Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?

[Cosmos]

Also, it seems to me that he is a manipulator, and that's all I personally picked up from what I saw...

Quite frankly, after having now watched more of that “discussion“ between Bart Sibrel and the Apollo Astronaut my bet would actually be on just that: Bart is a manipulator. The first time that guy got the chance to talk/present his case in the video he immediately started off basically with gaslighting and quite disrespectful character assassination attempts. Knowingly or not, that is already a bad way he started off the whole thing. I actually had to force myself to not turn the whole thing off right at that point.

And yes, my previous short/hot take on the moderator wasn’t right, he actually tried to do a good job and also was visibly and understandably frustrated with the Bart guy. Problem though is that it is hard to make something work that is set up so badly. Kudos to the Astronaut for staying so calm faced by such an onslaught and shame on that Bart guy for being such an asshole.

I can actually understand why Edgar Mitchell would want to send his friends from the CIA to that Bart guy after trying similar distasteful tricks on him, apparently even within his own home.

Sorry Bart to have to say that, but when you play with fire you can’t blame the fire to eventually burn you especially when you sneakily try to frame and defame people like Edgar Mitchell. Especially military/astronaut/Apollo people from that time where quite a different brand of man, so you shouldn’t be surprised that they would and could fight back with swift no nonsense types of mechanisms/actions, including violent ones.

 

[Beau]

So, after the Cs recent answer, I’d say that the Apollo 11 mission was probably real, but I wonder about the subsequent missions. If they really were utterly spooked on the first mission, who would agree to go again, particularly on the surface?

Any astronaut who hadn't gone to the moon wouldn't know about what happened on the first one.

 

[Ian]

That Bart is actually quite a "big" name. He was on Joe Rogan, Danny Jones, Candace Owens (I think) and so on... He wrote a book; has his own website (Sibrel.com) where the videos he has up there are published on his youtube channel (Bart Sibrel) and there he has links that go further to the page where he has his podcasts and the like that have to be paid for... oh yeah, in the last video (

) posted on his youtube channel, Bart shows what things he sells and which people can buy on ebay and the last thing he put up there for the AUCTION are notes from the astronaut that he left behind on that podcast, and Bart put them up for auction for a starting price of $ 500 (APOLLO ASTRONAUT CHARLES DUKE - PRINTED DEBATE NOTES WITH HANDWRITTEN REVISIONS | eBay). From what I've seen from him, it seems to me that the man really believes that landing on the moon was fake, but that behind all his endeavors, there is partly a money-motivated drive. Also, it seems to me that he is a manipulator, and that's all I personally picked up from what I saw...The following text is about the so-called "evidence" listed in the podcast (up to 2h and 10min, and the podcast lasts 4h) due to which people think that the landing on the moon could not have happened.

The first "evidence" he presents is a video of the son (who contacted Bart allegedly) of Cyrus E Akers, who was a Staff Sergeant for the Air Force. (https://www.ancestry.co.uk/genealogy/records/cyrus-eugene-akers-24-4l3p4g) ;
(Cyrus Eugene “Gene” Akers (1933-2002) - Find a...). Now, Bart claims that the son claims that there is a recording of his father on his deathbed where he allegedly admits that he killed his colleague because that colleague wanted to expose that the landing to the moon did not happen. That recording supposedly exists, he said to Bart, but Bart doesn't have it, he only has a recording of the "son". Bart claims that the recording is convincing and that the man is not lying. Bart later in the podcast mentions it again and emphasizes "that it is obvious to him that he is telling the truth".
[running time: 41:44-48:40]

(My comment: I don't think the whole story holds water for him. That son could be anyone, some of Bart's colleagues or a character he paid to read the text he reads on his cell phone (and often looks to the right side - maybe he reads something from there as well) or it could be anyone who was told by someone to contact Bart for whatever purpose... And it's weird, this thing with the son because I checked it a little bit and it's not really sure that that Staff Sergeant had a son at all... At least not according to official sources. Now, while Bart is saying all this, it looks like he wants us to believe the story, like, I don't know... it seems to me that he is trying a little too hard to convince people that this is real and that it is good and valid evidence. I have the impression that he uses language to manipulate anyone into seeing what he presents as true.)

