attitude of some Southern Europeans, unfortunately.
Mocking something they are not able to prove wrong is not a very convincing scientific attitude: they should instead be showing their mathematical skills and find the flaw in the proof provided by J2, if that were so easy. Regards.
he doesn’t
he just says that for him to take them seriously, he’d prefer that someone with expertise in that field would go on the record as formally debunking the official narrative.
Mr. Unz has done extensive research in his areas of expertise, and feels comfortable expounding on such, but not on areas where he’s admittedly given it little, if any consideration.
Bingo!
as he is us all.
and then it’s for the readers out there to make up their own minds, as always.
The Unz Review is an important tool for expanding the ‘Overton window’, of acceptable parameters of discourse.
A way for dissidents and heretics to flay sacred cows. A way for the truth to expose the lies that have become a pall of morass over our collective experience.
A way for the light to shine on the darkness, and destroy the apathy and gloom imposed by our ((priests)) of politically correct, acceptable opinions.
It’s Winston Smith making love to Julia, and crying out with ecstasy that 2 + 2 = 4!
Troof! Speakin dat Troof to da White Man wit all his fancy lies n’ shit.
You’ve been reduced to posting the same YouTube vids over again, Troof.
BTW, it’s quite hilarious how you Hoaxtards question every blessed thing EXCEPT random YouTubes concocted by Joe Shit the Ragman…lol
I am not sure how moving the goalpost by mocking a fellow commentator who did not brag, anywhere, about his professional achievements, does in any way enhance the intellectual level of this discussion.
The point J2 made is that, in an EU-supervised university where he had no involvement whatsoever, radiation assessments were made that invalidate the official Apollo mission reports. Period, and back to the real topic of this article.
“One can only be judged by his peers.”. – Agree. Try google scholar. He must be peerless.
Good video! I hadn’t seen this- although I was somewhat aware of the whole argument.
It includes plenty of the famous “transparent asstronots” footage too! Thanks.
Also, asstronots cannot seem to jump higher than 1ft despite the gravity disparity .
Regards, onebornfree
Is There “Proof” Or Not?–What Would Be “Proof”?–At Least Say That, For Starters
“Rurik,” buddy: thou write a lot of good stuff, have done so, BUT in thy latest, most recent attempts, just above, thou have FAILED sadly and pathetically to grasp what’s actually going-on. “Cowboy” does a good analysis, much better than thine, but even he sucks-up to Unz wayyyy too much. See mine at # 1078, and 1058, above. Unz is running a distinct psy-ops, without a doubt–thou need to getting clue, buddy.
I don’t say “manned moon-landings” are/were “impossible”; all I say is THERE’S NO PROOF and no compelling evidence. Remember “proof” simply means there’s perceptory evidence which can then be verified by any common-sense person–no need for “experts,” which is mere known fallacy of “arg.-fm-authority”–just because someone says so DOESN’T make it true.
Unz, pathetic Jew fool, gets all muddled up for his babbling on this “expert” corroboration crap–just say what the “proof” is, and say what “proof” would be–they can’t even do this–they’re pathetic. I thought kikes were supposed to be “smart”?–they’re just stupid, brainless, punks as we see them shooting the Palestinians like fish-in-a-barrel in Gaza. Kikes make mere declarative assertions (a), then (b) try to intimidate any dissent by further asserting opponents are “internet crackpots”–how persuasive, how impressive, ho ho ho ho.
So take care, Rurik, at least give my notes, ref.’d above, a once-over reading.
J2’s articles are indexed on German scientific databases, Utu, the heart of technology in Europe.
https://dblp.uni-trier.de/pers/hd/j/Jormakka:Jorma
And he appears dozens of times on Google Scholar:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Jorma+Jormakka
You really have no clue.
Well, seriously, LOL. What about the REST of the moon missions? If the radiation for Apollo 7 and Apollo 14 were reversed, that would indeed give me pause. As it is, the obviously higher readings for most moon missions settles this particular point for me.
Moon Machines – Part 6: The Lunar Rover
Moon Machines in the US and UK is a Science Channel HD documentary miniseries consisting of six episodes documenting the engineering challenges of the Apollo Program to land a man on the Moon.
The series’ final episode centers on the design and perfection of the novel Lunar Roving Vehicle carried to the Moon on the Apollo J-class missions.
Design & Stowage @: 10:25
Earth Deployment @: 23:56
Moon Deployment @: 34:15
Ahh, that brings back memories. The “Does Uruguay exist?” shtick. I remember you trotted that out a couple of years ago in a discussion on 9/11, when I (and some other people) suggested that no planes had crashed into any buildings on 9/11. Apparently, planes crashing into buildings on 9/11 is comparable to the existence of Uruguay. (Though now it is Ecuador, same difference…)
I remember that I found all that “Does Uruguay exist” stuff annoying enough to write a (IMO) quite devastating rebuttal of it.
https://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-911-truth-movement-15-years-later-where-do-we-stand/#comment-1572755
Well, I think that was devastating. You made no attempt to respond to it. I don’t think you easily could have. My response left you high and dry.
But, okay, obviously, you still think you’re making some sort of point here with this “Does Ecuador exist” silliness, and and actually, you are. Except that the point you are making is not at all what you think it is.
What all this shows is that you suffer from a very basic conceptual issue. This is not the first time I have noticed it and, actually, based on previous run-ins with you, I had been trying for the longest time to put my finger on it. I think I have. One could summarize it this way:
Ron, for all your erudition, you have never really grasped the difference betweenreal facts and storytelling.
And really, for all of it, if you don’t really grasp this, you will always be pretty helpless against all the propaganda and BS out there.
Now, look, first of all…. basic facts about Uruguay, Ecuador, or Wyoming, starting with the fact that these places obvious exist, but moving on to what the capital city is, surface area, and so on — these are uncontroversial data that one typically used to look up in a world almanac. Nowadays, you would get these things from Wikipedia. Now, whatever one thinks of Wikipedia on other topics, it actually is a quite reliable source of information to resolve these kinds of uncontroversial factual questions. If you want to know what the capital of Mongolia, you can find the correct answer very quickly on Wikipedia.
BUT… on the other hand, there is another set of questions on which Wikipedia is equally reliable — reliably WRONG. If you look up on Wikipedia what happened on 9/11 or who killed JFK, you get an official STORY that is, to all intents purpose, ALWAYS false.
So, for a certain kind of question, like the capital of Mongolia, Wikipedia give you a factual answer that is about invariably correct, and then there is another set of questions, on which you get… well… a story. Not just any story, mind you. You get the official Establishment narrative and that is pretty much always a fable.
Actually, the first time you trotted out the “Does Uruguay exist?” shtick with me was when the Betty Ong conversation commenced. That was here:
https://www.unz.com/article/the-show-must-go-on/#comment-1475513
You wrote:
I found that quite annoying and really perplexing. You were comparing the existence of flight attendant Betty Ong who made a phone call from a (non-existent) flight to report a (non-existent) hijacking with the existence of an actual country, Uruguay in this case. (By the way, I really know that Uruguay and Ecuador exist. I have traveled to both countries.)
But, you see, Betty Ong is not at all comparable to Uruguay or Ecuador. Betty is just a character from one of these stories. She could exist, but surely you can understand that there is no particular reason for a character from a fictional narrative to be a real person! Moreover, there are surely plenty of cases of Intel agencies constructing a fake persona. However, they have never constructed a fake country, to my knowledge.
I used to be a greater admirer of your “American Pravda” series of articles but then eventually I came to realize that they suffer from a fatal flaw. They tend to be very focused on who told what story and how “credible” you think the storyteller is.
Your participation in this discussion is similar. You argue that the people making whatever arguments are not credible because they lack whatever credentials and thus, there is no need for you to even consider their arguments. (And then the people who do have whatever credentials never seem to contradict the official story… funny how that works…)
Well, finally, the thing is that, as best I can tell, it is an open secret that the moon landings didn’t happen. I have met educated Russians, and I think that for them, by and large, the whole thing is just a joke. That they took some amazing fold-up vehicle there bugs some people, I know, and rightly. Somehow, for me, the mission where they took their golfing paraphernalia up there and were playing golf on the moon just somehow rankles…. is this really something serious, or is this just a little joke?
So, finally, the whole thing is obvious bullshit, so the question then for me is why you are so helpless against something like this?
Well, I think that the problem centers around these conceptual issues regarding what is really factual and what is storytelling. The way propaganda works is that they try to subvert your normal cues for distinguishing facts from stories. They dress up the storytelling in such a way that it looks like real facts but it isn’t. Some years back, when I guess I was on the cusp of getting it on the 9/11 issue, I was in a bookstore and there were a bunch of hard copies of the 9/11 Commission Report in a bin and I picked up one and started looking through it. At some point, it just dawned on me that all of this was just storytelling! Just BS! All this stuff about Al Qaeda and Bin Laden and… BUT… it’s all exhaustively footnoted, dressed up to look like real facts, but it’s all just baseless storytelling. Any attempt to verify any of it just takes you around in circles.
The Holocaust narrative is similar. With that, once you do your best to separate out the storytelling from the facts, and just look at the facts, you realize that they are far more consistent with the revisionist position than the canonical story.
But to get to this point where you can see through these things (and it took me a VERY long time) you have to do the work of figuring out (as best you can, and, sure, sometimes you make mistakes…) what is really factual and what is storytelling. Your approach is just to say that you won’t even attempt this because, for your I guess, everything is storytelling and the way you try to discern which story is true is by evaluating the credentials of the storytellers. So you say the people telling one story lack whatever credentials, so therefore you believe the Establishment narrative.
Well, as Kevin Barrett pointed out, this has not really worked out for you terribly well. It took you ages to figure out JFK, 9/11…. So maybe you might consider that there is a flaw in your epistemology. I’m not optimistic though. I don’t think the prognosis for you is good. I mean to say, you’re one hell of a hard case, Ron.
Replace Seven Nations to destroy (genocidal insane wars based on 500 BC ramblings)
with
Logically dealing with other nations on this planet
Replace 6 million figure stated endlessly since 1823
with
an real investigation of what happened during WWII
Replace 500000 Iraqi children dying from US sanctions is OK
with
It is not OK
Replace Larry Silverstein’s windfall of 4 billion from a mere 124 million investment a few weeks before nine eleven
with
Something is fishy about this.
Insurance companies give little people the biggest headaches when they try to get tiny bits of money for damage to their minuscule properties
These are just some of the many Replace games that we have been dealing with for a long time. Santa Claus thinking, the belief that only the “right” adults know all the “answers”, is not working any more. The “adults” are playing games on us, little people.
Santa Claus thinking is destroying this planet a thousand times faster than the supposed “horror” of “Climate Change”.
All roads lead to the City of London: http://www.911nwo.com
Correction: commenters on this thread.
But par for the course when it comes to hoaxer “reasoning.”
Well, speaking as someone who is 99.999% convinced the moon landings occurred precisely as advertised, I’m willing to grant that the US government did indeed have every motivation in the world to “fake” them, if indeed they were faked.
There is, as you say, a risk involved in being busted. But it’s that very risk that suggest to me that, if the landings were faked, the people involved would have taken MUCH greater care in faking it than what is supposedly (according to hoaxers) the case.
For example, if some average Joe can pick up on some aspects of the photos that seem ostensibly suspicious, then wouldn’t the hoaxers themselves have picked up on the same thing? If not, why not?
What would be the point of “faking” something that can so simply be demonstrated to be fake?
Well, that makes it all as clear as mud. You ramble, in case you’re not doing so intentionally and might benefit from having that pointed out. A famous writer, William Faulkner was also prone to rambling by way of the use of run-on sentences. I once joked that sometimes his sentences ran on into the next novel that he published.
Not that that prevents you from advancing the claim that the moon landings were definitely faked.
“I find the whole “Moon Hoax” thing riscible and offensive.”
The word you’re groping for is “risible”. It doesn’t matter, of course, because you’re feigning offense anyway. Please take care not to carry this manner of communicating with others into any public setting. Such an attitude as you display here might eventually goad someone into beating the living shit out of you.
The photos and videos are the evidence for this so obviously staged hoax. It’s surprising to me that no Columbo like detective could rest until they understood the truth based on upon the preponderance of the evidence. Does the evidence look too convincing or too fitting, too neat, too clean? Probably staged.
Tens of thousands of mission photos taken by cameras strapped to the chest with no viewfinders who were still able to produce nearly level and centered photos so consistently. Ever tried to take a picture and have it come out level and centered? It takes some skill.Now think of doing that 10,000 more times.and expect them all to come out nearly perfect. Crazy thinking.
Now imagine trying to do it with your eyes closed. Simple, just point your chest in the right direction, snap and poof!: perfect picture. This is what NASA would have us believe. Impossible I say.
Many other fact based reasons contained within my favorite book on the subject ‘Dark Moon’. I suggest you read it/see it, before you decide what side is best supported by all the facts.
Anti-Semitism Is Anti-Lies, Anti-Satanism–Ultimately Censorship Will Not Help
“Silvio…,” it’s pretty simple how it worked–Jews and ZOG saw how successful was the first “manned moon-landing” fraud, so they decided to go to the proverbial “well” again and again–why not?–and it continued to work, didn’t it?–and this isn’t any mystery–holohoax was great success too, for many yrs, eh? 9/11 psy-ops/false-flag succeeded well enough, but just not quite as long period of time, eh?
Observe the central-banking fraud–literally legalized counterfeiting–putting-out nearly INFINITE fiat-currency, the more the units circulated, the more the units are devalued, eh?–defrauding, devaluing, and impoverishing the stupid suckers who are sooooo thrilled at INFINITE currency rather than limited-in-amount REAL money–the poor, brainless fools.
So thou see: long as the scummy, over-populated morons suckers, goons, inferiors, and weaklings in a mature culture in “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler, “thinks” they’re “prospering,” watching their stupid football games, etc.–the fraud complex/regime will continue to rule and dominate. US Fed Reserve Bank fraud/conspiracy has been around, in operation, for over HUNDRED yrs now–isn’t that impressive?
And thou want to ban us who say manned moon-landing lacks proof?–because thou HATE truth, right?–otherwise thou would only have to give the proof–which thou don’t have, so hey, CENSORSHIP is the magic solution, eh?–thou wish, anyway, sucker. But hist. is CYCLIC, and US economy is going to collapse, pretty soon, eh?–and then all the censorship in world isn’t going to save thou lying, Jewwy, Jew-friendly filth, eh? Didn’t thou know Jew-hatred is integral part of human religion?–hatred of monsters and satanism, etc.–it will happen again, soon, sucker–take heed, scum, ho ho ho ho ho ho
Agreed, Dave was a very entertaining writer with a sharp and discerning mind. I still have a paperback copy of his “Weird Scenes From the Canyon” which was my introduction to his writing. He doesn’t have an equal, IMO.
I work in the field and I took a look at the thesis. It appears to be correct, and I tend to agree that if the rad. shield is less the radiation will be much more. The question is whether an aluminum skin that supports 1 Atm pressure differential, plus a thermal shield, amount to 100 mm Al equivalent (I doubt they made the module out of anything other than Al).
Ceramics are made with all sorts of materials but it is likely that those that fly in space are on the light side, so C, O, Mg, Al, and other light elements. It is likely that the TS has similar density and therefore similar stopping power. This radiation is all stopped by dE/dx and I assume that what passes through 10 cm of Al is just bremsstrahlung X-rays by the stopping radiation. So this is not the original radiation hitting the astronauts but the radiation it emits while decelerating in the aluminum. That is a strong suppression right there.
Also GEANT (the simulation package to track the radiation) was already seriously good in 2012.
But I note that if the shield was as thick as the ISS (thin enough that a homesick astronaut can drill through it) then the original radiation would punch through and hit the astronauts, so again I agree that if it were, say, 2cm thickness then there would be orders of magnitude difference.
It is possible that the thesis advisor found a way to get himself protected by choosing to simulate a thickness well beyond the range of VAB particles in aluminum. I will be happy if someone convinces me that 10cm of Al is the appropriate total wall thickness for the reentry module walls.
Watch : The coming war on china – Documentary – There you can see real victims of radiation from an Atomic bomb .
Mention & footage of video camera which captured the liftoff is @: 45:55
Evidently this was done only for the last mission, and was the initiative of one individual.
H.H, Schmitt, PhD,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Schmitt
B.S. degree in geology from the California Institute of Technology in 1957
Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University in 1964
the only scientist, to journey to, and indeed to walk on, Earth’s moon:*
*TANSTAAFL! (but that’s another thread:)
A few of Dr. Schmitt’ s publications are referenced here:
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/41pegasus/12insiders/HH_Schmitt_01.html
I am not competent to comment on Dr. Schmitt’s expertise, as I was first educated here:
https://chemistry.mit.edu
and here:
https://chemistry.uchicago.edu/graduate-program
although I did not complete a PhD.
I later studied civil and structural engineering here:
http://www.fullerton.edu/ecs/cee/
and have earned my living in the construction industry since 1972.
Great comments, but I have to ask, does it really matter to you if Mr Unz continues his current beliefs regarding moon landings, 9/11 etc.?
After all, it is probably best for the mental health of most here [ including Mr Unz] that they continue believing exactly what they already believe.
The ego’s of most people are extremely fragile, and their mental health [and world view] might be completely ruined if they ever come to understand that all of these so-called government payrolled “scientific expert” fuckers have been bald-faced lying to them, for decades.
I know from personal experience in finding out the truth [at least some of it] about 9/11, that it was an extremely traumatic experience for me, one that I have never fully recovered from. I now feel almost completely ostracized from the rest of “normal” society. It is not an easy state to live in , day to day- as you yourself must well know.
Then when you add in all of the other faked events [ Boston, Sandy Hook, Parkland, New Zealand etc.] , plus older psyops [ Lusitania, Gulf of Tonkin, Hiroshima, the holocaust etc. ], you are really “in trouble” socially. Might as well commit oneself to the loony-bin 🙂
Regarding your frustration with Mr Unz : “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink” , as the saying goes. So maybe , cut him some slack?
Regards, onebornfree
First, thanks for publishing this article.
Second, I don’t believe that you believe that somebody landed on the moon 50 years ago.
There is no single rational person in the world who spent no more than 24 hours on this issue who believe so…I’ll not question your motives…
So, let’s check whole thing again together…first some basic questions..
Can you name any other important scientific breakthrough that doesn’t have follow up?
Well, your Columbus example definitely doesn’t fit. Huge followup. (which makes “who did it” question irrelevant)
Wright brothers? Even bigger followup.
Let’s talk about Russia (not collusion).
Russians doesn’t complain so landing must be true…and they also doesn’t try to do that themselves (and they know that is possible) …because?
No attempt to make ISS in the Moon orbit? Why? I mean, ISS is international, no competition between US and USSR or China (and Moon is just 3 days away and America is 3 months away in Columbus time)
As American, are you ashamed that NASA lost blueprint of best rocket engine ever built (Saturn V), so astronauts have to learn Russian to go to ISS?
I can tell you why Russia didn’t complain. They knew, just like you and Carl Sagan, that extraordinary claim require extraordinary proof.
Ron, NASA and you failed to deliver that proof, that’s why we are here.
You failed here, but please continue you work…you are saving humanity…
Re: “what was the supposed motivation..?”
Dave Mcgowan gave a pretty clear explanation for this. The space programme was largely a cover for the research and development of space-based weapons and surveillance systems.
The propaganda coup was secondary, a bonus.
Again , I would like to point out the [to me] obvious fakery of the very first photo used in this article. It has stars [in contradiction to many other moon landing photos]; it appears to have a whole galaxy to the upper left of the asstronot [brown area], plus a perfect ‘blue ball” earth image in the right corner. And the earth is too small compared to other “genuine” photos that have the earth in the background, if I am not mistaken [without checking].
Does anyone here know what the original source for this “genuine” photo is?
Regards, onebornfree
“I don’t say “manned moon-landings” are/were “impossible”; all I say is THERE’S NO PROOF and no compelling evidence. ”
Exactly right. What has been offered as “proof” is so laughably flimsy that it surprises me that anyone accepts it. It isn’t necessary for someone who doubts the flimsy hoax to have scientific proof that temperatures on the moon are extreme or to what extent they are extreme, It’s only necessary to accept NASA’s statements regarding these temperature extremes in order to point out that nothing that was claimed to have survived these temperatures can be produced for examination.
Likewise, it isn’t necessary to present proof that there was no room for a dune buggy in the little Lunar Module. It’s only necessary to ask for dimensions of the module and dimensions of the dune buggy and to be told that no data exists for verification because it was all destroyed.
Can NASA produce artifacts that can be examined to prove that there were “spacesuits” impervious to extreme temperature changes, or Hasselblad cameras that somehow shielded photographic film from radiation and temperature extremes? Unless they can produce the actual items that are claimed to have gone to the moon and back, it’s reasonable to conclude that proof is lacking for their claims.
Does anybody else find it noteworthy that this Giant Hoax for Mankind, during which an astonishing sum of money disappeared, unrolled over the same period as The CIA (unrolled its) Takeover of America?
Does anybody else find it noteworthy that these two articles appeared here at the same time?
I do.
” I will be happy if someone convinces me…” – I am not trying to convince you of anything but here are some details about the structure:
People lie to give the nuttier answer: ‘Chocolate milk comes from brown cows’, etc.
The image atop Moon Landing Skeptic’s article is a parody, a spoof, a satire meant to ridicule the “real” Apollo Moon photos by including numerous obvious errors, such as as the glaringly different sources of light on the Earth (from above) and on the astronaut (from left), but congratulations on the great catch. Sorta.
Let’s try this. That bright, glowing object in the upper middle right of this photograph looks suspiciously like a hot spotlight, but of course it must be the Sun, a UFO, or perhaps a passing comet, because certainly the experts at NASA would not include an artificial light in a photograph ostensibly taken on the Moon, would they?
Well, that doggone chest-mounted Hasselblad makes it difficult to frame any image tightly, so who knows?
AS14-66-9302
Apollo 14 Hasselblad image from film magazine 66/II – EVA-1
Curiously, the astronaut’s shadow lines up perfectly with the spotlight I mean UFO, but I’m sure someone will be along shortly to explain that, until an expert says otherwise, it’s just a lens flare.
Exactly.
NASA “lost” the blueprints for the best rocket engine ever made. Please.
Which brings me to another point. After one has accumulated knowledge about the hoax it really does become humorous. Take a look the thoroughly ridiculous tinfoil / duct tape lunar lander, let alone the stupid vehicle, and you have to laugh. Buy you can be sure the perpetrators of the hoax were having an even bigger laugh—— while they were getting dead rich.
Why USA stopped going to the moon after 1970? May be someone from Kremlin called and said: “Hey guys, you played enough, game over, or else”. And they stopped😛.
Radiation is not ionisation. Radiation can’t see magnetic fields and vice versa.
Van Allen Belts contains particles with ionisation, not with radiation.
Radiation ionizes (eg. in Geiger-Müller tubes) or other densitometers but that’s an effect not a cause.
When people claims that the densitometers measures activity uniformly distributed all over the whole journey then there is no claim. Radioactivity is stopped solely by the earth atmosphere. So the distribution must be uniform where the space ships rushed through.
Forget van Allen, that’s not an Argument. You need mass to aviod radioactivity. That is made by the LEM on the way to the moon, and with the SM on the way back.
BTW: If there were never ever any single step from a lifeform on moon or Tycho crate was a center of mass tourism. I simply don’t care.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#Apollo_missions_tracked_by_independent_parties
http://www.clavius.org/site.html
http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html
“The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense.” — Dr. James Van Allen
The most obvious point to me that proves their is fakery involved is the pristine condition of the moon dust beneath the lunar lander. Wouldn’t the landing stir up an immense cloud of dust and excavate a tremendous hole if bedrock was not near? Why do the true believers avoid trying to explain how this does not happen as the pictures clearly demonstrate?
Can someone who believes the pictures represent what actually happened explain dustless, excavation free landings?
This guy in the video talks about the dust at 2:30
Excellent vid. Thanks for posting it.
It seems tendentious to call this by the very general name “scientific breakthrough” [stretched to the absolute maximum of flexible meanings of words – after all what was new about the science? – surely the science had to be well settled to justify the engineering effort]. And if you insist….. everything else that NASA has done is surely part of the follow up. Why would anyone choose to spend limited (albeit large) funds on repeating a manned expedition to the moon until there isca serious chance of establishing some sort of bade or colony there?
Permit me to be express myself more clearly then.
F**k you.
You are a retard. You are all retards. And retards ye shall remain.
Nothing is so certain as the certainty of an ignoramus.
So, Silvio, have you ever seen such a collection of dips**ts as on this thread?
Yes, devastating. I’m sure you “destroyed” him. Or perhaps even “owned” him.
All while sitting in your comic-book decorated couch, as befits a man who never grew up.
You are a loser – a ridiculous nobody.
No, I’ve never seen that. I am referring to what several people, perhaps dozens of people, have claimed here on this thread.
I reject the assertion that the 1969 to early 1970s Moon Landings were a hoax.
On an Unz Review note, I want to note that a googling for the words “Moon landing hoax” currently has this Unz Review article in 28th place, and rising, just five days after its publication.
In higher spots on the google results are a few hits for stories related to NBA player Steph Curry, who rejected the Moon Landing in Dec. 2018 to some acclaim:
For the record, it was a “grinning with sunglasses” emoticon.
Ron Unz’ decision to publish this on April 1 raises the same kinds of questions.
Regardless, this article has quickly become the most-read article of the month, and seems destined to one of the most-read and most-commented articles ever on the Unz Review. It’s kind of a shame, because of the unseriousness of Moon Landing skeptics’ claims, that this is the case.
Tis’ a pity then that Revusky doesn’t have any.
NASA isn’t what it used to be. The Pentagon used to win wars too, or at least tie. Now, not so much. The federal government has become, generally, lamer. NASA is no exception to that. Bureaucracies don’t get better with age.
You can’t even assess a person’s likely background from what they post. You are a flat-earther retard. You are – and let me be honest here – Unz.com’s step-n-fetchit blackface minstrel – a prototypical stupid arrogant black man. Nobody gives a f**k what you think.
And just who are you agreeing with here? A bunch of people whom you ordinarily deride as white-trash losers. They hold you in contempt. When you aren’t agreeing with these retards (and they are retards), they think you are a living breathing stereotype. How many of the people whom you are now making common cause with have – at other times – read what you posted and thought to themselves “stupid ni**er!”.
The joke is on you, dips**t.
On 14 Spet. 1968 Soviets launched Zond-5 circumlunar mission using Soyuz 7K-L1. Its payload were two tortoises. The mission successfully returned though they had many nearly disastrous problems with navigation and keeping right trajectory to bring it back. See more here: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/zond5.html
The tortoises survived:
I checked that the medical lethal radiation dose (LD50) for tortoise is 3.33 time higher than that for humans according to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioresistance
TASS report was issued still when Russia while being very coy about sending man to the Moon and participating in the race called by Americans was not vehemently denying that they wanted to do it. I conclude that the public report about tortoise survival and their good health was an official expression of their belief in the viability for the human flight that VAB radiation concerns were not a show stopper. So at that point as far as the Soviets were concerned the VAB crossing and radiation in “cosmic space near the Moon (TASS Sept 23)” were not an issue.
However from that point Soviets began to suffer series of setbacks and it was Apollo 8 in Dec. 1968 that did the circumlunar mission. Were there astronauts in Apollo 8? Soviets would not challenge the Apollo 8 story because they knew it was feasible. Even though Soviets could not verify what was on Apollo 8 they could not invoke the VAB issue. Their TASS report on the excellent health of tortoises took away this possibility from them. If Russian tortoise could do it so the tough Americans could. Soviets changed the tune and began to dissimulate their interest in a man mission to the Moon from then on.
There is an interesting site Russia: The Real Moon Landing Hoax (www.astronautix.com/r/russiathereonlandinghoax.html) based on work of Vick and Pesavento who tried to uncover what actually Soviets were up to. I do not know how good their research is but certainly it is very interesting and it shows that Soviets were fighting to the very end and that they were extremely creative and flexible coming up with different approaches to the missions when having to adapt to new situations created by their failures and American successes. Soviets Moon Landing Hoax was covering up their Moon landing program and intense effort and keeping it hidden. Does the narrative given by Vick and Pesavento serve the validating of NASA and Moon Landing narrative? Yes, maybe, but it does not prove it.
I have no point to make except that I would like to express an opinion: I think that VAB radiation issue is a wrong tree to bark at for the hoaxers. Possibly even a red herring (Sunstein’s cognitive infiltration). Doing a circumlunar flight with humans was possible. If the Moon landing was faked it was not done when astronauts were on the Earth orbit because it could have been easily verified by Soviets. If the faking was done it must have occurred on the Moon orbit. Nobody could verify by remote means that landing with men did not take place. But the presence of a space vehicle on the Moon orbit was necessary.
Return to Zone-5. There is a story reported on the Moon Landing Hoax site that when Zone-5 was near the Moon it was sending voice signal of Pavel Popovich who at that time was in Crimea. Whether it happened or not we do not know. Popovic may cconfabulate but he claims that it was just a prank:
One problem with Popovich story is that when Zone-5 was flying the Soviets did not know that they lost their race yet os perhaps it was not a prank. There are more details and references to the sources in Jarrah White articles at http://www.aulis.com/record.htm which as I said is Moon Landing Hoax site. However the story, if true, regardless of what was the motive for Soviet chicanery or prank at that time would demonstrate that one side could fool the other side as to the presence of astronauts on the circumlunar mission. So I am returning to my original point I made earlier in this thread that if it was believed that landing humans on Moon was too risky and too difficult and being under the pressure of Soviet challenge and very likely Soviet chicanery it was possible that it was decided to out-cheat the Soviets and fake it.
However the proof what happened is on the Moon. Nothing here whatever happens on Earth will change the mind of Moon Landing Hoaxers and nothing short of official NASA admission of a hoax would change belief of people like Ron Unz. Everything else what is being done here are better and worse speculations interwoven with frequent statements of faith expressed with religious zeal of maniacs who do not know what they know and what they do not know plus frequent excursion of people who have agenda who exactly know what they know because they are quite smart but they nevertheless have preference for a particular version of reality and will never ‘descend’ to the only honest position of skepticism and agnosticism. ( Revusky, I am talking about you.) . So there are two modes of failure: epistemic and ethical., ignorance and bad faith. Certainly one can see here a full display of eristic and rhetorical devices plus case of clear derangement and psychosis.
So you also project your own latent homosexuality on to others, then.
Weird. Creepy.
That you are agitated and not on your meds is obvious** but it appears you are muddled as well. A review of WoZ comments suggests you are thinking of some other Commenter when you refer to “scientific and peer review”. Not once that I can see and anyway none relevant. Perhaps you are confused also because of your ignorance of the legal notion of expert evidence. (It means courts can ignore opinions like yours and other uneducated shouters and accept opinions only from real experts – and even then subject to testing crossexamination).
You cap the absurdity by suggesting the WoZ moniker conceals a Jew or even Israel supporter. But that’s OK I don’t imagine any offence will be taken at your proof that nothing you say about a Commenter can be believed.
**excuse the use of the sacred nutters’ word generally used of matters in truth really complex about 9/11, USS Liberty or JFK assassination….
A pretty powerful analogy, Rurik. There’s no question in my mind that an “unspoken agreement” permeates higher circles, and that it may not even be very “unspoken” in the highest of them.
Nevertheless, sands are shifting, and I expect that the prevailing “unspoken agreements” will start breaking down as the current world order continues to come apart. Some “farmers” know the power of the narrative better than others, but the others are learning and the rules governing how they use that power are shifting with the shift of real wealth and real military power.
The Chinese have been, and continue to be the target of all manner of false narratives emanating from the West. The Russians as well. The day is coming, I believe, when they both are in a position to turn the tide and start to generate the narratives that will underpin whatever world order replaces this one. That process will coordinate the demolition of the old with the creation of the new in what they doubtless hope will be a smoothly choreographed manner. However, shit happens, and they may be forced to act in a less-than-smooth step-function manner.
I think China’s immediate grounding, and demand for re-certification of the B737Max is a salvo in the narratives war that’s just starting.
Given that the West’s position in the current world order rests largely on such laughably flimsy hoaxes like this one, I don’t give it much of a chance of winning except in scattered backwaters within America itself. America’s “farmers” may be able to keep some of their cattle corralled, but new “unspoken agreements” will start to prevail across the rest of the world that ignore America’s, and by extension the West’s claims to leadership.
Of all the great hoaxes of the “Great American Century”, this one is easiest to demolish. One can come as close to proving a negative as it’s possible to come with a single or composite photograph of (say) Tranquility Base of undeniable provenance that shows it as empty as it was 1B yrs ago. No complex technical arguments, or “aerospace experts” required. Such a photograph would be as effective with schoolchildren as it would be with their teachers or even, one hopes, with theoretical physicists cum bloggers.
Once this hoax that underpins America’s exceptionalism is shattered, the others will fall like dominoes and the Great American Century will end in a whoosh of cognitive dissonance.
“No one [you] know of”. Hmm. I don’t know of anyone who teaches the right way to make traditional Japanese sushi in my city – and there are a few other things I don’t know of. But should anyone, including you and me, be surprised? I presume you are just engaging in a fishing expedition; but why this one?
I think you are missing the point that Ron Unz tried to make. Wyoming, Ecuador and Uruguay are not analogies of Moon. They are analogies of discovery process and belief formation following claims of any discovery. If Columbus were not followed by other for another 50 years then possibly there would be Columbus Discovery Hoax movement in Spain which however would not put any burden of proof on Columbus but on the Hoaxers to put their assess in boats to try to verify Columbus claim. This is how the process of discovery works in science. Most likely in the 16 century Spain when people were educated under much more rigorous Western canon of thought with a healthy dose of philosophy the Hoaxers would not call themselves Hoaxers but skeptics and doubters because they would know they did not know whether Columbus claim was true or not unlike the Hoaxer like yourself who pretend to know they know it was a hoax. In the end those who believed Columbus would be proven right and the Hoaxers would be proven wrong. Ron Unz opts for believing in Columbus words while you may believe that he is a liar or mistaken but you may not claim that you know that America does not exist. You need to get your ass in a boat. And while you are at it, build a really big boat to take as many like yourself as possible with you.
I’ve wondered when watching de Grasse Tyson whether he is a diversity hire or whether he is a scientist to be taken seriously. Can you please elaborate on your negative assessment for which I accept you have the credentials to propound? Any sources or links? Has anyone done a hitjob on him, honestly or otherwise?
As one who applauds your public spirited achievement in creating and maintaining UR and who regards it as important that you are a person both of the highest intellect and great achievement I ask you to support your credibility by giving your reasons for some opinions you have expressed or implied and which are seriously important, not least therefore for your credibility.
That you express sympathy for the view that the downing of MH17 was more than a tragic accident for which some Russians were at least partly responsible is trivial.
That the Holocaust story is substantially fraudulent is not a trivial opinion. As previously pointed out even the PC Australian Broadcasting Corporation has said “4.5 to 6 million” so we needn’t bother with the obsessives’ 6 million. What seems to be critical is whether solving the JP by Hitler or his henchmen and subordinates ever descended, maybe after June 1941, to mass killings of civilians other than as occasional aberrant events.
To my mind neither you nor the dedicated denialists have ever bothered to explain how there could be any innocent explanation for deporting hundreds of thousands of Jews of all ages from Holland, Belgium, France, Hungary and, not least from Rome in July 1943 *before Italy surrendered*!! To check out Yad Vashem’s 4.5 million names and find that say 10 or 15 per cent of them are sus would be a mere diversion without dealing with the deportations.
I take it you don’t have any problem about believing the Nazis and those indoctrinated under them (especially, it might be added, amongst historically antisemitic people suffering economic hard times, especially after war broke out) could bring themselves to committing genocide. Human history (not least in the Americas), Hitler’s own words and the Nazis history of killing the disabled (while always showing that they understood that it was to be concealed) leave extermination as the Final Solution looking plainly logical.
You did a very good forthright exposition of the reasons for regarding Rumsfeld and Cheney as 9/11 conspirators as absurd. Will you not do as much for the much more important Holocaust theories? Nothing of course to deny that many Zionists were fanatical thugs who would stop at nothing or that the Holocaust has been milked for advantage by Israel, Hollywood and shyster lawyers!
“I googled around a little, and apparently in the US alone there are probably around 100,000 aeronautical engineers, astronomers, and astrophysicists. Yet as near as I can tell, not a single one has ever looked into the Moon Hoax evidence and endorsed the theory. Why do you think that’s the case?”
You are asking why none of the 100,000 American aeronautical engineers, astronomers or astophysicists is willing to commit a professional suicide. They do not for the same reason why practically all scientists stay away from any controversial topic: it will harm your reputation, stop your funding, make it nearly impossible to publish anything, and people like utu will mock you,
As utu brought up this Millennium Prize question and as you ask why no professionals of a scientific field want to say anything of the possible radiation problem in Moon landings, I will explain as an example what happens if you try any controversial topic.
