Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?

Post above mine for example…And maybe that’s just what I see or think is happening, when it’s not. It is hard to tell with this format of communication because there is no eye to eye contact where there are feelings and passion involved with it etc. It seems to me there is pointing out something from other person to show them where they “did wrong”, but in a way that seems to me that is of a negative prefix, if that makes sense… And then I argue that there should be a healthier way of communicating something to someone…
 
Post above mine for example…And maybe that’s just what I see or think is happening, when it’s not. It is hard to tell with this format of communication because there is no eye to eye contact where there are feelings and passion involved with it etc. It seems to me there is pointing out something from other person to show them where they “did wrong”, but in a way that seems to me that is of a negative prefix, if that makes sense… And then I argue that there should be a healthier way of communicating something to someone…
Post above mine meaning by Jones.
 
Well someone asking a question to get clarity is not arguing. I don’t see it either as you put it. And I never said people being agreeable all the time is a good thing and I’m not in discomfort when people are not agreeable. I mean, I’m fine with us two “arguing” about this topic. I just wanted to point out that this is what it seems to me could happen in the places where it is not nessecery. Now I percived a comment from Jones as a comment like that. But that could be because of this format where I can’t see how people react or feel… I mean you now how you can just tell when someone is lying (for example)? But when in person. So, I can’t really tell if someone is really kinda arguing or just being courious, you know? So I just wanted to say my 2cents and thats really it…
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe
Well someone asking a question to get clarity is not arguing. I don’t see it either as you put it. And I never said people being agreeable all the time is a good thing and I’m not in discomfort when people are not agreeable. I mean, I’m fine with us two “arguing” about this topic. I just wanted to point out that this is what it seems to me could happen in the places where it is not nessecery. Now I percived a comment from Jones as a comment like that. But that could be because of this format where I can’t see how people react or feel… I mean you now how you can just tell when someone is lying (for example)? But when in person. So, I can’t really tell if someone is really kinda arguing or just being courious, you know? So I just wanted to say my 2cents and thats really it…

The reason Beau asked you to provide specific examples is that maybe you’re right. Maybe it’s something other people have also picked up on and they haven’t mentioned it for some reason.

Or maybe you’re wrong, and there are specific and important reasons for each case that you deem to be people arguing for no reason.

In your situation, you have pointed out some relevant issues with your impressions: 1) you are young, and 2) you don’t come to the forum very often.

Since Beau asked, and you replied referencing Jones’ question to moine, then I’ll try my best to fill you in on some ideas that will not only help you understand certain kinds of interactions here on the forum, but that will also save you a lot of trouble in real life too.

The main bulk of the regular and long-term members of the forum have a particular understanding of human nature, and to be frank, there’s a great deal of it that we just don’t want to manifest. Things like egotism, selfishness, self-focus, arrogance, condescension, an inflated sense of self-importance, a belief that one is more special than others. The reason for this is that these things are, to put it simply, the root of all evil. And the reason for that is because it is through embodiment and manifestation of these kinds of qualities that 1) we hurt other people, and 2) we become puppets for the selfish and evil powers that are above us in both the earthly and heavenly hierarchies, because these are the strings of ours that they pull (this is why, when you trace the history of humanity, we’ve always been in a hell on Earth, and things have always gone the way they have, and will continue to go, for us).

Now, due to the kinds of subjects studied and discussed here on the forum over the last almost 20 years, we have had MANY people who turn up thinking they’re experts of esotericism, alchemy, spirituality, channelling, etc.

And they all have the same ‘scent’. With some of them, the scent is faint. Others stink to high heaven.

Of course, as you point out in your posts, we’re online. We can’t see each other. We can’t just make blanket statements about people we don’t know, assumptions about their motivations, etc.

But if you get a whiff of a certain kind of personality that has caused issues or energy drains in the past, after some time and observation, you’re fully entitled to ask some simple questions, for the benefit of 1) the protection of the group, and 2) the benefit of the person themselves.

Jones’ question to moine falls into this category.
 
Can someone with more of an interest in this than me list the main reasons for it not being (allegedly) possible for humans to have traveled to and walked on the moon? Then we'll get them in in the next session.
 
Can someone with more of an interest in this than me list the main reasons for it not being (allegedly) possible for humans to have traveled to and walked on the moon? Then we'll get them in in the next session.
It seems to be basically about the Van Allen bands radiation, skepticism about the lunar landing module and supposed anomalies in the photos on the Moon.

Deepseek gave this summary:

1. Photographic and Filmic Anomalies​

  • Crosshairs Behind Objects: In some photos, the reticule (crosshairs used for scale) appears to be behind objects, suggesting the image was composited or tampered with.
  • Inconsistent Shadows: Shadows in Moon photos sometimes fall in non-parallel directions, which skeptics argue indicates multiple light sources (like studio lights) rather than a single, distant sun.
  • Lack of Stars: The sky in all lunar surface photos is pitch black with no visible stars, which deniers claim is because they were filmed on a set. In reality, the camera exposures were set for the bright lunar surface, making stars too faint to appear.
  • The Waving Flag: The American flag appears to wave or be rippling in videos, which seems impossible in the airless vacuum of the Moon. This is explained by the flag's movement being caused by the astronauts twisting the flagpole to bury it in the lunar soil, causing a lingering vibration in the taut, rippled fabric.

2. Physical and Environmental Impossibilities​

  • Van Allen Radiation Belts: Skeptics argue the astronauts would have received a lethal dose of radiation while passing through the Earth's Van Allen belts. NASA mitigated this by plotting a rapid, narrow trajectory through the thinnest parts of the belts, and the spacecraft structure provided shielding. The astronauts' dosimeters confirmed they received manageable doses.
  • Lunar Module's Capabilities: Some question whether the Lunar Module (LM) could have landed without creating a blast crater or kicking up dust. The Moon's surface is solid, and the LM's descent engine had relatively low pressure, dispersing dust horizontally.
  • Footprints in Dry Regolith: The crisp, detailed footprints in the lunar soil (regolith) are claimed to be impossible in a vacuum without moisture. However, regolith is a fine, jagged, glass-like material that compacts and holds its shape perfectly in a vacuum.

3. Technological Skepticism​

  • The "60s Computer" Argument: A common claim is that the computer technology of the 1960s (especially the Apollo Guidance Computer) was too primitive to guide a mission to the Moon. This underestimates the specialized, purpose-built nature of that hardware and the immense ground support from Mission Control.
  • Missing Technical Data: Conspiracy theorists point to the loss or erasure of some original Apollo data tapes (like the telemetry recordings of the Apollo 11 moonwalk video) as evidence of a cover-up. This was largely due to bureaucratic mismanagement and tape reuse in the 1970s and '80s, not malice.

Maybe it is more worthwhile to focus on the why and how of alternate realities being observable on the Moon - whether it is natural on other planets (or just on the Moon) or if it is the result of some kind of technology.

The C's mentioned before that we all have 'alternate selves' in other realities and that these would all merge as the Wave approaches. Another thing was that alternate realities can be temporarily created for timeline manipulation. Still another possibility is that Atlantean crystals on the Moon may be the cause (similar to the Bermuda triangle or the opening of portals by the crystals when they destroyed Atlantis).
 
I think there is more to it. I recently watched a podcast between a guy who supposedly dedicated half his life to "exposing a conspiracy" about the moon landing and an astronaut from Apollo 16. The podcast is 3-4 hours long, and it's 1:30 in the morning at my place... I can watch it again tomorrow... that is, today, and summarize the main points in a few lines. Unless someone wants to do it before me. Then you can watch this:
 
Back
Top Bottom