Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?

[Cosmos]

I think there is more to it. I recently watched a podcast between a guy who supposedly dedicated half his life to "exposing a conspiracy" about the moon landing and an astronaut from Apollo 16. The podcast is 3-4 hours long, and it's 1:30 in the morning at my place... I can watch it again tomorrow... that is, today, and summarize the main points in a few lines. Unless someone wants to do it before me. Then you can watch this:

Just clicked around and the critic was emotional every time he spoke. He was not the right person for this gig as it's clear he's too emotionally attached to the moon landing never happening to actually evaluate his own facts.

For example, he brings up the destruction of certain films of the landings and even though he asks why would they do that it's purely rhetorical and it doesn't seem like he ever actually engaged with the question himself. It's like the landing being fake was a foregone conclusion so he never stopped to think about why they might do it and what it might mean.

Which suggests one purpose of the fake moon landing conspiracy was to give people an answer before they got the questions so when the questions come up, such as in this interview, it prevents people from engaging with the material to figure out what really happened as they already knew the answer. At least, they would think they know the answer.

The same dynamic observed with the conspiracy theorists can be seen from the other perspective too. When the only alternative presented is the landing being fake it's tempting to dismiss all questions or incongruous facts out of hand because it not happening is so absurd.

The baby is tossed out with the bathwater either way.

My impression too from looking into it shortly. The interviewer already got on my nerves substantially by seemingly constantly running a underlying script of “he is lying or misremembering or he was brainwashed or he is senile“ in everything he asked the poor old astronaut (from the little I saw). Sad that the man didn’t have the opportunity to talk to a much less biased and open podcaster.

 

[SasaM]

Maybe it is more worthwhile to focus on the why and how of alternate realities being observable on the Moon - whether it is natural on other planets (or just on the Moon) or if it is the result of some kind of technology.

Have been thinking about that as well.

The meaning of the term used by the C's, "alternate", is interesting and telling:

alternate /ôl′tər-nāt″, ăl′-/

intransitive verb​

1. To occur in a successive manner.
   "day alternating with night."
2. To act or proceed by turns.
   "The students alternated at the computer."
3. To pass back and forth from one state, action, or place to another.
   "alternated between happiness and depression."

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition •

It implies "shifting", not a "solid reality" we're used to perceiving for most of the time here on Earth. Something alike what's experienced in dreamlike states.

Could it be related to smaller gravity, nonexistent magnetic field and atmosphere on the Moon?
Or/and that there are no humans there that "solidify" the reality of the outside world or realm they usually perceive in shared programmatic manner here on Earth, like inscribing the mutually shared perception into the electromagnetic and gravity field of our planet, which then becomes the solid stable reality most of us commonly see and share here?

Haven't checked the session thread about this line of inquiry, so apologies if this has already been addressed there.

 

[Ian]

Just clicked around and the critic was emotional every time he spoke. He was not the right person for this gig as it's clear he's too emotionally attached to the moon landing never happening to actually evaluate his own facts.

For example, he brings up the destruction of certain films of the landings and even though he asks why would they do that it's purely rhetorical and it doesn't seem like he ever actually engaged with the question himself. It's like the landing being fake was a foregone conclusion so he never stopped to think about why they might do it and what it might mean.

Which suggests one purpose of the fake moon landing conspiracy was to give people an answer before they got the questions so when the questions come up, such as in this interview, it prevents people from engaging with the material to figure out what really happened as they already knew the answer. At least, they would think they know the answer.

The same dynamic observed with the conspiracy theorists can be seen from the other perspective too. When the only alternative presented is the landing being fake it's tempting to dismiss all questions or incongruous facts out of hand because it not happening is so absurd.

The baby is tossed out with the bathwater either way.

Yes, that bald guy is probably someone's useful idiot, and I'll explain why in later posts. I'm still watching the podcast. I've just spent an hour and a half watching and then writing down and researching on the side some things related to what's being discussed...

 

[Ian]

My impression too from looking into it shortly. The interviewer already got on my nerves substantially by seemingly constantly running a underlying script of “he is lying or misremembering or he was brainwashed or he is senile“ in everything he asked the poor old astronaut (from the little I saw). Sad that the man didn’t have the opportunity to talk to a much less biased and open podcaster.