The second thing he tried to show is that astronauts lie, in the following way:
Q:(B) What was your security clearance?
A:(C) Top secret.
Q:(B) Okay. So, when you have a top secret, you're not allowed to tell your wife or children, right?
A:(C) What?
Q:(B) Whatever the secrets are. Whatever secrets you have as a top secret clearance, if you told your wife or children, you would be
violating your oath. Is that right?
A:(C) In the military that's true. But we are...[laugh] NASA did not have us swear an oath that we are lying or not lying.
Q:(B) I understand. But the point is you have top secret clearance and telling your wife or your children would be violating that oath...
[running time: 50:56-51:37]

(My comment: I think he doesn't understand.)

Third. He claims that some "Eugene Grantom" (or something like that; I wrote it down, but I don't really know what he said about the name... Someone else might want to look and find a guy) said to him (Bart) that someone in the Command Center behind the console couldn't tell the difference between the simulation and the real event. He also claims that when the rocket went up, that there were only 3 eyewitnesses to the mission and there was no independent media coverage. He also claims to know someone who works at the command center of the Chinese space agency who allegedly told him that everyone there knew that missions to the moon were fake (which I don't belive at all) and that they are blackmailing NASA, "because Congress passed a law forbidding space technology to be sold to China and they're receiving it anyway by blackmail." (I think this is what he is talking about - https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4360/text)

(My comment: there really isn't much of media coverage you can find. Maybe someone else can try to find it, but on the day of the launch.
I only found this:( https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/URLs_Cited/OT2019/17-834/17-834-7.pdf ) and this (Chicago Tribune - July 16, 1969) and also something pretty cool on the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...ric-apollo-11-mission/?utm_source=chatgpt.com). For the eyewitnesses I'm not sure what he meant.

Now, I have to do something and I will finish this in a next post or two...

*edit for the post above: Third claim - [running time: 1:01:44-1:03:21]

Forth claim is that NASA intentionally destroyed all technology and then he shows a video (which is the one below) where Don Pettit (astronaut) says they "destroyed all technology and it's a painful process to build it back again"

Also, he claims that all telemetry data is destroyed. (Telemetry data refers to the information collected and transmitted from remote sources for monitoring and analysis. This data can include various measurements such as temperature, pressure, and system performance metrics, enabling organizations to gain insights into their operations.)

Fifth claim is that you couldn't go to the moon because the technology wasn't advanced enough, quote:
"I went scuba diving and to have an hour's worth of air, it takes two tanks this big and that big around. That would be 16 tanks of air you would have to have on your back on the moon. And then to allegedly get the lunar module down to 72 degrees on inside for 3days against 250 degrees outside on a bank of essentially car batteries. It can't be done".
[running time: 1:18:06-1:18:33]

Sixth claim is that moon rocks were fake. He says that Neil took a rock, put it in his pocket, and then latter personally gave to the prime minister of Netherlands which was put in a museum, and only a few years ago was the rock found to be fake.

Dutch doubt authenticity of ‘moon rock’

AMSTERDAM – It’s not green cheese, but it might as well be. The Dutch national museum said Thursday that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by U.S. astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood.

www.spokesman.com

(this is from the article and it rings a bell a little bit, no?: "Rijksmuseum spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation that proved the piece was a fake, said the museum will keep it anyway as a curiosity.")

(Comment: the story wasn't known until 2009. That could imply that the story was made up then.

Now, the astronaut from the podcast claims that the moon rock that this museum got doesn't look like a moon rock he collected and that the ones he collected looked like "Big Muley" which you can look at here: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16BigMuley61016.pdf

But that doesn't mean that museum doesn't got a moon rock, because astronauts had different sites they went to to pick up rocks, so there may be some different types of rocks on the moon.)

Baldy also claims that Wernher von Braun went to Antarctica and that he picked up meteorites there and that those were the moon rocks that NASA presented. see:10.7 Were the Moon rocks actually meteorites collected in Antarctica by Wernher von Braun?

 

[Cosmos]

Buzz Aldrin didn't punch this guy hard enough.

Indeed.

