Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?

It seems that NASA sure spent a lot of cash making sure we didn't contaminate the moon and the moon didn't contaminate us.

dirty_spacesuit.jpg

Apollo Lunar QuarantineA 50th Anniversary View© 2019 Johannes Kemppanen. All rights reserved.



Last updated 2019-07-22

 
We're talking about Apollo here, not ancient space travel! I'm not going to dispute your claim as this is a moon landing thread but feel free to provide the evidence. I doubt, on the evidence presented by NASA they achieved lunar orbit let alone a landing, low earth orbit at best.

Seriously?! Why? Like people are supposed to accept the 'new reality' of covid? This is a Moon landing conspiracy thread, I'm not demanding anyone to accept my posts but if they're useful they're free to use them. They're also free to criticize and poke holes in my research. The official record is there and I merely dispute it with the resources at my disposal. Don't have to accept anything!

Indeed the public is caught up in the virus but this is a moon landing conspiracy thread! I'm disputing the Apollo record because people have been led to believe that it's factual! Why bring covid into it? Don't worry, I'm a medic, I'm exposed to covidiots all the time and can hold my own! I'm not stopping anyone on this forum from discussing the virus insanity.

Got the evidence for that? Perhaps it is old hat and inter-dimensional travel is available to a select few but with the power that such technologies would bring why is the official record so lame and poorly executed using early to mid 20th century techniques to fake it, surely they could do better? Would've saved them a lot of trouble in the future! Modern day space travel as portrayed to the masses is nowhere near the level you describe and they've gone to a lot of trouble to maintain a narrative, perhaps even killing astronauts and a safety inspector to keep the whole lie going. Even the LROC images are pathetic, there's better resolution of earthbound objects (using the same hardware) from 25 times the altitude with the atmosphere obscuring the view than there is of the Apollo sites . It would be really nice to know why they did it and why they continue to do it.

Disagree,
1) At a birthday party last Saturday, the birthday boy's dad brought out his silver halide photography equipment. I used to enjoy the same hobby and we had a great technical discussion. Long story short, eventually we began discussing the Apollo images and eventually he realized they were fakes, simply because the film would never have survived the missions, he thought the cameras were specially made to withstand the harsh lunar conditions, they weren't. He woke up a little that night, open to other possibilities, like the fact covid is fake, he's in early 80's, never too late. Took very little effort on my part.

That makes three so far, all face to face and thanks mostly to dodgy Apollo images! Knowledge of the dodgy Apollo history also helps but the images have the greatest impact because they're accessible to almost everyone with a PC and internet connection. The analytical software is freely available and I find it a lot of fun, it's like a hobby to me now, a self affirming activity.
2) The other good thing about Apollo is that unlike 911 it's a 'feel good' fake. People are generally not so defensive about it and it's easier to show some of the lamest fakes in the collection to get them thinking without severe emotional reactions. It's also easy to reassure them and suggest that Apollo was real but the images were destroyed by the harsh space conditions so they had to fake them as this gentleman claims here.
3) It's educational, learning how a mass fraud is committed is always beneficial, you can apply it to other frauds as well. Knowledge protects.
4) I watched Apollo XI as a kid, loved NASA and collected a lot of stuff, built model rockets and so forth. I religiously believed in it and I broke that spell when I clicked those links on the Apollo archive. Eighteen months in now, been a great journey!
5) It's history, and history is extremely important.
6) Finally, it seems I get attacked when I'm researching this, especially when I'm about to post here or elsewhere. However the more research I do I'm finding the attacks are dissipating somewhat. It peaked about 3 months ago when I awoke to what seemed to be a serious cardiac event. It seems that they do take an interest in this and want to shut it down.
How does a person prove awakened memories? It's not possible.

I am one of the biggest conspiracy theorists around, according to the lame stream. I have seen things in the night sky in 1967 that defy today's known technology. You will have to take my word or ask my brother. Dad has passed away so he can't testify. My brother also witnessed the same things I did.

We have been to the moon recently, in the past 50 whatever odd years. Just not with Apollo. I also have pretty much given up discussing this with people in general. It will all be revealed soon enough.
 
