Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?

[T.C.]

I started to look through the book and hit an issue before I even made it to the first chapter. It turns out that the author is one of the go-to people that podcasters and documentary makers use to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I watched a bit of one of these podcast debates which is in Italian. He talks about how when an investigation is done, you’re supposed to listen to the experts who are involved in the investigation and if you do this then you’ll find that the official story of 9/11 is a correct view of what took place.

I’m not saying that means his work on the moon landings should be thrown out, and I’m still going to look at it. Just a warning for anyone else who’s going to read it. I mean, if he thinks a plane hit the pentagon then… ugh

 

[Ian]

I started to look through the book and hit an issue before I even made it to the first chapter. It turns out that the author is one of the go-to people that podcasters and documentary makers use to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I watched a bit of one of these podcast debates which is in Italian. He talks about how when an investigation is done, you’re supposed to listen to the experts who are involved in the investigation and if you do this then you’ll find that the official story of 9/11 is a correct view of what took place.

I’m not saying that means his work on the moon landings should be thrown out, and I’m still going to look at it. Just a warning for anyone else who’s going to read it. I mean, if he thinks a plane hit the pentagon then… ugh

I don't think it should be thrown out. There are a lot of things I don't agree with, and the rest of the members of the forum probably wouldn't agree also...For example, what axj wrote about UFOs or in chapter 7 (7.1) the question is why haven't we ever gone back? (to the moon) and then he writes: IN A NUTSHELL: Because it’s very difficult, very expensive and very dangerous, and there’s no longer a political imperative that justifies risking lives and devoting massive resources to the challenge as it did in the 1960s.
Now, I don't think this is true at all...So stuff like that are thumbs down for me, but stuff like the link I shared on moon rock topic (10.7 in the book) are interesting to me and things he says there make sense to me...

 

[Wandering Star]

I've been thinking about this topic and I believe that a correlation can be established between Antarctica and the Moon.

The reason for the control and consensual blockade over Antarctica may be the reason for everything related to the moon.

August 31, 1996

Q: (L) That's when they went underground? 1941 through 1945?

A: Last episode of mass migration, mostly Deutschlanders.

Q: (T) Underground. We're talking underground, as in under the surface of the earth. Is this what we're talking about?

A: Antarctica. Under there.

Q: (T) Under Antarctica, under... Oh, in one of the big... OOOhhh!

A: Entry port.

 

[Ian]

I've been thinking about this topic and I believe that a correlation can be established between Antarctica and the Moon.

The reason for the control and consensual blockade over Antarctica may be the reason for everything related to the moon.

August 31, 1996

Q: (L) That's when they went underground? 1941 through 1945?

A: Last episode of mass migration, mostly Deutschlanders.

Q: (T) Underground. We're talking underground, as in under the surface of the earth. Is this what we're talking about?

A: Antarctica. Under there.

Q: (T) Under Antarctica, under... Oh, in one of the big... OOOhhh!

A: Entry port.

Look at part 10.7 in the book I shared. The author mentions Wernhern Von Braun, a Nazi, in the context where he raises the question of whether someone with his function ( he was rocket engineer and designer;aerospace project manager) would pick up rocks, while NASA has a lot of geologists that it could send there to do it. Well, I believe that he did not go there because of that, but because of something else, and it is possible that it has something to do with what you mentioned. You should see more about it here and here. I have just started reading about it, and I will continue tomorrow because I'm going to sleep now.

 

[Gaby]

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.

The Baron report describes everything before 1968 and he also died under tragic circustances after his testimony. We could ask about this. The mishaps list provided by Ian in the link below describes a major one before 1968: January 27, 1967, Apollo 1 fire where 3 astronauts died. And it might be because of the reasons Baron was warning about. All the other mishaps seemed to have happened afterwards (I'm not counting the Russian Soyuz 1967 case).

Maybe this link work?
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20200003165/downloads/20200003165.pdf

 

[Brewer]

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.

Hi, the link works for me, 241 pages. It appears they were suppressing critical information such as...

This fire occurred at 5psi, if I was an astronaut I wouldn't be training in a pure O2 atmosphere at 16.7psi as Grissom did. I wonder if he was aware of this mishap before he died in '67.

 

[Brewer]

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.

Been a while since I read it but it has numerous flaws. One off the top of my head is the disappearing crosshairs, here's the image they use to prove their point.

A black thread OUTSIDE the camera! The crosshairs were etched onto a glass plate pressed firmly against the film INSIDE the camera. Big difference, if they laid that thread directly on film and exposed it, it'd be clearly visible. On the subject of crosshairs it appears they completely ignore the duplicated crosshairs in Apollo imagery. A common but inconsistent phenomenon that is brushed off as interreflections on the glass plate. No one ever explains the mechanism, no matter how wonky and distorted they are, never seen anyone replicate it either.

Why not ask Apollo questions? People ask about their pets, dead celebs etc.

 

[Brewer]

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.

The book has flaws, contradictions and the authors won't answer basic questions I asked them several years ago regarding double shadowed LMs and duplicated crosshairs, as do most. Why not ask Apollo questions? Valid questions are asked of Atlantis, pyramids and of mysterious beings with their 'pine cones' and 'handbags', why not Apollo? What do they mean by 'altered reality' faking film and photos are a form of altered reality, is that part of it, is that what they mean? Won't hurt to ask.