 

[Ian]

*edit for the post above: Third claim - [running time: 1:01:44-1:03:21]

Forth claim is that NASA intentionally destroyed all technology and then he shows a video (which is the one below) where Don Pettit (astronaut) says they "destroyed all technology and it's a painful process to build it back again"

Also, he claims that all telemetry data is destroyed. (Telemetry data refers to the information collected and transmitted from remote sources for monitoring and analysis. This data can include various measurements such as temperature, pressure, and system performance metrics, enabling organizations to gain insights into their operations.)

Fifth claim is that you couldn't go to the moon because the technology wasn't advanced enough, quote:
"I went scuba diving and to have an hour's worth of air, it takes two tanks this big and that big around. That would be 16 tanks of air you would have to have on your back on the moon. And then to allegedly get the lunar module down to 72 degrees on inside for 3days against 250 degrees outside on a bank of essentially car batteries. It can't be done".
[running time: 1:18:06-1:18:33]

Sixth claim is that moon rocks were fake. He says that Neil took a rock, put it in his pocket, and then latter personally gave to the prime minister of Netherlands which was put in a museum, and only a few years ago was the rock found to be fake.

Dutch doubt authenticity of ‘moon rock’

AMSTERDAM – It’s not green cheese, but it might as well be. The Dutch national museum said Thursday that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by U.S. astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood.

www.spokesman.com

(this is from the article and it rings a bell a little bit, no?: "Rijksmuseum spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation that proved the piece was a fake, said the museum will keep it anyway as a curiosity.")

(Comment: the story wasn't known until 2009. That could imply that the story was made up then.

Now, the astronaut from the podcast claims that the moon rock that this museum got doesn't look like a moon rock he collected and that the ones he collected looked like "Big Muley" which you can look at here: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16BigMuley61016.pdf

But that doesn't mean that museum doesn't got a moon rock, because astronauts had different sites they went to to pick up rocks, so there may be some different types of rocks on the moon.)

Baldy also claims that Wernher von Braun went to Antarctica and that he picked up meteorites there and that those were the moon rocks that NASA presented. see:10.7 Were the Moon rocks actually meteorites collected in Antarctica by Wernher von Braun?

I just realized something funny. In the last link I sent about the moon rocks, you go to the page and you see in Content table that moon rock stuff is in section of "alternative realities" which reminded me of "altered reality" C's mention... And up there on that page are all the reasons people think that moon landing was a hoax and that's what I wanted to write about cause Joe said someone should list the main reasons for it not being (allegedly) possible for humans to have traveled to and walked on the moon. So there it is... MOON HOAX: DEBUNKED!

 

[Brewer]

Any astronaut who hadn't gone to the moon wouldn't know about what happened on the first one.

How do you know that? Six orbited the moon prior to Apollo 11, including the commanders of A16 and 17 in A10 and they didn't bother to tell their fellow Masons/Astronauts that they saw some weird stuff? Charlie Duke of A16 was capsule communicator or CAPCOM for A11 as part of mission control, so I'd imagine he heard from them directly on the day as they described what they saw. If he didn't warn the others then he's a dickhead. That he never blew the whistle makes him a bigger dickhead.

 

[Ian]

How do you know that? Six orbited the moon prior to Apollo 11, including the commanders of A16 and 17 in A10 and they didn't bother to tell their fellow Masons/Astronauts that they saw some weird stuff? Charlie Duke of A16 was capsule communicator or CAPCOM for A11 as part of mission control, so I'd imagine he heard from them directly on the day as they described what they saw. If he didn't warn the others then he's a dickhead. That he never blew the whistle makes him a bigger dickhead.

Sure, but I think that the situation is far more complex than you describe it here…We don’t know when and how they saw what they saw. I was thinking that it could be something like an abduction. And they figured out what they saw when someone put them under hypnosis. Mabye that was a protocol they used to discover what else they saw? Maybe they saw aliens in an altered reality and for some reason that’s why noone who was on the line with them knew about it or whatever…I also thought, just to get it on record right now, that 16th july landing could maybe be explained with a time anomaly. Also, maybe the technical parameters NASA gave for their tech. out in public was not correct for political and secrecy reasons…Or maybe 16th july wasn’t the launch date and that would explain why there is little media coverage that day about it? Just some thoughts…

 

[Brewer]

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.

