Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?

[Kay Kim]

It seems like Apollo went out to “space” but maybe not actually landing in moon.

“Q: (L) Did the Apollo missions actually go into space as we think they did?
A: Yes.”
9 September 2000

 

[Beau]

I’m referring to being called a flatearther or any other slur as result of being brazen enough to go into territory some people might think is taboo or unnecessary. It’s not a matter of being allowed to do something but how you’ll be treated if you do. That’s what I’m talking about. If we’re being critical, why make such a connection? It’s not as if we’re saying the moon itself is fake or made of cheese.

It was said that the thinking displayed in this thread from you and others is similar to what we saw from flat-earthers. That's the kind of feedback that we traffic in on this forum. If you see it as a slur then it seems the problem is with how you take in critical feedback from others. Pretty sure no one said "duyunne is a flat-earther". So instead of saying you are being censored, now you are saying people are calling you slurs. The goalposts keep moving.

 

[Mark7]

While it's possible the PTB could have faked parts of the moon landing in order to hide something, or as an insurance policy if they failed, as it's not easy to overestimate the mendacity of our 'fearless leaders'. However, if the moon landing(s) were faked, then all those Saturn 5 rockets taking off in front of countless witnesses were just props... really?

Satellite images offer a glimpse of the bleached American flag, astronaut boot prints and lunar equipment frozen in time at the Apollo 11 landing site 50 years later

Fifty years on, remnants from the 1969 Apollo 11 moon landing are still visible on the moon's surface, essentially frozen in time.
Without the threat of wind and water erosion we're used to on earth, even the footprints left behind by the Apollo 11 astronauts are believed to still be cemented into the moon's surface.
Buzz Aldrin described the moon's 'magnificent desolation' when he and Neil Armstrong became the first humans to ever set foot on the lunar landscape that had set untouched for 4.5 billion years.
The astronauts left behind ample evidence of their expedition, some scientific and some sentimental.

They set up a camera, Laser Ranging RetroReflector (LRRR) and Passive Seismic Experiment Package (PSEP) to send information back to earth in the future and ditched some of the gear used to collect samples loaded back onto the Eagle spacecraft - along with excrement that had accumulated on the journey.
They also displayed several commemorative items, including a family photo, mission patches, medals for fallen astronauts, a silicon disk with messages from world leaders and an American flag erected in the frozen terrain.
The lander stage of the Lunar Module (LM) is also still on the surface.
Five decades later many of those items are still visible in satellite images taken from NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, while no one has ever returned to the Apollo 11 site.

[edit: for clairity]

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

While it's possible the PTB could have faked parts of the moon landing in order to hide something, or as an insurance policy if they failed, as it's not easy to overestimate the mendacity of our 'fearless leaders'. However, if the moon landing(s) were faked, then all those Saturn 5 rockets taking off in front of countless witnesses were just props... really?

Satellite images offer a glimpse of the bleached American flag, astronaut boot prints and lunar equipment frozen in time at the Apollo 11 landing site 50 years later



[edit: for clairity]

What I find more interesting is what they may have seen there that they didn’t report on. Same for all the drones they send to other planets - the more secretive motivations and research going on is interesting. Perhaps some of the coverups (like misplacing all the original moon landing tapes or whatever) had to do with hiding the evidence of what they found there rather than covering up a fake landing. And maybe this conspiracy theory itself exists to distract from and ignore the more intriguing one.

Cuz ya gotta wonder - between aliens and all the past advanced civilizations, unless someone goes around with a broom cleaning up any artifacts or mess or abandoned junk in the solar system, there’s got to be some stuff laying around collecting dust. On Earth the planet itself can cover up some of that stuff so no such effort may be needed (tho even then lots of stuff is just being actively ignored and covered up and misinterpreted like the pyramids), but on the moon or Mars? Totally different story!

 

[SlipNet]

What I find more interesting is what they may have seen there that they didn’t report on. Same for all the drones they send to other planets - the more secretive motivations and research going on is interesting. Perhaps some of the coverups (like misplacing all the original moon landing tapes or whatever) had to do with hiding the evidence of what they found there rather than covering up a fake landing. And maybe this conspiracy theory itself exists to distract from and ignore the more intriguing one.

