Moon Landing

Rhythmik

Jedi
So I did a search and couldn't find any specific answers.
Did the moon landing happen?
NASA said they've lost the technology (telemetry data) to go back, and that they accidentally lost or recorded over all the original raw footage (???)
So it was staged or they went to moon and found something that spooked them?
It doesn't make sense why we haven't gone back, there would be billionaires that would take tours there for eg and we obviously have far superior technology today.
 

Ina

Jedi
What if... all moon landing related data and technology has been simply purchared and gone ‘private’. That would explain the lack of information.
 

aragorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
After years of sporadic research into the subject, I'd say that the second alternative is more plausible: they did go to the moon, but encountered something that couldn't be shown and told to the public. Hence, some of the footage might be altered if not outright faked. Just my guess, but the silence and weird behavior of Armstrong could be evidence of this – he saw something unexpected.

And that something might have scared the **** out of the NASA-people, hence they haven't done any manned missions in a long time. And this could also be the reason that conspiracy theories regarding the moon landings are encouraged by some (hidden) parties, just as a distraction and false lead. A lot like the JFK assassination, where there are so many false leads planted during the decades that it is nearly impossible to see things clearly anymore.

Apropos, the recent Chinese moon probe is supposed to land on the far side of the moon any time now, and it will be interesting to see what kind of images it will send back to Earth.

I'm pretty sure we have previous threads on the moon landings...I'll post links later if others don't beat me to it.
 

nicklebleu

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I’m with aragorn on this one - also researched this topic on and off over the years.

My take on this is: Yes, there are faked pictures and clips around, so NASA had something to hide. On whether they actually did go to the moon or not, I am divided. As aragorn said, there is so much altered stuff around that it seems impossible to decide this question reliably. I slightly tend to the answer “they didn’t”, mainly on the grounds that the capsule they allegedly used was not adequate to protect the astronauts from the hard radiation from space, unless they used technology that hasn’t been disclosed, which is also a possibility.

So my hunch is along 50.5% chance the didn’t, versus 49.5% they did.
 

Yupo

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
There is an interesting film on this subject called Dark Side of the Moon. It sets out as a mock documentary to answer the question of how Stanley Kubrick might have gotten hold of a particular Zeiss lens to use for a candlelight scene in the film Barry Lyndon. It is worth a watch. I think there is some truth inserted into the movie, directly in several places. The film uses real historic figures like Nixon and Rumsfeld discussing things out of context. The story in the film goes that CIA took over the 2001 studio for a while to get the NASA material as a backup plan for PR materials in case of transmission or other problems. Does not seem all that farfetched to me.

_
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
From the 9 Sept. 2000 session:

Q: (L) Okay, moving right along here. We have here a guy who has written a paper that says: "To make interstellar travel believable, NASA was created. The Apollo space program foisted the idea that man could travel to and walk upon the moon. Every Apollo mission was carefully rehearsed and then filmed in the large sound stages at the Atomic Energy Commission's Top Secret test site in the Nevada Desert and in the secured and guarded sound stage at the Walt Disney studios within which was a huge, full scale mock-up of the Moon." Is it true that the Apollo missions were films as described here?

A: No.

Q: (L) Did the Apollo missions actually go into space as we think they did?

A: Yes.
And besides, "Faking the landing of the American astronauts to the Moon would have been more complex and expensive than actually doing it," (from 'Faking lunar landing more complex & expensive than actually doing it': Russian scientist weighs in on US moon landing debate -- Sott.net)

As for not showing everything to the public, that's a possibility. From the practical point of view, it was the sapce race during the cold war so you don't give your opponents any possibility to copy some technology through your disclosure. Also, there is a possibility that they used technology far more advanced than what they officially disclosed, in addition to unwanted discoveries on the Moon as mentioned.
 

Ursus Minor

Jedi Master
Seems I'm not very good at searching the C's session material, so I couldn't find the spot where Laura asked the C's whether "we/or NASA" landed on the moon.

If my memory serves me well the answer was "yes", which came as a big surprise to me.

But then again, Laura didn't ask "By what means?" or "What technology had been used?"

So my personal take on that would be, yes, Secret NASA and Deep State factions did send some crews unknown to us to the moon while using re-engineered alien-type technologies.

The well known "Apollo" program was merely a charade for public consumption, the footage was a studio production.
It was needed to conceal the fact that some circles are in possession of superior technologies and major conventional industries would have been hurt immensely, if the secret technology would have been exposed.
 

nicklebleu

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
But notice that the question was “Did the Apollo missions actually go into space as we think they did?” and not “Did men actually set foot on the moon as we think they did?” It’s one thing to go out into space and another one to actually walk on the moon.
 