The interviewer is actually on Dukes (the astronaut) side more IMO... You would have to watch the whole podcasts to see it. But in short, he says that he belives that he was on the moon and that moon landings did happen.

 

[SasaM]

Have been thinking about that as well.

The meaning of the term used by the C's, "alternate", is interesting and telling:


It implies "shifting", not a "solid reality" we're used to perceiving for most of the time here on Earth. Something alike what's experienced in dreamlike states.

Could it be related to smaller gravity, nonexistent magnetic field and atmosphere on the Moon?
Or/and that there are no humans there that "solidify" the reality of the outside world or realm they usually perceive in shared programmatic manner here on Earth, like inscribing the mutually shared perception into the electromagnetic and gravity field of our planet, which then becomes the solid stable reality most of us commonly see and share here?

Haven't checked the session thread about this line of inquiry, so apologies if this has already been addressed there.

Well, the C's didn't use the term "alternate", but "altered" as in "other", so the post above seems to be off the mark or simply out in the left field.

(Joe) What did the Apollo astronauts see?

A: Aliens and altered reality.

As such it can be removed, as it's basically noise and unsubstantiated speculation.
FWIW.

 

[axj]

Well, the C's didn't use the term "alternate", but "altered" as in "other"

Yes, that's a good point. "Altered" reality may not be quite the same as "alternate" realities that the C's spoke of before in various contexts.

Another question is whether the aliens that the astronauts saw were STO or STS. It would seem that 4D STS is ultimately in control of NASA, so what would be the point of 4D STS showing themselves and then making sure that the astronauts don't talk about it?

 

[Gaby]

Another lead comes from the now classic "The Love Bite: Alien Interference in Human Love Relationships" by Eve Lorgen. It's case studies of love affairs that involved MILABs (military abductions), alien abductions, and the like. She touches on the obsessive, "out of this world" and feeding nature of some relationships because they felt a "cosmic urge" to do so. That is, they were mass abducted and stimulated to do something by aliens. "Felt cosmic" meaning as per "alien abduction" prompting.

In her book, Eve Lorgen mentions the case of Mia (the woman victim), an FBI agent, and the possible involvement of William Cornelius Sullivan. In her research, Lorgen says that NASA was the real thing during the Kennedy era, and COINTELPRO was set up big time after that with William Sullivan as the founder.

Before "retiring", Sullivan merged Houston's FBI division 5 with his COINTELPRO operatives and went on to merge the whole group into a new secret security agency inside NASA. This was after 1968. Sullivan himself died in a mysterious hunting accident.

All that came after the moon landings does bear the signature of COINTELPRO: confusion.

I'll include quotes from her book relating to the subject.

It seems most of the information on Sullivan has sort of disappeared from the web. This is what is commonly available:

William C. Sullivan

Biography of William C. Sullivan

spartacus-educational.com

William C. Sullivan

William Cornelius Sullivan (1912–1977) was an American intelligence official who rose through the ranks of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to become assistant director of its Domestic Intelligence Division from 1961 to 1971. In this role, he directed counterintelligence efforts against...

grokipedia.com

Though acknowledging his oversight of COINTELPRO's 1960s expansion—authorizing mail openings, media plants, and infiltrations to neutralize communist ties in civil rights networks—Sullivan defends core aims as pragmatic defenses against documented infiltration (e.g., 20% of SCLC donors linked to fronts per Bureau audits) while attributing escalations like anonymous smears on King to Hoover's unchecked paranoia rather than Division Five's unchecked discretion.[37] This framing extracts operational insights, such as informant yields disrupting 100+ subversive cells annually, yet omits Sullivan's 1967 directive broadening "neutralization" to psychological warfare, prompting retrospective scrutiny of the memoir's exonerative lean amid his direct approvals for over 2,000 COINTELPRO actions by 1971.[8]

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I think there is more to it. I recently watched a podcast between a guy who supposedly dedicated half his life to "exposing a conspiracy" about the moon landing and an astronaut from Apollo 16. The podcast is 3-4 hours long, and it's 1:30 in the morning at my place... I can watch it again tomorrow... that is, today, and summarize the main points in a few lines. Unless someone wants to do it before me. Then you can watch this:

Just clicked around and the critic was emotional every time he spoke. He was not the right person for this gig as it's clear he's too emotionally attached to the moon landing never happening to actually evaluate his own facts.