First up thanks for asking those questions in the latest session. Some further question suggestions?

After reading what's left of Baron's report and the many mishaps on NASA's watch I've a hard time accepting that NASA possessed the ability. Did they receive outside help from militaries, both domestic and foreign, did the Soviets assist? The Soviets recovered a rather pristine Apollo 'Boilerplate' capsule in the Bay of Biscay shortly after the launch of Apollo 13 which they returned as per the space treaty. So there was some co-operation.

Did they accomplish the mission as described using a single rocket? Or did they transport the necessary equipment to LEO using multiple launches before travelling to the moon?

Did Apollos 12-17 happen as described?

What is meant by altered reality? Is it a 'high strangeness' type of AR, like the broadcast that David Icke talks about, part of the Saturn Moon matrix? Or is it something more mundane like drugs or EM fields to alter perception?

How much did the Soviets know and why did they cover it up?

How many in NASA knew?

What percentage of space imagery and video is faked?

Did NASA know of 'aliens' and other high strangeness before the missions?

Thanks

 

[Gaby]

and the many mishaps on NASA's watch I've a hard time accepting that NASA possessed the ability.

The link doesn't load for me. Is there a timeline of the mishaps? I'm trying to determine if the observations that before 1968 nothing was terribly amiss holds true against documented and factual mishaps.

 

[Ian]

The link doesn't load for me. Is there a timeline of the mishaps? I'm trying to determine if the observations that before 1968 nothing was terribly amiss holds true against documented and factual mishaps.

Maybe this link work?

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20200003165/downloads/20200003165.pdf

If not:

 

[T.C.]

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.

I just realized something funny. In the last link I sent about the moon rocks, you go to the page and you see in Content table that moon rock stuff is in section of "alternative realities" which reminded me of "altered reality" C's mention... And up there on that page are all the reasons people think that moon landing was a hoax and that's what I wanted to write about cause Joe said someone should list the main reasons for it not being (allegedly) possible for humans to have traveled to and walked on the moon. So there it is... MOON HOAX: DEBUNKED!

The book that Ian linked is so extensive that no one should be spending any more time and energy asking the C's about it unless they've read through the whole thing and still have issues to raise.

Contents:

Chapter 1.​

1.1 Balance of terror
1.2 The Soviets lead
1.3 The US catches up
1.4 The first human being in space
1.5 Apollo gets up to speed
1.6 The real conspiracy: secret Soviet moonshots
1.7 Dress rehearsals, then the real thing
1.8 Post-Apollo explorations

Chapter 2.​

2.1 The Saturn V rocket
2.2 The Apollo spacecraft
2.3 Crucial maneuvers
2.4 Fiery return
2.5 The true cost of Apollo

Chapter 3.​

3.1 Documentation
3.2 Cross-checking: the radio delay
3.3 An impossibly airtight conspiracy
3.4 The silence of the Soviets
3.5 Voices from the Moon
3.6 Moon rocks
3.7 Mirrors on the Moon
3.8 Photographs of the vehicles left on the Moon
3.9 Evidence, but not proof
3.10 Japan’s 3D Moon maps
3.11 Telltale moondust
3.12 The size of the alleged soundstage
3.13 The Moon walk proves the moonwalks
3.14 Attempted simulations in movies
3.15 An impossible feat

Chapter 4.​

4.1 How many people believe these theories?
4.2 Healthy doubt versus misinformed paranoia
4.3 Wide but shallow media coverage
4.4 Media misdirection
4.5 A truly unbelievable journey
4.6 Origins and history of Moon hoax theories
4.7 Bill Kaysing, grandfather of Moon hoax proponents
4.8 Capricorn One and other “Moon hoax” movies
4.9 Ralph Rene
4.10 Fox TV’s Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?
4.11 2002, the year Buzz made contact
4.12 Other notable hoax proponents
4.13 The four fundamental hoax scenarios
4.14 None of the experts have doubts