In my opinion, your theory is far more likely than the fake landing idea. I often used to wonder just how much has been concealed over the years about what was found (re- Ingo Swann and all that malarkey).

 

[duyunne]

It was said that the thinking displayed in this thread from you and others is similar to what we saw from flat-earthers. That's the kind of feedback that we traffic in on this forum. If you see it as a slur then it seems the problem is with how you take in critical feedback from others. Pretty sure no one said "duyunne is a flat-earther". So instead of saying you are being censored, now you are saying people are calling you slurs. The goalposts keep moving.

I also wasn’t saying anyone is being censored. Being ridiculed leads to self censorship however. That’s what I’m trying to convey.

I’m not looking to win at anything so I’m not moving goal posts. I’m just sounding my opinion in regard to using flat earth comparison.

Edit: why I see being compared to flat earth logic as a slur is because it’s more of the same tired meme that came about in recent years. anytime someone attempts to state that the official narrative of anything is BS, you get called a flat earther. I suppose I’m taken aback when I see it happening here. I thought the users of this forum were a bit more sophisticated. Then to see mods concur with the post, it’s just annoying to me how effective such a cointel meme can be.

 

[Cosmos]

To summarize; the claim that one light source (aka. the sun) can not produce all the effects that can be seen in the moon pictures/videos has been completely disproven. Both the angle issue of the shadows and the overlapping of shadows are completely natural phenomena that one light source alone, aka the sun, can and will produce, no matter how hard you try to deny it.

The experiment I proposed above solves all those issues and you can actually see it yourself. As for the double shadow, as brought up above, it is simply what is called Umbra, penumbra and antumbra:

Umbra, penumbra and antumbra - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

_

_

_

Here are three pictures I just shot all illuminated by the one single light source in different heights and angles. The objects are on the same exact position in every picture, the only thing that changes is where the light source is shining (from which angle). And no, I still can't see why I couldn't use a lighter as well, but for the sake of Brewer, I just used a LED light. In the last picture I also recreated the double shadow aka the Umbra, penumbra and antumbra. Notice how one single light source can produce various angles of shadows depending on which angle the light source shines in. And no I've not cheated. Just try it YOURSELF

In case it wasn't clear, here are the same three pictures I just shot above, with the apparent directions of the shadows, taking 5 examples. Notice that number 5 appears to have a completely different angle. Take a special note of picture two below and how very different the shadows cast there even though it is the same single light source from the first picture, just from another angle/height. And notice in picture three the double shadow "mystery" which is in reality just the Umbra, penumbra and antumbra phenomena, created from the same single source of light. Try it yourself!

 

[Woodsman]

I also wasn’t saying anyone is being censored. Being ridiculed leads to self censorship however. That’s what I’m trying to convey.

I’m not looking to win at anything so I’m not moving goal posts. I’m just sounding my opinion in regard to using flat earth comparison.

Edit: why I see being compared to flat earth logic as a slur is because it’s more of the same tired meme that came about in recent years. anytime someone attempts to state that the official narrative of anything is BS, you get called a flat earther. I suppose I’m taken aback when I see it happening here. I thought the users of this forum were a bit more sophisticated. Then to see mods concur with the post, it’s just annoying to me how effective such a cointel meme can be.

The problem is one of time travel. -As in, "How well does a subject age?"

This particular Moon Landing Hoax subject is nearly three decades old since it was first popularized and broadcast far and wide over the brand new internet. Some of the threads discussing it here are well over a decade old, and many of the mods and active participants in this forum were around for that, have been there, done that.

-Which isn't to say that it can't be beneficial to revisit old material. I've actually learned a lot through this recent exercise, expanded my own understanding and encountered a couple of new angles, been forced to brain crunch. That's healthy in moderation. But you have to understand that most of this is just the same tired old argumentation which has been discussed at length, and when it is brought up again it is hard to give it all the same open-minded respect and patience you might expect were they brand new ideas never before seen. But they've been autopsied, bagged and put to rest. We had that funeral and paid our respects, but now they're walking around again like zombies. It's annoying.

Anyway.., the cognitive pattern which might be thought of as "Flat Earther" logic is simply a recognized beast around here, composed in equal parts of poor logic, selective listening, stubborn ignorance and emotionalism. If people display these traits, they're going to elicit groans because it's frankly tiresome and generally leads to the same predictable result.