For example, he brings up the destruction of certain films of the landings and even though he asks why would they do that it's purely rhetorical and it doesn't seem like he ever actually engaged with the question himself. It's like the landing being fake was a foregone conclusion so he never stopped to think about why they might do it and what it might mean.

Which suggests one purpose of the fake moon landing conspiracy was to give people an answer before they got the questions so when the questions come up, such as in this interview, it prevents people from engaging with the material to figure out what really happened as they already knew the answer. At least, they would think they know the answer.

The same dynamic observed with the conspiracy theorists can be seen from the other perspective too. When the only alternative presented is the landing being fake it's tempting to dismiss all questions or incongruous facts out of hand because it not happening is so absurd.

The baby is tossed out with the bathwater either way.

I watched it. Bald guy did not do a good job. Pretty much every point he made contained a logical fallacy - the quotes he provided were pretty much all taken out of context. He tried to present what in his mind was the best evidence, and everything he presented could be interpreted in multiple ways.

Patrick on Vetted made a good video showing how he took all those astronaut quotes out of context:

 

[Ian]

I watched it. Bald guy did not do a good job. Pretty much every point he made contained a logical fallacy - the quotes he provided were pretty much all taken out of context. He tried to present what in his mind was the best evidence, and everything he presented could be interpreted in multiple ways.

Patrick on Vetted made a good video showing how he took all those astronaut quotes out of context:

I agree, I just started writing about the first two hours of the podcast, that is, mainly about why he and other people think that the moon landing didn't happen. I just stopped there on about 2 hours and 10 minutes where the Van Allen Belt is mentioned, which I am most interested in...

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I agree, I just started writing about the first two hours of the podcast, that is, mainly about why he and other people think that the moon landing didn't happen. I just stopped there on about 2 hours and 10 minutes where the Van Allen Belt is mentioned, which I am most interested in...

Jones missed an obvious question during that discussion. Bart kept harping on how thick the belts are. Duke implied they passed through them fairly quickly and was surprised to hear that it must have taken them 2 hours or something to pass all the way through. Bart quotes some calculations on how much similar radiation a person can take, and then does his own calculations to show that a person experiencing that level of radiation for 2 hours or so would die. But he didn't mention one important fact: the radiation levels are not uniform throughout the whole distance.

Here's an "official" explanation, fwiw:

Radiation levels in the belts would be dangerous to humans if they were exposed for an extended period of time. The Apollo missions minimised hazards for astronauts by sending spacecraft at high speeds through the thinner areas of the upper belts, bypassing inner belts completely, except for the Apollo 14 mission where the spacecraft traveled through the heart of the trapped radiation belts.

As for space agencies today being especially (overly?) concerned about the radiation, of course they would be. Their generation is triple vaxed and doesn't even let their kids play out of their sight.

 

[SasaM]

As for space agencies today being especially (overly?) concerned about the radiation, of course they would be. Their generation is triple vaxed and doesn't even let their kids play out of their sight.

And the electronics today being "miniaturized" in comparison to what was then is much more sensitive to cosmic radiation and radiation in general, making it much more vulnerable and prone to malfunction in those high radiation environments than it was at the time of the Apollo missions.

From Wikipedia:

Effect on electronics

Cosmic rays have sufficient energy to alter the states of circuit components in electronic integrated circuits, causing transient errors to occur (such as corrupted data in electronic memory devices or incorrect performance of CPUs) often referred to as "soft errors". This has been a problem in electronics at extremely high-altitude, such as in satellites, but with transistors becoming smaller and smaller, this is becoming an increasing concern in ground-level electronics as well. Studies by IBM in the 1990s suggest that computers typically experience about one cosmic-ray-induced error per 256 megabytes of RAM per month.

and

Significance to aerospace travel

Galactic cosmic rays are one of the most important barriers standing in the way of plans for interplanetary travel by crewed spacecraft. Cosmic rays also pose a threat to electronics placed aboard outgoing probes. In 2010, a malfunction aboard the Voyager 2 space probe was credited to a single flipped bit, probably caused by a cosmic ray. Strategies such as physical or magnetic shielding for spacecraft have been considered in order to minimize the damage to electronics and human beings caused by cosmic rays.