 

[Wandering Star]

The book has flaws, contradictions and the authors won't answer basic questions I asked them several years ago regarding double shadowed LMs and duplicated crosshairs, as do most. Why not ask Apollo questions? Valid questions are asked of Atlantis, pyramids and of mysterious beings with their 'pine cones' and 'handbags', why not Apollo? What do they mean by 'altered reality' faking film and photos are a form of altered reality, is that part of it, is that what they mean? Won't hurt to ask.

It also occurred to me to compare this moon issue with the UFO topic in the sense of the manipulation of evidence and/or concealment of testimonies and so on.

Something has to be hidden, and it has been done carefully in such a way that the evidence is more than questionable.

In short, the conspiracy theory that the moon landing was faked hides something else that no one ever found out because fake moon landing it's a dead end.

What a tangled web...

Maybe.

 

[T.C.]

Been a while since I read it but it has numerous flaws. One off the top of my head is the disappearing crosshairs, here's the image they use to prove their point.
View attachment 114432View attachment 114433
A black thread OUTSIDE the camera! The crosshairs were etched onto a glass plate pressed firmly against the film INSIDE the camera. Big difference, if they laid that thread directly on film and exposed it, it'd be clearly visible. On the subject of crosshairs it appears they completely ignore the duplicated crosshairs in Apollo imagery. A common but inconsistent phenomenon that is brushed off as interreflections on the glass plate. No one ever explains the mechanism, no matter how wonky and distorted they are, never seen anyone replicate it either.
View attachment 114435

I looked through a hundred or so pictures from Apollo 11 last night at a website called apolloarchive.com.

I checked the couple of pictures where a small part of one of the crosshairs is missing or not clearly visible. I can also see in the picture you link that some crosshairs look doubled near the light.

So, these things prove the moon landings were fake, or something?

Why not ask Apollo questions? People ask about their pets, dead celebs etc.

Firstly, I didn’t say no one should ask Apollo questions. I said people should read through this book and make an effort to understand what the problems are with the theory, what the explanations are, and then if they still have questions they can ask them.

Secondly, how many times do you want to ask the C’s about it? They’ve been asked multiple times and given the same answers every time. At this point it’s like elections in EU countries: “Oh, the people didn’t vote the way way want? No problem, we’ll just ask them again until they give the answer we want them to give.”

It sounds like you’ve read the book and still have issues. Okay then. Make a concise list of questions and post them here.

 

[Brewer]

I looked through a hundred or so pictures from Apollo 11 last night at a website called apolloarchive.com.

Better to go to the 'original scans' for uncropped but still somewhat dodgy images. Or the Flickr archive, every image has been photoshopped but there is a lot of detail still. Both are much easier to browse than other archives.

I checked the couple of pictures where a small part of one of the crosshairs is missing or not clearly visible. I can also see in the picture you link that some crosshairs look doubled near the light.
So, these things prove the moon landings were fake, or something?

No but I doubt they were taken on the moon. Crosshairs appear mostly in bright areas but pop up in the most unusual places, mainly in the color images. They appear in Apollo 12 onwards, strange how they never rectified the problem. They rarely appear in B&W images for some reason. I used to have a darkroom, I think I know why.

Firstly, I didn’t say no one should ask Apollo questions. I said people should read through this book and make an effort to understand what the problems are with the theory, what the explanations are, and then if they still have questions they can ask them.

A book written by a 911 and covid shill, strange how NASA leaves it too the fanboys to explain things. There does seem to be a reluctance to ask questions, look at the recent session, if it wasn't for Joe jumping in again we wouldn't have known about the aliens and altered reality. Pretty much, "next question please".

(Nienna) In previous posts, the C's have said that the Apollo mission did take men to the moon and Neil Armstrong did walk on the moon although the dates stated in the session were not quite accurate. Do the C's still say that this is true?
A: Yes
Q: (Nienna) Did the Apollo missions land on the moon with the help of secret or advanced technology?
A: No
Q: (Joe) Did the Apollo astronauts see or experience anything on their trip to and on the moon that shocked them and that they could not speak about?
A: Yes. That is the reason so much confusion has been shrouded about the topic.
Q: (L) Okay.
(Mark7) Is there anything we are missing about the psychopath/narcissist/cluster B spectrum of individuals from a hyperdimensional sense that would be worth some investigation?
A: Nothing that investigation would expose.
Q: (L) So in other words, whatever it is, you wouldn't pull it up. It would be something hyperdimensional maybe. I mean, didn't they say in one session that these are the types of individuals that they're trying to breed up more of so they can have bodies in which to download themselves? And that's something that's pretty creepy in and of itself, but not something that an investigation would expose.
(Joe) What did the Apollo astronauts see?
A: Aliens and altered reality.

Secondly, how many times do you want to ask the C’s about it? They’ve been asked multiple times and given the same answers every time.

As they said in the last session.

A: Yes. That is the reason so much confusion has been shrouded about the topic.

Even more reason to ask now! Not just about Apollo but everything space related. Space travel is not something in our distant past, it exists now and is part of our living memory. How much of it is BS, what's the agenda?

It sounds like you’ve read the book and still have issues.

It's written by a 9/11 and covid shill, here's another error

Secondly, since the surface of the Moon consists of hard rock covered by a layer of dust, this rather modest rocket thrust would merely blow away the dust and expose the underlying rock. That’s exactly what we see in the Apollo photographs

NASA says its 5-10 meters deep!

Make a concise list of questions and post them here.

I have.