 

[Hi_Henry]

Will just have to agree to disagree as to how I interpret what was said by some in this thread. What you and others see as "nuance" I see as something else. A recurring situation in Life so I think it is best to just leave it at that.

Maybe you can see the point if you de-identify yourself for a moment with this whole moon landing thing, as Joe already recommended. Consider, as a thought experiment, that the whole moon hoax thing is itself a hoax and just plain wrong. Or that you've never heard of the moon hoax conspiracy theory. Then read some of the posts here again.

Thanks but no thanks for the "recommendation" Luc. I'm just fine where I am and see no reason to do anything like what is suggested above.

The topic here I believe is "Moon Landing" with a clear implication of discussing whether it was or was not a hoax. Not how I should think or not think about it. In my opinion you and others are far too strongly attached to what you think is the right answer. The tone that I'm picking up here from some is mighty "condescending" but hey, that's just poor 'ol me. But that's Life, I decide not others how I interpret the World.

I've been on the "other side" on numerous contentious historical debates AND AFTER looking at new information or new ways to interpret the old , changed sides at times. So ya'll excuse me but I'm just fine where I stand on this here Moon Walk partner

I think it is a hoax.

 

[Beau]

why I see being compared to flat earth logic as a slur is because it’s more of the same tired meme that came about in recent years. anytime someone attempts to state that the official narrative of anything is BS, you get called a flat earther. I suppose I’m taken aback when I see it happening here. I thought the users of this forum were a bit more sophisticated. Then to see mods concur with the post, it’s just annoying to me how effective such a cointel meme can be.

You seem to be missing the nuance here duyunne. It was said that the thinking/ logic being displayed in this thread by those who believe the moon landing was hoaxed was similar to what we saw with flat-earthers. This has nothing to do with us "lacking sophistication" or "falling for tired memes". It's about people pointing out the similarities in behavior. Instead of looking at that feedback openly and trying to see the other side, you have decided to apply black and white thinking and create a narrative of being ridiculed. No one who thinks they are being ridiculed is going to stop and think the other person might have a point. Seems like a convenient thing to do if one has no interest in changing their thinking.

 

[Turgon]

What I find more interesting is what they may have seen there that they didn’t report on. Same for all the drones they send to other planets - the more secretive motivations and research going on is interesting. Perhaps some of the coverups (like misplacing all the original moon landing tapes or whatever) had to do with hiding the evidence of what they found there rather than covering up a fake landing. And maybe this conspiracy theory itself exists to distract from and ignore the more intriguing one.

That's pretty much how I see it as I started going through this thread. As if the moon landing hoax conspiracy was purposely put into place to hide and distract from something else.

 

[duyunne]

The problem is one of time travel. -As in, "How well does a subject age?"

This particular Moon Landing Hoax subject is nearly three decades old since it was first popularized and broadcast far and wide over the brand new internet. Some of the threads discussing it here are well over a decade old, and many of the mods and active participants in this forum were around for that, have been there, done that.

-Which isn't to say that it can't be beneficial to revisit old material. I've actually learned a lot through this recent exercise, expanded my own understanding and encountered a couple of new angles, been forced to brain crunch. That's healthy in moderation. But you have to understand that most of this is just the same tired old argumentation which has been discussed at length, and when it is brought up again it is hard to give it all the same open-minded respect and patience you might expect were they brand new ideas never before seen. But they've been autopsied, bagged and put to rest. We had that funeral and paid our respects, but now they're walking around again like zombies. It's annoying.

Anyway.., the cognitive pattern which might be thought of as "Flat Earther" logic is simply a recognized beast around here, composed in equal parts of poor logic, selective listening, stubborn ignorance and emotionalism. If people display these traits, they're going to elicit groans because it's frankly tiresome and generally leads to the same predictable result.

Well said, I’m a noob when it comes to this so it’s refreshing at first to see it here unfettered with insults, which is typical for this topic in any public forum.

Considering the source of the Apollo 11 material however, I can’t swallow the official narrative of this. It’s too jagged and makes me gag. Especially since it’s shrouded with a time line of excuse after excuse for inadequately handling such a historic event professionally (like just up and, whoopsie, losing all the telemetry data tapes, my own employers seem to have better standards for their data than NASA does so it seems!)