On 31 May 2013, NASA scientists reported that a possible crewed mission to Mars may involve a greater radiation risk than previously believed, based on the amount of energetic particle radiation detected by the RAD on the Mars Science Laboratory while traveling from the Earth to Mars in 2011–2012.

FWIW.

 

[Ian]

I agree, I just started writing about the first two hours of the podcast, that is, mainly about why he and other people think that the moon landing didn't happen. I just stopped there on about 2 hours and 10 minutes where the Van Allen Belt is mentioned, which I am most interested in...

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...

 

[aragorn]

It’s been over 15 years, I think, since I researched the moon landings but some of the things that made me suspicious that something wasn’t quite as we were told I still remember. These are not evidence of anything, just things that made me wonder. Those were, in no particular order:

1. The flimsy looking structure of the lunar module. And, it appeared very tiny for all of them to fit in.

2. Some of the footage of the lunar module in space appeared cartoonish, almost like a cardboard model was turned and movedby strings. Well, maybe movement in space is weird but it still looked ’ridiculous’ from what I remember.

3. The infamous press briefing in which the heroes, the crew melbers of Apollo 11 looked and acted like they’d seen a ghost. Well, maybe they did!

4. None of the Apollo 11 crew members ever participated in any of the other missions, in contrast to many of the later missions who did take part in multiple missions. However, and I just checked this, none of the melbers in the whole Apollo program stepped on the moon surface more than once.

5. That they did five subsequent moon landings after the first one. Maybe nothing, but it makes you a bit wonder ”was it that easy back then, when now they say it’s pretty darn difficult?”

On the other hand, and I just checked that also, the Apollo program costed about $150–$170 billion in today’s dollars. For that sum you get probably the best mathematicians and physicists in the world and a lot of other stuff not available for the ordinary man. Besides, and I remind myself, they did build the Eiffel tower in 1887-1889, which always baffles me.

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?

 

[Ian]

It’s been over 15 years, I think, since I researched the moon landings but some of the things that made me suspicious that something wasn’t quite as we were told I still remember. These are not evidence of anything, just things that made me wonder. Those were, in no particular order:

1. The flimsy looking structure of the lunar module. And, it appeared very tiny for all of them to fit in.

2. Some of the footage of the lunar module in space appeared cartoonish, almost like a cardboard model was turned and movedby strings. Well, maybe movement in space is weird but it still looked ’ridiculous’ from what I remember.

3. The infamous press briefing in which the heroes, the crew melbers of Apollo 11 looked and acted like they’d seen a ghost. Well, maybe they did!

4. None of the Apollo 11 crew members ever participated in any of the other missions, in contrast to many of the later missions who did take part in multiple missions. However, and I just checked this, none of the melbers in the whole Apollo program stepped on the moon surface more than once.

5. That they did five subsequent moon landings after the first one. Maybe nothing, but it makes you a bit wonder ”was it that easy back then, when now they say it’s pretty darn difficult?”

On the other hand, and I just checked that also, the Apollo program costed about $150–$170 billion in today’s dollars. For that sum you get probably the best mathematicians and physicists in the world and a lot of other stuff not available for the ordinary man. Besides, and I remind myself, they did build the Eiffel tower in 1887-1889, which always baffles me.

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?

Yes, but the question is: Who exactly in NASA knew what happened on the first mission? When Neil and Buzz went back to Earth and did a debriefing, to who were they reporting? And who saw the report? Who had a need to know? I don't know if this debriefing happened and how it went down but according to Charles Duke (Apollo 16 astronaut) from the podcast, they did do a debriefing and that happened when they were in quarantine because they didn't know if they would bring something from the moon that could kill all of humanity.

And for the 4th point you make, it could be that the body who is sending people on the moon, had a criterion. Charles Duke mentioned somewhere in the beginning a process which he went through to become an Apollo astronaut. So, they were looking for a test pilot (1) (Charlie graduated for a test pilot at Edwards Air Force) which was his height (2) at the time and his age (3) and he just filed an application and got accepted. - That is what he described... And he also said there were no guarantees that if you became an astronaut that you would go to the moon, but that he wanted to be an astronaut because "that was the best job for a test pilot"...

 

[A Jay]

Patrick on Vetted made a good video showing how he took all those astronaut quotes out of context

Buzz Aldrin didn't punch this guy hard enough.