Posted on facebook in late July. Things are somewhat clearer to me now as to why this is an unpopular subject. Fair enough, to each their own.
Russian libtards.PNG
Well, promoting false moon landings is, in my book, rather similar to promoting the Flat Earth nonsense. Sounds to me like they are pandering to the folks who are die-hard paranoiacs.
I'm not a flat-earther nor am I paranoid, I'm a very curious person. I'm disappointed with NASA, the photos and video are terrible, if they faked them what else did they fake? Why did they do it? What are they faking now? I'd love to know.
Witnessed by yours truly MANY times, I can add. As I've mentioned, I had two cousins working for NASA at Cape Kennedy and my Aunt and Uncle lived on the Banana River right across from the cape. Many times we had a barbecue there while watching the latest launch. It was totally awesome.
Indeed that would've been spectacular but it doesn't mean they went to the Moon. Low Earth orbit yes but for all we know some could've simply dropped into the ocean and a studio did the rest.

You can probably account for Russian flat earthers due to a large religious minority (10%) that are more likely to believe in such things than others. As for the Russian Apollo skeptics, I can't speak for them but there Russians who are skeptical of their own space program's successes. There are also Russian scientists and cinematographers skeptical of Apollo.

I did not search out Apollo hoax sites but studied the record myself. There's a lot wrong with it, I found 5 anomalies in one photo alone, here's one of them working on the others. If just one image is proven to be fake then the whole record can be called into question.

Anyway I know this is not a popular subject but if it's OK with you I'd like to continue to post my findings here, some forum folks do find the subject interesting and may find them useful. I find the photographic record a useful tool to awaken people when the opportunity arises. Some say I'm wasting my time but I don't think so, to me, active and diligent research is asking the Universe, make the effort, it answers.

Cheers
 
Anyway I know this is not a popular subject but if it's OK with you I'd like to continue to post my findings here, some forum folks do find the subject interesting and may find them useful. I find the photographic record a useful tool to awaken people when the opportunity arises. Some say I'm wasting my time but I don't think so, to me, active and diligent research is asking the Universe, make the effort, it answers.

Hi Brewer, you are free to discuss other topics on the forum, but we would appreciate if you post your NASA photo and video analyses somewhere else, as there are more important topics to discuss. Considering your interest in the topic, we'd advise you to take a course in space engineering to learn more about the technicality and composition of materials used in space, as up until now you're only making assumptions based on limited understanding. For example, here you claim that the cameras used for the Apollo missions were not made to withstand lunar conditions (therefore, pictures were not taken on the moon). A quick search led me to this outline by NASA on the composition of the cameras. It's technical, which is why it would be to your benefit to gain more knowledge and understanding of space engineering.
 
India was trying to attempt moon landing (No "life" in the cargo) for the 2nd time in the last 4 years. It's Chandrayan-3 expected to attempt the land on August 23 2023 and will hope it will not meet the same fate of crash landing as its predecessor Chandrayan-2 in 2019.

Interestingly, After Chandrayan-3 launch, the news of Russia sending its Luna 25 and expected to land before August 23rd. Though catchy head-lines of articles talked about competition, I don't think there is any of that between them and their "All weather friendship" still holds.
It’s been touted as a race to the lunar south pole, but there's much more to India's and Russia’s moon shots than who lands first.India's Chandrayaan-3 lunar lander launched on July 14 and entered lunar orbit on Aug. 5. It is currently lowering its orbit in preparation for a landing attempt that's expected to occur on Aug. 23.

Meanwhile, Russia is making its first visit to the moon since 1976, when its Soviet-era sample return mission dubbed Luna-24 took place. Luna-25 launched on Aug. 10 and, having taken a more direct route to the moon, could make a landing attempt as soon as Aug. 21.

While the so-called race is intriguing, however, it is a bit of a non-starter with a debatable finish line and no discernable prize on the line. But, on the other hand, there are also important matters of prestige to consider, as well as implications for potential follow up missions and opportunities for international cooperation.

And, of course, there is quite a bit of science at stake.

Which will land first?​

A key factor in when these spacecraft will land is the timing of the sun's trajectory. The sun must be rising over these probes' respective landing spots because sunlight will provide power for the spacecraft on the surface. Another factor has to do with when the probes' orbits will pass over the landing sites. Both Luna-25 and Chandrayaan-3 will be in polar lunar orbits, with the moon rotating below as they orbit above.

Chandrayaan-3 is targeting a landing site at 69.37˚S 32.35˚E. The sun will rise over this area early on Aug. 21 GMT, meaning lighting will be suitable for the solar-powered Vikram lander and Pragyan rover by the time it lands around 17:47 IST (1217 GMT, 08:17 a.m. EDT) on Aug. 23.