I hope as result of being jaded by the concept, that it will not be considered acceptable to treat us noobs with contempt for scratching our heads at this debacle.

Using this thread as a foundation for the concept shouldn’t be such a big deal even if you groan at the topic. You just don’t have to participate if it’s below you right?

Just my 7cents and lint balls. I’m going to stop bumping this argument now. Thanks for your testimony Woodsman!

 

[Hi_Henry]

While it's possible the PTB could have faked parts of the moon landing in order to hide something, or as an insurance policy if they failed, as it's not easy to overestimate the mendacity of our 'fearless leaders'. However, if the moon landing(s) were faked, then all those Saturn 5 rockets taking off in front of countless witnesses were just props... really?

As best as I understand it NO.

The bone of contention is, did the landing happen.

What really happened ? Who knows. Nothing so far that I have seen can explain this fully. Maybe circling the Earth. Maybe went way out there and came back. Who knows ?

The issue is the Landings on the Surface of the Moon in the 60's and 70's.

 

[Hi_Henry]

View attachment 30890

Nice job. You're kicking butt Pashalis.

Now bring into the picture the important parameter ,

- Distance of light source to object throwing the shadow

Lets also not forget that there is no atmosphere (gases +pollution) on the Moon. There might be micro dust floating but I do not know how to account for that. However this does make a difference how light behaves.

 

[Turgon]

As you rightly pointed out, this is a "Conspiracy" section of the forum. I may have missed it but I don't think there is any hard rule as to what is a "right" or a "wrong" conspiracy. No one is being personally attacked and as far as I can tell everything is more or less very civil. If Brewer and the rest want to play in the "sand box" what the heck is the problem ?

Everyone has a free will (so I am led to believe here) to chose to stay in the discussion or to leave it. But browbeating someone with innuendoes that there is nothing there because they have spent immense effort to study the subject and found nothing is one of the most simplistic zero value arguments one can use. In a debate that would get nowhere.

Exactly, you can choose to stay or leave and that's totally up to you. No one is going to twist your arm to stay. However, the forum doesn't exist to play in the 'sand box' and generally what takes precedence here is Work on the self. Like you wrote here:

The topic here I believe is "Moon Landing" with a clear implication of discussing whether it was or was not a hoax. Not how I should think or not think about it.

You already know that in this specific thread the discussion is the moon landing, but that the more pressing and important work that we do on the forum, isn't learning what to think but how to think. If you don't want to and instead want to be recalcitrant with luc's suggestions, again, that's your choice, but this isn't your forum. If you can't respect that or that a big part of engaging in the forum is Working on the self then you can easily find another forum to debate the merits of the moon landing without ever having to question yourself or look in the mirror.

The tone that I'm picking up here from some is mighty "condescending" but hey, that's just poor 'ol me.

The irony is that your the one who's acting in a condescending manner. And that's part of Self work, people have negative emotions that come to the surface when they or certain beliefs are put into question and instead of containing, 'owning' or channeling it in some way, it's usually suppressed and comes out passively or is projected onto the 'other'.

ADDED: just to clarify more on that and what luc was suggesting when he said "Maybe you can see the point if you de-identify yourself for a moment with this whole moon landing thing, as Joe already recommended" here's quote from this thread.

The trick is to not allow the negative emotions to activate either the moving center which tends to respond with negative actions, or the intellectual center which tends to respond with negative thoughts toward the "shock." This results in a "feeding" of the source of the shock and a draining of the energy of the organism.

Instead, the pure energy of the negative emotions must be observed and controlled like an untamed horse so that its energy pulls the rest of the organism where it wants to go.

This means constant observation of the self during periods of "shocks." At the moment of the arising of the negative emotion, within the instant of its arousal, it is possible to disassociate the components of the emotion - to separate the "shock" from not only the initiator, but from the programmed reaction {Which in this case is your reactions on moon landing thread} - and to liberate the pure energy and concentrate it and USE it positively. The result of this technique is a direct connection to the higher centers which results in an inflow of tremendous energy into the organism that lights up the emotional center like a flashing neon sign, and the SENSATION is pure JOY.