All Millennium Prize problems are hot potatoes that nobody in mathematics dares to touch. It is not so that thousands of people work on them and nobody manages to solve. Long ago a few mathematicians worked on them and did not manage and they become known as hard problems, which they are, but ever since nobody dares to try these problems because once you send a manuscript to a journal, it not only will be discarded either without any review or a very lousy review, and your name will be added to a list of people whose manuscripts will not be accepted.
My Ph.D. supervisor went to the USA for half a year and at that time I got bored with the problems he had suggested and I tried the Poincare Conjecture, which was the famous problem of the field. Unfortunately I found a solution and sent it to an expert and to a journal, so my name got listed already in the very beginning. Naturally, I never got my solution checked. Last time I sent it to some electronic bulleting board in 2000. Soon after that another person solved the problem. He got his arxiv preprints read, which I find a bit hard to understand since other people’s preprints on any of the famous problems are not read.
In 2006 I tried the Navier-Stokes millennium problem, solved it and finally got my solution published. The author had formulated the problem statement using a theorem that everybody in that field believed was correct, it was an old theorem, and because he believed that the theorem was correct, he formulated the problem statement in a way that gave me a possibility for solving the stated problem. I found it very difficult to publish my obviously correct and totally elementary solution because referees believed that the old theorem was correct and refused to read my proof. Later a colleague of mine, mentioned in my published paper, located the theorem they relied on and found an error from it. It was still impossible to publish the paper as it clearly stated that it solves the Millennium Problem, which it did. To get a referee to accept the paper, I had to remove the clear statement and decided to get the paper published and later announce in the web that it solves the problem, that is, similarly as the solved of the Poincare Hypothesis had done. So, I did, but in 2009, when my manuscript was already accepted with all this difficulty, the author of the Millennium Prize problem sent a new version for the problem statement. This new version did not any more use the faulty theorem. I had naturally sent him several emails explaining the problem, but he had never answered. I had for a long time referee statements from two journals that verbatim stated the part from the old problem statement, which uses this theorem, as a refutation of my solution. (I threw away those notes when moving). So, I solved the Millennium Problem by using a condition in the problem statement that was based on a faulty old theorem, my solution was quite correct, but despite of that it was very difficult to publish it as referees believed that the author of the problem statement, a Fields medalist, cannot be wrong. I had to remove the clear statement that the problem was solved and for that reason had to announce it in the web, which caused these idiotic commenters to write what utu kindly found, but the problem statement was silently changed and I did not get any prize, nor any smaller prize for fixing the problem statement. Instead, long afterwards one Jewish mathematician sent to be an email that there is nothing original in my paper, he has taught his students the same for years. (If so, why did he not tell anybody that the old theorem was false.)
After solving this problem, I made efforts to all remaining 5 millennium problems. One is from Ron Unz’s field, Yang-Mills fields. It was impossible to get that paper reviewed in any journal as the editors did not send it to referees, but one blogger Zalmahmud read it and stated twice in his blog that my solution is correct. So, he is the only one who read it and he said it is correct. Maybe utu knows better? My solution to P!=NP is to my knowledge correct. I think there are several correct solutions to that problem, but there is a Jewish gatekeeper, who advises that experts of the field do not read solution attempts. One journal agreed to send my paper to a referee, unfortunately this referee was clearly a student and did not even know basic properties of logarithms. When I commented on this, the editor stopped the review process.
About the Riemann Hypothesis, I did not solve it. Bombieri, a very famous mathematician, was kind enough to read it and he found an error, while the referees of a good mathematical journal did not find errors, they discarded it without a reason, just to be on the sure ground. I also did not solve the Birch-Swinneton problem, or the Hodge problem. But I did solve the Navier-Stokes, and I think my solutions to P!=NP, Yang-Mills and Poincare are correct, but I have no energy or interest to try to get them accepted or published, it is impossible.
So, this was an example of so called famous problems. There are gatekeepers, Jewish, on many of these problems. They decide whose solution will be checked, whose solution is just ignored. Mathematicians know that it is very bad for their career to try solving these most famous problems. They can solve some less famous old problems, that is fine, but they should not try something that would give a Fields medal.
And now you ask why scientists do not publicly announce that US manned Moon landings were a hoax. Do you seriously believe that they could prove it was a hoax if one cannot even get a mathematical proof checked? As they cannot prove it and get the proof accepted, the only thing they would accomplish is an academic suicide.
Are you trying to imply something?
Neither is your hairline or your waistline, but the misses, she still sticks by you. What a trooper!
“As I emphasized in my first note, my own original professional training was in theoretical physics. But I’d regard myself as totally unqualified to evaluate the technical issues involved in Moon Hoax claims, centered upon the alleged “scientific impossibility” of the lunar landing.”
This is why you could not work in technical research: in fast moving technical fields technology changes every two years or so and you have to be able to learn the field very fast and to contribute to it. If it takes you 3-4 years to become an expert, then the technology does not anymore exist when you are ready to work in it. If you want to be in, say information technology, with this approach, then you should make your own software product and be selling and maintaining it. Then it does not change and you know every line of code. (That is fun, I have kept my programs alive for 30 years, they are totally outdated as I have not had time to improve them, but they run and I know everything in the code. I still use them myself for small things as it is so much faster for me, but naturally, that is not modern technical research.)
In engineering the goal of supervising a MSc thesis is that the theory is explained in such a level that an expert from a somewhat similar engineering field can read the thesis. It is because these theses are supposed to be read by somebody in the firm where they usually are made, unlike in theoretical physics and mathematics. As those MSc theses are almost always dealing with some technology that the company uses and the university supervisor does not know, you have to learn what it is and understand what the student writes, that is why there is this requirement that the theory is clearly explained in a level that Ron Unz should be able to follow and also check.
The reason I tried to solve the Navier-Stokes problem was to demonstrate this exact thing to my mathematics and physics colleagues in the military university: the Master and Doctor programs in military technics were brand new and these my colleagues questioned how officers could do thesis on technical topics as they totally lack technical background. So, I said, it is possible. One only needs a very narrow technical knowledge of the area and they can add their military knowledge, and to demonstrate what I mean I said, let’s take the most difficult mathematical problem from some field that I do not know, and in 4-6 months I will write a good attempt on it. I knew that it can be done, as for 20 years I had learned new things and contributed to them in communication technology. You may LOL, but that simply shows that you are a relikt, an all American Mountain Man. One has to be able to read a MSc thesis on astrophysics, you are capable of doing it.
I agree that many people never really grasp the difference between real facts and storytelling, which is problematic when you come to a certain age. Carl Sagan put it like this:
‘The well-being as adults depends on them knowing the world as it really is. We worry, and for good reason, about adults who still believe in Santa Claus.’
Here is a funny story (not meant to be funny) by a famous statistician: David Grimes who proved that conspiracy theories do not exist. It is peer reviewed and published in a science journal. So therefore it must be true, right?
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905
The statistics of Grimes have been debunked in the comments of the paper, but anonymously, so these do not count if you are into the storytelling of ‘famous’ authors and not into getting the facts straight (done by skeptical but anonymous commenters).
What Grimes did in his paper is pick out some ‘conspiracies’ that were later found out, to proof that conspiracy theories do not exist! He does it with difficult statistical methods, to make it not to clear that the problem with his analysis is that successful conspiracies, by definition, are never discovered and thus cannot be accounted for within the data.
Comment that I found best, and summarizes the position of people who cannot distinghuish stories from facts is the following
‘Wonderful article! This article would seem to support the central beliefs of Christianity, i.e. the belief the Jesus Christ really died on the cross and rose again as reported by the witnesses at the time and the four Gospels. I have always wondered that if it was really all a giant hoax how could it possibly have survived the first 20 or so years?
Of course it begs the question, what about Buddha and Mohammed?’
Sorry, I missed your great comment. I started discussing Masonic connections in comment 26, you should have replied there. In my comment 870 I posted several images documenting the claims of the freemasons that it was they who had performed the moon landing and that they had performed secret masonic ceremonies on the moon and left behind masonic flags. In comment
920 I explained why the freemasons would have hoaxed their own lodges:
So in all due respect, I think Unz was sideswiping my comments with his crude absolute and undying faith in the flying Winnebago with a pop-out dune buggy narrative.
I should add that even if it were simply the case that 5% of all people lied, rather than people lying more in one direction, it is a mathematical fallacy to say ‘Since every one of these lies would be cancelled out by the opposing lie’.
I have answered that in my section “manufacturing belief”, but McGowan, whom I discovered through the comments, does a better job.
the imposter posing as Kubrick comes from the Karel film, I believe.
It appears that it is your contention that Unz’s contention that J2 is the only hoaxer “qualified” enough to make comments worthy of his consideration has validity.
If we look at the discussion of what qualifies j2 above the others, the only reply you and many others can come up with is that he is an “academic” whose papers have been “peer-reviewed”.
To me this is merely code for saying that his is a philo-jew who is on the sheckel. It is also the ugly face of jewish supremacism.
Unz, J2, and other “academics” like yourself, love to ignore my comments and make ad-hominem replies based on the assumption that you are somehow more intelligent and have fuller life experiences than people like myself who have spent their lives living off of earned income, not stolen tax-sheckels. So here is a little bit of my resume to compare to yours.
With a BA in Business Management and BS in Math and Computer Science, both from the University of California, I embarked on a 35 year career that ended up with me being responsible for mission critical 24×7 databases that I helped developed running on the most expensive hardware available at the time. I worked my way up from Assembler on TI and Harris minicomputers at McClellan AFB through RPG II on IBM, Cobol 68 and 74 on CODASYL databases, to massive bitemporal databases running multiple page embedded SQL joins that I wrote on multiple gigantic tables with dozens of inner and outer joins that have to consistently run within specific time frames. To those of you who have never done this, it does take a more than a little brainpower.
As an internal and freelance developer, I have worked and lead teams of brilliant international developers in projects for Banking, Insurance, Food Industry, Pharma, US Airforce and even a nuclear power plant.
While following this path I have learned 2 new foreign languages (German + Spanish), lived in 3 European countries after having already lived in the US and Canada before. I raised a family of 3 children in Europe and lost a son at the age of 20. I have renounced my US citizenship, been deemed to have died by he IRS, and paid my phantom capital gains and death taxes. I now am retired but I own 2 corporations with my wife, one of which is very profitable.
After years of living with double taxation and the experiences of my renouncement I have become an expert on US expat taxes. I know that I am an expert because I have been forced to go to many tax consultants and I even paid almost $1000/hr to PWC to get some advice that turned out to be wrong. Some of you really ought to try explaining US tax law to a European tax collector since clearly only an tax lawyer or academic can accomplish this.
I was raised on a ranch around horses, cows as well as tractors other heavy equipment where I rode an old nag named Cowboy. We also had horses for several years in Europe where my wife, my daughter, and sometimes my sons, and I would gallop through European forests in the snow with two dogs leaping through the snow ahead. That of course when we weren’t skiing the various peaks of the Alps.
So do any of you “academics” care to debate the IRS, US tax law, and Americans abroad with me? Clearly, No. We all know that I am a non-academic “cowboy” far, far below their haughty levels of academic knowledge. Clearly, a life of tenure spent taking the sheckel trumps any life experiences, knowledge or logical thinking abilities.
Those who can, do. Arrogant sheckel taking academics can go fuck themselves.
Your argument it good and convincing. Yet, it should be still verified another time. I would hope to find some time, or somebody else to find some time, to go more carefully through the three references and verify if Orion data really is so as the first reference says and if the dosage is correctly calculated in the two. It cannot be too complicated. It is just data of the radiation level and the path, times and shielding. Right now I am looking at the nuke demolition and maybe can find an alternative to big nukes, so will not read those radiation papers now.
But seriously, how could NASA lose so much evidence on the Moon trip, overwrite original tapes, why some Moon stones are not from the Moon? The official story has again some suspicious features.
I am constantly amazed at how Ron Unz posts so many of your comments even though they are loaded with personal ad-hominems against him. I realize that I am far from perfect on this, but I skip over most of your comments as soon as they get nasty. You should also lay off of the crude old-english and focus on writing comments people can easily and enjoyably read.
How many blogs have you been blocked from, apollonian? For me it goes back over a decade. After being blocked several times at Mish’s global economic forum, I moved to Zerohedge when it was getting started. After ZH blocked me several times, and they changed their commenting engine and ruined it, I moved to Moon of Alabama and Pat Lang’s, got tired of being blocked, then I finally moved here to Unz.
Mish was particularly nasty, he would block you and but let you post comments that only you could read. It would usually take several comments before I would notice that no one was responding. Of course I was furious. The Isaacbrocksociety (Canadian tax blog) has also blocked me several times for naming jews like Lerner and Schulmann.
Unz has blocked comments of mine about freemasonry, some of which I thought were excellent, but he has let many through, and it has never been sneaky like at Mish’s. Also, I have never been completely blocked here. What is amazing about this blog is the comments that he does allow through, I can think of no other blog or news aggregator that even comes close.
LOL.
**
We live in an age where too many things coming from too many sources most people hold as authoritative and beyond doubting appear as not true, thanks to the Internet providing niches for truth — or at least for doubt.
As Unz said, a natural reaction is to begin doubting anything one didn’t witness first-person.
As great writer (if not great political columnist…) C. J. Hopkins says in his Zone 23, for all I know even the USA could be a fictional invention — I have never travelled to there!
Still, we need some stable grounds to lay our sense of reality on. I’ll trust all of you people at Unz saying that you live in the USA, and be sure that the USA exists, for example.
I don’t think the Moon landing belongs in the same category as “the USA exist” though, because so many years later no other countries has ventured there, and the USA haven’t gone there again.
On the other side, if a rover could have been sent to Mars, it’s not so hard to believe men could be sent to the Moon.
Thanks for those images, Dannyboy. Everyone should click on the links and look at them.
Dannyboys’s contention is that these images prove conclusively that 3 lunar rovers were transported to the moon.
But if we look at wiki it says:
Here is the LEM from Wiki:
2 quadrants carried fuel, 2 quadrants carried oxidizer. I cannot tell which quadrant is quadrant 1, but it is clear that they flew to the moon with the dune buggy with either 50% less fuel or 50% less oxidizer. I will leave it to the “academics” to explain how they made these 3 trips with 50% less energy.
But that all assumes it would fit. From your first photo this is already highly suspicious. Then comes the deployment and assembly on the moon. Your second diagram is ridiculous, accept of course to academics who have published peer reviewed material in academic journals.
As far as wiki’s contention that the collapsed rover in your first picture weights 400 lbs including 150lbs of batteries, once again I leave the answer to the witch doctors, er, expert academics who know all things.
I correct myself, here is the diagram:
Quadrant 1 includes 25% of the Oxydizer, 25% of the Fuel, and a helium tank as well. In any case even if they had 100% of the energy available after fitting the pop-out dune buggy, it does not explain how the mission could proceed without that helium, and how they suddenly could carry all the added weight, assuming it even fit, and how it could even be assembled wearing space suits on the moon.
Well, as I said separately to Ron, sometimes people think they are making a point. And they are making a point, actually, but it’s not the point they think they they are making.
I guess it’s like scoring an “own goal”. The person thinks he is scoring a goal and he is… except that….
Yes, it is flare. The bright spot showing chromatic aberration is flare. The much dimmer spots to the left and slightly below are flare. And the five sided patch is also flare. It’s five sided because the lans had a five bladed diaphragm.
And notice that these are all in a perfectly straight line, 100% consistent with flare.
But please don’t take my word for it. Grab a camera and go outside on a sunny day, position the camera such that you don’t see the sun in the viewfinder, but when you look at the lens you can see that sunlight is shining directly onto the lens. Then take a photo.
The photo will have flare in it.
You can also do it at night substituting an overhead street lamp for the sun, or any other light source.
Go ahead. Act like a scientist. Test your hypothesis. Publish your results.
The nuke hoax and flat earth theories are self-evidently absurd. There is no way to fit such theories into any reasonable historical context. But Mazzucco’s film makes a good case that the moon hoax theory is not unreasonable given the historical context: Kennedy (the martyred “Saint Kennedy” after 1963) vows an impossible vow in 1960, the prestige of the US Empire is at stake, so of course we have to “go to the moon” before 1970 whether or not it’s actually feasible. According to Mazzucco they made their best effort, lost some astronauts in the mid-60s, realized that an actual trip to the moon would likely produce more casualties (the ultimate PR disaster, even worse than missing the 1970 deadline) and so made the logical choice to guarantee the missions’ success by simulating the voyages.
Your objection about the lack of whistleblowers with scientific credentials is not entirely specious. I don’t know how many open-minded scientists have seriously considered this issue, and what they have concluded. I’ll ask my 9/11 truth colleague Dwain Deets, a retired NASA engineer, what he thinks.
Virtually all of the world’s scientists have let the gas chambers story go unchallenged for more than 60 years. If Kollerstrom, Butz, Rudolf, etc. are correct in their assertion that the official story is absurd, we must doubt scientists’ ability to challenge society’s sacred narratives even when those narratives are scientifically preposterous. The same could be said for scientists’ reluctance to challenge the official magic bullet theories of the Kennedy assassinations and the office-fires-triggered “collapses” of the World Trade Center skyscrapers.
While doing 9/11 truth teach-ins at the University of Wisconsin circa 2004-2006 I got in many long arguments with engineers and physicists, all of whom made preposterous assertions about the science of the 9/11 “collapses.” It was only in 2006 that Richard Gage started AE911Truth.org, and it took him awhile to find qualified people to sign on. Unlike the situation after the Apollo missions, direct and irrefutable evidence of the strong likelihood of demolition (and FEMA/NIST fraud) was easily available to anyone via a couple of mouse clicks. Yet 99.9999 percent of the scientific community resisted drawing the obvious conclusions (at least in public) and most continue to resist.
So I think there are legitimate parallels between the moon debate and the Holocaust/Kennedy/9/11 issues, and that your argument from authority (in this case scientific authority) is far from conclusive.
If Ron Unz name is removed from his response to the article,any reader will find it very weak and not professional.Rather than addressing the enormous challenges presented by this article and the moon hoax”conspiracy theorists”,Mr.Unz goes back to Columbus discovery of America,and compare the discrepancies of that historical events with the solid questioning of the moon landing skeptics and deniers.As if Columbus could have faced a huge wall, cutting the whole body of the Atlantic, from Europe to Antartica,but he miraculously managed to pass through this wall simply because he didn’t notice it,the same way as the hoaxtronauts didn’t notice the Van Allen radiation belt,despite the fact that it extend from 400 to 36000 miles above earth surface,this is the same radiation zone that prevented any space program from reaching above the 500 miles,where it can be dangerous to the space ship and it’s occupants.
Mr.Unz has the right to believe whatever he is convinced of it’s worthiness and validity,but if he wants to debunk some opposing opinion,he have to have strong arguments and evidence,not his personal convictions and evaluation.
I have written an article to present some of my views about the Apollo moon landings, and I invite you to read it:
http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/xpascal/MoonHoax/ShortPresentation.HTM
Sparkon says: “The image atop Moon Landing Skeptic’s article is a parody, a spoof, a satire meant to ridicule the “real” Apollo Moon photos by including numerous obvious errors, such as as the glaringly different sources of light on the Earth (from above) and on the astronaut (from left), but congratulations on the great catch. Sorta.”
Yes, thanks. I knew it was a fake, but I was not sure as to whether it was an intentional joke, or “spoof” as you claim.
As a person who has been interested in and has closely studied photo and video fakery for going on 10 years now, although it seemed like an obvious visual joke to me, in my own mind that did not make it any different from the rest of the moon landing supposed “genuine” imagery , which, as you know, once ones eyes are opened to the obvious fakeness of it all, is readily apparent [ and in that respect no different from all of the original “live” MSM 9/11 imagery] .
I was just curious about the original source for it. Do you know?
Regards, onebornfree
P.S. The visual joke here is [unfortunately] way over the heads of the majority here, [probably even the author of the article, and certainly Mr Unz]. so it will probably always only be an “in” joke, wouldn’t you say?
Cannot believe that any semi-intelligent White man in this day and age believes the Holohoax or Moon Landing sacramental myths.
The imitative Chinese own us now all thanks to the Juden-Reich imposed upon us from Washington via Jerusalem formerly Tel Aviv:
Might be time to inflict my “nice little gap” theory on unz readers.
Well here goes.
There now exists an interesting period in the history of mankind and especially disinformation of a nice little gap.
The overlap of gatekeepers presently exists between the gatekeepers of print and film and the gatekeepers of Internet.There is a generation born in the print age and one born in the internet age.The split in most societies is roughly 50-50 and this has given rise to a “nice little gap” which can be exploited.
Who are the gatekeepers then of the internet age ?
Who replaces the equivalent of owners of newspapers and there editors.
Who controls the narrative?
This article is a classic example of my “nice little gap” theory.
One set of gatekeepers challenging another set for control of the narrative.
Interestingly the moon hoax theory originated here ……
An early and influential book about the subject of a moon-landing conspiracy, We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle, was self-published in 1976 by Bill Kaysing, a former US Navy officer with a Bachelor of Arts in English.[7] Despite having no knowledge of rockets or technical writing,[8] Kaysing was hired as a senior technical writer in 1956 by Rocketdyne, the company that built the F-1 engines used on the Saturn V rocket.[9][10] He served as head of the technical publications unit at the company’s Propulsion Field Laboratory until 1963
Hohoho and away we go…
Ahem.
No assembly required.
The rover was folded up.
“so why didn’t the soviets call out the americans,”
Incredibly poor argument.
Remember: the burden of proof is upon Ron.
Why should we believe his Moon landing theory?
It’s not up to us to come with why his theories aren’t true. We haven’t burdened Ron with the onus of disproving our myths.
If Ron thinks we’re all idiots for not believing his magic moon landing religion well the onus is on Ron to prove it happened, not us for not believing him.
If it happened:
K. Barre says: “The nuke hoax ” [is]” self-evidently absurd”.
I’m not so sure. Maybe a good place to start [ provided you have that all important open mind, Mr Barrett 🙂 ] , might be to look at photos of the bomb damage supposedly caused at Hiroshima. For example :
Also, I would suggest a close, unbiased review of the nuclear test imagery for the US, USSR, etc.
All of it appears to be heavily doctored or even downright fraudulent. Which raises the question:” if the imagery is fake, do nuclear weapons really exist?”
Regarding the famous US “Trinity”/Bikini Atoll tests, see for example [downloadable pdf file]: mileswmathis.com/trinity.pdf
For access to French and German translations of the above pdf file, go here: https://milesmathistranslated.wordpress.com/2018/02/03/the-nuclear-hoax/
And there’s plenty more where that came from! 🙂
Regards, onebornfree
P.S.for what its worth, I agree, “flat earth” theory is absurd [ it’s probably a NASA “discredit by association” psyop] 🙂
“In an article, “The Laser’s Bright Magic”, published in the National Geographic magazine by Thomas Mellow, the author relates an experiment which proves that a laser beam can bounce on the moon and successfully return to the earth:
“Four years ago, a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available shot a series of pulses at the moon, 240,000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter and were reflected back to earth with enough strength to be measured by ultrasensitive electronic equipment”.
So, as soon as 1962, it was already possible to bounce a laser beam on the moon, much before the moon missions, without a retro reflector being necessary for that purpose.”
http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/xpascal/MoonHoax/ApolloReflectors/ApolloReflectors.HTM
I have known that fact for quite some time and it took me less than 5 minutes to find an article on the internet to explain it.
The retro reflector left on the moon argument as proof a US landing is therefore not a scientific proof. The article makes it quite clear that we cannot hit such small target, less than 3 square feet, with a laser beam from the earth. Therefore there is no need to install retro reflector on the moon since they cannot be used. US engineers are not, and were not, that stupid.
You two should get a room.
“In an article, “The Laser’s Bright Magic”, published in the National Geographic magazine by Thomas Mellow, the author relates an experiment which proves that a laser beam can bounce on the moon and successfully return to the earth:
“Four years ago, a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available shot a series of pulses at the moon, 240,000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter and were reflected back to earth with enough strength to be measured by ultrasensitive electronic equipment”.
So, as soon as 1962, it was already possible to bounce a laser beam on the moon, much before the moon missions, without a retro reflector being necessary for that purpose.”
http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/xpascal/MoonHoax/ApolloReflectors/ApolloReflectors.HTM
I have known that fact for quite some time and it took me less than 5 minutes to find an article on the internet to explain it.
The retro reflector left on the moon argument as proof a US landing is therefore not a scientific proof. The article makes it quite clear that we cannot hit such small target, less than 3 square feet, with a laser beam from the earth. Therefore there is no need to install retro reflector on the moon since they cannot be used. US engineers are not, and were not, that stupid.
Jew Monsters: MUST Be Dealt With
Jew troll says,
But Jew troll, doesn’t thy precious Talmud exhort thou to warfare against all humanity?–and aren’t thou Jews notorious communists (to varying degrees) who sympathized w. Bolshevik Jews and murderers?–so isn’t that excellent reason to take measures against enemies like thou? Humanity has ALWAYS hated Jews–for good reason.
–sucker, that’s all humanity, anyone who knows anything about thou scum. Jews have been kicked-out of practically every country, numerous, multiple times.
thou say?
Note it’s Jews who are the genocidalists, who push for Agenda-21 and -2030 genocide; it was Donmeh Jews and “Young Turks” responsible for the Armenian genocide of 1915–just google (or other search engine) it, sucker. Jews were integral in the Jew S A Democratic administration of late 1940s, including Jew, Eisenhower (https://namethejew.com/eisenhower-was-jewish/), who co-operated w. other allies in the mass-murder of German civilians, totaling millions–see works of James Bacque, “Other Losses,” and “Crimes and Mercies.”
Jews along w. Stalin, like Kaganovich, mass-murdered millions of Ukrainians in early 1930s before the eyes of the world–which Germans didn’t want to happen to them. And bolsheviki Jews ran the Gulag prison-camps, according to Alex Sohlzhenitsyn (“200 Hundred Years Together”)–which has yet to be published by Jew-dominated pub. houses in Jew S A).
-Indeed, that extermination is precisely what thy filthy Zohar (Cabala) advocates Jews do w. gentiles and humanity. See TruthTellers.org and RevisionistReview.BlogSpot.com for expo on the Jew scriptures. It’s thou Jews who are the topmost, premier murderers and criminals, thy very filthy, satanic religion being a religion for criminals and murderers, exhorting criminality and mass-murder, which you’ve done in Palestine, and invented thy stupid, typical lies to cover-up.
Dear unc’ Adolf was committed socialist, so, evidently, he sincerely thought it best thing to for euthanasia of the terminally dis-abled, but the free society, which Germany still was in so many respects, protested, and unc’ Adolf heeded, and duly left-off w. the program–a far cry fm thou Judeo-bolsheviki.
And note Germany lost WWI, it’s military removed–they NEVER were in anything but defensive position against the Soviet military colossus and the victorious powers, France and UK, who first declared war against Germany after allies making an offensive alliance w. Poland, instigating Poland to encroach and harass German city of Danzig, Poles threatening Germany w. war over Danzig, Poles murdering hundreds if not thousands of Germans.
So psychologically, it’s inconceivable Germans would initiate any “extermination,” no matter how well-deserved, given their defensive posture against the world-wide Judeo-plutocracy in Jew S A, UK, and the soviets who were still holding-out against heroic German military, soviets getting HUGE “lend-lease” economic assistance fm Jew S A, etc.
Thou Jews are just liars, slanderers, murderers, and criminals, and there’s NEVER been any evidence for any German plan or program for otherwise justifiable elimination of thou satanic psychopaths and monsters. But we gentiles must yet deal w. thou Jews who are actually Satanists (extreme subjectivism, making mind/consciousness source of reality, making thee God, the creators–Satanism by definition); thus Judaism must be out-lawed, Jew psychopaths interned, separated by sex, and watched carefully till thou die-out forever–this is what must happen for the good of humanity whence humanity will celebrate as practical instance of historic victory against satan and satanism. Amen.
Upton Sinclair answered this probably about a century ago:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
How nice, you missed the part where my link said it was not a live broadcast, but a microwave signal that had to be converted into a TV broadcast, whoops. Guess Mr. fact checker can’t take five to check facts outside of the ones presented to him by youtubers
You also can’t figure out how the blockquote function works, so yeah.
Wow! My kind of product!
Damn! Where can I get one of those things?
No no, I told you, I don’t go that way, let it go. You on the other hand, lashing out and foaming at the mouth for no rational reason, well, that’s clearly unrequited love. Please, seek some kind of help, you’re embarrassing yourself here.
Ron said it himself in some other post, if you know that youer government has lied to you over and over about 9/11, Port Arthur, wwi and wwii and ongoing sundry other historical FACTS all proven to be not true why should you believe for one second the next thing that comes out of their mouths?
It is not up to me to come up with alternative theories for how jews did 911, or the masons sought to prolong wwi, or roosevelt goaded the japs into pearl harbour, or krubrik landed armstrong on the moon.
Boomer wisdom is to believe whatever they feel.
Well we don’t believe in your feels.
The only thing that seperates all other conspiracy theories with moon landing is as Bart Sibrel says, moon landing is a “positive” story: it makes us feel good.
Funny thing about anti-conspiracy people is how they always inverse the burden of proof. The White quizzical mind must always ask: is it true 1. and 2. Can I prove it true by replication.
I don’t know how the twin towers were brought down but it wasn’t by two aeroplanes and it isn’t up to me to prove how mossad did do it all i know is someone did it and it wasn’t by anyone Bush named.
Well lets be honest here, J2, you claim that 6 million died in the holocaust even though you say only 2.5 million did. This is accepting talmudic law and talmudic sheckel in order to avoid “academic suicide”.
This is why I say that all these “academics” are taking the sheckel. I would say the same about Hollywood celebrities, musicians, bankers, politicians, and everyone connected in anyway to Nasa.
There was a time not so long ago when people still had some principles and no honest person would have worked for these sheckel grubbing organizations. Since then the entire west has become brainwashed and corrupted, and now everyone, especially scientists, grovel to the biggest sheckel grubbers most of all. We have been jewed.
I wouldn’t waste my time with this theory. The horrible conventional fire-bombings of Dresden and Tokyo e.g. took hours involving hundreds of sorties, there is no evidence more than one plane took place at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so it must have been a very destructive, non-conventional weapon.
Most boomer cucks believe everything they have ever seen on the boomer box. The boomer box is and always has been their God. I remember watching the so called moon landing on the boomer box, I was 9, and remember thinking, fake, fake, and a bad fake at that. Then I turned to my older brother, who grew up to be a boomer libtard turned cuckservative (same thing) and he was all wide eyed, and said to me, don’t you understand, they are on the moon??
Well, that generation was filled with idiots like my brother. If it was on the boomer box, then it was real. Nice bit in this story, by the way, about the “moon rocks” proven to be fake. Will not make a difference to boomertards, even with high IQ, they are still worshiping the fake god. If you question the god-box, well they say, you are ridiculous.
Well said, sir. Anyone can create plausible sounding arguments refuting this and that, but I recall seeing both the Apollo landings and being inspired by it to find out all about it, and the 757s hitting the WTC, which were later claimed to have been elaborate hoaxes. Then by this standard anything can be made into a hoax, given enough time.
Norman Mailer wrote the book “Fire On the Moon”, there were numerous articles on the engineering genius behind the Apollo program, and Tom Wolfe had his “Right Stuff” book. Neither Norman Mailer nor Tom Wolfe were fools to swallow everything NASA said.
The principle to be applied is that “the first thought is the true thought”.
Stark, staring, raving mad 😎
Not really. Quite a crude hoax actually.
Alexander P. de Seversky was a Russian-American pilot and aeronautical engineer, who, among many other accomplishments, developed the P-35 for the American air force. After the conclusion of WW2, he was sent on an official mission to examine and report on the effects and effectiveness of the Allied bombing campaigns in Germany and Japan. On this tour, he also visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He reports his impressions in chapter 9 of the book “Air power: key to survival” (published in 1950). Here are some verbatim quotes:
His book has several photographs that support his assertions. Some of the captions contain these lines:
In the subsequent chapter, entitled ” Atomic hysteria and common sense,” he writes about his impressions after the return to the U.S.
As is clear from Seversky’s protestations, he did not even question the reality of the atomic bombs; his only sin was to faithfully report the lack of evidence of their apocalyptic effects.
BTW that book is worth reading also for unrelated topic – it argues quite convincingly that aircraft carriers were already outdated and useless against a well-armed adversary in 1950.
“They will, at that moment realize that we were right all along…”
You are very optimistic!
Why do you say it? You on your own could not prove and conduct experiments to prove that we live on a spherical Earth and you like 99% of all people could not formulate a coherent argument for the heliocentric system and what experiments and observations need to be conducted to verify it. Are you aware how many hundreds of years it took and how big effort it was of research of many scientists to reach the consensus on the Copernican hypothesis?
I have watched some of the flat-earthers’s videos and they can be very ingenuous and some of those guys put a lot of effort in conducting experiments going at great length and costs to themselves. They are genuinely curious. Actually they seem to be more committed and dedicated to their pursuit than Moon Landing Hoaxers. The flat-earthers at least some of them follow a true curiosity with an empirical approach that follows the scientific method. They buy lasers and shoot the beam across the Lake Balaton in Hungary and try to measure the Earth curvature. They learn about the errors of measurements and secondary effect like atmospheric refraction and think about refining their experiments. In the end some of them may discover that the Earth is not flat. But Moon Landing Hoaxer have no chance of discovery on their own effort. They wait to be given the answer by the government. They are the slaves of government. They can only keep yapping about it and recycle the same arguments ad infinitum. If they were really committed they would collect money to build a rocket and send a sonde to investigate the “scene of crime” on the Moon.
As far as the nuclear weapons one could start spinning similar arguments like with the Moon Landing Hoax very easily. It would be just a matter of reaching a critical mass of videos and books that construct seemingly correct arguments that nuclear weapons do not exist and are a hoax perpetrated on humanity by some power elite of Judeo-Banker-Bolshevik-Masonic-Vatican-Jesuits and Homosexuals. Make your pick. You would get many takers for it. As far as for the evidence you would dismiss any witnesses as government plants and shills and any video evidence as staged and after several dozens clever people looking at the videos many persuasive anomalies would be found.
The only reason you state that a hoax is a self-evident absurd is that nobody has done the job on you to be processed in a similar way as you have been processed by the body of literature and videos on the Moon Landing Hoax.
You need to be really careful trying to understand what actually is self-evident and what is not or why you attribute the status of self-evidence to some phenomena and not to the others. And keep in mind that these phenomena are not simple physical phenomena that you could easily replicate. They are social, historical phenomena,. They are the narratives. They are the Matrix in a positive or negative sense. It depends where you stand. But you have to recognize it. Ron Unz as well. Then you may start asking a question which part of the Matrix is most worthwhile to be challenged? Which part of the narrative you want to change and why? And is it really because you care about the truth or is it about the undermining the Matrix, because of the power that it implies or more correctly about changing the power relation. Why Wally is not obsessed about Rwanda or Khmer holocausts? Doesn’t he care about the truth of Rwanda or Khmer holocausts? Israel Shamir is a denier of Khmer holocaust because he cares about it because he is an old Stalinist but Wally does not care. So why do you care about the Moon and not about the nukes. Don’t you think that if you could sway the belief of people on the nuke issue the impact would be greater to the world the world than on the Moon issue? And don’t tell me that you know that the Moon Landing was a hoax while the nukes are the self-evident truth. Because you do not.
Wikipedia says Africa.
What?–let me guess–thou are just ANOTHER kike, eh?–thought so, ho ho o ho ho ho. Note I give all the necessary ref. citations. And I can add for the Polish material the work of David Hoggan, “The Forced War.” And note, Jew, conclusions require premises which thou fail to giving, so I’d say thou are one who’s lacking for any sense, typical Jew liar.
That’s an understatement.
http://www.911nwo.com
So let me get this straight, THEY had no trouble getting approval and funding for all the stuff listed in post #923 ( http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20100409.htm) but as far as the development of “space based surveilance and weaponry” was concerned THEY needed the very elaborate, risky and expensive “cover” known to the general public as the Apollo Lunar Mission.
Got it. Thanks.
I already quoted all that at the beginning of this thread. Before you start acting like you have proved anything, maybe you should start with an answer to that post so I don’t have to repeat myself.