Meanwhile, Luna-25 is targeting the Boguslawsky crater at 72.9˚S 43.2˚E. As this region is farther east, the sun will rise earlier over this site (Aug. 20), meaning the partially solar-powered Luna-25 may be able to land earlier as well. It will, however, depend on the lunar orbit Luna-25 enters and Roscosmos' plan.

Vikram and Pragyan are solar powered and have a mission lifetime of one lunar daytime (around 14 Earth days), so landing early will be important to how much they can achieve in the time they have. Luna-25, however, comes packed with a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) which will supply heat and power needed to keep the lander working for at least a year, meaning a landing time early in the local lunar day may not be such a priority.

Will they land successfully?​

The moon is the center of renewed global interest and is being visited by a fleet of spacecraft from various countries. While the moon has welcomed robotic landers numerous times, only China has landed successfully so far this century (with the Chang'e 3, 4 and 5 missions). And, unlike those Chinese missions, India's and Russia's attempts are targeting the vicinity of the lunar south pole.

Though there is intrigue as to which craft will land first, whether they pull off a soft, safe landing or make a hard, mission-ending impact is the key question.

Russia has not landed on the moon since the Soviet days. The last Soviet mission was Luna 24, which launched 47 years ago. Russia's last interplanetary mission, Fobos-Grunt, which aimed to collect samples from Mars' moon Phobos, failed to get out of low Earth orbit in 2011. Luna-25 has been delayed for more than a decade. Engineers also needed to make changes to the landing navigation system late in the spacecraft's development .

As for India, the country is aiming to join the United States, the former Soviet Union and China as the only nations to perform a soft lunar landing. It would also be a tremendous feat for the country along with the Mangalyaan mission, which entered Mars' orbit in 2014 and ended its tenure in 2022 because it ran out of battery. The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) says it has learned lessons from the failed landing attempt of the Chandrayaan-2 spacecraft in 2019.

Recent attempts at moon landings by Israeli and Japanese companies have not gone well, highlighting the challenges ahead.

Landing successfully therefore cannot be taken for granted for either mission, and both India's and Russia's endeavors will be watched keenly around the world.

Will they really land at the south pole?​

Landing at the south pole is the focal point of international intrigue regarding possible presence of trapped water-ice which could be used for propellant or supplying lunar habitats with life-sustaining materials?

India and Russia aim to land further south than any previous lunar touchdown — 69 and 72 degrees south of the equator respectively. The sites are not considered truly polar, but that does not mean we won't be learning something new. Landing near the equator is also known to be favorable for a number of technical reasons including lighting, communications and easier-to-navigate terrain.

"Neither is a polar location, but rather high latitude locations," Clive Neal, a lunar exploration expert in the department of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, told Space.com. "We have not really visited such southern high latitude locations before, so from a curiosity and science viewpoint, these landers will give data from new locations on the moon."

Both missions are chiefly aiming to test and demonstrate technology for future soft landings on the moon.

How do the spacecraft match up?​

The landers have a similar mass, with Luna-25 weighing around 3,860 lbs (1,750 kg) at liftoff, with just over half of which is expected to be propellant. The Chandrayaan-3 Vikram lander meanwhile weighed 3,862 lbs (1,752 kg) including a 57 lbs (26 kgs) rover named Pragyan. Much of Vikram's mass is also propellant for landing.

Luna 25 carries eight science instruments, including the lunar manipulator complex (LMK) which is capable of excavating lunar regolith and the Neutron and gamma detector (ADRON-LR) geared to seeking water ice.

Vikram will meanwhile be looking to make the most of its (only) day in the sun. It carries four science payloads, one of which will insert a thermal probe into the lunar soil to a depth of around four inches (10 centimeters) and take temperature readings of the lunar regolith throughout the lunar day.

Pragyan will meanwhile carry the Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscope (LIBS) and the Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer (APXS) for lunar regolith studies. A retroreflector on Vikram will however be useful long after the lander ceases working. The retroreflector is designed to reflect a light directly back to a source, and is an upgraded version of those put on the moon by the Apollo missions and will be used to accurately measure the distance and variation in distances between the Earth and moon.
For Luna-25, it meant ESA's PILOT-D navigation camera was no longer available to assist the landing attempt.