Chapter 5.​

5.1 Apollo still photography: a quick primer
5.2 Why are there no stars in the photographs?
5.3 Why is the flag blowing in the wind on an airless Moon?
5.4 How could the flag change position when the astronauts were back inside the spacecraft?
5.5 Why are objects in shadow so strangely well-lit?
5.6 Why aren’t the shadows parallel?
5.7 Why do the astronauts cast shadows of different lengths?
5.8 How come the shadow of the LM reaches the horizon?
5.9 Why is there no flag shadow in the salute photograph?
5.10 How come the spacecraft casts an impossibly huge shadow?
5.11 How can all the photographs be so perfect?
5.12 How come there are photos of the landing site without the Lunar Module?
5.13 Why do the visors show reflections of studio lights?
5.14 How can the camera crosshairs be behind objects?
5.15 How come there’s a letter C on a rock?
5.16 How come the backpack antenna appears and disappears?
5.17 How come Aldrin looks like he’s standing in a spotlight?
5.18 Shouldn’t backlit photos shot in a vacuum just show silhouettes?
5.19 How come Apollo 11’s boulder field isn’t in the photos?
5.20 Why are the tracks of the Moon car missing?
5.21 How come NASA has published retouched photographs?
5.22 How come the EVA photo of Michael Collins is fake?
5.23 How could the astronauts take so many photos in such a short time?
5.24 Why is this astronaut’s shadow missing?
5.25 Why is the United States marking on the LM so bright?
5.26 Why do Aldrin’s boots shine in shadow? Are they lit by a spotlight?
5.27 Why is this photo of the LM on the moon so obviously fake?
5.28 Why is there a sharp dividing line between the foreground and the background?
5.29 Does this spacewalk photo show the reflection of the movie set in the astronaut’s visor?
5.30 Why is there a fake photograph of Alan Shepard on the Moon?
5.31 Why is there a man in a waistcoat in a photo taken on the Moon?
5.32 How come famous photographers claim that the Apollo photos are fake?

Chapter 6.​

6.1 Apollo video and movie technology: a quick primer
6.2 Why does the flag flutter on the airless Moon?
6.3 Who was already outside to televise Armstrong’s first steps?
6.4 Who stayed behind to shoot the liftoff from the Moon?
6.5 Were the astronauts lifted by wires when they fell?
6.6 Does video show the astronauts’ wires catching the light?
6.7 Why did the astronauts only make such low jumps?
6.8 Is the “Moontruth” video an outtake from the fake TV broadcast?
6.9 How come Kubrick’s widow, Buzz Aldrin and others have confessed on film?
6.10 How could NASA conveniently “lose” the tapes of the first Moon landing?
6.11 Does never-before-seen footage show astronauts faking the view of Earth from deep space?
6.12 Why is there no exhaust from the LM’s ascent rocket engine?
6.13 Why did Apollo 11 transmit color TV from space but not from the Moon?
6.14 Why does the Moon look the same in two different places? Recycled Moon sets?
6.15 Is this video found footage from the movie set where the Moon landings were faked?

Chapter 7.​

7.1 If we could go to the Moon with 1960s technology, why haven’t we ever gone back?
7.2 How come the Russians didn’t even try? Did they know it was impossible?
7.3 Weren’t 1960s computers too primitive?
7.4 How is it possible that everything went so smoothly?
7.5 Why do a rendezvous in lunar orbit, which makes no sense?
7.6 Why don’t we just point a telescope at the landing sites?
7.7 How come nobody sends probes to take pictures of the landing sites?
7.8 How could the large Moon buggy fit inside the small Lunar Module?
7.9 How could Apollo get to the Moon, if it didn’t reach escape velocity?
7.10 Do Russian calculations show that the Saturn V wasn’t powerful enough?
7.11 How could the tiny LM climb back from the Moon?
7.12 How could the Lunar Module be so stable?
7.13 How come the astronauts didn’t unbalance the tiny LM?
7.14 How come the LM simulator was so unstable that Neil Armstrong crashed it?
7.15 How come all the technical problems suddenly vanished?
7.16 Why is there no engine noise in the Moon landing audio?
7.17 How could a Lunar Module made of tinfoil withstand temperature extremes so well?
7.18 Why don’t the boot prints on the Moon match the spacesuit shoes?