That’s what the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter was supposed to do…but the results settle nothing…
Now here is the funny thing…that orbiter came as low as 20 km which is less than 1/20’th the height of earth spy sats that have resolution of as good as one foot…if you do the actual math on angular resolution, that orbiter would only have needed optics of about 2 or 3 inches diameter to get 1 ft resolution…that’s peanuts…a 6 inch Schmidt–Cassegrain telescope is used by a lot of hobbyists…
As for the supposed dearth of serious technical literature by respected scientists and engineers, that’s not actually the case…there are several peer-reviewed journal papers in Russian having to do with the Rocketdyne F1 engine, which make a pretty good case that this engine only made maybe two thirds its stated power…pretty solid work if you are an actual aerospace engineer and can understand the science and the math…
In the English literature, nobody is going to touch this…doesn’t mean everybody accepts it…there’s a difference between having professional doubts and kicking up a lot of dust…besides, what’s the point…if you are a professional aerospace engineer you have the necessary knowledge to work out for yourself if at least some aspect of the claim is not plausible…you don’t need anyone to do this for you…ie appeal to an ‘authority’ for confirmation…
I will just leave with what I think is the most damning indictment…the post Aplollo 11 press conference…let’s look first at some other post-flight conferences…
Here is a Russian crew after coming back from the ISS last December…
Here is Thomas Pesquet after returning in 2017…
Here is the US Shuttle crew after STS 48…
And here’s Apollo 11…
The first comment pretty much sums it up…
The Hiroshima bomb (“Little Boy”) was said to have contained 50 kg of uranium, with the 235-U isotope enriched to about 80%. Since the natural abundance of that isotope is only about 0.7% – with most of the rest being 238-U – preparing that amount is no small feat in itself (and indeed it is almost certain that the technology did not exist at the time; but I won’t go into that now).
Anyhow, it is said that of those 50 kg only some 2 kg actually fissioned. Where did the other 48 kg go? There are numerous scientific studies that have looked for it but have come up short. Here is a summary of one such study, by Shizuma et al. (2012). The samples under study are plaster walls from a house whose roof had been blown off by the blast, and which were soiled by the famous “black rain” that came down a short while afterwards. Here is a picture:
What the authors did here was to look for uranium isotopes in those black stripes. Now, uranium has some significant abundance in nature, so the question arises how much, if any, of the detected uranium is natural background, and how much is derived from the bomb. Since natural uranium is mostly 238-U, and bomb uranium should be mostly 235-U, this question can readily be answered.
OK, so what is the answer?
The isotope ratios of most samples do not deviate significantly from the natural one. The sample with the greatest deviation of that ratio (0.87% observed, vs 0.71% natural) gives an estimate of 0.16% of the total sample uranium being derived from the bomb.
If you believe that this adds up with the official story, I’d have a bridge to sell you in downtown Hiroshima, except that it was destroyed – no, wait, it actually wasn’t.
What may be even more intriguing, however, is that the authors also detect 137-Cs (cesium) in those samples, which is produced by nuclear fission but too short-lived to occur in nature. Interestingly, the sample with the highest deviation of the uranium isotope ratio also has the highest abundance of 137-Cs. How much? 8 times more than would have been expected from the reported fission yield.
Assuming these results are correct, the only way to explain them is the assumption of a “dirty bomb” – a conventional explosive mixed with some reactor waste. I might explain later why, have to go now.
The hostage video comment is good too.
Said the guy who calls himself “Beefcake”.
Apparently, your reputation precedes you. There is even an article in a major media outlet about your life:
https://www.theonion.com/why-do-all-these-homosexuals-keep-sucking-my-cock-1819584210
Here is another gem of a study that illuminates what did or did not happen at Hiroshima. This paper was published in 1946 in JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association). Some quotes:
Of all these surprising witness statements, the first one certainly takes the cake. Here is a guy, 50 meters from the hypocenter, being tossed 12 (twelve!) feet by the blast. He should have been killed three times over by the blast, the heat, and the radiation, but here he is, one month or so later, severely sick but alive enough to tell the tale.
There are some more medical/scientific observations in this paper as well that don’t quite add up with the official story, but I won’t go into these now; I think the above quotes speak loud enough.
BTW I found this when hunting for very early reports on purpose, reasoning that at that stage the official story, and therefore censorship, would not have been quite so well worked out as later on. That approach might be worthwhile with other events also.
I would like to make it clear that I mean to provide evidence and draw conclusions only about Hiroshima, not about the “non-existence of nuclear reactors” or some stuff that Ron Unz and other people with weak reading comprehension will most likely assume.
said:
” Why Wally is not obsessed about Rwanda or Khmer holocausts? Doesn’t he care about the truth of Rwanda or Khmer holocausts? Israel Shamir is a denier of Khmer holocaust because he cares about it because he is an old Stalinist but Wally does not care.”
Good heavens, another person I have discredited in debate here about the fake & impossible Jew “holocaust” has now gone obsessed with the messenger. Clearly utu will never be the same.* Talk about a false argument, talk about comparing apples & oranges, talk about embarrassing himself, utu has out of frustration done just that.
– The claims about the Rwanda & Khmer “holocausts” are not costing US taxpayers billions every year.
– The claims about the Rwanda & Khmer “holocausts” do not enable the horrific behavior of “that shitty little country” (‘Israel’) to plunder the west while committing mass murder on a daily basis.
– The claims about the Rwanda & Khmer “holocausts” are not shoved down our throats 24/7/365.
– The claims about the Rwanda & Khmer “holocausts” are not required ‘teaching’ in school systems.
– Those who make claims about the Rwanda & Khmer “holocausts” do not mandate the imprisonment and censorship of those who engage in free speech.
– Those who make claims about the Rwanda & Khmer “holocausts” do not incite attacks, persecution, harassment, stalking, physical assaults against those who scrutinize their claims.
– The claims about the Rwanda & Khmer “holocausts” are not used as an excuse the flood the west with unemployable, low IQ ‘immigrants’, while Jew Israel bans non-Jew immigration.
– The claims about the Rwanda & Khmer “holocausts” are not used as an enabler to mandate destructive “diversity” upon the west, while Jew Israel bans non-Jew immigration.
The claims about the Rwanda & Khmer “holocausts” are not used as the foundation for neo-Marxist destruction of European / European diaspora cultures.
– The claims about the Rwanda & Khmer “holocausts” are not used as an excuse to attack those who do not embrace hate mongering Zionism.
– The claims about the Rwanda & Khmer “holocausts” are not used as an excuse to label all opponents of the Zionism & neo-Marxism ‘Nazis’ in a way which rationalizes physical assaults upon them.
– Oh hell, I could go on & on about the cost of the fake & impossible Jew “holocaust”.
* see utu taken to school here:
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-post-war-france-and-post-war-germany/
comment 429
http://www.codoh.com
said:
” Why Wally is not obsessed about Rwanda or Khmer holocausts? Doesn’t he care about the truth of Rwanda or Khmer holocausts? Israel Shamir is a denier of Khmer holocaust because he cares about it because he is an old Stalinist but Wally does not care. ”
And of course, the claims about the “Rwanda or Khmer holocausts” are not scientifically impossible as are those of the laughbly fake Jew “holocaust”.
plus video clip:
recent:
Auschwitz – Forensically Examined, By Cyrus Cox : https://shop.codoh.com/book/494/508
I would argue that the Rwandan genocide directly allows one of those ruthless dictators in Africa, Paul Kagame, to remain in power for now nearly 25 years, without his horrible human rights record and obvious war crimes being thoroughly examined.
You have made numerous assertions about photography under this article, but have failed to post even a single image to support any of your arguments.
Talk is cheap. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Don’t ask me to do the work to prove your point.
So why don’t you take your own advice and
And then post your results here. It’s time for you to put up, or be still.
I have accompanied some of my comments with NASA’s own Apollo photographs so that others may judge for themselves.
I don’t have a Hasselblad with a 60mm f5.6 Biogon lens, and I doubt you do either, so I don’t know how you are able to make definitive statements about what kind of lens flare the 60mm Biogon would produce.
Despite posing as an expert, you reveal your ignorance about a basic fact of photography: every photographic lens has its own unique optical properties that will affect the amount and color of lens flare, chromatic aberration, barrel distortion, and so on, so what my modern cameras and lenses might do has little bearing on the image under examination. At any rate, I did test two modern cameras with wide angle lenses this morning — a DSLR and point & shoot — but they produced only modest mostly greenish looking flair, nothing like that very bright white artifact in the image.
Almost 50 years ago, I did have a cheap 24mm k-mount lens I purchased in a pawn shop in Japan, and that thing did produce some bodacious, colorful flare, but it fell apart long ago and took gravity’s rainbow to the dumpster.
And that sets the stage for a nice segue back to divergent shadows, which make another appearance in AS14-66-9302, that can be examined in all its 4175×4175-glory here:
Please pay pay particular attention to the divergent shadows in in the bottom middle and right, especially under those footprints in the foreground.
It’s not the space program in itself, but an ego needs something to hang on.
It’s not by accident that “episteme” means “knowledge” and shares its root with “stability”.
Like the body if there were no support beneath its feet, so feels the mind without a base of certainty.
This is why if you criticize their shared and personal tenets, or worst evidence their untruth, you will find yourself face-to-face with their primary psychological defense mechanism. And of course reasoning will be offensive for them, fruitless for the reasoning’s doer.
Looking at it from an only slighty varied perspective: assurance = certainty = comfort (no cognitive load for the mind). Inquiry and real debate = uncertainty = discomfort (cognitive load, or overload…).
Organisms tend to seek comfort/spare energy, so…
Pat Hannagan says: “Ron said it himself in some other post, if you know that your government has lied to you over and over about 9/11, Port Arthur, wwi and wwii and ongoing sundry other historical FACTS all proven to be not true why should you believe for one second the next thing that comes out of their mouths?”
I’m new here so I was not aware of that, which, if true, makes Mr Unz’s statements to date concerning this particular matter, in this particular thread, even less excusable. It’s a clear “burden of proof” issue, as far as I can see.
Pat Hannagan says: ” Funny thing about anti-conspiracy people is how they always inverse the burden of proof. “
Exactly. It’s the standard modus operandi for them. A neat trick to play on those gullible fools [including Mr Unz? ] who have no understanding of the burden of proof principle and its application in a court of common law.
Regards, onebornfree
You did read Israel Shamir’s comment, though, didn’t you?
I certainly wasn’t looking for anything when I visited Hiroshima that might tend to prove no nuclear explosion took place but my recollection is that everything I saw was consistent with a single massive explosion.
Test questions. Wasn’t Oppenheim in effect sacked after becoming a bit wobbly about the ethics of nuclear armaments, and wouldn’t it therefore be surprising if he didn’t say “I’m glad to say that I bear no responsibility for the atom bombing of Hiroshima: it didn’t happen”?
Moreover, since the atom bombing of Hiroshima is still held against America would it not have been logical and sensible to say, sometime in the last 30 years “we pulled off a psyops coup which helped to keep the world peace for decades but now we want to assure peaceloving people that the United States did not use nuclear weapons against an enemy – ever”? It wouldn’y have had to be ths President saying it to the world: it could just have been an airman or scientist on his deathbed.
More on the Hiroshima hoax:
A uranium bomb going off is supposed to release a lot of neutrons, and some of these should then react with the nuclei of atoms within the targets they hit. Some of the reaction products will be radioactive and thus can be measured and quantified. This approach has been used extensively in order to understand the effects of the Hiroshima bomb. Hoshi et al. (1991) summarize some of the findings.
Here is their Figure 4. It compares induced 60-Co (cobalt) radioactivity in steel, between three structures with similar distances to the hypocenter. 60-Co is produced from (non-radioactive) 59-Co by neutron capture, and the results shown here have been normalized for total cobalt content; thus, they are indeed comparable.
All samples were chosen from exposed sites on those buildings; thus, shielding would not have caused the pronounced difference in the levels of induced radioactivity. What did?
Figure 5a shows a more in-depth analysis of the low-activity samples (Aioi bridge) from Figure 4. The samples were cut into slices, and the 60-Co radiation was measured in each slice separately. The expection is that the radioactivity should have been highest at the surface, with the deeper layers being partially shielded, as shown in the “Calculated” line. However, strangely, as we get past 3 cm, the activity goes up again! What is up with that?
The entire thickness of these pieces of steel is 5 cm. Apparently, the neutrons that caused this induced radioactivity entered from both sides – as they would if they were due to natural background (cosmic ray spallation). On the other hand, radiation produced by the nuclear blast, pretty much directly above the bridge (which was its actual intended target point), should indeed have entered almost exclusively from one side.
A similar finding is observed with another isotope, 152-Eu (europium). In this case, the authors actually acknowledge the obvious explanation (Figure 8):
What they do not explain is why the neutrons in question penetrated deeper than expected. This is simply because they had particle energies that differed from those expected for the bomb.
These were just examples of the kinds of evidence one can find; there are many more similar studies published in the scientific literature. One simply has to look at them with the blinkers taken off.
(mostly) great discussion–a few more links worth checking out:
http://www.aulis.com/moonbase2014.htm
http://www.aulis.com/moonbase2015.htm
http://www.aulis.com/moonbase2016.htm
https://www.aulis.com/moonbase2017.htm
The new young NASA scientists and astronauts become adults quickly the day they learn about the fake moon landings. Now they must invent the wheel from scratch since it was not invented for them in the 1960s.
Well, based on the responses and earlier comments, I’d guess that something like one-third of the more energetic Moon Hoax people are also Nuke Hoax people, and perhaps a somewhat lower percentage are Masonic/Cold War Hoax people. There’s also at least one apparent Flat Earther. So I’d say that you have your debunking work cut out for you…
My rule of thumb is generally to disregard these sorts of massive “conspiracy theories” until I see that at least a few highly-credible individuals or perhaps a substantial group of Ph.D.s have publicly endorsed them. And reasonably well-written published books impress me much more random websites or personal videos.
After all, one could suggest an infinitude of such possible—and mutually contradictory—“conspiracy theories,” and it’s important to maintain some sort of reasonable filter lest too much time be wasted on likely nonsense.
That’s a routine of behaviour the powerful follow in every context — down to hugely smaller ones than relations between the three or four more powerful nations worldwide. Only drastic conflict where all the powerful but one see it as profitable for them to take out the other one will change that standard power play (some continent- and world-spanning wars may fall in this class of conflicts).
I finally made it through the entire fascinating episode. Unlike Ron Unz, I do have some comments:
– The Original GM model was 3 times as large, yet somehow they miraculously got it to fit.
– I was mostly looking for details about weight. Of course, there was little to be found. They said that the goal for the thermal controller was 10lbs, but that they couldn’t meet that so they wrapped everything in parafin to help balance changes in temperature.
– They were going on about the remote controlled TV camera. In the early ’70’s before Betamax or VHS. That sucker had to be very heavy.
– They talked about how they had to have everything spring loaded so it would pop into place and click. If you watch the deployment at 34:00 min, the wheels literally pop out into place, and the frame pops into a 10ft platform, all without “astronaut” intervention. That means that there were literally dozens of powerful springs and locking mechanisms. I don’t care if this was made of gold or titanium, that kind of hardware gets heavy really, really quick.
– All that aluminum tubing is not light. A typical racing bike made from light aluminum from that period probably weighed 5gk alone. There are dozens in that frame before we count springs and locking mechanisms.
– Those wheels… how much does one weigh?
– 4 electric drive motors, 4 steering motors, Satellite Antenna, relays, capacitors, resistors, wiring (look at the thick wires going into the console), and loads of primitive electronics. All before computers when transistors were just taking off. Have any of you ever seen how big a Mainframe or even minicomputer were from that day? Even the circuit boards and primitive semiconductors were massive compared to today, and far more sensitive to environment.
The Lunar Rover weighed at least 1000 lbs, and the hardware to load and carry it another 10% more. As I said, the noise level of this bullshit is excruciating.
What I found most interesting from the film was all the masonic blather at the end. It reminded me of back in th ’60’s when you watched TV past 11:00 pm and those stupid clips would come on before the EOB signal. Here are a few choice quotes that really sum up the mind control at work here:
I’m sorry, Wiz, but you were placed on my “ignore” list long ago, and I have no intention of retrieving you from there. Over and out.
Thats what I call “shootin’ from the hip” like a cowboy, not the peer reviewed academic research of a racially superior jew.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
At a certain juncture (the start of the 20th century, I think) the USA found themselves with a huge power differential with every other country in the world, which grew yet huger when they were the first to lay hands on the atom bomb.
None can figure how any of the other big nations would have conducted itself, if they had been on the higher side of that huge differential for over a century.
Well, the Onion does indeed have far more intellectual content than anything else you’ve posted here, so you should probably rely on them for more information, it would represent progress for you.
Can you provide links to these?
You’ve got a comeback for everything.
Except for any of the stubstantive points I’ve made here. Nobody here as addressed those.
All you are capable of doing is accusing strangers of being homosexuals. Sounds like projection to me. Have you told your parents yet? I’m sure they’ll still love you. Even if nobody else does.
And what points would those be?
Thank for those links…just reading the first one now…
Is There Any Hope for a Moon Base?
A pretty solid technical article by an author who is a PhD…
He quotes extensively from recent NASA and GAO documentation about the progress [and difficulties] of a new manned spacecraft capable of beyond low earth orbit…the subjects include…
* Heat Shield of the Command Module
* Re-entry into the Earth’s Atmosphere
* Radiation beyond Low-Earth Orbit
* Landing On and Taking Off from the Lunar Surface
* The Heavy-Launch Rocket
This has nothing to do with ‘hoax’ or layman speculation…it is a serious article about the state of science today with respect to manned travel beyond LEO…
Like I said extensive quoting [with citations an page numbers] from recent government docs that makes it sound as if they are inventing the wheel for the first time…interesting reading indeed…
I recall you saying you ‘know more’ than me…so why don’t you figure it out…
Also I try not to interact with mouthfoamers…the flying spittle i quite unsetttling…
Well I agree with you on that, although I don’t rule out the possibility that Hiroshima/Nagasaki were in fact non-nuclear hits.
But I would say that Ron Unz chose some easy targets here. If he had gone after vaccinations, 5g or agenda 21, the reaction would have been more interesting.
But the conspiracy that Unz did not address, and that most readers hear probably are completely unaware of, is Climate Engineering, or in truth Climate Warfare. Many would agree that there is a hybrid war going on by Nato and Israel against Iran, China and Russia. Many would not agree that this hybrid war also includes weather warfare.
The evidence is all around us. In the US the El Nino has turned cold, which is like a Nazi becoming a Zionist. Oroville lake is on the verge of overflowing and the Sierra snowpack is waiting to liquify. Across the midwest there are floods and massive snowpack. In December the Polar Vortex mysteriously split, sending “atmospheric bombs”, “atmospheric rivers” and “bomb cyclones” into the US midwest and all along the Caribean coast.
I hereby declare that I am a Climate hoax denier, and that I believe that various governments are manipulating the weather and climate with very nefarious goals. Among their tools are Atmospheric Spraying, EM emissions and underground blasting.
Duh, dude they ejected cement just before landing and the jet exhaust cured it enough for a safe landing.When the dust settled it covered the cement. You stupid idiot with only 2 posts ever!
Now, you frick’n moron get off this site as you are clearly an idiot troll with the brains of, of, something, like, yeah, a jellyfish! Jellyfish Brain Hoaxtard! Jerk.
Just my impression of the nothing funny to see here side…since they didn’t step up.
Fact check:
FALSE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth
https://www.ae911truth.org/
So the answer to my question is: No, you can’t produce the evidence you assert proves your case.
That’s what I thought. You’re a liar and a blowhard.
Are you really an engineer? You seem pretty stupid.
Shadows and light are notorious, especially in a 3d environment, it does not help either that our brain is hardwired to see patterns in everything. I don’t see anything off with the shadows in your photo, except that the layout of the environment can throw you off a lot. I would also point out that the shadows in the near area can appear to be off thanks to sunlight getting reflected off the LM itself which will add in an extra shadow.
To demonstrate. Take a simple lamp, a bright reflective object and a ball/beer can or anything you can position. When the sun has gone down, place the lamp in a spot, turn it on and place your reflective object off to the side of it and look at the ball you have placed and notice that weirdly enough, you can see two different shadows at once.
Finally, its also extremely worth noting that the camera tech was tampered with to offset the brightness of the lunar surface and the unfiltered sunlight.
The Soviets first put the simple object to orbit, then a dog, then a human being. There were flaws, and accidents, and many other bad unpredictable things.
The US Apollo missions – much more complex than just orbiting Earth or even Moon, never used an empty module (or one with a test animal) to land on the Moon, then to ascend and return back to Earth. And everything always went so smoothly and predictable. All flaws were reported as minor, e.g. allergy to moon dust, or moon dust under the nails, or moon dust on the floor and the vacuum cleaner was broken and so on. Housewives were pleased and convinced.
The ones I made above, nitwit.
You are in fact completely wrong. Not all measurements are equal.
Here are a couple of good videos explaining laser ranging of the Moon:
The ever-changing “science” of Hiroshima
Over the decades, atomic scientists have spent considerable effort trying to understand the amounts of radiation released by the bombs, and received by the inhabitants, at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Figures 3 and 4 from Arakawa et al. (1960) illustrate the dosimetry models in force at the time.
Plotted are the radiation dosages as a function of the distance from the hypocenter. Notice the logarithmic y axis on both graphs. A lethal dose of gamma radiation is about 600-1000 rads; with neutrons, it is lower (but particle energy-dependent).
As you can see, the dosages of gamma rays were similar between both cities, whereas the neutron dosage was assumed to be about tenfold higher in Hiroshima (remember that the two bombs differed with respect to their fissile materials and mechanisms). Since neutron radiation is more damaging, should we not expect more genetic damage at equal dosage (in rads) in Hiroshima than at Nagasaki? Viola, as they say (Otake, 1979):
Beautiful graph, isn’t it? What could be clearer?
Well, only one slight problem: how did he ascertain those “95% confidence intervals?” Such a high degree of precision would require a very accurate assessment of the actually received dosage – which, however, is merely estimated, not measured, at least with those subjects who did not start those fateful two days carrying around radiation dosimeters. This level of accuracy is just blatant fake.
Another slight problem is that just a few short years after Otake’s study, dosimetry models were heavily revised. To quote Hall (1996):
Hm. If that is so, where did Otake get his data from? Why, he made them up of whole cloth, of course; with or without neutrons at Hiroshima, his level of accuracy is well-nigh impossible.
Should we be surprised that fabricated data should exist about these two events? Not at all. As with the currently ongoing global warming hoax, compliant and complacent scientists that will go along with the swindle to further their careers are a dime a dozen. It is perfectly possible to extract from the scientific literature reports that contradict every single point I have made here. Viewer discretion is advised.
My last comment on this subject.
One thing worth noting regarding radiation, space travel and human safety. When we, humans, decide to do something we tend to do it without even stopping to consider what the short or long term effects will be.
Think of the nuke, no one knew what the nuke would do to the point that some worried it would ignite the earth’s atmosphere and kill everyone off. What happened, we detonated it and then went on to detonate over five hundred in fifty short years because we could. Even when the short term and long term dangers were staring us in the face we still kept nuking our own planet while exposing millions to the radioactive fallout in the name of progress.
Humans are insane cause we will do something first and then worry about the outcome later, maybe, someday.
Did we send people to moon with the radiation belts and wonky tech. Yes, I believe we did and I believe it was done because at the time no one knew any better. Its like the time when factory workers were running around with liquid mercury in their hands because no one knew any better or when we stuffed houses, schools and hospitals full of asbestos. We had something, it looked good and did what we wanted but we did not know the long or short term effects yet we still did it cause it did what we wanted it to.
Now that we do know the dangers, its no longer possible to just tell someone to shut up, suit up and go fly to the moon. Now we have to sit down and figure out how to actually make it safe to send someone back up there.
So, none basically.
Anyone can put anyone in the Yad Vashem database:
https://codoh.com/library/document/4220/?lang=it
That false product of ethnocentric psychopathic paranoia, the Shoah religion, mirrors Talmudism as a secular version. The American exceptionalism of the period subsequent to the so called “liberation” of Europe is very similar to this in its own way- we have the unproven Moon Landings to brag on as a “unique” display of American ingenuity and our own mini Holohoax of 9/11. One will not the similarities.
Having Magda Goebbels in the Yad Vashem database is hardly as ironic as portraying the first victim of 9/11 as a member of the Israeli Special Forces, given the fact that Israelis were largely responsible for carrying out the attacks.
That’s some pretty serious psycho-babble.
But the most important conclusion has been left unsaid: that most of those who believe these crackpot theories also believe that the Holocaust is a hoax. Hm, makes you wonder about the point of all of this.
When it’s daytime on the moon the sky is pitch black because there’s no atmosphere to scatter and reflect sunlight. If you’re on the moon and the sun is shining, no stars are visible because of the sun’s brightness – just as stars are not visible if you look up into space from earth on a clear sunny day.
The “gas chambers” hoax is more of an engineering issue than a basic science one. It’s very specific area that few specialize in. But many thousands specialize in astronomy, physics, aerospace engineering, etc. — and NONE support the Apollo denialists.
There are very few experts in the design, operation, and maintenance of gas chambers. There’s not really much demand for them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_chamber
“Since the restoration of the death penalty in the United States in 1976, eleven executions by gas chamber have been conducted.”
One of those experts is Fred Leuchter, who was called as a defense witness for Ernst Zündel in the notorious Zündel “fake news” show trials in the 1980s. Leuchter was hired as a expert on the use of gas chambers for execution. He had no particular specialist knowledge of the details of the so-called “Holocaust” narrative at the time, and had never questioned it prior to that, but was chosen as an expert because he was:
“the nation’s only commercial supplier of execution equipment. […] A trained and accomplished engineer, he is versed in all types of execution equipment. He makes lethal-injection machines, gas chambers, and gallows, as well as electrocution systems […]”
[The Atlantic Monthly — Feb. 1990]
“The nation’s leading adviser on capital punishment.”
“America’s first and foremost supplier of execution hardware. His products include electric chairs, gas chambers, gallows, and lethal injection machines. He offers design, construction, installation, staff training and maintenance.”
[New York Times — October 13, 1990]
So he was the foremost — if not the only — expert on execution technology in the U.S. at that time.
Leuchter’s forensic examination of the supposed “gas chambers” at Auschwitz and Majdanek quickly led him to conclude that the standard narrative of their use was nonsensical. Analysis of samples from the alleged “gas chamber” walls were negative for ferric-ferro-cyanide residue, while samples from delousing chamber walls showed high levels of cyanide residue.
See the Leuchter Reports — initial edition:
http://www.ihr.org/books/leuchter/leuchter.toc.html
Later edition, with contributions from German chemist Germar Rudolf:
http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?page_id=16
If you’re aware of a gas chamber expert who is capable of explaining the operation of the “gas chambers,” producing blueprints and/ or photos that explain that operation, and forensic evidence that they were used as such, you’re welcome to link to it.
Also note that no one gets imprisoned, targeted by the media-antifa complex, or even fired from their job for Apollo denialism. The worst that happens is people laugh at you.
Once Leuchter made it clear that he was more committed to truth than to promoting the officially-endorsed narrative, however:
– He was targeted by the media, which encouraged riots at his house
– He was targeted financially — states stopped paying him on existing contracts, and he could not get any further contracts
– He was arrested on trumped up charges in both the UK and Massachusetts, and was actually prosecuted in MA.
– Etc. — the usual treatment that Holoheretics get from ZOG.
ZOG doesn’t care if you deny the moon landings — you’ll never be targeted in the manner that Leuchter was for proving that the “gas chambers” never existed. There’s no significant social/ legal/ financial downside to Apollo revisionism — as long as you can make a logical, empirically-based argument for your beliefs. If you can’t, you’ll be subject to mockery, of course — but nothing more.
The point you make about what the doubters (well “believers” can be as apt a term) should do to bring their evidence up to that for the “self evident” like the spherical earth can be extrapolated. How about some humble UR threadster organising crowdfunding for experiments to determine whether for example fires caused by X gallons of aviation fuel and specified furnishings and fittings⁴ and dividers could weaken a known steel structure enough for the weight above to cause its collapse? How about commissioning expert investigators to gather and assess all the evidence of shooting around the RFK death? How about commissioning practising experts in the demolition business to explain in detail how the observed collapses of the WTC buildings would have been brought about if they could have been? Und so weiter.
Two official false narratives do not make one truth.
Propaganda is propaganda, not reality.
There is no hard physical evidence that men walked on the moon, as there is no hard physical evidence that the “Nazis” (pejorative term) murdered millions of Jews.
To question the former narrative all one has to do is note that ghostly figures on a flat screen and Walter Cronkite’s authoritative voice do not constitute proof or physical evidence of anything. To impugn the latter is more time consuming, since we are dealing with perhaps the largest interactive event in human history which occurred over 6 years and well over more than half the planet’s surface. Even so, the physical evidence for the latter is almost as scarce as for the former.
Given the history of government induced mendacity and propaganda, one would be morally and intellectually irresponsible not to challenge both narratives. From “Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain!” through the Lusitania, the so called “surprise” attack on Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, USS Liberty, the Kuwaiti incubator babies, 9/11, white powder in the test tube, etc., the big lie has been an operative principle of the US government (and its NATO camp followers).
Your continued pathetic failure to construct anything even approaching a logical argument in support of your strange belief that both cameras and the human eye have infinite dynamic range — let alone cite any actual evidence in favor of this delusion — is duly noted.
Sad!
That you’re wholly incapable of comprehending the very simple concept of “dynamic range,” and lack the minimal intellectual curiosity required to investigate it?
You’re welcome. You may continue to spew your nonsensical “B-b-but dere ain’t no stars in dem dere pitchers!!!” delusions now. Please continue — it’s amusing.
It appears that many have difficulty understanding the difference between an omnidirectional broadcast received by rabbit ears on top of the TV, and a directional signal received by a 210-foot radiotelescope…
Well, possibly, but if that is the case, Ron Unz can clarify what his point was, can’t he? This isn’t the first time that you seem to think that Ron Unz has appointed you as his spokesperson.
Well, not really. If somebody had claimed that he had sailed thousands of miles across the ocean to an unknown New World, when nobody else had ever gone more than ten miles offshore, then he would just be laughed at — particularly, if he had no solid evidence of the claim.
But the point, of course, is that this was not the situation at all. Columbus’s achievement fits within the overall arc of technical progress in navigation. For example, the Portuguese established a settlement on the Azores in 1440. (I just looked that up.) The Azores are (judging by my eyeballing a map) at least a quarter of the way across the Atlantic. In the same time period as Columbus, you had navigators such as Vasco de Gama and Magellan…
And, as I pointed out already, by the time of 50 years after Columbus’s first voyage, the Spanish already had established extensive colonies in the New World, and presumably, even though the voyage was still arduous, they were traveling back and forth with some regularity.
The achievement of NASA in going to the moon is nothing like this. It is completely outside the arc of normal technical progress in any field. It is as if Charles Lindbergh had flown across the Atlantic in 1927 and, in 1977, nobody had yet repeated the feat! In such a scenario, the Lindbergh doubters would have a point. All the more so if all the original records of Lindbergh’s flight, the technical details of his aircraft and so on, had mysteriously disappeared in the meanwhile!
Oh really? (Shrug.)
Well, you’re confusing the issue. In this scenario, the issue would not be whether America (or whatever lies on the other side of the ocean) exists or not. It would be whether Columbus ever made it there!
Similarly, the issue is not whether the moon exists or not. It is whether the astronauts in question went there.
Independently of whether they did, Unz is not producing any valid argument. Basically, his position is that he will not even engage in the facts of the matter because the people presenting said facts lack sufficient credentials.
When the little boy in the story points his finger and says: “Look, that man is naked”, somebody like Unz will decline to even look in the direction the boy is pointing.
Go earn a ph.D., you little brat, and then maybe I’ll look at where you’re pointing!
Meanwhile, the king is dressed in a fine set of clothes. After all, all the authorities say so. Anybody who says otherwise is self-evidently crazy!
The website has lots of interesting research. The Apollo 17 “moon rover fender incident” reminds us that it is hard to keep the lies straight once you start down that road:
https://www.aulis.com/rover_fenders.htm
Ron Unz says: “My rule of thumb is generally to disregard these sorts of massive “conspiracy theories” until I see that at least a few highly-credible individuals or perhaps a substantial group of Ph.D.s have publicly endorsed them. And reasonably well-written published books impress me much more random websites or personal videos.”
Well, Mr Unz, as Pat Hannagan has pointed out : “Ron said it himself in some other post, if you know that your government has lied to you over and over about 9/11, Port Arthur, wwi and wwii and ongoing sundry other historical FACTS all proven to be not true why should you believe for one second the next thing that comes out of their mouths?”
I’m fairly new here, so I’m unable to confirm if Pat’s assertion about what you have previously said is true. If it is, then it looks like you’ve got some ‘splainin’ to do 🙂
If true, why on earth would you even be foolish/gullible enough to then make dangerous assumptions, such as :
1] NASA scientists and related would actually tell the truth.
2] the official imagery records for the claimed events are genuine?
If Mr Hannagan’s restatement of what you have previously said is accurate , neither assumption would make any logical sense, as far as I can see.
Regards, onebornfree
Sorry to interject, but this is actually entirely incorrect.
Lethal gases that can cause death within mere seconds are used everywhere in the most common industries: Oil&Gas, chemical, pharmaceutical, food processing, and in all analysis laboratories.
Such gases can be dangerous either because they are explosive (methane, propane), or because they are oxygen-depleting and would cause death by asphyxiation (nitrogen, carbon dioxide). Nitrogen, in particular, is deadly in just a few seconds but is used absolutely everywhere in the food and pharmaceutical industry to avoid the risk of dust explosion during processing.
Any industrial engineer is 100% certain to deal with hazardous gases, their storage, supply and extract, detection and alarm systems, and protection of the staff. Any honest engineer can easily understand that the Auschwitz gas chamber narrative is impossible: everybody outside the so-called gas chambers would have died as well.
And to be clear, I don’t mean to be disrespectful to anybody who died in the camps during WW2. The gas chambers are simply a technological impossibility.
Judaic Satanism Must Be Exterminated
So Unz’s position is (accurately) described,
Note this (foregoing) follows the Talmudic method to effect Torah means ONLY what the rabbis say it means, according to their “midrash” (interpretation) and “Oral Law Tradition.” And as also pt’d out, it’s “arg.-fm-authority” fallacy; thus Unz smugly persists in his rabbinic Talmudism–totally absurd, but consistent. See Talmudical.blogspot.com, RevisionistReview.blogspot.com, and Come-and-hear.com for expo.
Thus note the (anti-Christ) Satanism built upon simple philosophic principle of (extreme) subjectivism, reality something created by mind/consciousness, making subject God, the creator–Satanism by definition–there’s nothing necessarily “religious” or even mystic about this subjectivism.
Thus such subjectivism/midrash/Pharisaism was repudiated and condemned by Christ who refused to change a “jot or tittle” (Gosp. MATT 5:18) of the Mosaic Law, Christ standing for TRUTH (Gosp. JOHN 14:6) which is meaningless without the OBJECTIVE reality necessarily under-lying, serving as criterion.
So note at heart of things, philosophically, metaphysically, this anti-thesis btwn upholding objective vs. subjective nature is key and essential btwn Satanism and Jews vs. West/gentiles–it’s not primarily “religious” (though it becomes so) or even mystical.
Thus Unz, typical Jew, Jewwy Satanist, always works to dismiss the Christian PHILOSOPHY, lying, mis-representing things, pretending it’s mere “religious” kerfuffle.
And it’s important to note all this (above) as Unz so desperately pretends and insists Jews are to be “normalized” within a so-called civilization/culture along w. gentiles–“Jews are like anyone else”–“one can’t judge all Jews by just one or a few”–but Jews are Jews–Satanists–and they’re determined to impose this filthy Satanism (extreme subjectivism) upon gentiles–as we see fm all history.
Jews KNOW Judaism/satanism must be exterminated, for simple survival of humanity–that’s why Jews cleverly work to anticipate such necessary defense by gentiles by protesting the fictional holohoax, and which real extermination they are determined to impose upon gentiles, as w. Agenda-21 and -2030 GENOCIDE, as we see before our very eyes.
Money talks bullshit walks.on foxy news
https://www.foxnews.com/science/bag-of-nasa-moon-dust-sells-for-1-8m-at-auction
I spoke to itzik.the photos of the nasa bits and pieces left on the moon have all been photographed by the moon lander.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/science/israels-beresheet-spacecraft-snaps-stunning-images-of-far-side-of-the-moon-ahead-of-lunar-landing.amp
One small step for mankind one big step for israel.
Just imagine what the prices of the moon rocks will be once verified.
Miraculously?
Astonishing feat of engineering seems more accurate, at least to me.
I admit, it would be difficult to take such an assertion at face value, without seeing actual proof.
As in, “How the f*ck did they manage to do that?” or, “Show it to me, or I’ll suspect you are telling a very tall tale. As it happens, there are several specimens of the actual vehicle (not mockups or replicas) still in existence.
Here is the Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Roving_Vehicle#Mass_and_payload
which states the mass as 210 kg. A-ficking-mazing, for sure. Weigh it for me. There is a fairly detailed description of the wheel construction, which does not give wheel weight.
Note the Wikipedia article gives moon coordinates for all three rovers on the lunar surface, and states that :
My cursory search did not turn up up LRO photos of LRV from Apollo 17, but perhaps some one else will have better luck.