India’s mission, on the other hand, is being supported by ESA's "Estrack" network of deep space stations, helping to track, command and receive data from Chandrayaan-3. NASA is contributing the retroreflector for lunar laser ranging.

Impact on future missions?​

Russia is planning on launching further Luna probes, including Luna-26 in 2027, Luna-27 a year later, and Luna-28 no earlier than 2030. It aims to play a big part in the China-led International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) rather than the US-led Artemis program.

India is planning a joint mission with Japan, named Lunar Polar Exploration mission (LUPEX), to launch later in the decade. The country has also signed up to the Artemis Accords.

How Luna-25 and Chandrayaan-3 fare with their landing attempts could have knock-on effects for future missions or even participation in wider programs. In a matter of days, we will find out who the winners are.I haven't researched Russia's motivation behind what looked like a "Rush" and it looks it didn't succeed.
Russia's attempt to land on Moon with Luna-25 seems to have failed.
Russia’s first moon mission in decades has ended in failure after the Luna-25 spacecraft collided with the Moon’s surface.

The incident happened after communication with the spacecraft was interrupted, a blow to Russia’s space ambitions.

Russia’s space agency, Roscosmos, said it lost communication with Luna-25 on Saturday around 2:57pm Moscow time.

“The measures taken on August 19 and 20 to search for the device and get into contact with it did not yield any results,” it said.

According to preliminary calculations, Luna-25 “switched to an off-design orbit” before the collision, Roscosmos said.

A specially formed commission will investigate the reasons for the loss of Luna-25, the agency added.

The news comes a day after the spacecraft reported an “emergency situation” as it was trying to enter a pre-landing orbit, according to Roscosmos.

During the operation, an emergency situation occurred on board the automatic station, which did not allow the maneuver to be performed with the specified parameters,” Roscosmos said in a Telegram post on Saturday.

The spacecraft was meant to be Russia’s first lunar landing mission in 47 years. The last lunar lander, Luna 24, landed on the surface of the Moon on August 18, 1976.

The Luna-25 spacecraft launched from the Vostochny Cosmodrome in Russia’s Amur Oblast on August 10, setting the vehicle on a swift trip to the moon.
We don't know the causes of the failure yet. Let's Wait and see whether India's attempt will work or not.
 
I also read about it and honestly wondered from the beginning if it had a chance at all, since of the ones who are using the moon as well, i.e., secret bases. Though of course, it is something, we can only speculate about.

We don't know the causes of the failure yet. Let's Wait and see whether India's attempt will work or not.
Yes, let's wait and see.
 
I also read about it and honestly wondered from the beginning if it had a chance at all, since of the ones who are using the moon as well, i.e., secret bases. Though of course, it is something, we can only speculate about.
What I read is, the signal sent to lower the orbit, triggered too much burning and thrust thus making it to crash into moon. It could mean many possibilities:
  • wrong calculations made before sending the signal
  • Environment changed, which Russians don't know making it wrong signal
  • equipment failures
  • upstairs guys goofed the signal in between
  • combination of some of the above.
There could be many more reasons.

If the upstairs guys don't want any body land there, these landings will fail.
 
I watched the Chandrayaan 3 moon landing. It went smoothly without any issues. Here is a video about what went wrong in 2019 Chandrayaan 2 mission and what corrections made for the safe landing which seems to have worked. It is in Hindi, but you can enable the English subtitles by clicking 'CC'
 
I watched the Chandrayaan 3 moon landing. It went smoothly without any issues. Here is a video about what went wrong in 2019 Chandrayaan 2 mission and what corrections made for the safe landing which seems to have worked. It is in Hindi, but you can enable the English subtitles by clicking 'CC'
So they learned from their past mistakes, which is good. Maybe the Russian scientists will do so as well in the future.
 
How does a person prove awakened memories? It's not possible.

I am one of the biggest conspiracy theorists around, according to the lame stream. I have seen things in the night sky in 1967 that defy today's known technology. You will have to take my word or ask my brother. Dad has passed away so he can't testify. My brother also witnessed the same things I did.

We have been to the moon recently, in the past 50 whatever odd years. Just not with Apollo. I also have pretty much given up discussing this with people in general. It will all be revealed soon enough.

i was a young engineer at esro-estec since 1966. i followed all mercury, gemini, apollo missions and watched real time. i believe all those missions were real, including the fire. but i did not examine the later fake claims.
 
Back
Top Bottom