Chapter 8.​

8.1 How come the Van Allen radiation belts didn’t kill the astronauts?
8.2 If the Van Allen belts weren’t a problem for Apollo, why does NASA need to test the new Orion spacecraft?
8.3 How come astronaut Terry Virts said that we can’t go to the Moon?
8.4 How come deep space radiation didn’t kill the astronauts?
8.5 Shouldn’t X-ray radiation in space have fogged the films?
8.6 Wouldn’t the camera films have melted or frozen on the Moon?
8.7 Wouldn’t sunlight outside on the Moon have burned or boiled the astronauts’ faces?
8.8 How come meteoroid showers didn’t kill the astronauts?
8.9 How could the astronauts have changed film magazines outside on the Moon?
8.10 Isn’t it impossible to cool an astronaut in a vacuum?
8.11 How come there’s no blast crater under the LM’s engine?
8.12 How could the timing of the lunar liftoff footage be so perfect despite the signal delay?
8.13 Why are Apollo 11‘s footpads clean while later missions have dusty ones?
8.14 How can there be no dust at all on Apollo 11’s LM footpads?
8.15 How can the astronauts’ footprints be so sharp?
8.16 Wasn’t the lunar module hatch too narrow?
8.17 How come the pressurized spacesuits don’t look like they’re inflated?
8.18 How could the astronauts still send TV to Earth when their directional antenna wobbled?

Chapter 9.​

9.1 Why did the astronauts have guilty looks on their faces and shun public appearances?
9.2 Did Neil Armstrong hide from the media out of guilt?
9.3 How come NASA refuses to deal with the hoax allegations?
9.4 How come the lunar astronauts won’t face the doubters?
9.5 How come NASA’s Apollo documents aren’t available?
9.6 How is it possible that the Saturn V blueprints have been lost?
9.7 Why is there no delay in the Apollo communications?
9.8 How come the Moon rock donated to Holland is fake?
9.9 Was astronaut Grissom killed to keep him quiet?
9.10 Was NASA whistleblower Thomas Baron murdered?
9.11 Isn’t it suspicious that ten astronauts died in freak accidents?
9.12 Why has Wernher von Braun’s name been removed from German schools?
9.13 How come Neil Armstrong once spoke of removing “truth's protective layers”?

Chapter 10.​

10.1 Were the Soviets bribed to keep quiet?
10.2 Were the Apollo Moon rocks faked?
10.3 Did Stanley Kubrick shoot the fake footage?
10.4 Did the Apollo astronauts never leave Earth orbit?
10.5 Did the radio and TV signals come from space, but not from the Moon?
10.6 Were the alleged mistakes left in on purpose by whistleblowers?
10.7 Were the Moon rocks actually meteorites collected in Antarctica by Wernher von Braun?

Chapter 11.​

11.1 Are there UFOs in Apollo photographs?
11.2 Did Buzz Aldrin see a UFO?
11.3 Did Apollo 20 secretly recover an alien spaceship?
11.4 Did the astronauts find alien structures on the Moon?
11.5 What about astronaut Ed Mitchell’s UFO claims?
11.6 Did a lie detector test confirm the astronauts’ UFO sightings?
11.7 Were giant UFOs photographed in front of the Moon during Apollo 9?
11.8 Was alien music heard during Apollo 10 and kept secret?

Chapter 12.​

12.1 One word of advice
12.2 If you really want to debate
12.3 Questions for hoax believers

Chapter 13.​

13.1 Aldrin’s pause on the LM ladder
13.2 Suspicious pad corrosions and emissions
13.3 Smuggling on the Moon: the Sieger covers
13.4 Secretive commemorations
13.5 Naked women on the Moon
13.6 The President’s speech in case of Moon disaster

Chapter 14.​

14.1 Michael James Adams
14.2 Michael P. Anderson, David M. Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Laurel B. Clark, Rick D. Husband, William C. McCool and Ilan Ramon
14.3 Charles Arthur Bassett II and Elliot McKay See, Jr.
14.4 Valentin Bondarenko
14.5 Roger B. Chaffee, Virgil I. “Gus” Grissom and Ed H. White
14.6 Georgi Dobrovolski, Viktor Patsayev and Vladislav Volkov
14.7 Theodore Cordy Freeman
14.8 Edward Galen Givens, Jr.
14.9 Gregory Jarvis, Christa McAuliffe, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Judith Resnik, Francis “Dick” Scobee and Michael J. Smith
14.10 Vladimir Komarov
14.11 Robert H. Lawrence, Jr.
14.12 Clifton Curtis Williams, Jr.