RE computers and electronics of that era:
In that same video series “Moon Machines”:
reveals some of the limitations of computer hardware and software (a.k.a. human capabilities) of that era. C.S. Draper’s vision of a fully capable onboard guidance computer never came to fruition in the allotted time, despite efforts of very capable people @ I Lab.
As it happens, I am very familiar with computer hardware & software of that era.
I first learned to program FORTRAN IV in the spring of 1967 using punched cards for input on an IBM 1130 which resided in the Civil Engineering Dep’t of M.I.T.
As an employee of GCA Corp in Bedford, MA, I was first paid to write FORTRAN IV on an IBM 360 Model 30 running IBM DOS (mainframe DOS, not PC DOS) which was owned and operated by NEGEA Service Corp. at their headquarters in Central Square, Cambridge. The disk drives were the size of washing machines, and had removable disk packs which reminded me of a cake display in a coffee shop. Writing and debugging computer programs via punched card input was extremely slow. Fortunately, one of my roommates worked for IBM Cambridge Scientific Center, which had CP/CMS. He was kind enough to let his two roomies crib his CP/CMS account via a remote terminal which he brought to the flat we three shared near Inman Square. The terminal was a modified IBM Selectric typewriter which connected to the IBM System 360/65 @ CSS via a Bell 103 300 bps modem and an acoustic coupler. It was able to communicate via either EBCDIC or ASCII, and produced voluminous amounts of 132 column tractor feed fan-fold waste paper. I saw my first computer CRT display in 1971, and though it was really hot shit!
Integrated circuits were just starting to become a) economical and b) rugged in the mid to late 1960s. During the summer of 1967, I worked here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandia_National_Laboratories
and participated in design/construction of instrumentation which used the latest low cost ICs from Texas Instruments. These were available in epoxy blister packs, and cost, IIRC, less than $1, as opposed to earlier metal TO-5 cans (typical discrete transistor packaging) which cost about $5 for the same circuit. 1967 dollars, of course.
The blister packs, about the size and color of a pencil eraser, had 8 gold leads, and contained an entire bistable multivibrator (J-K flip flip) with approximately 50 components, including pnp junction transistors, resistors, and capacitors, but not inductors. The transistors had part numbers (2Nxxxx) which were equivalent to those of discrete components, so it was possible to build an equivalent circuit from discrete parts. My boss actually did this, just to see if it would work, which it did. That was summer of 1967. Progress in microelectronics during late 1960s to early 1970s was astounding. Every month, it seemed, there were new ICs which were vastly more capable, used less power, and were cheaper besides.
The Altair:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_8800
happened in 1974.
Note that Altair and all subsequent desktop machines ran at room temperature, and are fairly tolerant of ambient temperature excursions, unlike the 1960s mainframes which required a temperature controlled environment.
Recollections of a computer pioneer:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/fifty/
You may find the section titled The Roaring Twenties of interest.
One of the most common hazards in oil & gas industry is hydrogen sulfide, which causes respiratory paralysis and therefore death if inhaled. H2S is also a hazard in sewer gas and some other situations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_sulfide
Thanks. I agree that the Masonic connections are intriguing. I would have “agreed” your comment when I read it, but I didn’t have “agree” privilege at the time. My first comment was not specifically about Freemasonry, although it did relate to your earlier comments about the USSR. Your comments cover many key aspects of the Moon hoax.
Freemasonry is clearly involved in the world oligarchic conspiracy. My impression is that it is used by the crypto-oligarchs (i.e., the people who rule the world in secret) as a social technology for controlling things in secret. Masonry may be less central now because of the government-based intelligence apparatuses and secret programs that now exist.
You are right about high-level Masons being all too happy to keep low-level masons in the dark. It is stated repeatedly in descriptions of Freemasonry, including those written by Freemasons. Each Masonic symbol has a succession of deeper meanings, for instance.
LOL, you waited theee days for that? It’s pretty sad how seriously you take yourself.
I quite agree with this. Arguments from authority are reasonably designated logical fallacies. Yet to deny authority’s importance to the way human beings actually acquire (supposed) “knowledge” about the world seems to me – dare I say it? – self-evidently absurd. The average person (including me!) hasn’t got a hope in hell of proving – or even giving a rational account of – the most foundational beliefs he holds about reality. Ultimately, to be able to function effectively in the world, we have no choice but to accept the verdict of authorities of one sort or another.
Setting emotional needs aside, these disputes revolve around the balance of probabilities rather than ironclad fact. From that standpoint, with respect to the moon landings, I lean overwhelmingly towards their facticity. But it would not cause me any emotional discomfort if it turned out they were faked. Frankly, I would applaud the government for doing what it could to enhance the global prestige of liberal democracy vis-a-vis communism, even if that did entail faking the moon missions.
Live broadcast, microwave, or two tin cans tied together by a 240,000 mile string; It’s impossible, old sport.
I don’t know if you are doubling down on making yourself look foolish, or one of these CIA paid-Tavistock trolls, and for your sake I hope it is the latter; but if it is, you are on the verge of being demoted.
Oh, Grasshopper-Anon is not so bad, he’s just under stress.
He called me a few weeks ago and told me he was upset because his wife cut him down to sex once a week.
I said, “Grasshopper that’s good news, I heard she cut the other three guys off completely…”
He probably didn’t see them. I’ve read every post on this thread, but I missed them somehow.
Credit where it is due: a sound succinct argument.
Agree.
It is also not legitimate to say, “I do not understand the argument (or the data), therefore it must be false.”
There is a famous quote from (I believe) Ernst Mach, who said, “A competent view of the world cannot be had as a gift. We must acquire it by hard work.”
“Stolen patents”. Please elaborate. I wonder if you have the faintest idea of what you are talking about. If you consult the etymology of patent and history of letters patent you will see that the only relevant legal offence is breach of a patent by failing to pay an appropriate fee for use (or obtain permission to use). The whole point of a patent is disclosure of what one claims a strictly temporary monopoly over. It used to be for 16 years and required registration in any country where the patent owner wanted to benefit from its use. So I think you will be hardpushed to show that any German patented inventions were illegitimately used. Where do you get that crap from?
Thank you.
Ha! and now you’re feigning tough guy status. I urge you to go to the nearest bar and talk like that to strangers. You’ll get your ass whipped and everybody will laugh except for you.
Not so fast with your “burden of proof” argument. That’s a technical legal term which doesn’t have automatic relevance here. Indeed it would not be surprising if, in some case somewhere, a judge had already taken judicial notice of the moon landings (or treated them as “common knowledge”). That wouldn’t make them ultimately true and I guess the existence of witches and Satan may once have been judicially noticed, but you’ll have to persuade people that the common knowledge that the moon was reached by man is doubtful.
Have a look at this figure from a reference that was provided by j2 earlier:
Plotted is the radiation intensity as a function of the distance from Earth. On the left end, below the actual scale, the intensity in low Earth orbit; on the right end, the intensity in the year 1969 (min/max) beyond the van Allen belts. Even ignoring the belts altogether, the dosage of a lunar mission, in the year 1969, should have been >= 100 times higher than a low Earth orbit mission. Instead, the daily dosage on Apollo 11 exceeded that on Apollo 9 by a factor of 1.1 only.
If that is not enough to “give you pause,” then I’d say this is a good moment for you to also check for polyps.
Talk about the blind leading the blind.
” if a rover could have been sent to Mars, it’s not so hard to believe men could be sent to the Moon.”
That’s the Mount Rushmore of “ifs”. The reverse reasoning seems to have been in use when starting the Mars hoax: that the retards bought the moon landing fable was justification for yet another massive hoax.
Yes, as an early member of the Truth movement, i’m quite aware of AE911 Truth and associated groups. Thank you.
It’s too bad that you ignored the previous sentence in my post: “Who in their right mind (amongst those truly privy to the deception) would speak out?”
This is the relevant distinction. It does not require a co-conspirator’s testimony to point out clear breaches of security protocol on the morning of 9/11/01. Nor does it require an insider to point to geopolitical manoeuvering (e.g. Niaz Naik’s summer ’01 testimony that a US invasion of Afghanistan was planned for October that year). But to be a whistleblower of any consequence in the Apollo programme, you would have to provide information and data that is not publicly available. For reasons already amply discussed above, this would be a non-starter for practically anyone inside NASA. Additionally, as conspiracies go, the fraud of the moon landings is a relatively benign one. There is not the same moral imperative to speak out as in the case of 9/11, whose consequences we still feeling today.
Agreed, and well stated, Wael Ahmad.
Kaysing’s book appeared on my recent search of Amazon for “fake moon landing”. There were 52 titles in the result a few days ago when I did the search. Kaysing’s appeared to be the earliest.
My interest in the Fred Leuchter story had been so sleight that I thought it best to look him up when I read your words treating him as an authority. The Wikipedia article, taken at face value, completely demolishes his credibility. No one could accept half of what it says and take Leuchter seriously on the subject of Auschwicz gas chambers (or indeed any subject). So one has to ask whether any attempts have been made to add to or edit the Wikipedia article by supporters. Surely some residue of respectable support would be found there though Leuchter can’t fail to come across as a pretty sinister and dishonest character. More definitively it has to be asked why Leuchter hasn’t launched and won a great libel case against Wikipedia and its authors on him.
So why are you positively relying on him?
That’s correct. Also, NASA cannot give any coordinates for the reflectors (one of which is about the size of a laptop screen) nor for any of their purported “landing sites”. The reflector nonsense was the first thing the debunkers brought up in one discussion I read a few years ago.
A few small reflectors placed who-knows-where-exactly weren’t needed to bounce laser beams off of the moon before the hoax was perpetrated and can’t be located for such a use anyway.
Or as they say in Texas, “Somebody get the hose”.
I know bloody well that if I was to pop to the moon with some chums
….and took a stroll on that rough old surface, the last thing i’d be doing
would be to doss around all jiggerty jiggerty and acting out silly old games as if I didn’t have a care in the universe, just wouldn’t be on, imagine, tumble over and have one of those nasty moon rocks put a hole in the suit and that’d be it – shutdown, not to mention the trouble that’d cause my companions, so was darned incautious and extremely inconsiderate I think….and never heard anything of them being reprimanded, and what soft headed nincompoop sent them off with a golf club, there’s no bloody greens up there ! Well, not so ridiculous on that space station thing, oh no, all above board, ship shape and bristol fashion – leave that pipe house and float around in the blackness for a while and control is hot on it, visually inspect that suit, over and over again, slightest sign of a nick in it and they have you back inside as quick as you can say “baked beans on toast”…..cripes, those moon men were lucky !
My younger brother and I, both of us boomers, laughed so loudly and made such noise shouting “fake” at the broadcast of the first landing that our Dad told us to shut up or get out.
Not all boomers buy what’s on TV.
I have to agree completely with your post. In fact, the hoax is so ridiculous that any reasonable person who has looked into it and has just a little common sense would be nonplussed by the extended debate that appears here.
What are we to make of the defenders of the official story? I can’t dream up a better reason than this: They saw it on TV (so it must be real) and it hasn’t occurred to them that the government would lie.
Is it more complicated than this?
The most vehement defenders of the official story here probably agree that the emperor has no clothes in other cases. Unfortunately they’re so pleased with themselves for seeing the obvious that they don’t notice that the emperor’s minions are robbing them blind. (Or sodomizing them in Mr Anon’s case, which he probably enjoys anyway.)
“Is it more complicated than this?”
It may be. Look into the commenting history of the most frequent commenters defending the TV version of the moonshot tale. See how many of them show up on other threads defending the TV version of 911, vaccines, the holocaust, etc.
very interesting thank you. If I understand all this correctly, there will be good radiation suppression from the front, possibly consistent with 10cm Al. But the sides are essentially two skins, a honey comb of unknown aspect ratio (how much area is covered by the structural HC compared to area left empty), and basically some light weight insulation.
The charged electrons and protons (there will be some He and minuscule amounts of other nuclei) that comprise the VAB will then preferentially penetrate from the sides which are thinner. So the Portuguese thesis, although correct, should really be producing a weighed average of the different amounts of shielding for the purpose of evaluating the problem at hand. Incidentally, since these are spiraling particles with a large equatorial component (ad relatively smaller polar component) moving at speeds far exceeding the speed of the spacecraft, on average they should illuminate the sides more than they illuminate the front or back of the spacecraft.
That brings us to what I think is the real heart of the difference between those who believe and those who doubt.
Aside from photography/video, all, or effectively all of the technical and engineering issues that are exercising the commentators here are dealt with in those technical papers, and then some.
Anybody who’s read NASA’s and other agencies’ own, internally generated, technical documents concerning human travel beyond LEO can only conclude that EITHER aerospace, materials, and signals technologies fell into a Dark Age immediately after Apollo, OR that the most interesting events in the Apollo narrative were generated for propaganda purposes and had little connection to actual physical events.
If one is to take a stand on the moon landings, one cannot avoid choosing either one or the other.
The Believer says we fell into a Dark Age in the intervening 5 decades, from which we are only now emerging. Ignorant of the current state of the art, looking dimly into the mists of time, his position is that “Giants must have walked the earth in those days”.
My experience is that the last 5 decades were a time both of exponential technological advance, and of the emergence & explication of public narrative control. Ergo, I am compelled to choose the latter.
In the absence of conclusive evidence, that is the fundamental difference between the Believer and the Sceptic. It really is as simple as that.
Here’s a trick you might not be aware of. It’s called “ctrl-f thing-I-am-looking-for”. In this case it would be my screen handle. I’m not repeating what I’ve written above for your benefit. You can read it yourself, or go f**k yourself. It’s all the same to me, cretin.
No, that is not what an intelligent observer would conclude.
… and any honest public facility designer would know that getting that number of humans in and out of those facilities at the rates required would have simply been impossible – never mind the panicked state of mind that said humans would have been in.
Utter hogwash, the whole of it.
Here are the coordinates for the reflectors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the_Moon
This list includes coordinates for the Apollo descent stages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artificial_objects_on_the_Moon
Demonstration of retroreflectors in use:
The sentiment I expressed is genuine. And it applies to you to, if you insult me.
So, f**k you too.
And you are probably dressed in spiderman pajamas. I guess that makes you an unimpeachable source, huh?
I have rapidly been persuaded that the characters in Idiocracy might have more on the ball than most of the posters here.
This really is retardville. It’s probably not worth arguing with these morons.
http://whale.to/c/Dave%20McGowan%20-%20Wagging%20The%20Moon%20Doggie.pdf
A good idea perhaps when you can’t answer something that might make you feel uncomfortable but best to avoid indicating your stupidity by drawing attention to it.
[Too many crude back-and-forth insults. Comments mostly filled with crude insults will be much more likely to be trashed.]
Keyboard tricks will find your posts, but not any “substantive points” you claimed to have made.
Thank you. I have paid no attention to Yad Vashem and merely made a broad brush assumption about its probable errors. A Google search which included “Magda Goebbels” led me to
https://inconvenienthistory.com/9/1/4225
and, though the author is a controversial revisionist it seems to give reason to have a deeper look at Yad Vashem….
Ron…. are you there? What about having Yad Vashem examined by an accepted non crank?
But a scientist would definitely conclude that the Moon mission never happened. A scientific experience must, by definition, be repeatable.
And yet all of my comments have been posted. Go figure.
This was delivered to the innocent but meant for you:
A good idea [i.e. the “ignore” list] perhaps when you can’t answer something that might make you feel uncomfortable but best to avoid indicating your stupidity by drawing attention to it.
What about my post above about laser ranging? There are others too. The fact is, you are just too stupid to recognize anything substantive.
Don’t bother replying. I’m done arguing with idiots.
Oops! Apologies all round for misdelivery.
Are you sure?
“Observer”? I think it’s clear I was talking about a “reader”.
Say it isn’t so! You’ve written 16,000 comments and 1.1 million words. I was just starting to grow fond of you. You are such a prickly little fellow. And now you say you are going to stop?
A scientific experiment must be repeatable in principle. That is, given similar resources, a scientist skilled in the art can physically reproduce the original experiment, get the same result, and so validate the results of the first. De facto, in most cases nowadays the first experiment is reviewed for its scientific rigour, and the results accepted/rejected on the basis of that review. A 2nd physical experiment is comparatively rare.
The situation here is that, despite what appears to be an order of magnitude greater technical resource base and 50 additional yrs of aerospace experience, the scientists say they’re not yet ready to start work. None puts it this way for what I’d guess are political reasons, but what that means is that a scientifically rigorous review of the original would reject its results. I see no other interpretations here.
Put another way, according to the technical documents, we could go to the moon in theory, but in practice we can’t. If we went there 50 yrs ago, either our theory, or our practice must have taken a Great Leap Backwards for that to be so. It’s either that, or the original never took place, and so it’s not only that we can’t at present, we never could.
But not necessarily repeated for many reasons including budgetary priorities.
I’ve only glanced over these comments and read few, but what strikes me is that not only do people think the moon landings were faked, some think they were faked by incompetent morons.
Did you know there are no footprints leading away from the end of the rover tracks? Obvious fakery! As if the people behind this fraud, instead of careful consideration of the nature of the tracks which would be made by a real moon mission, instead of going through a realistic scenario of what could have happened, just drew some tracks, brushed off their hands, and called it a day.
When they faked the moon photos, did they worry that they accidentally included one of the spotlights from the set in the photo? Nah, not to worry, people will just think it’s a lens flare. Send it out.
The very fact that there are aspects of the photos that people interpret as obvious signs of fakery suggests that they aren’t fake. Real photos are more likely to include odd contingencies of light and shadow that the human brain could misinterpret, than are photos deliberately designed by a highly skilled team with everything on the line to be lacking any signs of fakery.
It is more of an inside joke…a combination of irony and contradiction. I would not expect you to understand this, but thanks for the reply nonetheless.
The Sandy Hook children never existed. Made up.
Sandy Hook shooting mothers’ average age giving birth = 36 years old
The Mothers Average Age Giving Birth = 36 Years Old – 1 in 10 chance
Odds of 20 Such Elderly Mothers in One Group = 109,418,989,131,512,370,000 to 1 — that translates to 109 Quintillion, 418 Quadrillion, 989 Trillion, 131 Billion, 512 Million, 370 Thousand to one — Adds to Overwhelming Evidence of Official Fraud
http://themillenniumreport.com/2017/08/new-angle-on-the-sandy-hook-shooting-hoax/
So you agree with these idiots then? I’m not surprised – you seem like an idiot too.
Meds? … LOL! You are truly an idiot of epic proportions if that is your claim. You actually believe this nonsense or are you a paid agitator to slander people who try to provide legitimate information?
Look, I know exactly whom I refer to, and no matter your consternation I’ll poke fun of this sayanim agent all I want.
Now it is the time to take your meds. I care nothing of what you think of my capitalization but I’d guess you’re a sayanim as well…
I’ve linked reputable interviews (HOWEVER not to Ron’s standards–as he seemigly views as anybody else’s work in the matter as simply a hoax…we matter for naught as Ron explains…simply because HE *THINKS* some of us have NO SCIENTIFIC/ENGINEERING background.
Think again Ron! What is admitted to in the public has little to no correlation to what those who have studied the matter, some professionals who would otherwise not make public statements (WAKE UP RON HERE) put their thoughts out for YOU RON to simply dismiss them!
“Put another way, according to the technical documents, we could go to the moon in theory, but in practice we can’t. If we went there 50 yrs ago, either our theory, or our practice must have taken a Great Leap Backwards for that to be so. It’s either that, or the original never took place, and so it’s not only that we can’t at present, we never could.”
Commercial Israel unmanned Moon probe is approaching the Moon and there have been several space tourists on Low Earth Orbit, some of whom have died when the spaceship crashed. There obviously is enough private money to send a man to the Moon, yet it is not done. The reason must be some technical obstacle and as astronauts can go to LEO and there take a space walk, and probes can land and take off from the Moon, the problem with a manned flight to the Moon can only be radiation. If there is a problem today, there was a problem 50 years ago.
But why not put a thick enough shield, say 20 cm of lead? It would help. It could be that to protect from radiation needs a so heavy shield that even if a man is sent to the Moon in a lead capsule, he cannot see anything as the capsule cannot have windows and he cannot exit the lunar module. So, there is no sense to go there as you get the same experience by sitting in a closet.
But the issue of the Apollo landing in 1969 is really if the minimum radiation outside the Van Allen Belt was zero or, as Marki’s preprint claims, nonzero. This one should be able to check from Marki’s references. If it was nonzero and the value he gives, astronauts on that mission cannot have received a so low dosage as is announced. That would imply that NASA is intentionally giving false information of that flight, which can only mean that the flight did not take place. It cannot be that they did send a man to the Moon at that time, despite of radiation. They are announcing very low radiation for the mission. If this dosage figure is forgery, the mission is forgery.
Ron, you are such a coward! Only reputable people would be sufficient to inform you. What if they intended to lie–much like the COWARDS that they truly are!–in the first place?
I’ve opened my mind to people who contribute to the discussion with facts–or at least the way they seem them.
In WWII EXACTLY HOW many prominent scientists/engineers/doctors have made an opposing statement in the matter? NONE! Why? because they are ALL COWARDS…not worthy of any opinion, much less ‘courage’.
What is need to be known about Einstein?:
Hey, you are one ignorant idiot to boot!take your meds and take them plenty….so you’ll have afterthoughts soon after!
Just remember what traitors like YOU receive in the end?
Reviewing several of the photos of the moon dune buggy I saw that at least one showed the vehicle sitting on the purported lunar surface with no tracks visible behind or ahead of the tires.
This would indicate that the lunar rover had been set down in place as if by a crane. Even if the rover had just been assembled, there should have been marks around it made by the astronauts or at least by the wheels of the vehicle itself as it sprang itself into assembly. The problem with cutting the fakers that much slack is that the photo shows the McGyvered fender repair job, supposedly done with duct tape in ambient temperatures of 200F or thereabouts.
Some think that the fakery was done on a set at Langley, Va. That would mean that CIA employees participated, which might explain why you used the term “incompetent morons”. That term seems to me to fit just fine. I might have used the term “ringmeat mongoloids”, but anyway…..
Just to be very clear, the “manned moon landing hoax” view (which I share) is that there have been whistle-blowers, but their preferred method of whistle-blowing has not been public career-ending (and perhaps life-ending) press conferences, but rather through the sabotage of some of the raw footage and other data–a subset of what you correctly call “obvious signs of fakery”.
It is likely that the “moon hoax” was believed by its creators to have an “end by” date–presumably when technology advanced to the time when verification (one way or the other) was beyond any dispute. (Beyond any dispute could be defined as when there would be no need for a discussion like we are having–it would be boring since everyone would agree.)
.gov is trying to extend the “end by” date as long as possible–their contractor buddies are gonna milk that NASA cow until it collapses from exhaustion. The “bodyguard of lies” team will continue to push the “conspiracy kook” meme for as long as they can get away with it.
The bodyguards are professionals, so there is no shame in being fooled–we have all been there.
I could say a similar thing to you: TV introduced you to the idea of elaborate government conspiracies against the people, with silence enforced by shadowy intelligence agencies, and now you’re too caught up in the excitement of living through what you imagine is a real life conspiracy to even consider whether conventional explanations have any merit.
I think there are three types of moon landing believers
1) those who really believe
2) those who pretend to believe, because it is such a nice story (for those who believe)
3) those who pretend to believe, because that serves them well
When I talk to my nine year old nephew, and he would ask me about the moon landings, I would pretend to believe the story… Because it is a nice story
But I don’t think that there are many 9 year old commenters here, so why pretend?
Ron Unz’s position is a difficult one. He does not look like a nine year old to me, and since commenters are not nine year old either, leaves only option 3.
Ron Unz did place the article though. Perhaps what he says (of never giving the moon landing hoax much thought until 2 years ago) is really true, which would open up a fourth option
4) those who gave it not much thought and consider the story to be true.
I think we all have been in position 4 (I certainly was) but it is good to grow over it.
Compare the moon landings with the believe in Santa Claus (also a nice story for kids who like presents). How do 6-7 year old kids grow over it? – For me, by finding out myself that the story could not be true. How did I find out?
Phase 1: by believing the story
Phase 2: by giving it not much thought, I still believed the story
Phase 3: after giving it some thought I no longer believed the story
I guess that for the moon landings, Ron Unz is in phase 2. How to get to phase 3? I do remember that, when I still believed in Santa Claus that kids who were older than me and said that Santa Claus did not exist had no impression on me at all. For that reason I would not be surprised that commenters who try to convince Ron Unz that the moon landings are a hoax probably make no impression on him at all.
I had to find out myself that Santa Claus was a nice story, for my mom, in order to give me lots of presents, but not true.
It is liberating to see the difference between a story and a fact, or as Carl Sagan said: ‘The well being of adults depends on whether they really know the world as it really is. We worry, for good reasons, about adults who believe in Santa Claus.’
Give Ron Unz a break.
Medical scientists would not agree. They only perform an experiment once (payed by the pharmaceutical industry), after which they consider that the drugs work and can be given to the whole population. Repeated experiments are just too expensive, you see?
Maybe medicine is not a science either..
I am watching the Navigation Computer episode. I find it amazing how many docudramas they have made about the fake “moon landing”. All chock full of masonic propaganda.
You started programming several years before me. I did own a Compupro S-100, but lost it the Ca floods of 1986. I did a lot of Fortran on a Burroughs using cards, at UC, and even a little Cobol 68 using cards on a Harris. When I was working for the Airforce in ’85 they were changing their logistics systems from ancient IBM card readers to CRT’s. The joke was that they just put a one-line replica of a card onto the 80×24 screen. All the operators were already used to using the card readers, so they needed only minimal training. Shades of the 737-Max.
The Kubrick/Shining conspiracy I dont buy.
But if the Moon Landing was real, it would mean the Van Allen Belt is a hoax??
If not , how DID those Space vehicles pass through it?
The way that freemasonry has openly attached itself to the moon hoax, and even bragged about it (Aldrin), is, to paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, the “the dog who never should have barked”.
Below is a partial list of Nasa freemasons, and it doesnt even mention Armstrong, or von Braun who many claim was a 33 degree mason.
Fake landing, fake rover, lying masonic astronauts.
I have read about this before, I think McGowan gets into it too:
Did you miss the comments sharing the knowledge that it was all directed by Stanley Kubrick, presumably at a Hollywood studio?
Just kidding…
Go back and read your comment #825. Slowly. Let it sink in.
I may be an idiot. And I may agree with some of the things posted here and some of the commenters. Which ones, specifically, did you have in mind?
For such a smart guy I’m surprised you didn’t consider the fact it was a Moon Hoax post on the world’s foremost conspiracy-theory webzine on April Fool’s Day BEFORE you started arguing and getting all angry and frustrated.
Some of these guys are good. They will shred you. Maybe you should go back to Facebook. Take a break.
And your answer to your being called out on your foolish bluster is?
Except that in this particular case that you chose, the experience is afterwards repeated millions of times, every time a patient takes the drug in question.
I am not going to insult your intelligence: comments like yours are so obviously wrong that I have long come to the conclusion that they are deliberately made stupid.
God knows why, there is a cohort of trolls whose job is to wind up, pull people’s legs by deliberately making the most grotesque statements. Good day to you.
At some point, all the oil would have leaked out, and the wheel seized – that was probably the reason why they had to discontinue the program after Apollo 17.
Here is some great Masonic mind control in action on the Apollo-Soyuz mission showing how the entire landing was a tag-team hoax, a masonic thesis/antithesis/synthesis psyop:
Apollo–Soyuz Hand Shake in Space
Buzz Aldrin: We Need More Handshakes in Space
Check out that Masonic handshake, of course the Freemasons want more of them.
“international partnershiop” = Masonic Ownership
As I have written before, the secret ritual Armstrong and Aldrich performed on Apollo 11 was to establish the Freemason’s claim on the entire moon.
http://freemasoninformation.com/masonic-education/famous/masonic-astronauts/amp/
Apollo 17–NASA’s version of the amusement park:
https://www.aulis.com/apollo17_ascent.htm
There are several links to aulis.com above. In their expose on Apollo 13, they go into detail about Nasa/CIA cooperating with the Soviets to stage the handover of the fake Apollo capsule in Murmansk. It is a very interesting read that illustrates the amount of collusion behind the scenes between the USSR and the US, all to maintain their illusions throughout the fake masonic cold war.
I say “fake masonic” here not to imply that both countries didn’t stand under extreme planet destroying threat, but fake because the masons and their blood brothers had not only set up the entire trap decades earlier, they were already laying traps for the future too. The never ending strategy of tension, Problem->Reaction->Solution, constantly pushing the sheeple towards the slaughter house of war, pestilence or starvation.
https://www.aulis.com/odyssey_apollo.htm
In the footnotes B&B discuss the Masonic Space Treaty Act where USSR/UK/USA all agree not to harm and to return each other’s astronauts. It sounds like it comes straight out of some masonic oath to protect their brother masons. The preferred treatment that conquering masons give to conquered masons has always been one big reason to join the brotherhood before heading off to war. Or, for the smarter ones, join the brotherhood and enter the military as an officer. Good knowledge of your Masonic handshakes are very important here.
Of course there is a simple explanation for the lack of tire tracks. The boot imprints show that at least one astronaut was walking around the lunar dune buggy, perhaps making the repair to the fender, thereby covering up the tire tracks.
Its the brutal honest truth.
This subject has made me curious, so I’ve done some reading around. It seems to me that space radiation, both within the belts and beyond them, is quite far fully understood at this stage (as anyone can see through a quick google), and that there are a number of factors that could influence the amount of radiation actually experienced during a voyage. I’m not competent to say any more than that, but the great thing about such a direct claim is that an expert with actual competence should be able to evaluate quite quickly and conclude either that the moon hoaxers really are onto something, or that the radiation experienced during the Apollo missions is consistent with what is know about space radiation.
You are the one who consistently fails to bring anything like evidence to the table and resorts to name calling to silence opposition.
I guess that is what comes from being a paid troll.
Enjoy your demotion to worthless speck of dirt in my eyes.
First, let me second Rurik’s opinion of Ron Unz: an intelligent, thoughtful, and informed observer; careful and measured in his responses. And— the man we have to thank that this forum exists.
I think Rurik’s point is a good one: highlighting as it does— please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong— the very different natures of the different ‘types’ of belief.
I have spent (wasted?) a good deal of time arguing with family members who are lifelong Christian believers— pointing out the many serious contradictions in the Biblical foundation of their beliefs: e.g., the utter lack of the expected archaeological evidence for the stories their ‘faith’ is based on.
And yeah: the first thing one notices in such a discussion is how their beliefs are so much more (or less, depending on how you look at them) than rational conclusions based on demonstrated facts. You quickly come to realize that their religious beliefs include a strong component of emotionality— of a ‘need to believe’— and that, yes, these beliefs comprise a core part of their identities: they need to believe these things, in order to maintain their notion of who they are and what the world is like; and quickly become upset when their beliefs are persistently and credibly challenged.
So the first thing we can do, when encountering any strongly-held belief, is to try and figure out what our interlocutor’s beliefs are based on. Are these beliefs based on an objective analysis of existing facts, and an open-ness to revising them when and if new facts come to light— i.e., do they evince a scientific approach to the question at hand?
Or are they motivated by a need-to-believe a certain set of facts, in which they’ve made a huge emotional investment? And which will cause them great emotional upset, should someone credibly challenge them?
And yeah: it is quite striking that many of these believers are quite intelligent, and otherwise well-informed and thoughtful people, who in other areas are cognisant of the fact that the more extraordinary the claim, the stronger the confirming evidence needs to be. But not when it comes to their “faith” in the particular religious myth they’ve staked their identity on: concerning those beliefs, they experience any questioning of them as an attack on the very core of who they are.
So… what does all that have to do with this discussion thread?
(Which, by the way, I’ve found quite fascinating— not only regarding the content: the various arguments for and against the theory that the moon landing was a hoax— but in the variety of types of responses: Many responders clearly exhibiting the emotional attachment to their position, anger at being challenged, and need to attack those challenging them, which characterizes religious believers.)
Me, I’m still agnostic on the hoax question; though I’m leaning towards the belief that the moon landing was indeed a hoax.
I recall having heard those arguments before, but never really taking them seriously; much like the trajectory of my beliefs about 9-11: gradually going from ‘There’s no way our leaders could or would have done that!’ to ‘Hmmm… there are a lot of unexplained anomalies in the official story’ to finally coming to the conclusion that, yes: the 9-11 Truthers are indeed correct.
But in any case: thanks to Ron Unz for making all this possible….
https://www.aulis.com/apollo17_ascent.htm
Thanks for that link. I had previously posted here a Youtube vid. showing the same alleged [hilariously comic] lunar [loony] event.
Someone [I forget who] then predictably claimed that the upwards tracking by the allegedly “fixed on moon buggy” camera of the modules ascent was accomplished via some genius NASA radio operator on earth.
And so it goes……..
Regards, onebornfree
One thing seems certain: sooner or later, the truth will come out:
Either the evidence will be found that we really did have men on the moon— the dune buggy, flag, etc. will be spotted and photographed— or the absence of this evidence will prove that it was indeed a giant hoax.
This thread is much too long.
I am neither a non-believer nor a belever.
If ‘Buzz’ Aldrin is ever tracking me down, I can be sure to receive a beating.
Which is funny.
However, I will raise a point that no-one else has.
Roscosmos was offering a circumlunar fllght (like Appolo VIIi) on a Soyuz for many years.
It was expensive, but far from excessive for the tech. space-nerd very wealthy men.
Why did nobody ever book a flight?
Why is it no longer on offer?
Dear Silvio,
This is an interesting thesis that I had never before considered— that I might be wrong.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
All the best,
RBS
“Wisnewski (130-139) provides a spectacular parallel showing how breaking news related to the Apollo program conveniently turned the American public’s eye away from Vietnam war crimes.”
Baloney. Pure conjecture. The Apollo program did very little to turn America’s eye from Vietnam.
I was there. Vietnam was the lead story on the evening news every day!
Remember, you are part of the wastematter subrace. Nature designates certain individuals to act as wastebaskets to remove genetic waste from the race.
Hence, it is no surprise that you can’t relate to functional white people like me. Functional white people have an average IQ of 105, while yours is just 70.
There hardly more damning proof than the fact that you are in denial of one of the greatest accomplishments of functional white men – putting men on the Moon and bringing them back safely. You are in denial that thousands of men worked on the Apollo project, because your IQ is too low to know that such jobs even exist.
But the supreme Dunning-Kruger nature of your posts makes your screeds entertaining.
Keep it up. But do get off my lawn, faggot!
Heh heh heh heh
Scam, Fake, Fraud All Integral And Necessary In Satanic Society
The Jew tells us,
Righto, Jew–like THERE’S NO PROOF. Not only is there no proof, but thou morons can’t even say what WOULD be proof.
For PROOF would be sense perception of the theory/abstraction in question, by definition, so what would be needed now is EVIDENCE which would indicate this sense perception once existed–thou have given NONE, and thou don’t even grasp what this evidence would consist of.
For as in archaeology, if one could find evidence of some earlier human presence, that would do it–but there’s NONE.
And all the evidence we DO have fairly SCREAMS fake, fake, fake, fraud, fraud, fraud–typical of the Jew-dominated dictatorship we have definitively had since US Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which initiated the criminal enterprise of central-banking (literally legalized counterfeiting)–see Mises.org for expo; use their site search-engine for particular terms.
It’s amazing the legion of stupid, brainless puke who (a) can’t figure-out the Fed (and fiat-currency) is a scam, and (b) that any country, as the whole world now is, ruled by such scam must turn into absolute satanic dictatorship(s), necessarily, everything oriented to keep the scam going and moving, as it has now for over 100 yrs(!) Truly, the world wars, 9/11 and JFK assassination, and including all the fake school-shooting hoaxes COULD NEVER have happened without the permission, blessings, and collaboration of the top-most higher-ups running the Fed.
Do you really believe this is fake? Evidently so.
Hoo, boy.
I guess I am obtuse, because I do not see any “masonic propaganda” in the film.
Please enlighten us.
I do believe, though I am not absolutely certain, the man talking to Dr. Draper on the steps of Bldg 10 @ ~4:00 is Howard W. Johnson, who was President of M.I.T. at that time. Perhaps you believe that HoJo was a high level participant in some Vast Masonic Conspiracy. Beats me. I only met HoJo once, and he seemed like a nice enough fellow to me, but what do I know?
Q: Do you believe that inertial guidance systems are real, or do you think that is all a fake, also?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_navigation_system
You might find the history interesting.
I must admit that, although I took a class in system dynamics and do understand the principles of feedback control, I still find the account of Draper’s inertial guidance system for aircraft amazing, mostly for the mechanical and electrical precision necessary to achieve the required accuracy.
Berkeley? Or?
What year?