Voyageur

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
But notice that the question was “Did the Apollo missions actually go into space as we think they did?” and not “Did men actually set foot on the moon as we think they did?” It’s one thing to go out into space and another one to actually walk on the moon.
When a young pup, watch the landing in the auditorium at school with all my class mates. What was I looking at?

Last year attended a talk with the Canadian Astronaut, Chris Hadfield, speaking to hundreds of kids on his adventures into space on the ISS. Very interesting.

At one point he tells the story of Neil Armstrong's forced maneuvering of the craft to land it on the moon whereby mission control had miscalculated the computations for the landing area. As a result, Armstrong had to take over the control thrusters because where they were to land was too rocky. Hadfield recounts how perilous this was, especially as the fuel was bottoming out with mere seconds to do this maneuver.

Here is a later account by Armstrong:

When Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin made their descent aboard the Eagle to the moon's surface, the on-board computer had intended to put them down on the side of a large crater with steep slopes littered with huge boulders. "Not a good place to land at all," said Armstrong. "I took it over manually and flew it like a helicopter out to the west direction, took it to a smoother area without so many rocks and found a level area and was able to get it down there before we ran out of fuel. There was something like 20 seconds of fuel left."
I had not read that at the time of the Hatfield retelling and cross referenced, fwiw.

I'm still a bit perplexed with the whole Van Allen's belt issues utilizing 1960's technology, yet a physicist I'm not and cannot say as it would seem to much of an incredible hoax.
 

c.a.

The Living Force
FOTCM Member

NASA adds over 8,400 images from all Apollo moon missions to Flickr
October 4, 2015
NASA adds over 8,400 images from all Apollo moon missions to Flickr | Writing Through Light

Snip:
NASA and Project Apollo Archive yesterday uploaded over 8,400 high-resolution photos shot by Apollo astronauts during several trips to the moon onto their Flickr account.

All the images have been scanned at an incredible 1800 dpi resolution and have been arranged and uploaded, sequentially based on the roll and camera magazine that there shot on.

All the images have been restored and scanned from the original NASA scans. It is a massive photo archive with Behind the Scenes shots, shots of astronauts in training, iconic images and even a few blurry ones.

All the images were shot using Hasselblad cameras. Some were specially modified such as this-





Moon dust or dirt covers Astronaut above.

All images courtesy NASA and the Apollo Archive
NASA logo- Creative Commons
 

Hi_Henry

Jedi Council Member
At one point he tells the story of Neil Armstrong's forced maneuvering of the craft to land it on the moon whereby mission control had miscalculated the computations for the landing area. As a result, Armstrong had to take over the control thrusters because where they were to land was too rocky. Hadfield recounts how perilous this was, especially as the fuel was bottoming out with mere seconds to do this maneuver.
I had a vague recollection of this as over the years this was not repeated much so as to stand out in my recollection of this Space Program. What I find curious , now that I think about it, is that there is no footage of him flying that thing on Earth. Again, if I recall correctly the reasoning was that the engine was built for flight under Moon gravity and not Earth's thus requiring training in a simulator.

What they did or did not for us mere mortals is simply a guessing game. What I am certain of is that buildings do not fall down like pancakes. But then, it is all just Hollywood movies ;-)

Capricorn One
Parallax View
The Brotherhood of the Bell
Executive Action released in 1973
 

Astrocyte

The Force is Strong With This One
I have no doubt they landed on the Moon!

Going to the Moon project was not born simply as a wish to show that the USA was superior to the USSR, there was a strong lobby by defense co. to find use for no longer required hardware. An example is the powerfull liquid fuel engine that was developed for ICBM but no longer required by the gov. since less powerfull solid fuel engine were more appropriate (nuclear heads weight were reduced as a result of more precise guidance systems), they are also, contrarily to liquid engine, ready to launch on short notice and require less maintenance. Those Rocketdyne H-1 needed some use...

Also, from an engineering standpoint, the landing on the Moon is more than probable if we consider the considerable effort put toward this goal. Take as an example the Surveyor program to send unmanned lander to the Moon to test the descent system.

They did not return for multiples reasons; the political goal was achieved, it was extremely costly, the Moon is after all just a rock full of dirt and no longer interesting, the voting public lost interest and Apollo 13 opened somes eyes to the risks of space travel and that we were far from being ready for such endeavor on a routine basis.

As for the radiation exposure, they simply got luky that no major Solar event took place during the travel.
 

mrtn

Jedi Master
Another reason why I think they were there is the fact that it might be possible to fool the public but that's not so easy with other country's space agencies and governments. The Americans just putting on a show would have been good fodder for its opponents and I didn't come across such debunkings. All parties were rather quiet about each others achievements.
I just saw Wikipedia - Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings but I didn't check it out yet.
 
Top Bottom