Chapter 15.​

15.1 Public photo archives
15.2 Technical reference sites
15.3 Technical books and documents
15.4 Biographies
15.5 Moon-related items, documents and memorabilia for purchase
15.6 Books by Moon hoax proponents
15.7 Websites supporting Moon hoax theories
15.8 DVDs, videos and TV shows supporting hoax claims
15.9 Parodies that hoax proponents believe are true
15.10 Books with rebuttals to Moon hoax claims
15.11 Neutral or debunking DVDs, videos and TV shows
15.12 Moon hoax debunking sites

Chapter 16.​

16.1 Apollo landing sites
16.2 The Apollo missions
16.2.1 AS-201, 26 February 1966
16.2.2 AS-203, 5 July 1966
16.2.3 AS-202, 25 August 1966
16.2.4 Apollo 1 (AS-204), 27 January 1967
16.2.5 Apollo 4 (AS-501), 9 November 1967
16.2.6 Apollo 5 (AS-204R), 22-23 January 1968
16.2.7 Apollo 6 (AS-502), 4 April 1968
16.2.8 Apollo 7 (AS-205), 11-22 October 1968
16.2.9 Apollo 8 (AS-503), 21-27 December 1968
16.2.10 Apollo 9 (AS-504), 3-13 March 1969
16.2.11 Apollo 10 (AS-505), 18-26 May 1969
16.2.12 Apollo 11 (AS-506), 16-24 July 1969
16.2.13 Apollo 12 (AS-507), 14-24 November 1969
16.2.14 Apollo 13 (AS-508), 11-17 April 1970
16.2.15 Apollo 14 (AS-509), 31 January-9 February 1971
16.2.16 Apollo 15 (AS-510), 26 July-7 August 1971
16.2.17 Apollo 16 (AS-511), 16-27 April 1972
16.2.18 Apollo 17 (AS-512), 7-19 December 1972
16.2.19 Skylab, 1973-74
16.2.20 Apollo-Soyuz, 15-24 July 1975
16.3 Apollo astronauts
16.4 The Saturn V/Apollo spacecraft
16.5 Moon rocks
16.6 Photographs
16.7 The Moon and the Earth


Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

 

[Ian]

The book that Ian linked is so extensive that no one should be spending any more time and energy asking the C's about it unless they've read through the whole thing and still have issues to raise.

Contents:

You've done well remembering to publish the book in this way. So it's much easier for someone to look at something specific. And the book is a little thicker, 570 pages... Author also gives a download link, so you can download it if you prefer to read or explore that way. (go to the home page and below the picture, right below the donation button is a free pdf download link)

 

[luc]

The book that Ian linked is so extensive that no one should be spending any more time and energy asking the C's about it unless they've read through the whole thing and still have issues to raise.

Contents:

Just read the chapter about the radio delay, which indeed makes the hoax argument sound absurd. But knowing how these discussions tend to go, I'm sure moon hoaxers will escalate their theories to ever-greater levels to acommodate the points raised. "They must have modulated the radio delays to precisely fit the expectations", "they tampered with the recordings later" etc.

 

[Ian]

Just read the chapter about the radio delay, which indeed makes the hoax argument sound absurd. But knowing how these discussions tend to go, I'm sure moon hoaxers will escalate their theories to ever-greater levels to acommodate the points raised. "They must have modulated the radio delays to precisely fit the expectations", "they tampered with the recordings later" etc.

Book is good and informative, but still should be questioned and not taken for granted...

 

[axj]

The book that Ian linked is so extensive that no one should be spending any more time and energy asking the C's about it unless they've read through the whole thing and still have issues to raise.

It is a solid book, except chapter 11 about UFO and alien sightings by Apollo on the Moon. And I agree that it seems unnecessary to ask the C's more about the Apollo missions, except the nature or cause of the "altered reality" they observed there.