I spent the summer of 1969 living in Berkeley and working here:
https://www.llnl.gov
Not really a joke. There was, and maybe still is, a lot of legacy software out there which was originally developed for punched card input. When I studied structural engineering at CSUF in the early 1980s, we used a version of STRUDL (Structural Design Language) which ran on the campus CDC Cyber 730 and accepted electronic files as input. However, the format of the input files was basically, as you say, “card image” relic of the original software , which used punch cards for input.
There was not yet a “graphical front end,” (draw the member on screen, have the member data input to the analysis model) which would be normal today.
I bought my first PC, a genuine IBM PC-XT with 8087 math co-processor, AST 6 pack plus (640kb RAM) and a Hayes 1200B modem in 1983 in order to run STRUDL problems by remote input using Kermit over a dial up line. I still have the machine, complete with docs, packed away in the attic of my garage, along with an Epson 132 column tractor feed dot matrix printer. PC also ran AutoCAD 2.17, as well as other software.
Did they still have 8″ floppies at that time?
My understanding is there may still be some of those in use in ICBM silos. (?)
Scary thought, if true…however, if it works, don’t knock it.
The “Minuteman”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-30_Minuteman
first entered service in 1962.
Check out the guidance system.
The bogus image atop this article is artwork from Shutterstock. Right click on the image, view image info.
At Shutterstock, I tracked the image to a portfolio from Canadian “photographer, illustrator/artist” Castleski, whose Apollo images are marked by his trademark fake sky backgrounds with stars and the Milky Way. One of his more fanciful creations shows two moon buggies in action complete with galactic background.
The image used on top here is described this way:
“Astronaut on lunar (moon) landing mission. Elements of this image furnished by NASA”
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Ebic/sets/11963261
What purpose Castleski had in mind in creating these bogus images remains beyond my ken, but he has cranked out a lot of generic content for Shutterstock, most of it fairly straightforward topical clip art not nearly in the same realms of fanciful cheesiness as his Apollo stuff, but let’s call it call it artistic license, and move on.
Here is a somewhat corresponding iconic NASA image from Apollo 17. Study of this image will result in a more profitable use of our time, so please have a close look.
AS17-134-20384
If you read my earlier comments about handling the Hasselblad and its magazines while wearing bulky suit and gloves, the photo gives a good view of the blade fastener used to attach the film magazine/camera to the rather substantial mount on the astronaut’s space suit. I’d guesstimate the whole shebang protruded close to 12 inches or more
I speculate above that the reason the astronauts had to go through that whole involved routine lowering camera and magazine on a cord to the astronaut on the lunar surface, and then hoisting exposed magazines back up to the LM, was because the camera was too bulky to wear disembarking from the LM on the ladder, and presumably going back up.
Here we have both astronauts Schmitt and Cernan down on the lunar surface, so now the issue of the magazines and the camera getting back and forth to and from LM becomes a little more problematic with nobody home in the LM to do the hoisting.
Food for thought.
At any rate, one cannot fail to be impressed by the remarkable artistic composition achieved by commander Gene Cernan with that doggone chest-mounted camera. Note that the camera has been rotated somehow so that the flagpole and Harrison Schmitt’s antenna have been displaced from their expected normal vertical orientation, and are pointing off to the right so that the Moon has been positioned rather stylishly and dramatically at the top of the photograph.
However, in the reflection on Schmitt’s visor, Cernan’s posture seems bent a little at the knees, but he seems to be standing mostly straight up, and doesn’t appear to be twisting, bending, or rotating his upper body (and the camera) in a way that could account for the rotation apparent in the photograph, so how did he do that?
There is another conundrum with respect to the reflection..
Prior to fairly recently I had simply never thought about there being anything but a moon landing. I always thought it odd with the space shuttle program that we didn’t head back to the moon since that would be a great PR stunt and slap in the face of enemy nations. I think there should be debate without all the name calling. Focus on the problems and issues that critical thinkers have identified and see what the explanations are and if it jives. There’s so much I don’t know that just reading about shadow anomalies in pictures isn’t enough to say one way or the other, but the preponderance of evidence will show what is. Human behavior patterns show there are some serious problems as to whether we went to the moon or not. I find it all very fascinating really, but it’s not going to stop war, solve world hunger, end illegal US taxation, and get the homeless back to working so they can feed and house themselves like the rest of us. Sometimes you have to let sleeping dogs remain. And sometimes you have to let go something that is not going to really change anything in our world. Could we get all the scientists and analysts to take the time to stop 5G from killing off people in the here and now? That would help do something today that benefits our world for tomorrow. Remember though, to everything there is a beginning and an end and this moon landing hoax/lie will end eventually with the truth burying the lie forever.
I doubt it. Defenders of the official narrative will just say that the moon is such a harsh environment that everything disintegrated.
Kinda like all the plane parts at the sites of the alleged plane crashes on 9/11.
Christianity: Western Defense Against Satanism, Jews
Billy-boy, thou are just a dumb-ass who FAILS to appreciate literature, like New Test. which is a dramatic presentation and DIALECTIC at its core btwn TRUTH (= Christ, Gosp. JOHN 14:6) vs. satanic lies, liars, and lying, like Jews (JOHN 8:44), foremost Satanists, Jews thinking they could kill truth, but truth resurrecting nonetheless because, as truth is based necessarily on OBJECTIVE reality (God-created), not merely on what rabbis say according to “midrash” (interpretation) and “Oral Law Tradition,” truth cannot be killed–which is always and ever the greatest surprise for dirty, filthy, murdering monsters we know as Jews. See Talmudical.BlogSpot.com, RevisionistReview.BlogSpot.com, and Come-and-hear.com for best expo.
Thus to the true Christian, TRUTH IS GOD, thou poor, stupid, ignorant moron who imagines thou are fit to be lecturing others, esp. Christians.
Thus New Test. simply replaced Homer’s “Illiad” and “Oddyssey” for instruction in Western Culture as to basic architecture of the universe and then, especially, the ethical manner by which to think and act. It wasn’t necessary to “beeeeleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevin’” in Zeus or Athena for the great value of Homer–it isn’t the ideal to “beeeeeeeeeleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevin’” in anything, because under the TRUTH ideal, “beeeeeleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevin’” doesn’t make anything true or real–like the Jews believe, sucker–thou ought to try thinking about the opposed ideals (objective vs subjective).
For Jews are subjectivists and Satanists (which is extreme subjectivism), Satanism beginning in simple PHILOSOPHIC premise that reality is created by consciousness/mentality, making subject God, the creator–Satanism, by definition, Judaism being mere particular form and elaboration of satanism. Thus it’s Jews and fellow Satanists who put all the emphasis upon “beeeeeleeeeeeeeeeeevin’” in order thus to make their lies and delusions real as possible to them.
Jews dominate because among Satanists they’re COLLECTIVSTIC subjectivists, MOST committed, motivated, and especially ORGANIZED, rendering their “group-think” most effective, thus leading, dominating, and manipulating all the other subjectivists/Satanists among more numerous goyim, all these Satanists together, Jew and goyim, then intimidating the rest of the gentiles in a corrupt, mature, and now degenerate empire/society in “Decline of the West,” by Oswald Spengler.
And consistent w. TRUTH (= Christ) ideal, the Holy Spirit consists of REASON, along w. honesty and integrity–which is something a dumbshit like thyself can’t figure-out. It’s an ignorant little puke like thou who should be learning fm thy wiser relatives who value and revere our dear Western Christian heritage, sucker. See my above # 1078 and # 1058 for alternative views to thine and Rurik’s.
You may be right: some folks, anyway, will always believe what they’re told by those ‘in authority’; especially if it keeps them from having to think too much, especially about long-held beliefs.
OTOH, I expect such a blatant falsehood would also have the effect of waking some people up; just like those ‘disappearing’ plane parts did…
They jumped from massive hand woven memory cores and giant trunks of CPU to a complete module that would fit in a carry-on in what, 6 months? a year? About the size of an Osborne briefcase computer which didn’t come out for another 12 years anyway.
Freemasons swear an oath to hire freemasons first. Nasa went from 0-400,000 people dependent on the gravy train in a few years. The first ones in were Masons, and the ones that followed too.
So when I look at these interviews, I see freemasons looking me in the face and lying.
I do not mean that they knew what was going on with the hoax, but lying because they were part of a shadow organization that was deceiving and plundering those who were not in the know.
Actually at McClellan it was TI mini computers. There may have been an 8″ disk but all the data interfacing I did was with reels of memorex tape.
Davis.
LOL…
I wondered if I’d be hearing from you, on this, my very first post on Unz…
And I must say: your grasp of Christianity— of TRUTH— is truly awesome!
Very Christ-like… chock-full of “the Holy Spirit”…
I guess the NT translations I’ve read simply failed to render Jesus’s words accurately; you know, all those instances where he referred to his opponents as “dirty filthy pukes”, “dumbasses”, “ignorant dumbshits”, etc…
Clearly, he could have learned a thing or two from you about how to express himself…
I read quickly through that report and it is a very interesting story although I think the emphasis was more on rivalry than on cooperation. There seems to have been some skulduggery and cloak-and-dagger stuff going on, and it doesn’t quite explain how or why that capsule,, which landed in the Bay of Biscay off the French coast, ended up in Soviet hands. Like did the Soviets come across it accidentally or did they deliberately track and seize it, even creating some diversion, to prevent the US from recovering it? Of course they later returned it in front of the media, after having examined it, and gained some PR points.
What is strange is that they did not report this incident to the Soviet public but only to the outside world, or so that article claims (but it also states that recent reviews in the US also incorrectly claimed that the incident was hidden from the US public too, so who knows?) . Since it was embarrassing to the US to have lost an Apollo capsule to the Soviets you would have thought they would have been more than happy to report it in the Soviet media.
LUNAR LASER RANGING
Dear Mr Anon
I agree that the first laser range measurements to the moon took place in 1962. The measurements were performed by MIT, and the name of the project was Luna See. The laser beam was scattered by the lunar surface and a few photons could be received per pulse. The number of received photons is in line with the theory.
After the Apollo 11 mission several observatories claimed to have performed laser range measurements to Apollo retro reflectors. But none of these observatories could measure the expected amplification of such a retro reflector. The number of received photons fits perfectly to the scattered light from the lunar surface. With other words: there are no Apollo retroreflectors on the moon.
The justification is here: https://www.aulis.com/laser.htm
Above refers to a previous article:
https://www.aulis.com/april_november.htm
More explanations are given in:
https://www.aulis.com/odyssey_apollo.htm
Just reading through this one now. The first article had me wondering where were the astronauts; the Soviets recovered an empty Apollo capsule?
Thanks Cowboy, I wasn’t aware of this incident, amazing stuff. Very thought provoking and I recommend others read them in that order.
Heavier than air manned flight was a greater obstacle to overcome than firing a rocket into space and putting a man on the moon. Do all the doubters who say we never went to the moon also believe that airplanes are a hoax?
We certainly went to the Moon. That’s because we had a President who was truly America First and put the interests of the warmongers dead last. JFK’s tenure and the Apollo Program were America’s finest hour. November 22, 1963 is the demarcation line between an America that was truly great and the present nightmare. We could go back. But it won’t happen under a President Trump. It could have happened under a President Paul or a President Buchanan, but America has rejected their vision and that path.
I do have one criticism of the Apollo missions. It has to do with the experiments they conducted on the Lunar surface. Or, rather, the lack of one experiment that should have been done. The experiment that should have been done was an interferometer experiment like the one done by Michelson-Morley nearly a century earlier. Michelson-Morley had set out to prove that the earth was actually rotating and revolving. The ended up with a null result. The importance of their experiment was summed up by Einstein’s biographer:
“In the United States Albert Michelson and Edward Morley had performed an experiment which confronted scientists with an appalling choice. Designed to show the existence of the ether, at that time considered essential, it had yielded a null result, leaving science with the alternatives of tossing aside the key [the ether] which had helped to explain the phenomena of electricity, magnetism, and light or of deciding that the Earth was not in fact moving at all.”
Actually, it is not correct to state that the Michelson-Morley yielded a null result. It had actually yielded a small positive result. Not fringe shift to prove the Earth was revolving in the Ether, but a small fringe shift which equated to the velocity of Earth’s rotation. But this presented a problem, for in the Heliocentric Model you cannot have a rotating Earth without a revolving Earth. The Geostatic Model, however, can explain this contradiction. Einstein was brought in to explain away these inconvenient results and the solution was to eliminate the Ether all together, not based on scientific results but rather for reasons of ideology. Special Relativity was therefore invented due to Science’s failure to experimentally prove that the Earth both rotates and revolves. Michelson-Morley faded into obscurity, even though they had just proven that the Earth does not revolve. What they had also proven was that the Ether (which does in fact exist; Ether is the medium of space; space is not a vacuum as we now know) was rotating around a fixed Earth in a 24hr period. They had actually proven the Geostatic Model, a Model which Tycho Brahe had observed and documented hundreds of years earlier. And there is one sure way of demonstrating that the Michelson-Morley experiment was correct: it must be conducted on another planet or heavenly body. If it were to be conducted on the Moon, it would yield the known velocity of the Moon through the Ether, thus proving that the original experiment was not flawed and that the Earth in fact does not revolve around the Sun and is instead fixed in Space, the center of Mass of a rotating Universe. Of course, such a result is anathema to modern, Materialist science and has been since the Copernican “revolution.” So, an interferometer experiment on the Moon will probably never be allowed by the current Gatekeepers. But when such an interferometer experiment is conducted on the Moon, it will change history.
Smart-Ass Punk Soooooooooooo “Clever”
Righto, shit-for-brains: ck Gosp. MATT, entire ch. 23, all 39 verses, where he calls Pharisees “serpents and vipers,” and don’t forget the way he cleared the Temple of money-changers, sucker.
And try, thou little piece-of-shit, to grasp the SUBSTANCE of the story, dumb little bastard, rather than the style. Note style has to do w. audience, and audience of this site, including a little punk like thou, is diff. fm that wider audience of general New Test. lit.
Essence of Holy Spirit is HONESTY, and it’s simply the fact that thou are a scummy little bastard–am I right?–tell us true, sucker Ho ho ho ho hoo ho
Thou Want Proof, Suckas?–HERE’S Proof For Thou Scum, By Golly, By Jove
Latest Jewwy genius tells us:
And isn’t the reasoning so absolutely water-tight?–“that’s because . . . pres. was America First….” By golly–leaves so little room for doubt, eh? Ho ho ho ho ho
So along w. good Jew, Unz, who will defer to the rabbis and “experts” for what he’s supposed to think, here the world has perfect picture of sort of geniuses who suck along w. ZOG pretending to manned moon-landing.
The difference being that:
1) Jesus knew the people he was insulting; while your insults are directed at total strangers, of whom you know next to nothing;
2) Jesus was confronting his opponents face-to-face; while I seriously doubt whether you’d have the balls to say the things you do, if the persons you were insulting were standing there in front of you.
In my neighborhood, anyway, you’d end up on a stretcher; no doubt telling the EMTs who were wheeling you away what worthless dumbasses they are.
In other words: you’re clearly the kind of spineless coward who can only talk like you do, when safely ensconced behind a wall of internet anonymity. Is this how you talk to people in real life? (Assuming you have a life… and don’t spend all your waking hours here online, insulting total strangers…?)
3) If you truly think that the way you act on this forum is in any way representative of Christian truth and virtue, then you truly are as crazy as you sound; which is pretty damn crazy.
But for sure, Jesus— according to the story— was no pacifist: when he cleared the Temple of moneychangers, none of the burly Temple guards dared try and stop him. So yeah, he must have been pretty formidable: he wasn’t afraid to speak his mind to power, or to act aggressively when the situation called for it.
And then there’s Luke 22:36….
But— in the story— Jesus’s insults and aggression had a point; he was standing for something. While yours are completely gratuitous, pathetically so: you could make your points just as well without them.
In fact, it’s quite clear that you enjoy finding an occasion to hurl insults at people; while safely hiding behind your keyboard.
Some sick shit…. nothing at all like the Jesus of the NT…
Well thank for the info.
I guess we’ll just have to be content with the fact that we two [and maybe one or two others] understand that that image is a “spoof”.
There appear to be very few here who have any sort of eye for this sort of visual detective work, even with obvious clues left in this particular example. Which explains a lot vis a vis the general negative, “naysayer” reaction to “the images are all fakes” observations people such as you and I have made. [ At least I assume you have- I have not read all of your posts in this thread.]
Which of course, bodes well for he NASA fakers- their secret is still safe, so the stolen money they all wallow in will continue to flow into their pockets, and they can carry on with their next big scam[s], in the spirit of the ISS and the Mars rover scams. The serfs/ slaves will continue to swallow the NASA scams “hook, line and sinker”, and people such as myself will at least have plenty more to laugh at 🙂 . [Pass the popcorn].
Regards, onebornfree
Awwwwww, Truth HURTS Little Punk
Ho hoohooho hoho ho, thou should change moniker to “little brains,” hoh o ho. So little shit wants to talk tough to an honest Christian:
But puke-brains, don’t we know ENOUGH about thou, just by what thou have said to us all? And they’re not “insults,” little moron–they’re TRUTH, sucker–facts, perfectly demonstrable–anyone reading thy crap can see for himself, eh?
And why would anyone bother w. puke such as thou beyond writing on comments pages informing the world in entertaining style what moronic, ignorant trash thou obviously are, thou pretending thou are smarter (ho ho ho ho) than Christians? And someone would “end up on stretcher”?–but what then does stupid shit like thou think would happen to thou, eh sucker?–thou show how stupid thou are by allowing someone to coming-back at thou, ho ho ho ho ho.
Indeed, sucker–that’s excellent way to be HONEST, in best Christian, honest style, speaking truth to little tough-talking punk like thou, eh?
Then, in typical stupid style for thy 3rd pt., thou say my being HONEST w. thou isn’t “representative,” and assert/declare I’m crazy, but thou don’t say why such honesty and truth is “crazy”–UNLESS thou admits tacitly thou are just little psycho who doesn’t tolerate truth and honesty–just ANOTHER great thing about I-net anonymity, eh scum?
So anyway, thou stupid, ignorant little punk, regardless thy moronic declarations, do thou doubt anyone else reading these lines would acknowledge I’m being PERFECTLY HONEST w. scum like thou?–and fact being thou just can’t stand such Christian honesty and truth–that’s the real fact, isn’t it, punk? So tell us more about Christianity, scum, hooh o ho ho ho ho
That part where Houston were getting the 1204 error as Armstrong was landing, and one dude just happened to have the hand written error table. Then, presto, they realized that Aldrich had prematurely turned on some radar that overloaded the cpu. The astute masonic Nasa “scientists” and their “astronaut” Armstrong bravely overrode the blaring alarms and sirens due error 1204, which was the CPU execution queue getting too long.
Really? 100 people and only one guy has the error table handy? One thing that I have always found incredible is the hundreds of people standing around watching this stuff. Don’t they have anything better to do? And all those terminals and fancy desks. A terminal like one of those cost thousands of dollars back in the day. The wiring was incredibly complicated as there were no networks. Are they all connected over 1200 baud RS232?
a second look to that NASA paper shows that the weight of the module is totally inconsistent with an all around thickness of 10cm aluminum equivalent. Since one dimension is specified, with a ruler I derived the others. I can see that the module has a surface area of some 30 square meters. If it had a thickness of 10 cm, with aluminum density, it would weigh closer to 30,000 lbs, not 3,000.
Thank you Mike. I enjoy reading your comments and consider your’s to be a voice of reason.
Are you from the midwest?
This article claims the computer specifications on the Command Module and Lunar Module shown by NASA were fakes. I don’t have the expertise to know, but it sounds like you would. Your view would be appreciated:
https://www.aulis.com/pascal.htm
I agree that it raises a red flag when Freemasons are involved in a high-profile event. Another example would be Michael Richards and his racial tirade.
Your observation raises the question of whether it is just a coincidence, however. I wonder what percentage of the astronauts’ peers (i.e., similar ethnic and socioeconomic background) were Freemasons. Then one could calculate the statistical significance.
OK; but first a little about You:
Anywhere I’ve ever been, talking like you do— routinely beginning a conversation with a total stranger by insulting and demeaning them— would get your ass kicked: you’d be fighting all the time.
So it seems like there’s just a couple possibilities here:
1) You don’t talk like that in person: you save your ‘truth-telling’ for when you’re online; that would be my guess;
or maybe:
2) You do talk like that in person; but you’re so damn tough that nobody dares challenge you.
But somehow, I just don’t think that’s the case…
I’ve known some truly tough men: men who’ve proven their toughness many times over. Real ‘warriors for Christ’.
And to a man, they’re all polite and soft-spoken. None of them would go out of their way to insult someone. None of them would begin a conversation by demeaning the person they were talking to.
They’re *nothing like you*….
leading me to suspect that you’re
*nothing like them*: not a real man at all:
You’re a pompous, egotistical, cowardly fool— and if you’re serious about the stuff you’re saying, severely disturbed— who thinks that by demeaning others, you’re somehow elevating yourself.
Who— while aggressively touting Christianity at every turn— hasn’t even begun to master the basic principles of the Christian life.
For starters, check these out:
Does this sound like you?
Proverbs 12:16 The fool shows angers straightaway, the discrete conceals dislike.
14:29 Mastery of temper is high proof of intelligence, a quick temper makes folly worse than ever.
15:1 A mild answer turns away wrath, but sharp words stir up anger.
15:18 The hot-headed provokes disputes, but the equable allays dissension.
16:32 Better an equable person than a hero, someone with self-mastery than one who takes a city.
19:11 Good sense makes for self-control. and for pride in overlooking an offense.
Many alternative media sites have been able to see through the moon landing lies. Perhaps “Winter Watch” can help Ron over the cognitive dissonance hump.
https://www.winterwatch.net/2019/04/lunar-lunacy-disappearing-moon-rocks-contradictory-data-missing-apollo-film-reels-and-destroyed-mission-technology/
Punk Absolutely HATES Truth & Honesty; Won’t Admit It, Ho Ho Ho
Shit-for-brains: what makes thou think I’m “angry”?–ho ho ho ho, on the contrary, sucker, I laugh at a stupid p.o.s. like thou, and I didn’t lose any “temper,” wishful-thinking moron, ho hoh o ho–see what an idiot thou are? So here’s the OBVIOUS fact, anyone who reads these can see: THOU RESENTS TRUTH AND HONESTY, and NO ONE needs idiot lectures about Christianity fm moron like thou, suck-hole–try to getting that through thy thick skull, scum. Ho ho ho ho
Don’t Forget: Unz Is Jew
Johnny, buddy: get the clue; take the hint–Unz is determined to await the adjudication of the rabbis and “experts” to find out how then to think–don’t doubt Unz is JEW w. capital “J,” indubitably.
I point out that the denialists seem to be wholly incapable of generating actual numbers to back up their feelz, or even understanding the units that those numbers should be in — and you respond with a post that is also… entirely bereft of numbers, yet just chock-full of feelz. Interesting.
You misspelled “feelings.”
You misspelled “feel.”
Pot; kettle.
Your “this subject is too complicated for Peredur to understand without actually exerting himself to learn something” point has exactly zero value proving your “Van Allen Belts = INSTANT DEATH!!!” hypothesis. You realize that, right?
Are you attempting to make a point about thrust vs. weight vs. fuel required? Radiation exposure? Or — as it seems — are you merely babbling incoherently? If you believe that the Saturn V lacked the thrust or fuel capacity to launch its (known) payload to the Moon, then generate some numbers to back up your feelz.
To address your questions — I’ll be glad to assist you with your gross ignorance of basic physics and astronomy. Though it’s not at all clear why you are lacking in the minimal intellectual curiosity and agency required to look up the answers to these questions yourself. At least you’re not trying to promote the moronic “Dere ain’t no stars in deme dere pitchers!” canard, though…
How big are the waves in the Pacific Ocean? Depends on exactly where and when, and the weather at the time. (“Weather,” in this analogy, would be solar activity, of course). You realize that the Van Allen Belts are not fixed, homogeneous, unchanging structures — don’t you? That said:
The Van Allen radiation belts are a torus (doughnut shape) of energetic charged particles circling Earth around its magnetic equator and held in place by Earth’s magnetic field. The inner Van Allen Belt extends typically from an altitude of 0.2 to 2 Earth radii or 1,000 km (620 mi) to 6,000 km (3,700 mi) above the Earth, and contains high concentrations of electrons in the range of hundreds of keV and energetic protons with energies exceeding 100 MeV. The outer belt consists mainly of high energy (0.1–10 MeV) electrons trapped by the Earth’s magnetosphere. It is more variable than the inner belt. It is almost toroidal in shape, beginning at an altitude of three and extending to ten Earth radii (RE) 13,000 to 60,000 kilometres (8,100 to 37,300 mi) above the Earth’s surface. Its greatest intensity is usually around 4–5 RE.
So the high-energy particles in the inner VAB are largely protons; in the outer one they’re largely electrons. Flux for protons with >0.1 MeV looks like this (inclination is relative to the magnetic equator, not geographic, for obvious reasons):
https://postimg.cc/0Kx8tLTD
Peak flux is 2 x 10^8 per cm^2 per second — sounds like a pretty big number.
Flux for electrons with >0.1 MeV looks impressive, too — shown with Apollo 11 trajectory superimposed. Red dots are 10 minutes apart:
https://postimg.cc/gnZV4CGW
But the flux of > 100 MeV protons is much lower. Here’s that — again shown with Apollo 11 trajectory superimposed:
https://postimg.cc/Fd27ZWpQ
For electrons, the AE8 electron data shows negligible flux (100 MeV is what really matters, as lower-energy protons (and almost all electrons) in the belts would be stopped by the hull of the command module, which had a shielding rating of around 7-10 g/cm^2.
More on the Van Allen Belts and general issues of radiation and shielding:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2003SW000026
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050215115.pdf
https://three.jsc.nasa.gov/articles/Shielding81109.pdf
http://virbo.org/
For Apollo 11? Just under 6 minutes to skirt the edge of the inner belt after leaving low earth orbit (LEO):
[all times on Jul 16, 1969]
Elapsed time GMT
Liftoff
000:00:00.63 13:32:00
Earth orbit insertion. Initial Earth orbit of 114 by 116 miles (185 km) altitude.
000:11:49.33 13:43:49
S-IVB 2nd burn ignition — leaving LEO for translunar injection:
002:44:16.2 16:16:16
5 minutes 57 seconds later:
002:50:13.03 16:22:13
10,834.3 m/s 6,712 km from Earth — already past inner belt
004:00:00 17:32:00
5,318.1 m/s 26,866 km from Earth — past the intense part of the second belt (90% of radiation)
006:30:00 20:02:00 16 Jul 1969 3,425.5 60,738 km from Earth
Entirely past the last vestiges of the outer belt.
This is already too long, and I’ve already spoon-fed you a lot of basic information that you’re too lazy to look up yourself — I suggest you show some agency, and attempt to educate yourself on this subject, starting with:
https://hps.org/
[Health Physics Society]
You might also wish to acquaint yourself with the difference between measurements/ units of:
1. Amount of ionizing radiation emitted
2. Absorbed radiation
3. Biologically effective dose — this is the whole rationale for units like rems or sieverts, of course.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_biological_effectiveness
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Nuclear/radrisk.html
See above.
Short answer — not a significant issue. Long answer — here’s a good quantitative analysis of Apollo 11 radiation exposure — including the issue of bremsstrahlung:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160608082332/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
Conclusion — the predicted total dose to a completely unshielded (naked, on the exterior of the capsule) Apollo 11 astronaut from transiting the Van Allen Belts would be about 180 rem (1800 millisieverts) — enough to cause radiation sickness, but death (from radiation) would be unlikely. Predicted dose to the astronauts as shielded by the capsule? About 32 mrem (0.016 rads, or 0.32 millisieverts, since high-energy protons have an RBE of 2) — all from protons ≥100 MeV. The majority of the radiation exposure of Apollo astronauts was actually from galactic cosmic rays (GCR) — low flux, but high energy.
It appears that you disagree with this conclusion.
Please present your calculations for the expected radiation dose from VAB transit for any one of the Apollo missions, and the result of those calculations.
You may use the NASA model of Van Allen Belt radiation — the AE-8 and AP-8 versions are online here:
https://ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/modelweb/models/trap.php
[The AE-8 and AP-8 models consist of maps that contain omnidirectional, integral electron (AE maps) and proton (AP maps) fluxes in the energy range 0.04 MeV to 7 MeV for electrons and 0.1 MeV to 400 MeV for protons in the Earth’s radiation belt. The fluxes are stored as functions of energy, L-value, and B/B0. The maps are based on data from more than twenty satellites from the early 1960s to the mid-1970s. AE-8 and AP-8 are the latest editions in a series of updates starting with AE-1 and AP-1 in 1966.]
Or you may use the AE-9/ AP-9 version, if you can find it online.
You’re also welcome to use your own model of Van Allen Belt radiation — as long as it’s based on something other than your feelz. I’m sure we can expect a detailed, empirically-based quantitative analysis from you… any minute now, right?
A final point:
The “Van Allen Belts = INSTANT DEATH!!!” shills claim that any astronaut traveling above low earth orbit (LEO) would be quickly fried by the intense, evil radiation of the belts — which is why current missions remain in LEO, since it keeps them safely out of the VABs. Except… it doesn’t keep them out of the belts entirely. See this phenomenon:
https://infogalactic.com/info/South_Atlantic_Anomaly
The South Atlantic Anomaly is an area off Brazil where the inner Van Allen Belt comes within 200 km of the Earth’s surface — right down through LEO altitude. The International Space Station traverses the South Atlantic Anomaly on a regular basis — as did Mir before it. For ISS astronauts/ cosmonauts — unlike the Apollo astronauts — the majority of their radiation exposure comes from their brief transits of this part of the inner VAB (average about 10 min/ day). Yet strangely, none of them have died of radiation sickness so far.
Maybe the ISS is just a big hoax, too. And GPS. And communications satellites. And…
It would require a great many more footprints to erase any tyre tracks and the picture clearly shows that this is NOT the case. Please try harder.
Your comments are repelling and sickening, Apollonian. Please, pretty please, give it a rest.
Your continued pathetic failure to support your nonsensical “B-b-but dere ain’t no stars in dem dere pitchers!!!” delusions with what normal people refer to as “logic” and “facts” is again noted.
Your may post some more nonsensical blabber in yet another vain attempt to distract from your failure now…
I guess you’re right…. the shining effulgent light of your Christ-like Spirit must have blinded me….
But I can see it now: clearly. your behavior here exemplifies everything the NT holds up as good: clearly, this is describing You:
“….but the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, truthfulness, gentleness and self-control; no law can touch such things as these.
All who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the self with all it’s passions and it’s desires.
Since we are living by the Spirit, let our behavior be guided by the Spirit.”
It’s like the writer of Galatians must have had you in mind when he wrote it…
The moon landing was real.
A moon landing was faked.
Solved.
Cass Sunstien days hello.
You really are unhinged, aren’t you? Where did I say anything about stars? (This seems to be your favorite refrain, for some reason.) Show me one post.
Iris: GFY, scum–don’t like it?–don’t read, moron. Ho ho ho ho
That’s nice, but awfully naive. Letting sleeping dogs lie isn’t such aa good plan if they’ve been shown to be aggressive and untrustworthy dogs in the past. Yes, the lie will come out eventually, there’s even an old saying, Truth will out, but it will come out well after the lie has accomplished most of its objectives among which in this case includes consuming enormous budgetary allocations (tax dollars) away from being spent enriching the society in which those tax-payers live and in providing a distraction away from ingoing massive law breaking, corruption and even treason.
It’s also just one of several things functioning as a totem for the various chest-thumpers, the USA! USA! USA! Number One, right or wrong crowd who daily manage to overlook such visible signs of poor governance as rampant war-crimes, homelessness, unemployment, healthcare crises, too much crime, the undermining of democracy, limitations on free speech etc.
Lies and the liars who propagate them do enormous damage to everyone, everywhere so they should be examined and exposed whenever possible. Liars and the lies that have led to war should bear full responsibility for the damage they have caused. An old friend, a Marine veteran of the war in Vietnam used to say that the war and the space race had destroyed America’s future. He understood the situation far better than most.
By pointing the camera in any direction other than one in which the sun is directly in front of the lens, or directly behind it. This is not a difficult concept, btw.
Part of the problem seems to be that you are wholly unfamiliar with this concept:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)
You might wish to read about it — it might help to clear things up for you.
In photos taken of the scene? No. See the concept of “perspective,” above.
Dumbass Keeps Babbling, Pretending He Knows All About Christianity
Dipshit: Thou (and perhaps St. Paul) are absolutely right, for after I’ve given thou a good dose of truth and honesty, I certainly do feel,
though NOT towards scum like thou, thou little puke, ho o ho ho oho ho ho hooho. Just think of me as soldier of God, sucker, ho ho ho ho ho
So you’re finally abandoning the long-debunked “Dere ain’t no stars in dem dere pitchers” canard?
Perhaps you are minimally educable, after all.
You do remember that the sole reason for your incoherent blabbering in the first place was your attempt to claim that it was “not fair” that I pointed out how idiotic the “no stars” trope was… don’t you?
Which leaves you without even the faintest excuse for an actual argument, of course — you’re openly admitting that you’re just randomly emoting, in a desperate, failed attempt to distract from your complete inability to construct anything even approaching a logical, empirically-based argument to support your feelz.
Boomer
I agree on both points, especially the second…television in particular has turned out to be a mass hypnosis machine of almost unimaginable power…
The first point, the advancement of technology is a little more nuanced in my opinion…
For instance the rocket engine [or the jet engine] of today is incrementally better than 50 years ago, but not anything like the huge leap that we see in electronics for instance, or precision instruments like inertial gyros…
We have seen also a similarly incremental advance in materials science…but again, nothing major…that is why the question of heat shielding for such high atmospheric reentry speeds like you get with a moon return is still not solved…this is nicely documented by the government itself…as seen in the many references in this quite serious article…
Is There Any Hope for a Moon Base?
Is it possible to have gone to the moon with 1960s technology…?
Well…in order to answer that you have to look at all the various pieces in some detail…that includes the engines…the thermal protection system for reentry…the docking technology for the lunar orbit rendezvous…etc…
A serious discussion on those subjects is way beyond this nutty thread…
Nope. Guy could be spewing to total BS, and I would not know it.
However, try Googling “ferrite core memory,” as I did.
Here are some interesting links:
Shows a ferrite core plane from an IBM 360/30, a machine for which I actually wrote application programs, working in private industry during 1970-71.
which references some other fascinating stuff, e.g.
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/index.html
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/ForDummies.html
https://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/Colossus.html
Uses terminology which should be understandable to anyone with a basic grounding in computer technology.
I think if you really want to understand this topic in detail, you have got your work cut out for you. 🙂
Have fun… 🙂
Looks like part of that got cut out — “less than symbol” was interpreted as HTML Should be:
“For electrons, the AE8 electron data shows negligible flux [less than 1 electron per square cm per sec] over 10^7 MeV at any altitude. Why does that matter?
Energy Range in Aluminum [cm]
[MeV] electrons protons
1 0.15 minimal
3 0.56 minimal
10 1.85 0.06
30 no flux 0.37
100 no flux 3.7
So the flux of protons with >100 MeV is what really matters, as lower-energy protons — and almost all electrons at energies present in the Van Allen Belts — would be stopped by the hull of the command module, which had a shielding rating of around 7-10 g/cm^2.
“Gas chambers” in that context was intended to mean “gas chambers used for the execution of humans.” But yeah — the principles are the same. The narrative largely steers clear of the details of the supposed “gas chambers” — and for good reason.
You mean to say that Apollo 11’s shielding sufficed to reduce the dosage by a factor of 180 rem/32mrem = 5,600? That sounds very optimistic.
But regardless of what the effective dosage on a lunar mission would have been – no amount of shielding gets you around the problem that the low Earth orbit Apollo missions 7 and 9 had almost the same dosages as the alleged lunar missions, even though the radiation intensity in Earth orbit is not only way lower than in the van Allen belts, but also lower than in the space beyond, particularly if you take into consideration the solar activity that prevailed in 1969. As long as Apollo 9 and Apollo 11 had the same shielding, the dosages measured about both should reflect this difference – yet they were almost the same. You simply cannot reconcile this with the fairy tale of the lunar flight.
ROFLMAO. 🙂
Sheesh. You could transport some of these people to the Moon, and they would claim that was a fake, too…probably just a “hologram” created for their benefit by Stanley Kubrick just before he died, eh?
Thanks for detailed post.
Iris has in the past received many words of approval and appreciation of her comments from other commenters so it would be wise to not dismiss her outright nor to not pay heed to her suggestion. To begin with you’ve been extremely insulting to Ron Unz, the person who hosts the very site that you appear to enjoy commenting on. Is that a good idea? Is it smart? I’d think not. He’s obviously very bright and likely intensely focussed on what he considers his main occupation and his own opinions are for him to determine which to hold and you can question those using the reply function.
It is not an easy journey from discovering that a certain narrative on a major historical event is false and that the truth has been intentionally covered up to realising that that is the norm and nothing should be accepted at face value, whatever the source and however outrageous. If the past is the best predictor of behaviour in the future then we can only expect the deceptions to continue and to escalate.
If you really do consider yourself to be a Christian, accept my word that you do a better job of undermining the image of Christianity than almost anyone. Your language is both vile and infantile and your mental state appears to be rabid, but please don’t take that the wrong way. Ease up a bit.
Have a look at Figure 6 of this NASA document
https://three.jsc.nasa.gov/articles/Shielding81109.pdf
The shielding is very heterogeneous; 30% of the surface are rated at below 3 g/cm^2. These 30% would contribute very disproportionally to the total exposure – it is rather like wearing a warm coat but only light pants on a cold winter day.
Some good science-based informational comments might just salvage the entire thread actually. It has already been pointed out that few minds have likely been changed but some clearly written examination of what was and is possible and what is not, starting with the things that you mentioned, the engines…the thermal protection system for reentry…the docking technology for the lunar orbit rendezvous…etc… That might prove to be quite useful and you do have form in doing just that, and rather well too.
Are you going to show me where I said anything about stars, or not? If not, it’s safe to conclude that you’re just a shabby little liar. Or maybe just a mentally imbalanced idiot who’s confused me with someone else. (Not mutually exclusive, of course.)
Dumbasses Can’t Take Hint
Suck-holes, including thou dumb bastards stupid enough to “agree” w. this dipshit, didja’ see what I told that busy-body, “iris”?–same goes for thou morons–and thou should have known I’d say something quite like this, thou brainless puke. Unz KNOWS he deserves EVERY little bit I dish-out, and a lot more, besides, ho ho ho ho ho. Sometimes, I suspect, Unz appreciates real, serious Christian HONESTY, suckers, ho ho ho ho–at least he finds it amusing, under circumstances. Regardless, don’t forget to take same advice I gave old “Iris,” suckers, ho ho ho hoh ho
Scum Can’t Admit There’s NO PROOF, Morons, Ho Ho Ho
By golly, but here I’ve got two stinking, Jewwy pieces-of-shit in one shot, ho ho ho ho. Shit-holes, don’t thou realize all thou have done is a lot of idiot babbling, citing crap and tid-bits, evidently thinking thou are rebutting some arguments, etc.
But dumbasses, the whole pt. is that manned moon-landing is/was hoax–get it, puke? So the question is regarding the actual PROOF for the thesis landing–thou have NONE, suckers, and thou are just tooooo stupid to face-up to it, though thou scum like to babbling, eh?–ho hoo ho hoho.
There’s no proof or substantial evidence for any such landing, while there’s heaps of evidence for scam, fraud, etc., typical of this putrid Jew-dominated satanic empire openly working for Agenda-21 -2030 GENOCIDE–SUCH ARE THE FACTS, punks.
And that’s long and short of it all for this thread consisting now of nearly 1500 comments, so far. We’ve also had amazing admission fm Unz himself regarding his pathetic dependence upon “experts” telling him how to think, ho ho ho ho ho–that’s worth the price of admission all by itself, eh? Ho ho ho ho ho
Thanks Nosey…I agree it couldn’t hurt…I may give it a go if I can find a few spare hours to put together something worthwhile…
However, I must caution that it is in fact conceivable that 1960s technology could get you to the moon…if, and that’s the big if, those engines and the other major technology pieces actually performed as advertised…
Much is made about the electronics, but this is not really that important…I’ll see how tomorrow shapes up time wise…
The hasbarat is reduced to whining “B-b-but (((wikipedia))) says he’s clearly guilty of crimethink!!! The goyim MUST ignore him!!!”
Oy vey! Jimbo Wales sez Fred Leuchter is a BAD GOY! Pic related:
https://ibb.co/FzzkHgz
Uh huh. Perhaps I should write a letter to the editor of the NYT as well, asking them to evaluate Leuchter’s contributions objectively? They already regret acknowledging his expertise in the field of gas chambers. Your “argument” is, essentially:
“Ignore the facts, goy! And support jewish media platforms! And pretend that they’re objective, not promoting a particular narrative! Please!”
lol. Let’s be serious here — wikipedia can be useful on subjects of zero political relevance, but when in comes to enforcing core elements of The Narrative? Please.
The rest of your flailing, spluttering, and meaningless emoting is merely a desperate, failed attempt to distract from your pathetic inability to address the facts. You’re utterly incapable of answering the very simple question that I posed:
Again — if you’re aware of a gas chamber expert who is capable of explaining the design and operation of the “gas chambers,” producing blueprints and/ or photos that explain that operation, and producing forensic evidence that they were used as such, you’re welcome to link to said expert’s claims.
Or you can attempt to provide a photograph or blueprint of an alleged “gas chamber” at one of the camps yourself, explain how it works, and cite the forensic and documentary evidence to support your hypothesis, based on your own (nonexistent) expertise…
Your continued pathetic failure to make any substantive contribution other than your repeatedly-failed attempts to defend the long-debunked “But dere ain’t no stars in dem dere pitchers!” canard is again noted.
Again — you originally began your meaningless, random blabbering directed towards me in response to my debunking of the “no stars” claim — you clearly felt that it was somehow “NOT FAIR!” to do this. Surely even a cognitive cripple like yourself is capable of recalling that?
Since you utterly failed to make any meaningful contribution beyond your incoherent objections to this trope, it’s quite clear that you were triggered by my disproof of it.
I’ll give you another chance, though — exactly what was the point of your confused emoting, if not merely to whine about my debunking of the “no stars” nonsense, hmm?
Would Thou Volunteer To Test Lethality Of Van Allen Belts?
Let me here begin to start to commence upon explaining to thou scum, filth, puke, suckers, and goons who don’t have the basic intelligence to suspect those who DO NOTHING but lie, lie, lie to everyone and have done so since forever, against whom Christ himself, who was God the Son, no less, warned us all.
There’s been lots of talk and babble about the Van Allen Belts, and do we KNOW of any who’ve gone through it?–I submit the answer is NO, regardless the lies of known liars. I submit the probability is those “belts” (as I understand there’s a couple of them) are absolutely deadly–why?–because the scum have probably done quite a few tests, by now, say w. live animals, and have confirmed its deadliness–AND THAT’S WHY there have been no further hoax trips (or any other kind of “trips”) to the moon.
And that’s why the other countries who’ve surely, by now, equaled the scientific competence of 1969 era have postponed prospective trips–there’s good, practical reason. And if it’s not because of the Van Allen belts these projects are delayed, then it’s just something else of similar nature.
Poor, brainless morons need to figure-out this is absolute satanic society, dominated by most practical, leading Satanists–Jews (Judaism IS Satanism, suckers, the most practical, tried and tested–ck their filthy “Zohar”)–and they’re determined to continuing to prop their criminal, monopolist enterprises and dictatorship by any means necessary, by any warfare, murder, or lies, and they will continue to succeed long as their fraudulent fiat-currency system continues to being accepted by all the over-populated goons and suckers.
Splutter, splutter. If that’s the best an acolyte can do, I am even further from accepting that Leuchter is not a dodgy mercenary character whose evidence on anything is unreliable.
As to the possible design of working gas chambers which I have hitherto given no thought too I think even the more retarded UR commenters could have a word with the friendly neighbourhood vet and then, with a little extrapolation, run something up which would allow for a lot of people to be held inside a near-enough-air-tight space while easily introduced poison gas did its work.
Understood: you’re both liar and idiot. Thanks again for confirming.
One more correction:
“For electrons, the AE8 electron data shows negligible flux [less than 1 electron per square cm per sec] over 10^7 MeV at any altitude.”
That should be 7 MeV, of course — not 10^7.
” I DON’T BELIEVE IN ELON MUSK”
Elon Musk is supposed to be worth 13.6 billion. He is supposed to be the CEO of Tesla Motors. He is
supposed to be the founder of SpaceX. He is supposed to be the founder of Solar City. He is supposed
to be the inventor of Hyperloop. I for one don’t believe any of it. Elon Musk looks to me like a person
totally manufactured by Intelligence as the fake human front for all these fake projects. In this way he
is exactly like Mark Zuckerberg, another person I have outed as a probable manufactured entity.
Read entire article:
http://mileswmathis.com/musk.pdf
(btw, this article hidden by google)
1. It appears that you hold some very strong, emotionally-based beliefs with respect to Jewish civilian casualties in WW2. What exactly are those beliefs, and what documentary and forensic evidence can you cite to support them?
2. Your vague, emotionally-based attempt to (again) promote the long-discredited semitic canard of “gas chambers” is duly noted — as is your continued pathetic failure to produce the merest iota of actual evidence to support your chosen atrocity propaganda narrative.
3. As for the specifics of your latest bleatings:
It is somewhat encouraging that you’re now able to admit that your belief in Holycost atrocity propaganda is wholly based on a combination of:
– Blind loyalty to The Narrative
– Conditioning, and
– Ethnic self-interest
With absolutely zero reasoning involved at any point.
Ah, and “extrapolation,” too. Just as the originators of the “gas chambers” myth “extrapolated” from “gas chambers” to get “human skin lampshades,” “shrunken heads,” “electrified floors,” “masturbation machines,” etc. Uh huh.
But it still looks like you missed my original question, so here it is again:
If you’re aware of a gas chamber expert with more expertise in the field than Fred Leuchter, one who is capable of explaining the design and operation of the alleged “gas chambers,” of producing blueprints and/ or photos that explain that operation, and producing forensic evidence that they were used as such — link to said expert’s claims.
Or you can attempt to provide a photograph or blueprint of an alleged “gas chamber” at one of the camps yourself, explain how it works, and cite the forensic and documentary evidence to support your hypothesis, based on your own (nonexistent) expertise…
You can’t, of course. All you can do is spew half-assed pilpul and make vain attempts at distraction.
[Too many vacuous back-and-forth insults cluttering up this thread: “Is Not!” “Is Too!” “Is Not!” “Is Too!”]
Understood — you’re still utterly incapable of making any substantive point in support of your ignorant, hate-filled Apollo denialism, and continue to claim that your whining “Not fair!” in response to my debunking of the “Dere ain’t no stars in deme dere pitchers!” canard was actually making some kind of useful contribution to the discussion.
Perspective distortion has no bearing on my statement about shadows. Surely you aren’t contesting the immutable fact that the sunlit side of an object faces the sun, amazingly enough, while the shadowed side of the object faces away from the Sun, and the shadow cast is 180 degrees opposed to the Sun’s position?
Midday Sun casts short shadows; early and late Sun cast longer shadows.
In a 2D representation of our 3D world, or even of the Moon, shadows obey the rules of perspective and converge toward a vanishing point, like everything else.
The effect is easy to see when the sun shines through vertical blinds that are slightly open. As you stand over the shadows, their parallel arrangement is obvious, but as you walk away toward the other side of the room, the shadows will flatten out and point toward their common vanishing point.
Virtually all photographic lenses have distortion of some kind. I mentioned this in passing upstream. With wide-angle lenses like the 60mm Biogon, you would expect some barrel distortion primarily toward the edges of the image.The Hasselblad used 70mm film so it offers approximately the same field of view as a 30mm lens for the 35mm format, although the 70mm format is square, and 35mm rectangular.
Lenses of this focal length, commonly 28mm, are very popular for landscape photography, but are not a good choice for portrait photography because of the perspective distortion, which makes objects closer to the camera (like noses) appear bigger than expected — usually because the photographer has moved in too close trying to fill the frame — while distant objects appear smaller than expected. We see this same wide angle effect also in the astronaut’s visors.
The most pleasing perspective for portraits is achieved using a moderate telephoto lens in the 75-105mm range simply because those longer focal lengths move the photographer back from his subject to a distance where the features of the human face appear in their most harmonious relationship. With much longer lenses, the human face, starts to flatten out too much, and the pleasing proportions are lost.
Now that all that is clear, could you please explain how perspective distortion is playing a role in any of the photos I’ve mentioned?
The issue was not about pointing the camera. But nice strawman.
Ron,
You don’t need PH. D.’s or scientists to understand NASA is lying about the moon and everything else. All you need is critical thinking skills and discernment. Let’s look at what NASA has told us.
1. NASA says they do not have the ability to travel beyond low earth orbit. Low earth orbit is 1,200 miles. NASA tells us the moon is 238k miles away. Should we even continue or is this enough evidence of the fraud?
2. NASA claims to have lost the video footage and lunar module telemetry data from ALL moon missions (See video links on posts 429 and 446). Given this is the technological achievement of the century, how likely is this? Does NASA seem upset about the lost evidence? Hardly. Has this been in the news, have there been Congressional Hearings, have heads rolled? None of the above. Is NASA looking for the videos and telemetry data? 🙂 That’s a joke. It doesn’t exist.
3. With regard to the Van Allen Belts, please keep in mind that I’m only repeating what NASA has told us. NASA says the Van Allen Belts are deadly and they do not possess the technology to safely transport man beyond the belts as would be needed to travel to the moon. THEIR WORDS (See video links on posts 429 and 446). Given this, how did we successfully travel to the moon 6 times in the 1960’s and 1970’s?
4. NASA Astronaut Alan Bean, the 4th man to walk the moon, did not believe he went through the Van Allen Belts. When told that the belts are between 1k and 25k miles out, he changed his story and says “he must have gone through them”. This would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious that criminal psychopaths are in charge. (See video link on post 446).
5. NASA says “they lost the technology to go back to the moon and getting it back will be very difficult”. Does this make any sense? (See video link on post 429). This was easy-peasy in the 60’s and 70’s. They could bring a land rover, play golf and toss around the football. But for some reason, 50 years later with all the advancement of technology, we can’t remember how we got the moon! What a conundrum!
I can go on from here as many commenters have already pointed out. Is there enough fuel to travel round trip 476k miles? I assume it’s so easy they can even bring a “Land Rover”? How did video transmission take place? If you have one light source, the Sun, why are there conflicting shadows versus all going in one direction?
Given your knowledge of government lies as it relates to 9/11, the Holocaust, JFK, The USS Liberty, Pearl Harbor, The Gulf of Tonkin, why would you ever start from a position that what the government puts out is truth? Especially without evidence.
NASA is a Masonic organization as is the US Government and most governments around the world. This secret society takes blood oaths to keep their lies hidden. Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin were Masons. Many Presidents were. Trump is an admitted Mason. Freemason Teresa May is doing everything possible to scuttle Brexit even though she claims to be trying to fulfil it.
The etymology of the word government is mind control. It’s bread and circus BS. The Freemasons want One World Government, which is what the New World Order is. CFR, UN, EU, NATO, IMF. These are all anti-freedom organizations.
I believe Kennedy’s “Secret Societies speech” was referencing the traitorous Freemasons. Freemasonry is based on the Kabbalah. Lucifer is their God. At the top of the pyramid is the satanic International Central bankers, who through their use of the corruptible goyim Freemasons, they control our perception of the world. Fales flags, hoax terrorism and ultimately war. It’s truly good vs evil, a spiritual war.
NASA is ultimately hiding God which is why they push the spinning ball heliocentric earth. I don’t know for certain if the earth is flat (circular) but I suspect it is. It’s clear to me it’s not spherical. If it was a sphere, we would be able to see curvature. You’d be able to calculate the curvature between cities. This capability doesn’t exist, which is a tell-tale sign. Water always finds its level, thus cannot stay curved on a spinning spherical ball. If it could, you’d see miniature replicas of the earth in museums and planetariums, spinning with 75% water curved and hanging on. Australia is not upside down.
We need a mass awakening as evil is being done in front of our eyes in the form of Stratospheric Aerosol Injections (SAI), Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and Geo-Engineering, all commonly referred to as Chemtrails. We’re breathing in poison while allowing the atmosphere to be electronically charged. 5G completes the perfect storm and could be the death of many of us. Remember, the parasites (elite) have made depopulation their stated goal. It’s sad to me that so many can’t see through the moon charade and therefore can’t see the bigger picture to what’s going on.
RE: ELON MUSK
Dear Ron,
Here’s some light reading for you from the subject article:
Although Musk’s companies have received 5 billion in government subsidies, Musk says he isn’t in favor of government subsidies for companies like his. Instead he has come out in favor of a carbon tax. Obviously, he is just reading from the Teleprompter again there, and isn’t concerned with appearing to be consistent. Fake people fronting fake companies don’t have to worry about appearing consistent. It is all about stirring your mind into Musk, I mean Mush. The people behind Musk want all the subsidies they can drink, but then they want to pretend they don’t lust for them like they do. They also don’t want you to apply for any subsidies, because they don’t need the competition. They don’t want you to be subsidized; they want you to be taxed.
So why do I think these companies are fake? We’ll start with Musk’s links to Mike Griffin. Griffin was head of NASA from 2005 to 2009, but on Musk’s page we learn that Griffin also worked for In-Q-Tel, the venture capital arm of the CIA! That is probably the biggest red flag on the entire page. Curiously, that information has been scrubbed off Griffin’s own page. What exactly is In-Q-Tel? In-Q-Tel invests in high-tech companies for the sole purpose of keeping the Central Intelligence Agency, and other intelligence agencies, equipped with the latest in information technology in support of United States intelligence capability.
That is the key to unlocking this whole mystery, so I suggest you read it several times, to let it sink in. I suggest that not only did In-Q-Tel “invest” in all of Musk’s companies, it actually created them, and him. We know the CIA creates many front companies, since the mainstream admits it. But it is usually assumed they do this to facilitate domestic covert operations of various sorts. But we have tripped over much evidence companies are created for reasons even more fundamental to the American way. That is to say, a significant part of the US infrastructure is an illusion—an illusion created to facilitate a variety of treasury dips by the very wealthy. Actually, the mainstream press has already reported on a small part of these thefts and grafts. See, for example, Matt Taibbi’s Rolling Stone reports on the big banks, especially this 2013 report entitled “Everything is Rigged”. However, even Taibbi has not yet seen that it is not only via rigging that the rich are becoming richer. It is also via manufacturing fake companies, fake portfolios, and fake projects, by which the treasury can be milked and bilked of billions of dollars of subsidies, grants, and other monies.
So if you thought my mention of Intelligence in paragraph one was just conspiracy theory, think again. Musk has admitted ties to the CIA through Griffin, if nowhere else. You see, before he was hired to head NASA, Griffin was working with Musk on SpaceX, trying to buy old ICBMs from Russia. Again, could you ask for a bigger red flag? Griffin and Musk were in Russia in 2002 trying to buy ICBMs! We are told one of the Russian engineers spat on Musk, which is about the only thing that makes sense on the entire page. They could probably see he was a spook-baby.
It’s not gamma rays or x-rays. It’s protons and electrons. Again — the flux of electrons with energy greater than 7 MeV was essentially zero. The only significant threat is protons with energy greater than 100 MeV, since low-energy beta particles can be stopped by minimal shielding, and protons with energy less than 100 MeV are stopped by the command module’s hull.
The cornified keratin (dead) layer of skin has enough stopping power to absorb beta radiation with energies lower than 70 keV. Even electrons with energy in the MeV range are stopped with minimal shielding.
Example: Here’s an experiment showing the predicted range of beta particles up to 2.28 MeV, and demonstrating that they were blocked with — 3 mm of folded aluminum foil:
http://physicsopenlab.org/2017/09/20/beta-particles-range-absorption/
Protons of greater than 100 MeV are the only significant shielding problem, and those are only found in the inner belt — which takes less than 10 minutes to transit.
Fact check: FALSE
Average radiation exposure for the two LEO missions (7 and 9) was 0.18 rads.
For the lunar landing missions (11-15), average exposure was 0.488 rads — almost 3x as much.
For the two lunar orbit missions (8 and 10), average exposure was 0.32 rads — lower than the lunar landing missions, but higher than the LEO missions.
Ron (and a lot of others) just can’t see it. So you have to give these NWO types credit; they are very clever. As evidence, think about this:
The old adage, “You don’t need a weatherman to see which way the wind blows.” apparently does not apply anymore.
Not only does Ron need a weatherman, he needs a highly credentialed one, preferably one who went to an Ivy League School. LOL
(That would be your claim that shadows produced by a single distant light source always appear parallel in photos, regardless of the distance, angle, or lens used).
Yet:
It’s always entertaining when people refute their own “arguments”…
Yet you’re completely unable to come up with an alternative explanation for the meaning of ““not in line with the light from the sun” other than the obvious one that I cited — the cameraman’s perspective relative to the direction of the sunlight. Hmm…
What photos do you intend to post, and what do you claim that they prove?
Are you claiming that they were taken in a regular studio?
In a studio equipped with a large vacuum chamber, or at atmospheric pressure?
At 1 g, or at 1/6 g?
Outside in a desert environment on Earth?
Yeah, I’ve seen that. Conversely, the effective shielding for the capsule at any point is only equivalent to the actual thickness for particles that hit at exactly 90 degrees — the path is longer for particles hitting at any other angle.
The shielding is very heterogeneous; 30% of the surface are rated at below 3 g/cm^2.
Look again. The x-axis on that graph starts at 1, not zero. It’s actually about 12% of the area that’s rated below 3 g/cm^2.
Not really. Needs pretty massive doses of radiation to produce significant localized effect (radiation burns):
https://infogalactic.com/info/Radiation_burn
6–20 Gy (600-2000 rads) 0f beta radiation to produce any erythema.
So we’re concerned with the average shielding — and the dose averaged over the whole body. To continue your analogy — hypothermia, not frostbite.
This is a good analysis of radiation exposure for Apollo 11:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160608082332/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
So much wrong here…
Dave McGowan in his book “Wagging the Moon Doggie” states:
“As anyone alive at the time recalls, what the world saw was an
enormous room filled with computer consoles, each staffed by a key member of the Apollo
team diligently monitoring his computer screen for any signs of trouble.
But in reality, as Apollo 11 computer engineer Jack Garman clues us in, “the computer screens
that we looked at in Mission Control weren’t computer screens at all. They were televisions.
All the letters, or characters, [they] were all hand drawn. I don’t necessarily mean with a brush,
but I mean they were painted on a slide.” But they sure looked pretty damned impressive.”
Nope, I’m European. I last visited the US a long time ago.
I’m surprised nobody has yet written a novel or made a movie based on that story as it leaves a lot to the imagination to fill in the missing facts.
I’m not qualified to even discuss a lot of the technical questions, but the videos of these astronauts are proof enough to me that something is foul about this whole moon landing scenario.
Simply put, these men are behaving strangely. They are hiding something, I’m convinced of that much. Now Aldrin seems to be aging in that interview with the little girl, but he literally admits at about 7 minutes in, that they didn’t go to the moon, before continuing to ramble as if they did. I think he felt guilty lying to that child.
In a way I feel bad for these men. I’m sure they felt they were doing their duty at the height of the Cold War, but it’s a terrible thing to have to carry around with you.
“Protons of greater than 100 MeV are the only significant shielding problem, and those are only found in the inner belt — which takes less than 10 minutes to transit.”
Could you find out what was the radiation in 1969 outside the Van Allen Belts. Can it be assumed zero, or was the minimum of that year well above zero. Protection of the astronauts in the Moon was not remarkable.
1. No emotions about Holocaust at all. I would say “why do you think that I have?” except that I don’t really tbink you are stupid enough to assert a pop-psych about someone’s emotions on which you have no knowledge. I take you to be just a little loose and clumsy with words and meaning to assert that you suspect me of brlieving certain things about the Holocaust without evidence. That would make it legitimate to ask me what I thought the essential core Holocaust story was and why I believed it. But I have wasted enough time on something and commenters on it that I decidedly do not have an emotional interest in but, merely, an interest in it as a field for studying human irrationality and practising the armchair entertainment of puncturing bad arguments of those who (perhaps) should know better.
So I won’t repeat what can easily be read in or inferred from previous Comments (and if that means I have missed an opportunity to move your valuable opinion toward truth I’m afraid I don’t much care) but note that the Holocaust is a contested narrative that matters more than most – perhaps all others – and I do think it important that someone of Ron Unz’s intellect and public spiritedness should sound sensible on it.
So, I have put it to him, clearly enough I trust, that he should acknowledge
(i) that the Nazis wanted to get rid of Jews and Jewish influence from at least occupied Europe, with a modest start in the 1930s just pushing them out of Germany, preferably to Palestine.
(ii) in line with the ancient history of our species – and Mein Kampf – genocidal killing was not something Hitler, Himmler & Co would be any more squeamish about than the Interhamwe in Rwanda, Khmer Rouge or rampaging Cossacks
(iii) that the 6 million figure is an irrelevance but there were whole communities deliberately wiped out or nearly so by whatever means, while, perfectly consistently, many eere used as slave labour;
(iv) that anyone wanting to defend the Nazis or Hitler or deny that, after the Madagascar solution became unviable, in mid to late 1941 the Final Solution became explicitly murderous, has to explain all those deportations from France, Belgium, Holland and Hungary which included children and the elderly;
I recall some commenter doing a reasonably convincimg job on the demographics (before and after) and can’t remember whether Ron acknowledged that or responded in any way.
I suppose I could share the emotion of shame with the old aristocratic family I lodged with many years ago who – I believe 100 per cent -hid Jews in their basement in Potsdam and had no doubt about what had taken over the land of science, music, philosophy, poetry and the arts when the Nazis completed the downfall for which the Kaiser and the generals had given it such a big start.
What do you think your old Marine vet friend meant if spelled out or did you take it as just the kind of grandiose bar talk that many people indulge in? Any idea of the metrics he might have had in mind? If you assumed he was talking about economic prosperity did you challenge him with the example of Germany after WW2? Or even Italy, treating Libya and Ethiopia as its Vietnam?
Gosh I almost read from 2. to end. I am not interested in the gas chamber controversy: somewhat less indeed than in the intriguing fact that someone with presumably more than 100 points of IQ can get himself wedded to the authority of Fred Lauchter as his guru. But I can’t help noticing that Fred’s gas chambers have bugger all to do with rooms that can be sealed with 100 people inside. Did that not occur to you?
Maybe you are so innocent of any practicable ability that you can’t see how many ways a large sealed space can be created into which carbon monoxide or a cyanide gas can be introduced so that, after some minutes or half an hour, everyone inside has received a fatal dose. It would be somewhat simpler than designing an upmarket bathroom with steam extractor.
At 15:35 they show how the silicon chips were “wired” together. There was PCB and no solder used, it is all by friction, apparently on gold contacts. The entire computer is set up as a prototype and hand wired and soldered. This is just what I would want millions of miles from home, after undergoing massive temperature swings, changes in gravity and air pressure, and most of all massive acceleration and deceleration.
At one point this is written on the screen:
“Final Ropes Weaved Before Flight. Core Rope Simulators Were Used Before flight”
Imagine hand weaving a ROM chip with 0’s and 1’s. One little mistake and people die and millions in investment are lost. That is the equivalent of the inverse of six sigma reliability.
But the point here that mooners can’t seem to grasp is that just because the computer may have actually run does not mean that it made it to the moon and back.
Clearly it was essential that each team work working on their little sub-project had to make the component work, believe the components works, or they would know the mission was impossible and they would have to become part of the masonic conspiracy. Certainly the majority of the 400,000 involved in the project, especially the masons, had to believe, or the scam never would have worked.
Thanks for those photographs, they gave me the best belly laugh i’ve had this month. I actually thought when I downloaded the pictures that I was going to see something. All I see are little white and black dots on a photo of the Moon’s surface. Is this what you call proof? Christ Almighty, you guys are easy marks.
Since you seem to consider yourself such a brilliant scientist and researcher, can you please provide us with a break down of the weights of the various components used in the masonic chariot they called the “lunar rover”?
Also, explain how Nasa, a public body representing the cream of the US science community “lost” all that technology and documentation?
This is another way that the “moon landing” resembles the “holocaust”: lost documentation. Conveniently, all documentary evidence that could easily disprove the narrative are lost by the people who control the archives. Meanwhile, the archivists are constantly leaking disinformation, doctored photographs and outright lies.
Cowboy,
Despite of what you think of so called academic people, assuming that the radiation issue shows that Apollo missions did not go to the Moon, your emphasis on Freemasons becomes very relevant. Indeed, connections to them would fit very naturally to the whole picture, but first one should check more carefully if the radiation was an obstacle. About your moon rover comment, I do not know what exact problem you see with the rover, but I would focus on the radiation problem as that must be the real technical obstacle if there was one.
I am humbled by the amount of interesting comments I read on this thread. I have learnt of valuable sources that I had not known before (such as McGowan’s very entertaining writing and Mazzucco’s film). All in all, my conviction of the moon hoax has been reinforced by some arguments that I had not previously been aware of, such as the impossibility of video transmission to the earth with the limited battery capacity of the Lunar Module: This is well argued by American cinematographer Joe Frantz and a Radio Frequency engineer. I also found that there is a great amount of material from the NASA itself to indicate that the level of radiation prohibits manned flight to the moon. I find also intriguing (though inconclusive without experimental confirmation) the claim that moonwalking should not look like slow motion, as it does in NASA footage: William Cooper explains that on 1/6 gravity, the astronauts’ steps should be much longer, and they could jump six times higher than on earth. Some astronauts like Eugene Cernan of Apollo 17 obviously liked to do some playful “kangaroo hopping” around on the moon, but why do they seem unable to jump higher than a foot? One point on which I would now insist more than I did is the scandalous loss of the original films, but alos, I learnt, of all plans for the Lunar module, the rover, etc. I admit that I had not fully grasped why the original films would make such a difference, because I had not understood the transformation process from the video signal received from the moon (and recorded by the NASA), into the TV signal.
It seems to me that there are two kinds of “Apollo truthers”: the majority, like me, have a curious and logical mind but no special expertise, and our conviction relies primarily on common sense applied to photographic and video evidence (for the rest, like the Van Allen Belts, we can only trust whoever we chose to trust). And there are those whose conviction is based on some expertise in a special field related to the issue, whether video transmission, radiation, rocket technology, etc. They have the recognized authority to declare and prove: “the moon landings are scientifically impossible”.
Ron Unz would like more of the second kind. He says:
We can recognize the value of this position, especially since Ron has published my article. His personal opinion on the subject is less important than the stimulation he has provided by asking a high price for his conversion. I also understand his stubborn demand for experts as a challenge to the scientific community: Are there not a few brave men out there? Are you all cowards? Are you all liars? Where is your honor, your dedication to the truth? What about those retired scientists who have only their reputation to lose? Ron doesn’t lack courage, and he has the right to expect some courage from those hundreds of thousands or scientists who know the moon landings were faked but don’t care and won’t speak out. This is a great service that he is doing to the Apollo truth community, besides providing on his site a great forum. We do need, absolutely, an association of “Engineers and Scientists for Apollo Truth” of some sort, to make a difference.
The nay-sayers have no burden of proof whatsoever in this matter, or in any other. That burden always belongs to the yay-sayers making / endorsing an assertion. Moreover, the scientific method requires reproducibility, which is staggeringly absent in this case. If NASA can’t prove it and no one can reproduce it, than it just ain’t so.
Here,Here are interviews of Garman:
There are loads of other interesting bits, I was mostly scanning for masonic typography.
They didn’t want experienced engineers, they wanted young kids that were obedient, who maybe even had sworn an oath. When you are running a hoax, obedience is far more valuable than competence.
Swear an oath of obedience and secrecy to an ancient brotherhood and all kinds of magical things can happen, for example you can get out of being killed in a masonic war.
So Garman worked in a back room at mission control during the thousands of simulations, causing errors and observing how the control room reacted. He states that all these simulations were restartable. He even practiced a very similar routing shortly before Apollo 11:
So the entire faked Armstrong manual override landing was faked at mission control, to add to the tension. They simply plugged in one of these simulations from the backroom where Garman was, waited for the chaos, then had the masonic superman save the mission. Here is the interface where the error message appeared:
“This is a good analysis of radiation exposure for Apollo 11:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160608082332/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm”
This site would not pass the requirements of Ron Unz. The author has apparently not published anything in any scientific forums on any field. Checking scholar.google.fi gives only the web-page he created in 1996 when he according to his own explanation wanted to write a program to launch a satellite. The style of his writing is far from scientific and falls short from a MSc thesis, it is this debunker sarcastic-mocking style that has no place in science, or anywhere in civilized discussion. Unfortunately most debunker sites are always of this low quality, e.g. metabunk.
But I will read his calculations with every good will and I can promise that I have all the skills needed to check that level calculations. I will comment them later, but seriously, is this the best site you can offer? This is a very weak-looking and suspicious site, not a professional one.
How do you know that more footprints would be required? Have you performed a test?
And of course Sparkon could simply go outdoors on a sunny day and look at shadows. I wonder why Sparkon won’t do that.
To Auntie:
Do you believe everything you’re shown by your TV Set, or just some things? Stars aren’t shown in the TV space pictures you’re shown because their positioning cannot be convincingly faked.
You’re probably thinking of j2, who’s active in this thread as well:
http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/09/24/my-final-solution-of-the-final-solution/
Well… not really….
Ron’s “requirements” only apply to people who are disputing the official story, not to people who support it. Ron makes a big issue out of the fact that the Apollo skeptics in this discussion lack the appropriate credentials, but neglects to mention that the people on the other side of the debate, supporting the official story, also lack any credentials.
In fact, about 98% of the people participating in these discussions on either side are anonymous, and thus, by definition, have zero credentials!
A related issue is that Ron is very liberal in his use of the loaded term “conspiracy theory”. He uses the term in the intended manner as well. If a story has Establishment backing, it is no longer a “conspiracy theory”. Only discourse that is anti-Establishment is referred to that way.
Of course, by any objective definition, the official story of 9/11 is an outrageous “conspiracy theory”. However, if you say you don’t believe that story, even without offering any theory of your own, then you are a “conspiracy theorist”. The way Ron (and many others) use the term, a “conspiracy theorist” is somebody who disbelieves the official conspiracy theories!
Come to think of it, I tried to make this point to Ron earlier. For example, here but it does not seem to have had much effect. That conversation was about an outrageous official conspiracy theory that Ron bought into, the so-called Zebra murders in San Francisco in the 1970’s. Ron wrote an article in which this was practically the centerpiece. I pointed out to him in the comment section that there was a problem with the story. The Nation of Islam, like any oppositional group, was surely completely infiltrated by Deep State agents. Just about anything going on within that organization would have been completely transparent to the authorities, so there was no real possibility that the NOI could mount a conspiracy to kill random white people (with no motive!) for a period of many months without the FBI knowing what was going on. So the narrative struck me as impossible, and thus, untrue.
I thought this point was pretty obvious, but it had never occurred to Ron. I assume that this is because, for him, any Establishment narrative has such an extremely strong presumption of truth.
That is why, why he writes these “American Pravda” pieces, he is continually expressing his utter astonishment that whatever official narrative has turned out to be untrue.
Ron reminds me of the story of the explorer in Africa who, on seeing an elephant for the first time, exclaims: “But there is no such animal!”
But the nay-sayers are making specific claims about the photographs. They claim that the photographs were made in a studio, and not on the moon. So it seems to me that the burden of proof is on the people making those specific claims.
For example, they claim that shadows cast on an irregular, ie non-planar surface, when photographed from a position other than directly in line with the light source and the object casting the shadow, must, to the observer, be seen as parallel.
They also claim that the exposure of film in a camera of an object illuminated directly by our sun from 93 million miles away (about 8 light minutes distant) should be the same as the exposure of light from distant stars, multiple light years away.
The burden of proof is on those who make these claims.
Why do you compare the averages? Apollo 11, specifically, had 1.1 times the daily dosage of Apollo 9. Moreover, as was pointed out above, the dose ratio should have been >= 100, so your argument is moot anyway.
Moreover, you neglect secondary X-rays that arise when electrons are stopped by the shielding. Yes, they have lower biological equivalency factors, but they would get through, since a few cm of light material shielding will do very little to stop them.
Look at Figure 3 in Maerki – in 1969, it was well above zero, and in particular it was far higher than in low Earth orbit. (I actually wrote to Andreas Maerki myself about this very question, and he pointed it out to me.) That really does put the nail into the coffin.
Well, the thread is mostly dead, but it did occur to me that there may in fact already be ultrahigh resolution maps of the moon.
The place to look would be the NRO, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency.
I just took a closer look at the second photo used in this article – presumably its an official NASA photo.
This also appears to be fake[this time no deliberate, inside joke “spoof” as with the first photo in the article].
For example, check out the straight line shadow running over the asstronots right leg/foot. Seems to me it should be curved somewhat to allow for leg curvature- but, au contraire, mon frere, its straight and true 🙂
[Sorry for not posting the photo here and thus requiring readers to refer to top of actual article- I’m not sure yet how to do this without logging in to this site, and doing all that more complicated jazz.]
Regards, onebornfree
That is a non-sequitur. Yes, Ron does have courage, and he is performing a valuable public service by hosting discussions such as this one. However, while his own courage may “morally entitle” him to expect courage from others also, it does not imply anything about the level of courage that can realistically be expected from others. Conflating the two simply leads to unrealistic expectations.
Judaic Monstrosity, Satanism Begins In Lies, Subjectivism
The Jew liar (a redundancy, of course) tells us:
Jew: note thou are Jew, hence Satanist and worshipper of lies, lying, and liars, with whom thou make-up reality and false history, pretending thou are God, the creator (see Talmudical.blogspot.com, RevisionistReview.blogspot.com, and Come-and-hear.com for expo). And thou Jews have ever done this colossal, mass-collectivistic lying in creating thy own little “Idaho” reality–thou succeed as thou are such sublime collectivists, “group-thinkers,” most committed, motivated, organized. That’s why practically all peoples of all races, all throughout hist. have hated thou Jews/satanists and kicked thou out of their countries multiple times.
To know Jews is to hate them–for to know only one Jew isn’t enough–they’re essentially collectivists, which too many people overlook.
Thou say,
Well, thou Jews had taken-over, hadn’t thou?–this especially since Napoleonic wars, rise of Rothschild bankers network, controlling, directing, manipulating the vast central-banking network (see Mises.org for expo on central-banking criminal enterprise, literally legalized counterfeiting) by which Judeo-Bolsheviks had arrived and taken-over, w. help of gentile Satanists, which however Jews are and were always masterminds, Jews most successful, dominant of practical Satanism and satanists.
Jew: get it through thy skull, sucker–Judaism must and WILL be exterminated–humanity and all human reason demands it–Judaism must go the way of cannibalism which is what Judaism essentially is. And dear unc’ Adolf was great hero who had nothing against
and who only wanted to protect that human, Germanic achievement against thou filthy, satanic Jew monsters, murderers, and criminals.
Penalty Of Human Stupidity Is Death, War, Famine, Pestilence, The Four Horsemen
Well, that’s because the poor fool can’t/won’t figure-out that central-banking (US Fed) is a criminal enterprise (literally legalized counterfeiting), featuring INFINITE fiat-currency–see Mises.org; use their site search-engine for particular terms.
So when the entire culture/society/economy is so dominated by such monstrous fraud as central-banking, the society and people serve the fraud, enslaved to it, literally everything oriented to the criminal enterprise, always having to prop it up, defending it, lying, murdering, etc. Thus the society becomes SATANIC, as we see, world dictatorship now explicitly endorsing Agenda-21 and -2030 GENOCIDE, not to mention all the other monstrosities.
The over-populated morons, goons, scum, weaklings, and inferiors have been persuaded that INFINITE currency is good and what must be effected and enacted, rejecting REAL MONEY, commodity-based, gold/silver being best. So what must happen?–as it’s irresistible force against immovable object. Well, the financial system must go bust, as always, people ignoring simple economic history, what w. all the various “explanations,” etc. Thus we’re headed to hyper-inflation, but along the way, wars will be fomented and contrived, as always–such is the lesson of history of human sinners, stupid scum.
Why 10cm? Besides they use g/cm2 unit not linear thickness. See Fig 6 in 4th panel
https://three.jsc.nasa.gov/articles/Shielding81109.pdf
which shows that 50% of shielding was less than 10 g/cm2 (Al equiv.).
Why do you expect 3000lb? Here
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/CSM06_Command_Module_Overview_pp39-52.pdf
they have:
Weight 13,000lb
Weight (splashdown) 11,700lb
It never made sense to me that Americans managed to go to the moon with primitive 1960s technology.
I never understood why we have such high quality photographs of the moon, yet only very poor quality video material.
I never understood why there’s never any stars in those pictures.
I never managed to make sense of the behavior of Armstrong & other astronauts in their interviews.
etc.
And then you have quotes like this, by NASA astronaut Don Pettit :
The most plausible explanation for all of this, is that humans never went too the moon, and that the moon landings were staged as part of a big PR stunt at the height of the Cold War; to demonstrate American supremacy in space, to draw away attention from American war crimes and to justify the billions spent on the very expensive space program.
Then again, why are there so few NASA whistle-blowers?
Why didn’t Russia or any other country never expose the moon hoax?
How do you pull off a hoax that involves hundreds of thousands of people without people figuring it out shortly after?
I’m not convinced either way. I’ve looked into the arguments on both sides, and I lack the technical expertise to make any definite statements. I’m not convinced humans went to the moon, but I’m not convinced they didn’t either.
Nevertheless, ending your argument with questionable claims about alleged hidden messages by Kubrick being put into “The Shining” only help you ruin any case you may have had before that. Several of these claims are so far-fetched they are beyond speculative, really, moving this argument from reasonable skepticism into tin foil hat territory…
Not just this discussion, but in any similar discussion. The people on the other side of the debate are, of course, NASA scientists. If you’d like challenge their credentials, feel free to try.
If you find them non-responsive, perhaps it’s because they hold hoaxer kooks beneath contempt. After reading through this thread, who could blame them?
His opening paragraphs express derision and ire towards hoaxers, but the rest of his paper is surely of a higher quality than the (Marki/Makri?) one you linked to earlier, which would earn a poor grade even at an undergraduate level.
Wouldn’t that have something to do with the spacesuits Apollo astronauts wore weighing 180 pounds (so about 30 pounds on the moon)?
According to you then, none of the photographic arguments made by hoaxers have been refuted in this thread?
What moon hoaxers like you also have in common is an emotional need to believe in conspiracies, an emotional need to believe that governments are necessarily up to no good, and that nothing that governments tell us can be believed. You believe in the moox hoax because it fits your preconceived notions about the way the world works. The alleged “evidence” you cite is just window dressing.
Alright.
A good, sensible post. The earth, by the way, in shape, is somewhat represented by a bowl, inverted on top of a plate. slight incline not much. The UN logo is baal-earth mockery, it is our “flat” plane earth, divided into 33 sections,surrounded by Antartica which is an ice wall. Few people knows what lies beyond Antartica.
The Van Allen belt thing, is really just more of the canard because our earth is a closed system and you can’t leave anyway. Think of one of those shake-up snow globes (more mockery).
If you really think about it the whole story is laughably ridiculous. We are happily bounding through some “galaxy” at 66,600 mph, simultaneously rotating at 1,200 mph, meanwhile you can go fishing on a placid lake.
We have these things called “satelites” following us along at 66,600 mph, for 15-20 years that don’t need a fuel source because of this thing called “gravity”; yet the gravity is not strong enough to pull them back to the ground.
Fool Needs To Have It Explained
Thou says,
Thou don’t need “technical expertise,” fool, all thou needs is a brain (a problem for thou, we see) and sense-perception, since definition of PROOF is sense-perception (verification) for any abstract question/issue.
Now can thou figure-out there’s NO PROOF for manned moon-landing, no substantial evidence to lead to such proof?–no?–well, that’s why thou are sooooooooooooooooo hopeless, sucker: (a) thou don’t understand what proof is or would be, or how proof works, in first place, (b) aside fm not understanding what it is to be proven–human presence–like archaeologists look for evidence of human presence.
THEN thou asks,
Well, consider the basic criminal enterprise at top of society/culture/economy, ruling everything else, the Central-bank (US Fed), literally legalized counterfeiting, putting-out (practically) INFINITE currency, NOT real MONEY (commodity-based, which is finite in amount). See Mises.org for expo; use site search-engine for particular terms.
So by means of the central-bank these criminals absolutely control EVERYTHING else, and if anyone seriously objects or fails to comply and obey, they’re killed, meeting up w. strange accidents, etc., since ZOG controls all politicians, judges, lawyers police, Jews-media–EVERYONE (directly or indirectly)–by means of pay-offs, paying-off armies of murderers/assassins. Long as the currency continues to be accepted, the system is fool-proof. And when the central-bank begins (as is inevitable) to fail, THEN wars are started, muddying the proverbial “waters,” and the master-minds make their escape.
See https://www.disabledveterans.org/2018/12/15/va-whistleblower-harassed-over-matrix-memes-fbi-denies-1st-amendment/ , which is just an example, sucker–get a brain. I just put in “whistleblower harassment” in search engine and got that story along w. many, many others.
When one controls the currency, ONE CONTROLS EVERYTHING–it’s just matter of paper and ink to print-up some thousand dollar bills, moron–can’t thou figure it out? And in this day and age, one doesn’t even need ink and paper–just key-strokes on computer puts currency (not real money) on the old credit-card, fool.
And the over-populated goons, morons, scum, suckers, weaklings, and inferiors don’t care about anything other than their “prosperity,” phony as it is, about to ending SOON, ho ho ho oho. Observe people KNOW (latest polls estimate up to 90 %) JFK assassination was gross conspiracy, but they don’t care nowadays–the scum, called “people,” are easily fooled and distracted by TV and football games, etc. Such is way of the corrupt world filled w. SINNERS, sad to have to admit.
So the suit weighed 30 lbs., and the man weighed 30 lbs. For a total of 60, and the man has the same leg-strength he had when he weighed roughly 3x that much on earth, but he cannot jump higher?
I would like to take this time to propose that apollonian be given the distinct honor of having the last word in this comment section. I feel that he alone is eminently qualified to place the symbolic “cherry on top” of this whipped cream hot fudge, banana-split Hoaxtard sundae, thus bringing it to a merciful conclusion.
It’s not my responsibility to figure out what someone is trying to say, or “come up with an alternative explanation,” but rather to parse what is said.
I assume people have basic knowledge about fundamentals such as perspective. If I would say “The car is going down the street.” I suspect you would say “But you didn’t say it had tires!”
The statement “not in line with the light from the sun.” is nonsensical, as there is no such place on Earth or the Moon either one, but ethelred the unready was trying to use that nonsensical statement to explain why shadows appear to be diverging in AS14-68-9486/7, to wit:
So who’s confused about perspective?
There was no refutation, even when you exclude the rest of my comment.
I wrote in full:
To put the point you’re missing — or dodging — into clear, simple language, perspective makes shadows, and everything else in the scene, appear to converge in the distance, but perspective cannot make shadows diverge, as they appear to do in some of the Apollo photos.
AS14-68-9486/7 LM shadow anomaly
You were trying to make some point about perspective distortion, I asked you to explain how perspective distortion played a role in any of those photos, and you’ve dodged that.
But the challenge stands, if you’re up to it.
Hey good point, I forgot that the man himself was lighter too. The reason I put it as a question was because I wasn’t sure if I was missing some other factor (a pretty obvious one, in this case lol).
Probably you are not interested, but here is a video which describes methods of construction and test procedures in some detail:
According to the video, the connections were made using a combination of welding (not soldering) and wire wrap (in different locations, not simultaneously).
Manual wire wrap (using a hand-held tool) was common for prototyping or “one off” systems, but in this case was automated, as was the welding.
The finished modules were “potted,” meaning encased in polymer resin. “Potting” was (and probably still is) a common procedure for electronic components which must withstand vibrations and temperature variations, such as in rocketry, including ICBMs.
Yep.
Evidently some of these components still exist, and there is a small community of enthusiasts (hobbyists) dedicated to restoring or reconstructing the original systems. Following the links below the video link which I posted will get you to some of these, which have their own links.
For example:
Other links will get you to memory modules as well as what is evidently the actual software.
One video on memory modules describes a potted module recovered from a scrap heap which was found to be defective at the time of recovery. Whether it was a reject from date of manufacture or acquired a defect over the course of time is not stated. Whichever, it is now junk, which was a major disappointment to whoever found and tested it.
.
Your assertion seems to be that “Just because the system worked doesn’t mean they actually used it.” Say what?
Here is a lecture by Prof. Wm. Widnall on the guidance and control system, given sometime this century, in which he describes a real time, in flight correction, starting at !13:00
I imagine you believe that Prof. Widnall is part of the “vast masonic conspiracy” and the reason his lecture seems so “natural” is that he has had over forty years to “hone” his performance.
His wife, Sheila:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Widnall
by your calculation, is most likely attending her husband’s lecture in order to keep an eye on him, to make sure old Bill doesn’t go “off the reservation.”
Proof Of Manned Moon-Landing Still Awaits
Hey thanks so much “Danny” Jew-boy, but it isn’t necessary, and I submit we should leave it up to the fearless leader, Unz, who actually is working against my theses, more in line w. thine, eh? Ho ho ho ho ho ho. We love it w. thy “hoaxtard,” when all thou need do is give proof or evidence which can’t seem to be done, eh? Ho ho ho ho ho ho
You need to make a quantitative argument.
Because image formation in photography is a mapping of 3D space onto the 2D plane (btw eye does the same thing) according to the Gaussian optics 1/S1+1/S2=1/F (which is good enough approximation) various perspective ‘distortions’ appear. This applies to shadows. Shadows will not be parallel on the 2D plane of a photograph. The question is how un-parallel they can be when illuminated by Sun? The answer to this question can be quantified and will depend on location of objects with respect to camera lens and the focal length of the lens and the angle between the optical axis of camera with the line to the Sun.
Are the shadows on the picture AS14-68-9486/7 that you included impossible to be made by Sun? You have to calculate it and demonstrate it which you haven’t done.
I don’t know enough about radiation to argue it, you are doing a far better job than I ever could. I do know about cars, and there is no way that thing weighed 400lbs with batteries, wheels, 8 electric motors, remote TV camera from 1969, +++.
I despise academics not only because so many of them are arrogant supremacists like Ron Unz, but because they continue to contribute to and take the sheckel from organizations that have been taken over by globalists and cultural marxism. Below is a list of subjects that have been completely politicized:
– Climate and weather
– Anthropology
– History
– Any thing to do with space or CERN
– Race and culture
– Medicine
– Business
There are loads more, but the point here is that it was the “scientists” who had to keep “science” non-political, but they sold out, or more correctly they got jewed. In the end the only thing that matteris is if you cannot name the jew, then you are taking the sheckel.
I understand that in a small country like Finland this may not be the case, but from what I can tell Finland is following the Zionist pied piper to genocide just like the rest of western Europe. I doubt that many “scientists” are putting up a fight.
Well, it’s nice to see that this version of the Moon Hoax theory has been strongly endorsed by some of the other energetic Moon Hoax commenters. Poor Kevin Barrett is clearly a deluded supporter of Official Truth.
It is suggestive, but not yet a nail in the coffin. I have started to look at this issue. Firstly I looked at the part outside Van Allen Belts. The time from 1969 to 1972 was high in sunspots, but increased radiation occurs only if there is a solar storm. I found lists of major solar storms during this time. All other Apollo flights just barely managed to be out of these storms, but Apollo 17 experienced a medium size storm in December 15, 1972. See the data here, page 242, the magnetic storm of December 15, 1972
http://adsbit.harvard.edu/full/seri/Obs../0093//0000242.000.html
The duration of this storm was very short, from 20:45 to 21:15, as the page says. The values H, Z and D are components of the magnetic field, so the field strength is sqrt(H^2+Z^2), D is an angle, like this
http://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/mag_fld/comp-en.php
Comparing the field strength in Dec 15, 1972, with the superstorm of 1972 in August 4-6 (which broke all kind of things and included a terrible proton storm that would have killed astronauts) the strength of the August event is 4 times larger. This data does not tell if there was a proton storm also in December 15, but often these sun flares include proton stores. This is the only sun storm that happened when astronauts were outside LEO. In this Apollo 17 case they just left the Moon late in 14. Dec 1972. Had they been on the Moon with their 0.25 g/m2 shielding from space suits, they would have got ill or died. Likewise Apollo 11 returned July 24. 1969 and there was a major sun storm July 26. 1969. There is no way to predict these sun storms.
From this data it is clear that Apollo programs risked the lives of the astronauts quite freely, but they got lucky and managed to omit sun flares. This is the obstacle for sending a man to the Moon or further what stops repeating these flights today. Going to Mars it would be impossible to avoid sun storms, at least in high sunspot years, as there are some 8 major storms in a year.
I try to find information of the Dec.15 1972 sun storm, but most probably will not find any from the web. If there was a proton storm at that time then the dosage could have been higher, but astronauts were on the Moon orbit and maybe luckily were on the other side of the Moon.
Anyway, it is good to check also his conspiracy, but I have not yet made the final conclusions. Maybe they were simply lucky all the time.
Thanks.
Yep, in plain sight. Also few people know unrestricted travel is not allowed in Antarctica. But no one questions this. I’m sure I’ll be accused of being a “conspiracy theorist” yet 32 nations signed a treaty. They’re all controlled by the same rulers.
As you suggest, what they likely refer to as the Van Allen Belts is probably the firmament. The moon is within the firmament and much closer than we’re told.
Correct. All their calculations are 666. The tilt of the earth is 23.4 degrees, less 90 degrees gives you 66.6. Many lakes are perfectly still which would be impossible if we’re spinning at 1,200 MPH and hurtling through space at 66,600 mph. Of course the North Star is always overhead regardless of the earth’s travel. 🙂
They cling to the “theory” of gravity which makes no sense. I suspect signals bounce off the firmament and others suggest many hot air balloons are used. We also have an extensive network of fiber optic cables on the ocean floor.
First, you need to tell me if he was a freemason. Then you need to tell me what degree. Then you need to tell me whether his boss was a mason, then you need to tell me what degree. Of course, they keep this all secret, just like their rituals and oaths.
Guidance and Control just doesn’t interest me, but I don’t know why a guidance specialist would have to know what was going on. As Garman said, they were in a back room restarting various programs at various saved entry points. The monitors in the Command Center were just tv’s pointed at a CRT displaying numbers. No graphs, no images, just numbers. It all could have been switched in a second, and your sacred Mr. Widnall would never have known anything.
Perhaps he comes from a family with long ties to masonry. Perhaps he was hired into the “moon” program mostly because he was a mason and had already performed significant tasks for them, or because he had agreed to become a mason and perform a series of ridiculous rituals.
Perhaps he was a high level mason, commanding dozens of other masons. A master liar, and even a master murderer.
Well, I think that’s an extremely fair—actually a rather generous—summary of the ongoing debate.
Basically, the Moon Hoax people admit they have no technical expertise and are relying upon their “common sense” that the 1969 Moon landing was “scientifically impossible.”
Meanwhile, they readily acknowledge that there are “hundreds of thousands” of scientists who are certainly aware of the Moon Hoax, but not a single one of these has ever publicly admitted it.
Personally, once they manage to round up a couple of hundred astrophysicists and aerospace engineers to publicly endorse the Moon Hoax theory I’ll be very glad to spend some time carefully investigating it myself.
Really? I haven’t seen any. Once again, you have insulted all those who “deny” the moon landing and yet don’t believe the world is flat.
Instead of beating Nazi strawmen, why don’t you try to correlate your American Pravda revelations with the mooners and the deniers. I think you would find the the mooners are also 9/11 believers, magic bullet believers and blood sacrifice deniers.
NASA information of shielding properties of Apollo
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/news/stereo_astronauts.html
CM is 7-8 g/cm2, a space suit 0.25g/cm2
Aluminum density is 2.7 g/cm3, so 2 cm thick aluminum gives 5.4 g/cm2. The protection of 7 mm gives 1.89 g/cm2 while 20 mm gives 5.4 g/cm2.
” I do know about cars, and there is no way that thing weighed 400lbs with batteries, wheels, 8 electric motors, remote TV camera from 1969,”
So it is the weight. Possible. I do not know about those things. About this if many academic fields have been taken over. Yes, in some sense. That is, normal scientists can work on their topics and do good work, as long as they do not touch controversial topics, so nobody wants to do it. I understand them, though I never did so. If you have a work and are respected, why to mix up with things that can only harm you. Some 911Truth people, I think, got fired when they started claiming that it was a demolition. Finland used not to have this your problem. There was a different thing, you were not supposed to criticize Soviets publicly. If you did their agents wrote to our newspapers articles condemning it just like antisemitism is now condemned. Then it was anti-sovietism, but you were not punished for it. That is passed, and now we are in the free world where you can criticize anybody as long as it is not somebody whom you cannot criticize. Not much has changed.
I’m agnostic, but if had to state a lean one way or the other I would lean on the side of the NO MAN ON THE MOON. While there have been lots of good questions asked that have not elicited satisfactory answers, I think the four most compelling arguments that a hoax did occur are these:
1) Van Allen Belts
Are these a problem or not? If they are a problem, then how was it really solved? If they aren’t, then why has there been so much discussion from NASA as if they are a problem that needs a better solution. All of the tangential arguments are not really relevant (e.g., we went around the belts, we went at a time when they were weak, look at the dosage levels, we obviously made it through without any problems, etc.) and ultimately distracting. Again, if the radiation issue is not a problem, then why does NASA continue to insist that it is?
2) Stars/No Stars/Earth?
Lots has been said about this issue. I think it’s relevant and I find it persuasive for this reason. All three of the astronauts appeared very uncomfortable when handling this very question in the post-mission interview. Whether or not stars can be seen and photographed from the moon’s surface would have no effect on Michael Collins who was supposedly orbiting the moon while Armstrong and Aldrin were on the surface. Why did Collins act like a deer in the headlights and not say that he could see stars while he was on the back side of the moon?
If all the reasons for why stars could not be seen and photographed from the moon’s surface are true, then wouldn’t those same light principles have applied to the visibility of the Earth? Yet we have photos of a “too small” Earth in nice focus alongside the flag and astronaut. How can this be? Either the sun’s light washes out everything else on the moon or it doesn’t. Every debunking answer seems to contradict one of the other debunking answers creating a very unbelievable set of “facts” that govern the moon landing narrative. I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer for how the Earth can be clearly seen (and photographed!) from the moon while stars cannot.
The stars/no stars debate is exacerbated by the fact that numerous astronauts have talked about seeing stars while traveling through space, though this contradicts the experience of what occurred during the Apollo missions.
3) Engineering logistics
So many of the engineering marvels that had to occur in order to pull off everything in the Apollo missions 11 – 17 have been glossed over. For example…
No airlock on the lunar lander? Explanation: not needed. End of story. Okay.
Docking of the lunar module with the command module? No sweat. Easy-peasy. Nevermind the logistical details of how this was accomplished. There is a video of the whole thing which shows the lunar module spinning like a top and then stopping while moving in different directions. The same video then cuts away and then back right when the docking is to occur so we don’t actually see the full docking sequence. Piece of cake.
Lots of lots of “miraculous” steps like this were taken over the course of the moon missions and but for 13, just about everything was “flawless.” We know it all worked because hey…they did it and told us it worked just like they thought it would.
4) Haven’t been back (and no one else has either)
All 7 missions occurred within one presidential office term in a 3½ year window of time, and have never been close to being replicated. No other country has done it either. Despite all of the reasons why no one has been back to the moon, this very fact should shed some doubt on whether we ever went in the first place…especially when some of the reasons now are that we simply don’t have the technology.
Here is the full image:
AS14-68-9486
The next one is a doozy, but first [ glorious but melodramatic music ], here is the preceding photograph showing A Sunbeam on the Moon.
AS14-68-9485
Howzzat for “optics”?
Well, in subsequent photo AS14-68-9487, that glorious sunbeam has gone into hiding behind a mysterious black thingy. Maybe the sunbeam’s sudden shyness was brought on by, you know, over-exposure.
AS14-68-9487
Anyway, I think the burden of proof is on the party making the claim, i.e. NASA’s claim that these photographs are a real record of lunar excursions by the Apollo astronauts.
My family come from a long line of Arizona and California ranchers. I was raised with the illusion that we were completely free in every way. I left the US decades ago, and raised my family in a small European country not too unlike Finland. I will never be able to escape my US brainwashing.
Since then I have renounced my citizenship, and after being harassed and threatened by CPB more than once I will never go back again. I live in exile. The strange thing is that my Grandfather died in exile, and so did his grandfather.
I am at heart a Confederate, a Secessionist and a Rebel, and I despise what the Yankees have done to the USA and the planet. So you need to realize that my rants are focused on a certain subsection of Americans, not so much Finns, but certainly Brits. I apologize for accusing you of taking the sheckel.
Well, no. The people on the other side of the debate, in this specific venue, are just…. whoever they are…
By your reasoning, if I got into a theological discussion with the local village priest, I would be debating with the Pope or Jesus Christ, or God himself. But no, I wouldn’t be. I would just be debating whoever I was debating with.
As for challenging the credentials of NASA scientists, no, I wouldn’t do that. I would just point out that, for obvious reasons, it is extremely unlikely that anybody employed by NASA would ever call out the moon landings as a hoax.
It is no more likely than the Pope or any other such religious figure, right down to the village priest, declaring himself to be an atheist.
So, let me get this straight. If we can get a couple of hundred astrophysicists or aerospace engineers to publicly commit career suicide, then (and only then…) you’ll actually pay some attention.
Hmm…. I have to say you’ve got a point. If a couple of hundreds fellas lined up and committed ritual hara kiri in front of me, they would have my attention!
Not just my attention probably…
(Hey, that would beat the hell out of Monday Night Football, eh?)
Indeed, you are right. This means that 30% of the surface are rated at below 4 g/cm^2 rather than 3 g/cm^2. However, that doesn’t change the fact that shielding is heterogenous; and your claim that they average out is simply false, since shielding is non-linear.
Here is Figure 6 from Turner2009
It compares the shielding in different space capsules. Notice how the space shuttle (top left) and the ISS (top right) are shielded all around with at least 10 g/cm2. In contrast, Apollo (bottom right) has a very noticeable proportion of weakly shielded areas. It clearly was not optimized for radiation protection. Let that sink in – the only vehicle allegedly built for manned spaceflight outside low Earth orbit was not optimized for radiation protection.
Here is Figure 2 from the same paper, showing the effectiveness of shielding against energy-rich particles
Since it is poorly legible, I have highlighted the aluminium trace. On the left, we see the dose equivalent as a function of shielding density (in relative units; appropriate absolute units would be Sievert); on the right hand side, we see some actual effects in a biological model. The range of the x axis goes from 0 to 30 g/cm^2 shielding; the latter value corresponds to 11 cm of aluminium. Notice how the dosage decreases only very slowly (and initially may even increase); this is due to the secondary radiation generated when energy-rich particles hit the shielding.
Figure 4 from the same paper shows how shielding affects galactic cosmic rays (GCR), which occur at a steady intensity beyond the van Allen belt. As you can see, shielding is not very effective at all.
That figure also shows that shielding can be more effective against solar particle events (SPE); however, notice that the curves shown apply to shielding materials other than, and in this application better than, aluminium.
Finally, we need to keep in mind that the Earth’s magnetic field, at low latitudes, shields from cosmic rays, except only those of the highest energies. See for example this illustration from Heinrich (1994)
Shown here are only Fe nuclei, but the situation is similar for other particle types. This effect will greatly reduce radiation exposure in low Earth orbit relative to outer space – and this applies regardless of solar activity and of the van Allen belts. This is the reason why most NASA missions – including ALL Apollo missions, even the alleged lunar ones – stayed in orbits with low inclination.
In conclusion, dosage on a lunar mission, whether harmful or not, will always greatly exceed that received on a 30 degree low Earth orbit, as long as shielding is comparable. Thus, the very similar dosages measures aboard Apollo 9 and Apollo 11 directly contradict the claim that one, but not other, actually went to the moon.
Thanks for your reply.
Also consider galactic cosmic rays (GCR). They are greatly attenuated in low Earth orbit, as long as the inclination is low (see my last reply to James Forrestal).
Interestingly, an orbit with low inclination is optimal for avoiding GCR when staying in that orbit, but one with high inclination would be optimal for avoiding the van Allen belts when departing from Earth orbit toward the moon.
NASA is asking us to believe that Apollo 11 and all the others initially launched into low Earth orbit with low inclination, but then took off from that orbit almost perpendicularly so as to circumnavigate the van Allen belts. This would have meant forfeiture of the kinetic energy attained in the orbit (for there is no trampoline in space to bounce against, changing direction while preserving energy). Just one more lunatic tale.
It makes no sense to begin with, it cannot work as it reportedly did, and on top of that we have Bart Sibrel’s evidence that indeed Apollo 11 never left low Earth orbit. The coffin is sealed for good, and it will stay this way longer than that of even Tutankhamun.
The earth can be photographed from the moon for exactly the same reason that the moon can be photographed from the earth. The exposures used are the same. So, in daylight, here on earth, when the moon is visible in the blue sky, you see it at close to the same brightness as the blue sky, and the same brightness as the grass and trees around you on earth. The moon reflects close to the same amount of light as a photographic grey card used to find the mid point between objects that would be reproduced as white and those reproduced as black in a photograph. In other words, it’s the middle of the grey scale between white and black in a photograph.
Here on earth you can use the “sunny sixteen” rule to set your camera’s exposure on a sunny day. You set the shutter time to the reciprocal of the film or digital sensor’s ISO sensitivity, and set the aperture to f:16. If you point the camera towards a grey scale card with those settings on the camera, the grey scale card will have the same density as the photograph of the grey scale card. And if you photograph a normal landscape scene in direct sunlight at mid day it will be correctly reproduced in the resulting photograph.
Standing on the moon you can do the same thing, and if the earth is in the photo, it will appear correctly exposed. The reason this happens is that the earth and the moon are about the same distance from the light source, the sun. So the exposure settings are the same.
If you have a camera with a flash, you can test this for yourself. Most modern cameras with a flash will calculate the exposure and the power output of the flash for you. So, stand in front of another person with that person about 5 or 6 feet away. Do this in a room with the wall behind your subject 3 or 4 times the distance between you and your subject. Take the picture. If the camera correctly exposes your subject, the wall behind your subject will be significantly darker than your subject. That’s because with every doubling of the distance, the density of photons from the camera’s flash is reduced. It’s only 25% as much with each doubling of the distance.
But the moon and the earth are both about 93 million miles away from the sun, so they both receive the same amount of light from the sun. The sun is far enough away that it takes 8 minutes for the light to reach us. But the closest star is 4.5 light years away, quite a few orders of magnitude further away. So their light is far less intense by the time it reaches us. You can stare at any star in the night sky for hours if you like with no damage to your eyes. Don’t try that with our sun.
The photons from each star are spread out further apart as they get further from the source. The light is far less dense. So while it’s certainly possible to photograph the distant stars, you can’t use the same exposure settings to record them on film as you use to expose objects illuminated by the sun here on earth or on the moon.
Both photos have extremely low contrast. This is consistent with flare. The “sunbeam” is just flare. And in the third photo, the dark sky in the upper left is simply due to the sun not shining directly on the upper left portion of the front element. Hence no flare in the upper left corner of the photo.
All of these effects are very easy to reproduce. All you need is a camera and a sunny day.
Decent looking lunar landers were never obligatory.
Non-parallel shadows. Is this one under artificial lighting as well?
He doesn’t like you.
He doesn’t like me either.
We’d better watch ourselves.
That excerpt is damning.
Unless, of course, you believe that:
1. NASA solved this problem 50 years ago, but
2. then, as per astronaut Don Pettit, it ‘destroyed the technology’, and it’s ‘too painful’ to rebuild it, so, aw shucks, we’ll just have to start all over again.
How accurately were they measured? Is it possible that solar activity was different during 9 and 11 missions?
Are you willing to trust NASA numbers on the dosage? Here in Table 2
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-368/s2ch3.htm
and here in Table I
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730010172.pdf
they state that 11 had significantly lower dosage than 9. Could be a typo or some other mistake or just accuracy of measurements.
You cannot derail the whole official narrative with weak arguments like the one you are making.
Do you really think that petulant gibes help make your case? The word “feel” does not apply to me any more than it applies to you. None of my points have involved trying to reduce something to one number, like a radiation dose. My overall point is that sending six teams successfully to the Moon and back in 1969-1972 is highly improbable, especially given that no one has been above a few hundred miles since then (with the Moon being about a thousand times that distance), and also given that a number of other major deceptions have being carried out, including 9/11 and the homicidal gas chamber claim following WW2. That is not reducing things to one number, but rather making an assessment based on the overall plausibility of each side of the argument.
My point about the Van Allen belts is that it is suspicious that the reasons making it possible for seven (including Apollo 13) teams to make it to the Moon and back have not been described in detail in peer-reviewed journals. (I asked for an example of such an article, and you did not provide one.) The interaction of the four areas I listed is complicated and deserves to be considered in depth. The fact that there is no such discussion in the literature is one more piece of circumstantial evidence supporting the view that the manned Moon missions were fake.
I never said “Van Allen Belt = instant death”. I am saying that it is one complication among many that makes it appear unlikely that people were actually sent to the Moon. Why are you using exaggerations of what I said as straw-men? This is a cheap rhetorical tactic.
I did not ask you to spoon-feed me factoids. I asked for a peer-reviewed article describing how 7 Apollo teams made it through the belts. I said that it would have to include all four areas of information I listed. When you throw out numbers like “6 minutes” it does not prove anything. I think there was only one peer-reviewed article in you latest comment, and it did not mention the Apollo mission. You provided links to sites (e.g., Wikipedia) that anyone could find. The idea that individuals would have to learn about the four areas I listed and integrate the information themselves is preposterous. There should already be numerous studies bringing the information together.
You are asking me to do a study? If one has already been done, then give the citation information. You gave a link for a supposed study on Apollo 11. There were six other missions. The link does not look like a journal article. Do you seriously think it is normal that the only studies looking into this are in obscure web archives? That is bizarre.
Evidently, there are statistical models of Van Allen belt particle spectra. It ought to be possible to look at the paths the astronauts followed and make probabilistic estimates of the numbers of particles at different energy levels. The Apollo missions carried a Van Allen Belt Dosimeter (VABD). This appears to have been inside the spacecraft. Is the detailed VABD data still available, or was it “lost” along with the telemetry data? It does not look like VABD data is discussed in the literature. NASA has technical reports, but they are vague and hardly cited at all, from what I can tell. This, again, is suspicious.
TV is a propagandist’s dream tool. A passive audience means one can overlay almost any simple, emotionally stimulating storyline on top of some sketchy, implausible details and so create a new worldview for the viewing public. Once planted there, there’s little chance the public will encounter the devils that reside in the details, and in fact will self-police, (as we’ve seen above) going to some lengths to avoid them.
Of course.
The greatest advances have been made in the field of electronics and computation. I realize that having vastly superior onboard electronics isn’t actually going to make a similarly “vastly superior” improvement in on board operations, but it will in design engineering terms by dramatically reducing the space, power and weight required for it. Imagine the difference between the modern video camera and its batteries vs the monsters of the ’60s. Today, we actually could get live broadcasts from the moon surface in, say 360p resolution, from a reasonably sized package (I’m no video expert). Digital processing and transmission consumes vastly less power than analog.
Much more important than that is the effects the electronics/computational revolution has had on design, engineering and making of complex parts and systems. The ability to design, model and test systems with Multi-Physics/Finite Element Analysis software puts modern design engineers light-years ahead of the ’60s. Materials, shapes, structures, and entire systems can be repeatedly tested under arbitrarily stressful conditions, to destruction, redesigned and optimized in cyber space long before anything is physically built. The parts are then precision cut or formed by multi-axis CNC machines straight from the original design files for physical verification. No “artisans” required. All this happens “inline” and the result is that extraordinary physical performance can be squeezed from the absolutely minimum mass of material at very low cost in time and money compared to Apollo. Apollo was built by hand by artisans/craftsman, from drawings made by hand, of components designed by engineers working with slide-rules. Don’t get me wrong, great things can and were done that way, but the inherent errors and unpredictabilities in such a design process meant engineers had to err on the side of caution, aka: overbuild. Overbuilt sounds good, until you find you don’t have the lifting power to get it into space. We’re much better equipped to get it into space today largely because of the revolution in electronics and computational power.
I don’t really know much about the state of the materials art of 50 yrs ago. I suspect that metallurgy is not much different today, but ultra-lightweight structures using nano & composite technologies are everywhere now. Their progress has been greatly aided by the power of MP/FEA informed design as well. Little of that was available even to those working at the bleeding edge back then. Similarly, rare earths now allow high density/efficiency batteries and motors to be used in everything, but it’s only in the last 10-15 yrs that we’ve seen those spread. Neodymium permanent magnets and motors came a decade after Apollo.
You mention heat shields, and the limited advances made in that field. Well, we’re running into the limits of what materials can handle. Everything melts/burns/deteriorates at some temperature, and with refractory ceramics we’re at the limits of what can be usefully done.
I suspect that some new thinking in thermal management is the core breakthrough that allowed the development of the new Russian hypersonic missiles.
What stands out in all of this, of course, is that not one of the relevant technology fields has gone backwards from the ’60s. All have advanced, some by orders of magnitude, some by less, but all are in better shape to go to the moon today than they were in 1969. Yet, here we are with our shoes apparently nailed to the floor, or at least to LEO. There’s something very wrong with a storyline that says “the giants that walked the earth in those just got lucky, 6 times in a row”, when much of what allowed them to get lucky had yet to be invented.
As ever, the devils reside in the details, which is why these hoaxes (all of them) are so easy to propagate.
I too have read somewhere that the F1 rocket engine was not only much less powerful than advertised, it was also unreliable and even exhibited deep instabilities right up to the moment it was approved for flight. I have no way of assessing its problems, but it is just one of hundreds of technically dubious claims that make up the Apollo story.
If one follows the story step by step, one finds oneself running up against one “WTF?” claim after the other. How many “WTF?” moments does one have to have before tossing the whole thing over the fence? I’m well past the required number.
You are absolutely right Ron’s declaration of faith seems unconvincing, to be polite and further the arguments he uses to support his faith seem about as strong as an Apollo lander.
I still consider the date (1st April) of the original article and Ron’s immediate rebuttal to be highly relevant.
Actually, I just discovered something interesting from a commenter…
It looks like the whole Moon Hoax nonsense was launched by a Fox TV “conspiracy show” back in 2001. I think that the X-Files show was very popular on TV back then, and I guess Fox decided to get some ratings by jumping on board.
Some professional astronomer set up a web page which he claims debunks all the nonsense, especially the things dealing with the NASA photos. I glanced over it, and it’s probably worth having the Moon Hoax people take a look:
http://badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
So at least one professional astronomer has now weighed in on the issue. I’d also note that since the TV show aired 18 years ago, many, many more of the NASA participants were still around, and I’d think at least a few of them would have “gone public” at the time, even if just in hopes of getting on TV.
Your stubbornness in believing that a story is right as long as it is not denied by specialists is quite amazing. Reads like Claud Cockburn’s dictum who held the opposite position: ‘Never believe anything until it is officially denied.’
Of course the moonlanding story is much worse than denial from the specialists, as the moonlandings are not even denied, it is a taboo subject. Why is it a taboo subject?
Maybe you did not read another comment that I wrote about professor Brian Cox who decided to not answer skeptical questions about the moonlandings as shown here
http://www.aulis.com/brian_cox.htm
Some snippets:
Brian Cox states with some vitriol in a BBC documentary that “The Moon landings happened and the question is nonsensical … it’s like saying was America ever discovered? Right? Well, yes, it was. Did we, did we work out how to… did we discover penicillin? Yes. Did we go to the Moon? Yes. That’s the evidence. There is no information content or use in debating it any more.”
Asked to clarify how this response completely proves the fact that they [the Apollo astronauts] went there, Cox replies with a remarkable lack of cogency, “Well, first of all, I don’t even accept that it needs proving, because you’ve got to be a complete moron anyway…” Cox then stops speaking.
In short: the moonlandings are a taboo subject for distinghuished scientists, like Brian Cox.
Now Brian Cox is not someone I consider as an expert in astronomy, but he is by many others and (as you may know) he is a BBC celebrity
In contrast, I see Carl Sagan as a distinghuished astronomer who popularized astronomy in particular and science in general.
He gives a nice explanation on youtube about the moonlandings that I presented in another comment. I think it is quite interesting: Sagan never says that the moonlandings DID happen. Instead he says that the moonlandings looked beautiful, were of ‘Unreal quality’ that they are inspiring and that with the moon landings we entered an ‘era of myth and legend.’ I think we can all agree with that and still consider the moonlandings are a hoax.
But for Sagan denial that the moonlandings ever took place was also taboo. Why is it a taboo subject for distinghuished scientists? – I think that is the interesting question, and not why the moonlandings were never denied by distinghuished scientists.
In the end, as explained by many other commenters here: the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the the heavier is the burden of proof demanded.
Yes, it is possible that solar activity varied. However, dosage on a lunar mission should exceed that in a low-inclination low Earth orbit very substantially regardless of solar activity.
I was using numbers that I found in several scientific articles; those say that Apollo 11 experienced slightly higher dosages than Apollo 9. If NASA’s numbers are correct, and it was indeed Apollo 9 that had the higher dosages, that makes my argument only stronger.
Of course I don’t trust NASA on anything. NASA is the U.S. government, and that outfit never tells the truth. But I hope you are not suggesting that NASA’s known mendacity gives cause for reasonable doubt in their favour.
You mean the world is not hanging on my lips? Ouch, that really hurts. A lot.
I am perfectly aware that other arguments are more direct than mine, and much more fun to review – all the funny pictures and absurd videos. I love those, too, and I was initially persuaded by them that the story must be false. Only then did I look at the scientific side of things.
Since there are lots of people who pretend that “science” is on the side of the official narrative, I think there is value, too, in showing that the tale is scientifically untenable, even if this is a little dry and laborious. I do believe that I have identified one way of doing so (but others have made similar arguments before me). I remain of course open to being proven wrong – but nobody here has done that so far, even though some of the commenters did force me to dig deeper.
“Interestingly, an orbit with low inclination is optimal for avoiding GCR when staying in that orbit, but one with high inclination would be optimal for avoiding the van Allen belts when departing from Earth orbit toward the moon. ”
This is what I meant when asking why nobody wants to exit the earth from the polar regions where there is no Van Allen Belts. There is something terribly wrong in those areas, cosmic rays, those that VAB protects us against. All charged cosmic particle that come to the direction to the earth should be directed to the polar areas by earth’s magnetic field. Notice that VAB does not protect in any way against photons, thus these dangerous cosmic rays which we do not have on LEO must be charged particle, that is, electrons or protons. But this radiation should basically be close to the earth, so I left it to the study of VABs.
I have a strong feeling that the calculation by the debunker in the link provided by out esteemed opponents has ignored this issue. Usually debunkers ignore half of the issues and cherry-pick just what they want to show. My feeling is that if you try to avoid VABs, then you take another risk, and that is why Marki in his preprint wonders why NASA today does not want to use the excellent path of Apollo 11 or do even better and exit the earth from the North Pole. (I think he has several jokes in his preprint for people who know the topic.)
About this shielding. I have a serious problem in determining it because information from NASA does not seem to make sense.
Firstly, during Apollo programs NASA did not use any special radiation shielding, so I would expect that they did not have as much shielding as what was later planned.
Then we have Simonsen (1991) in
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sshepherd/research/Shielding/docs/Simonsen_91.pdf
He gives some information. On page 8 states that moderately shielded spacecraft (5 g/cm2), such as those contemplated for advanced missions… This means that Apollo did not have so thick shielding. Simonsen considers moderately shielded to mean 2-5 g/cm2.
That was the state of knowledge in 1991, but today NASA informs us of the shielding properties of Apollo in
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/news/stereo_astronauts.html
and states that Apollo CM was comparable to 7-8 g/cm2 while a space suit is 0.25g/cm2. That would indicate that in 1969 NASA used more shielding than Simonsen saw necessary in future missions when writing in 1991.
Just to remind us, aluminum density is 2.7 g/cm3 (2 cm thick aluminum gives 5.4 g/cm2). The protection of 7 mm gives 1.89 g/cm2 while 20 mm gives 5.4 g/cm2. Marki suggested that Apollo CM might have offered 7 mm protection, that is 1.89 g/cm2, but NASA says that they had 7-8 g/cm2, that is 26-29 mm of aluminium. It does not match to Marki’s calculations: radiation with so much shielding should have been less than what is announced.
Could it be that 7-8 g/cm2 for the Apollo CM might not be quite accurate?
I‘ve already gone to some length explaining this above. The shadows converge toward the vanishing point because of perspective. Are you really flummoxed by this?
My #1439
Do you think a reading from a sundial taken at the leftmost post would differ from another simultaneous sundial reading at the rightmost post, or if you simply measured the angle of the shadows with respect to each post, that they would be different?
Over any substantial distance, it’s a different story, but locally, all shadows from the Sun are cast at the same angle.
Another good topic is Ring Makers of Saturn.
It is expensive though.
NASA is the short bus kids. Lockheed Martin, SAIC, Leidos and General Atomics.
Norman Bergrun – Ringmakers of Saturn
So how the convergence or divergence of shadows on the picture AS14-68-9486/7 is different? How would you convince somebody that what we see on the picture AS14-68-9486/7 is not the same effect as in this picture?
Most likely it isn’t; the dosages in LEO are too high for that. What NASA tells us about it is of no consequence, they simply have lied too often to be believed on anything at all. It is good enough for me that their reported dosage readings contradict their claim of successful lunar travel, regardless of the shielding.
True, but on a real lunar mission you would hit those areas only for a very few short times. You would launch into a high-inclination LEO that traverses your intended point of departure close to the pole, circle the Earth once or twice for checks and attitude adjustments, and then take off toward the moon tangentially, thus preserving all that precious kinetic energy. The way NASA tells the story – low-inclination LEO, and THEN a change of direction in order to circumnavigate the VAB, is patently absurd. They assumed low-inclination LEO because they meant to stay there the entire time.
At first, I don’t care if there was somebody on the moon or not. Same what other people believe or not. I am interested in new ideas. This is a fascinating one, because it’s shows that I am totally wrong.
Before your statement I was sure that the sundial was a clock the Romans invented and it was used all over the time. Now I know that’s wrong because the direction of the shade depends on the point of view. That is btw. a very interesting enhancement of Einsteins RT.
So please expand my view of physics and tell me more: why make two light sources only one shadow?
Don’t hurry, I can wait to next April fool day ;-).
I think the owner of the badastronomy site is Phil Plait. You can see from his Wikipedia page that he worked for NASA. He debated Bart Sibrel on MSNBC a couple decades ago. The YouTube video is: “MSNBC Debates Moon Landing Hoax (2002)”. Bart Sibrel mentions that Plait worked for NASA.
Of course, this does not prove anything, but Mr. Unz should not assume that an astronomer who worked for NASA for a number of years is giving an impartial opinion. He also worked for Discover magazine. Many of us who are into conspiracy analysis will be aware that mainstream publications have links to the deep state. Plait’s main field of work in recent years has been public outreach, not astronomy.
Regardless, I would say that a background in space physics would be more relevant than a background in astronomy or astrophysics, which deal with things that are outside the solar system, generally. It is space physics that concerns the Van Allen belts and other sources of radiation around our planet. There is also planetary science, which deals with what moons and planets would look like up close. As far as who would know about orbital mechanics and the complications involved with getting a spacecraft from point A to point B and maintaining a safe environment in space, that would involve various types of engineering.
It’s fairly clear that that image is a time-lapse photo, similar to the one here:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=T%2fUAXF5U&id=31F86FEEC04A9A970ACD6431B0E2677A9DCB3982&thid=OIP.T_UAXF5UCaArYX2tAOFAUwAAAA&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fnickdodgephotography.weebly.com%2fuploads%2f1%2f3%2f6%2f4%2f13640661%2f3891928.jpg&exph=222&expw=333&q=diverging+shadows+from+post+time+lapse+photo&simid=608051292067137026&selectedIndex=4&ajaxhist=0
It’s the only way you could achieve such an effect with sunlight.
Nice try, though.
I was really thinking hard how to respond to your comment in a civil way but I gave up. There is nothing more obstinate than idiocy.
Unz Lies, Mis-Represents, Refuses To Grasp Simple Scientific Method, Observation Capable To Anyone W. Common Sense
Unz, Jew lying liar who lies, says,
No, thou stupid Jew liar, we don’t say “landing” was “scientifically impossible”–we don’t have to. All we say is proof for the assertion about “landing” is non-existent, utterly lacking–THERE IS NO PROOF, sucker–get a clue, moron.
And since such PROOF consists simply of OBSERVATION of the thesis/issue/question (the “landing”), the “proof” is non-existent and utterly lacking. And since such proof and observation can be done by anyone w. common sense, then common sense (and observation) is all that’s needed, obviously, REGARDLESS of any “expert.”
Here’s a decent exposition on scientific method, which is essentially sense-perception confirming (or not) the abstract question/issue/thesis–it only requires HONEST observation and common sense; doesn’t need “experts,” et al.:
Above is taken fm https://explorable.com/what-is-the-scientific-method. Q.E.D.
Well, one fact that has been established beyond a shadow of a doubt during this little tardfest is that your Daddy shot his wad into a flower pot and raised a blooming idiot.
Sundials have flat bases.
So here’s a test to perform. Make two sundials. Make one with a flat base. And make the second one with a base shaped like waves out in the ocean in a storm.
Publish your results.
Danny Jew-Boy Needs “Leg” To “Standing Upon,” Eh?
Danny Jew-boy: well, ONE of us is sure “blooming idiot,” and if I am, then thou SURE are, eh?–ho ho ho ho ho ho. But dumbass, why not say WHY–what did I ever say that was wrong or questionable, sucker?–tell us.
evidently I misread 13,000 to be 3,000. Still, 13,000 is not enough to cover all surface with 10 cm of aluminum equivalent (in the business we prefer water equivalent, meters of water equivalent, mwe).
So we still have some discrepancy.
In the problem at hand, g/cm2 or thickness in cm are nearly equivalent, once you account for the density (2.7 for aluminum). The VAB particles are essentially stopped by electrons in the shield. And all conceivable structural materials have approximately the same number of electrons per gram.
The shadows in your picture converge in the distance because of perspective, as we should expect.
AS14-68-9487
However, the shadows in this image diverge going away from the light, so the anomalous, divergent shadows cannot be due to perspective.
Or, you can look at it the other way and say that the shadows converge when pointing back toward the source of light. There is an entire field of computer graphics devoted to these related phenomena known as ray-tracing.
I’ve been saying you cannot cast parallel shadows from discrete objects with a single, artificial light source, but now it has occurred to me that, if you had a gigantic light with a diameter greater than the distance between the most widely spaced objects in the scene, say by using miniatures (models) and a big spotlight at some distance, it might be possible to get parallel shadows that would be “good enough” not to attract attention. Not saying that was done, necessarily, but rather that my earlier claim about the parallel shadows needed to be amended.
Anyway, the Sun being 109x the diameter of Earth and 93 million miles away are the reasons the Sun casts parallel shadows on Earth, and on the Moon.
Well, at least so far there is not a Flat Moon theory. You’d think that big ol’ spherical Moon going through its phases would deflate the Flat Earth thing. How do you reconcile a Flat Earth with a spherical Moon? Obviously, some folks are beyond convincing.
For lurking pedants: upstream somewhere I was talking about an old 24mm lens with lots of flare, but incorrectly said it was k-mount, when actually it was a M42 screw-mount purchased in the late 1960s, while the K-mount was not introduced until 1975. I feel much better now getting that off my chest..
Parallel shadows produced by the sun alone will, when viewed from a perpendicular position, run in parallel. Viewed nearly head-on, as in the picture you showed, they will naturally converge. This one looks time-lapsed to me, but i could be wrong. Maybe there’s just some odd curvature on the ground to the right. In any case, the position of the shadows in no way resembles the tight convergence of shadows seen in many Apollo pics. These are clearly not accounted for by irregular terrain.
How can they have landed on the moon? The moon, like the Earth, is obviously a flat disk. But the moon is made of paper – so they’d make hole in it if they landed.
(1) Shadows on Earth and Moon cast by Sun are parallel. You agree on this, right?
(2) But the shadows when photographed may converge on the 2D plane of the photograph as on the picture which I have pasted already twice. You agree on this, right?
(3) You claim that on the picture from the Moon that you have pasted several times shadows diverge and that this divergence can’t be explained by the same perspective effect as the convergence in (2) and thus it must imply that the shadows are not made by Sun light but by an artificial light source. Is this accurate description of your argument?
Shadows may either converge or diverge it all depends where is the camera. It can be easily checked experimentally. It is less frequent to see shadows diverging because it happens when camera is somewhat facing the Sun and people usually do not take pictures against the Sun. But you can also perform a mental experiment. Think of the shadows as objects (sticks or railroad tracks) laying on the ground. The sticks, the railroad tracks are parallel. But when you look at railroad tracks they always converge (that’s; how perspective works) and Sun has nothing to do with it. So you can look East or West along the same tracks and they converge and by the same argument they diverge in opposite direction.
So the distinction of divergence vs. convergence that you have made does not suffice to prove that your picture from the Moon implies an artificial light source. You have to make a better argument. That’s why in the very beginning of our conversation I have suggested that the argument must be quantitative. You must calculate whether the shadows seen on the picture from the Moon are impossible to be created by sunlight. Yes, you can do it by ray tracing of the scene and a particular focal length lens but in order to do it you will have to make several assumption: positions of objects that cast shadows with respect of camera, focal length and position of Sun with respect to optical axis. It might be possible that there is no right combination of these parameters to replicate the picture from the Moon and only then you would have proven that the picture was not taken under the natural sunlight. But as far as I know nobody has done such an extensive calculations and thus the claims that you and many other are making that this particular picture can’t be made under the sunlight are unwarranted.
Thanks, that was it. It seems to leave a Holocaust death toll of 2.5 million though I can’,t guarantee that I have had the stamina to tackle its detail properly. I am sure most Jews believe or have believed at some time the 6 million figure and would probably now assume it was at least 4 million.
There are some odd suggestions in that piece which make me wonder why I haven’t yet had responses to the key question I pose which is about the deportations from all over occupied Europe of non workers. They would be along the lines of it being secret Zionist plotting with the Nazis to get comfortable Jews to move to Palestine. Of course they had to be uprooted. The trouble with that appears to be that there is absolutely no confirmation of it from the expected German sources – Eichman for one.
I found picts with shadows diverging (away from sun).
Yeah, but not 10-Grand.
HAHAHAHA!
Just funnin’ with you Rev-OOO.
I think his numbers make sense, and correspond to a back-of-the-envelope calculation in terms of what is verifiable about the western camps and EG shootings, and overall casualties in the chaos of population transfers in the east. They definitely don’t support the atrocity stories re. Auschwitz and the AR camps. (FWIW I do believe Eichmann was some sort of asset.)
and you see the blurring effect caused by an existing atmosphere.
Btw: what size has the “studio” with the LEM Module far away and the mountains much further?
“wasn’t it easier just go to the moon?”
S. G. Collins in his “Moon hoax not” film
Its indeed painful to rebuild that destroyed “studio technology” & finding hundreds of thousands willing morons as witness.
60yrs ago, those alu foils & Christmas wrappers look great & high tech on that cardboard moon lander isn’t it. Who know its such a common kitchen ware now. So are the little umbrella TV live broadcaster, foldable rover, hundreds of expensive CRT TV with pasted display …they supposed to look very high tech “60yrs ago”.
Its not fair to judge us by current standard, we truly did a great job60yrs ago…NASA complaint.
This is for the moon- walking on, walking on, the moon
“During a solar maximum, about 15 flares per day emit detectable X-ray energies.”
From http://radhome.gsfc.nasa.gov/radhome/papers/seeca3.htm
“…(1964 for solar minimum and 1970 for solar maximum).”
“So the Apollo missions, from 1969 to 1972, were occurring during a solar maximum, when there would have been peak numbers of solar flares per day!”
“The most violent flares probably will produce exposures of 100 roentgens each hour and may hold this level for several hours”. The terms roentgen and rem (Roentgen Equivalent Man) are interchangeable.
“A radiation dose value from a low energy flare is provided from NASA Mooned America, p. 134: “On page 256 of ‘Astronautical Engineering’ there is a chart that shows the dosage of four different flares. On August 22, 1958 there was a low energy flare that could have been reduced to 25-rem with 2-cm of water shielding.”
“So, being conservative and using 25 rems per flare, we have 25 rems x 15 flares/day = 375 rems / day for the Apollo astronauts.”
” For occupational exposure dose limits, the International Atomic Energy Agency states that the “occupational exposure of any worker shall be so controlled” that the limit of an “effective dose of 50 mSv” “in any single year” “be not exceeded”. 50 mSv converts to 5 rems.”
“How were the Apollo astronauts able to withstand 375 rems per day when the IAEA occupational exposure dose limit is only 5 rems in any single year?”
Some science stuff mixed in: http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm
I imagine this guy is counting all flares on the sun. I don’t know if solar flares not facing the moon would reach the moon but the whole thing is appearing to be a game of Russian roullette, if these guys landed on the moon in their Ace Hardware landing craft of taped up tarps, tarping paper and aluminum foil. Perhaps Kubrick just had to make do.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘atrocity stories” but if you specifically mean the use of gas chambers and the selections on arrival I agree strictly speaking. On the other hand I have no problem in believing some smart maybe Aspergery young SS officers thought it would be a great idea to block up a few cellar rooms and trying them out as gas chambers for surplus people. You could find plenty of “willing executooners” today, not least in America.
As to Eichman being an “asset” that sounds crazy. I can’t think of a way to spell it out so it is at all plausible. Can you?
The shadows are converging in the distance toward a vanishing point following the rules of perspective.
No, but the discussion is not about railroad tracks, but about shadows created by the Sun.
If you mean some random SS officer may have killed prisoners for no good reason, sure, I’m sure that could have happened in isolated instances.
Eichmann’s postwar story raises too many eyebrows. He was absent-mindedly released from American custody then basically milled around western Germany for a few years before deciding it might not be a good idea to stick around. Then his presence in Argentina was widely known to all the major intelligence services, his actions at the time suggest an operative negotiating how to come back in. His role in the Third Reich was to barter Jews for the eventual political settlement in Palestine that was clearly coming after late 1943, he would have known all the players on both sides.
Do no try to weasel out now and pretend that you did not understand my explanation I made for your sake. You know that you lost your argument using the distinction betweens the cases of converging and diverging shadows. There is no distinction. You are unable to make a compelling argument (even to yourself) why the shadows on the pict from the Moon, that are diverging, must be due to an artificial light source. I have outlined to you how via ray tracing of the 3D model scene one could try to make this argument but one would have to do actual work. Actually the ray tracing is not necessary. Just a skillful use of 1/S1+1/S2=1/F relationship in 3D will suffice. But there is no guarantee that the case of shadows created by sunlight will be excluded.
You have no physical/mathematical argument. All you got now are your feelings, Sparkon.
“How would you convince somebody that what we see on the picture AS14-68-9486/7 is not the same effect as in this picture?”
One has to make a trigonometric calculation and locate the camera coordinates in three dimensions, the direction and angle of the sun, the distances in the scene, and still consider the objective if it is not wide view. It is fairly tedious and takes time but can be done, I did it for the Buchenwald photo, the one where the man is standing. The shadow direction and length was correct, but there was a logical problem with the man’s standing position (feet much back from where the hands were).
Thanks for information, I will continue studying this.
Brilliant! Good to know NASA have spent all those years since forgetting and destroying. I hope the other agencies have also destroyed the nuclear weapons technology, the bueprints for nukes, and forgotten how to operate the ones they’ve stockpiled so we can sleep in peace with no fear of a nuclear holocaust.
“no good reason”? No, I envisage someone who was a technical nerd or just ambitious to be seen as very good at his job.
Your reference to Eichmann’s being known to be in Argentina and to his bargaining in 1943 (?1944) reminded me of a documentary that I saw where the trucks for Jews deal in Hungary was presented in a way which didn’t appear to be pushing any particular controversial line though the Kastner train (actually mid 1944) was certainly flagged as iffy. I don’t really see any doubt that (a) Hitler and many other Germans wouldn’t have been revolted at the idea of solving the JP by mass murder and overwork (b) there was pragmatism at all levels at all times from the Havara agreement to the attempted Eichmann deals and the retaining of thousands of “Jewish” officers in the Wehrmacht.
said:
“I agree strictly speaking. On the other hand I have no problem in believing some smart maybe Aspergery young SS officers thought it would be a great idea to block up a few cellar rooms and trying them out as gas chambers for surplus people.”
Except that would be scientifically impossible, even for your “surplus people”.
Still trying to play “holocaust-lite” for which there is no more proof than their is the ‘holocaust-full blown’.
I recommend:
The alleged Auschwitz homicidal gassing process reviewed and demolished here.
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11143&p=83723&hilit=model+asmarques#p83723
As for the Eichmann nonsense, debunked here:
https://www.unz.com/article/roosevelt-conspired-to-start-world-war-ii-in-europe/
comments #182
“His opening paragraphs express derision and ire towards hoaxers, but the rest of his paper is surely of a higher quality than the (Marki/Makri?) one you linked to earlier, which would earn a poor grade even at an undergraduate level.”
Let us first see what I think of the quality.
I have now read the references:
R. A. Braeunig
https://web.archive.org/web/20160608082332/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm”
Andreas Märki
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1805/1805.01643.pdf
and the results from the MSc thesis by João Tiago Duarte Sabino
https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/395144831767/dissertacao.pdf
(I skipped the theory part as it is fine and I did not need it in this checking)
These references give the dosage for Apollo 11 trajectory and mission duration as follows:
If no shielding used:
Sabino: 7,870 mGy
Braeunig: 1,442 mGy
Marki: not given
The difference between Sabino and Braeunig is less than 10 times and can be fully explained by using sligthly different data for that time (it has to be partly guessed), a slighly different trajectory (it has to be partly guessed from NASA data), and a different method (simulations versus element calculation from formulate). These results agree fully that the radiation for an unprotected astronaut passing VAB on the Apollo 11 mission was on the range 1,000-10,000 mGy.
Shielding used. Notice the differences between the amount of shielding these three authors assumed:
Sabino: 1 mGy assuming 27.8 g/cm2 shielding (=100 mm of aluminium)
Braeunig: 0.16 mGy assuming 15 g/cm2 (7 g/cm2 from shielding and 8 g/cm2 from all material in the command module)
Marki: 39.6 mGy assuming 1.9g/cm2 shielding (=4 mm of aluminium), Marki concluded from the announced dosage that the mission must have had 7 mm aluminium, i.e., 5.4 g/cm2.
These values differ. Sabino and Marki are compatible, Braeunig is a decade smaller. Therefore it looks like Braeunig is incorrect. He is also the only non-professional of the three. Sabino made a MSc thesis on this, so he is educated to this area, Marki is a MSc Eng. who has a firm on this area, clearly both are from the area. Braeunig seems to be a hobbyist.
The estimation Braeunig gives to the shielding is higly questionable. He uses a very doubtful NASA figure 7-8 g/cm2 for the CM, but he adds 8 g/cm2 from other material in the CM, like oxygen bottles, measurement instruments and such. This additional material did not shield the area and it cannot give much protection. It is about the same as if in the following example: in diving you may use a dry suit. Earlier they were made of rubber and the thicker the rubber the more it warmed. But if somebody put a tractor tire on his waist, it did have much rubber, but it did not protect against coldness and it did not keep you dry. So, weight of material cannot be divided by the surface area for obtaining radiation protection. It must be a shield, not one with holes.
My conclusion is that the figures given by Braeunig are wrong. Furthermore, his post was ridiculous reading for a professional person like me: at the end he calculates how much radiation came from Bremsstrahlung. Of course, that is very minimal, so what was the point. To me it seemes that this author has no insight on basic physics if he has to calculate this thing. So, a hobbyist.
I think you have a too low opinion on Marki. I found his paper quite good and even witty.
I introduced ray tracing to the discussion, you clod, now you’re trying to lecture me about it. ‘Ever do any actual 3D ray tracing work utu? I doubt it.
Try to understand that all parallel lines converge in the distance and meet at their common vanishing point, irrespective of the position of the photographer or observer. That fact is illustrated perfectly in the three photos you’ve posted, but you just don’t get it.
Anyway, the ray tracing work has been done already by Luis Ernesto Bilbao, who has a PhD in Physics from the University of Buenos Aires, is Adjunct Professor, and Independent Researcher, INFIP CONICET, UBA (the Faculty of Exact and Natural Sciences, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina).
Apollo 14: Second Light Source Confirmed
There is more..
I can agree with statement.
LOL, so the Deep State infiltrates radical groups to stop them from committing acts of violence against whites in order to insure domestic tranquility? Instead of, say, encouraging violence to justify more state power as a solution?
So, right now, ANTIFA must be infiltrated and therefore ANTIFA is incapable of perforforming a series of violent attacks against whites? Sorry, I mean the “so-called” ANTIFA attacks.
Oh, and about NOI “(with no motive!)” to kill whites… DAS RITE! They dindu nuffin’.
Why on Earth would you make that assumption after the author led with a bogus illustration?
Look, unless the reputed Apollo photo has an identifying number so that its provenance can be verified, or unless it has been downloaded from a reputable source (see below), it is a waste of your time and ours to analyze it, except for comic relief, so carry on.
The Project Apollo Archive has posted many Apollo photos online at its Flickr account:
AS17-134-20384
These images are described as new scans from the original negatives on 70mm film, which produce a 52x52mm image in the Hasselblad. Various sizes up to 4175×4175 can be downloaded from PAA’s Flickr account.
Using NASA’s image numbers with a search engine will yield official or at least reputable repositories to download Apollo images for enjoyment, inspection, or analysis. Your approach may vary, but at least please be certain you’ve got the original goods, and you’re not just beating up on somebody’s rag doll.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/images14.html
“It is good enough for me that their reported dosage readings contradict their claim of successful lunar travel, regardless of the shielding. ”
Hi Mike P. I would ask you to read this carefully, especially the last sentence. I tried Sabino’s calculation method. It is good.
The MSc Thesis of João Tiago Duarte Sabino
https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/395144831767/dissertacao.pdf
has a calculation example in Table 5.4, page 41. It shows how to calculate dosages for Apollo 17.
For instance, to get the LEO dosage for this mission, you first notice that the mission was 210 min=1.26*10^4 s in LEO. Then you add the protected values for Solar Maximum from Table 5.1 for LEO, that is 4.27 for trapped protons and 1.33 for GCR to get 5.6*10^-6 mGy/s.
This you multiply with the time 210 min and get
1.26*10^4*5.6*10^-6 mGy=0.07 mGy, which you find as the entry for LEO from table 5.4. The values of Sabino give the mission dosage for Apollo 17 as 5.2 mGy. The annnounced value is 5.5 mGy.
In order to calculate the mission of Apollo 7, which stayed in LEO (but in low LEO orbit) for all the time, we first calculate the time in LEO. it is 10.8 days=9.36*10^5 s. Then we take the LEO radiation the same way as before, 5.6*10^-6 mGy/s and multiply it with the time. This gives 5.6*9.36*10^(5-6) mGy=5.2 mGy. This value is too high. The announced mission dosage is 1.6 mGy. However, the reason is simply that the LEO radiation values in Table 5.1 are given for a higher orbit, for Skylab orbit at 435 km. Correctling this gives the value for Apollo 7 correctly. Sabino’s calculation method and table values are correct when correctly used.
We notice from figures 5.1 and 5.2 that the dosage for voyage stages outside VABs does not much depend on shielding. It is because the radiation is GCR, which passes the shielding. We also notice that if the LEO orbit is lower and has insignificant number of trapped protons, like with the orbit of Apollo 7, then it is irrelevant if you are in the LEO or outside VABs, as long as you do not get flares (solar storms). Thus, the difference in dosage between Apollo 7 and Apollo 11, assuming that Apollo 11 went to the Moon, is only VABs.
The flight of Apollo 11 through VABs lasted 350 min = 2.1*10^4 s according to R. A. Braeunig
https://web.archive.org/web/20160608082332/http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm”
From these we can calculate the dosage in VABs for unprotected flight as
3.75*2.1*10^(5-6+4) mGy =7.875*10^3 mGy=7,875 mGy.
Here the trapped proton part is so large that GCR is ignorable. From Braeunig we get the dosage for an unprotected flight as
1,442 mGy
The difference between these figures is not especially large and can be explained by different assumptions for radiation and trajectory and a different method. As Sabino’s thesis is written much later and it has been checked, I consider his numbers more correct.
However, the announced mission dosage for Apollo 11 is much smaller. It is 1.8 mGy. Let us assume the spaceship did have the shielding of 27.8 g/cm2. From Table 5.1 we can read the dosage in seconds for VAB in Solar Maximum as 58.91+2.71=61.6*10^-6 mGy/s. Multiplying this by the time spent in VABs (350 min) yields 2.1*10^4*61.6*10^-6=1.3 mGy.
For the rest of the trip we can assume Apollo 11 has the same daily GCR radiation as Apollo 7, so as Apollo 7 lasted 10.83 days and Apollo 11 8.08 days, the dosage for Apollo 11 should be 8.08/10.83 times the mission dosage for Apollo 7 plus the VAB contribution. This yields
1.6*8.08/10.83+1.3=1.2+1.3=2.5 mGy.
The strange thing is that the announced dosage for Apollo 11 is 1.8 mGy. It means that shielding was much better than what Sabino estimated, or the trajectory was better. Let us assume that the trajectory of Apollo 11 was better and instead of Sabino’s values for VAB we use Braeunig’s value. The unprotected dosage in Braeuning is 1,440 instead of 7.875, that is 1/5.46 part. From Sabino’s figures we got the VAB dosage as 1.3 mGy. Dividing it by 5.46 we get 0.24 mGy for the better trajectory of Apollo 11. Calculating the mission dosage for Apollo 11 gives 1.2+0.24=1.44 mGy. This is a bit smaller than the announced value and we can conclude that Apollo 11 did not quite have the 27.8 g/cm2 shielding.
One can conclude that Sabina’s thesis gives a good calculation method and his figures are quite reasonable when correctly used. Apollo 11 can indeed have had the announced mission dosage. It depends on shielding. Especially one must notice that the argument that Apollo 11 should have had a much higher dosage than Apollo 7 regardless of shielding is false. The difference comes only from VAB and the VAB contribution depends only on shielding.
Given the US regimes track record, why believe anything they say? I am not saying I know for sure whether the moon landing was a hoax or not, but we have one of the most corrupt elites in the history of mankind in the US, I am not inclined to believe anything they say or waste any effort defending their accomplishments even if it did happen. Look at the track record, JFK, 9/11, WMD, Russiagate, etc. I do think the timing was just a little too convenient though, so I am leaning towards doubting it.
I will summarize my findings from this small study on the Moon Hoax theory.
1. There is no technical objection why a lunar module could not have landed and taken off from the Moon. There is also no technical objection that astronauts could not have survived the weather conditions as they do not much differ in the Moon and in LEO.
2. There is an unsolved problem of solar storms (flares, notably proton storms). With the exception of as moderate size storm during Apollo 17, the moon landings avoided solar storms, but this explains very well why nobody has done Moon landings or other similar expeditions ever since. If Americans were in the Moon, they were there because they were lucky.
3. Van Allen Belts are not a technical obstacle provided the spaceship has enough shielding. Announced dosage values for Apollo are possible and do not prove that Moon missions did not happen. However, Apollo did not have radiation shield and shielding properties of the Command Module are just guesses done from announced dosage values.
4. The best argument I have against the Moon landings is that NASA did not have radiation shielding in Apollo spaceship. This is very difficult to understand if they went through VAB. Why to rely on the heat shield which NASA did not know if it protects or not, we still do not know if it did.
They knew about Van Allen Belts, yet did not try to tackle the problem and anyway flew through the belts. That is odd. In live TV program sent to the whole world. What if the astronauts would have got ill or died in the program. What if they died in a solar storm that NASA cannot predict? Could they take such a risk of bad advertisement for the USA? This is why it is possible that the landings were faked, but I cannot prove it from radiation dosage. And that explains why no space expert has come open to tell that the landings were fake. He cannot know for sure. He cannot prove it. All there is is some photos that have been at least retouched in a studio and some moon stones that may have been switched.
I stop here, enough of this conspiracy theory.
Well, you’re responding to something I never said. I just said that the organs of the State infiltrate radical groups. That is well known. I did not say why they do it, or that it was to prevent acts of violence. I’m sure that, in some cases, the infiltrators’ agenda is to foment violence. Or it’s to set up patsies in whatever false flag event. It’s a very dirty, sordid business.
But they surely have all the “radical” groups infiltrated, not just Black groups like NOI, but also any significant White Nationalist sorts of groups as well.
The point is that a narrative in which any of these groups have some program of killing random people and the FBI doesn’t know about it is basically a non-starter — at least if we’re talking about a period of six months or so. The Zebra murder story simply doesn’t make any sense.
Well, probably to say that ANTIFA is infiltrated is an understatement. Most likely the whole thing has no organic reality of its own. It’s all a creation of the Deep State. As for the attacks they carry out, I suspect that a close examination would show that most of it is fake, just agitprop theater. Though… they could do some real things too. One would have to examine these things case by case.
All I said was that the story was untrue and I explained why. It actually doesn’t even matter if the NOI was not infiltrated, because they would have to assume that they were! The whole idea that the NOI is convoking meetings where people are openly discussing the random killing of white people and that you get extra points for killing women and children and all this, and somehow the FBI doesn’t know about it for six months… it’s a preposterous story. It really is.
Besides, NOI, as an organization, has zero history of killing random white people. Well, except for that Zebra murders narrative. Come to think of it, this is off-topic, but one consideration to get back on topic is this: The NOI has zero history of killing random white people, except for the Zebra murders narrative. And NASA has zero history of sending human astronauts outside of low earth orbit — except for the Apollo missions narrative.
So there is, if you dig deeply, some thread in common, since, you know, all things are cosmically interconnected, eh?
I’m afraid that this Moon Hoax comment-thread has become so enormous—nearly 1,600 comments and 200,000 words—that people have complained that it sometimes fails to load. Therefore, I must regretfully shut it down.
But have no fear, Moon Hoax zealots! Linh Dinh has just published a new column with a strong focus on Moon Hoax theories, which he generally endorses. So all of you can now simply transfer your ongoing debate to an after-hours location:
https://www.unz.com/ldinh/america-as-religion/