Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?

[Cosmos]

Also, it seems to me that he is a manipulator, and that's all I personally picked up from what I saw...

Quite frankly, after having now watched more of that “discussion“ between Bart Sibrel and the Apollo Astronaut my bet would actually be on just that: Bart is a manipulator. The first time that guy got the chance to talk/present his case in the video he immediately started off basically with gaslighting and quite disrespectful character assassination attempts. Knowingly or not, that is already a bad way he started off the whole thing. I actually had to force myself to not turn the whole thing off right at that point.

And yes, my previous short/hot take on the moderator wasn’t right, he actually tried to do a good job and also was visibly and understandably frustrated with the Bart guy. Problem though is that it is hard to make something work that is set up so badly. Kudos to the Astronaut for staying so calm faced by such an onslaught and shame on that Bart guy for being such an asshole.

I can actually understand why Edgar Mitchell would want to send his friends from the CIA to that Bart guy after trying similar distasteful tricks on him, apparently even within his own home.

Sorry Bart to have to say that, but when you play with fire you can’t blame the fire to eventually burn you especially when you sneakily try to frame and defame people like Edgar Mitchell. Especially military/astronaut/Apollo people from that time where quite a different brand of man, so you shouldn’t be surprised that they would and could fight back with swift no nonsense types of mechanisms/actions, including violent ones.

 

[Beau]

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?

Any astronaut who hadn't gone to the moon wouldn't know about what happened on the first one.

 

[Ian]

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...

*edit for the post above: Third claim - [running time: 1:01:44-1:03:21]

Forth claim is that NASA intentionally destroyed all technology and then he shows a video (which is the one below) where Don Pettit (astronaut) says they "destroyed all technology and it's a painful process to build it back again"

Also, he claims that all telemetry data is destroyed. (Telemetry data refers to the information collected and transmitted from remote sources for monitoring and analysis. This data can include various measurements such as temperature, pressure, and system performance metrics, enabling organizations to gain insights into their operations.)

Fifth claim is that you couldn't go to the moon because the technology wasn't advanced enough, quote:
"I went scuba diving and to have an hour's worth of air, it takes two tanks this big and that big around. That would be 16 tanks of air you would have to have on your back on the moon. And then to allegedly get the lunar module down to 72 degrees on inside for 3days against 250 degrees outside on a bank of essentially car batteries. It can't be done".
[running time: 1:18:06-1:18:33]

Sixth claim is that moon rocks were fake. He says that Neil took a rock, put it in his pocket, and then latter personally gave to the prime minister of Netherlands which was put in a museum, and only a few years ago was the rock found to be fake.

Dutch doubt authenticity of ‘moon rock’

AMSTERDAM – It’s not green cheese, but it might as well be. The Dutch national museum said Thursday that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by U.S. astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood.

www.spokesman.com

(this is from the article and it rings a bell a little bit, no?: "Rijksmuseum spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation that proved the piece was a fake, said the museum will keep it anyway as a curiosity.")

(Comment: the story wasn't known until 2009. That could imply that the story was made up then.

Now, the astronaut from the podcast claims that the moon rock that this museum got doesn't look like a moon rock he collected and that the ones he collected looked like "Big Muley" which you can look at here: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16BigMuley61016.pdf

But that doesn't mean that museum doesn't got a moon rock, because astronauts had different sites they went to to pick up rocks, so there may be some different types of rocks on the moon.)

Baldy also claims that Wernher von Braun went to Antarctica and that he picked up meteorites there and that those were the moon rocks that NASA presented. see:10.7 Were the Moon rocks actually meteorites collected in Antarctica by Wernher von Braun?

 

[Cosmos]

Buzz Aldrin didn't punch this guy hard enough.

Indeed.

 

[Ian]

*edit for the post above: Third claim - [running time: 1:01:44-1:03:21]

Forth claim is that NASA intentionally destroyed all technology and then he shows a video (which is the one below) where Don Pettit (astronaut) says they "destroyed all technology and it's a painful process to build it back again"

Also, he claims that all telemetry data is destroyed. (Telemetry data refers to the information collected and transmitted from remote sources for monitoring and analysis. This data can include various measurements such as temperature, pressure, and system performance metrics, enabling organizations to gain insights into their operations.)

Fifth claim is that you couldn't go to the moon because the technology wasn't advanced enough, quote:
"I went scuba diving and to have an hour's worth of air, it takes two tanks this big and that big around. That would be 16 tanks of air you would have to have on your back on the moon. And then to allegedly get the lunar module down to 72 degrees on inside for 3days against 250 degrees outside on a bank of essentially car batteries. It can't be done".
[running time: 1:18:06-1:18:33]

Sixth claim is that moon rocks were fake. He says that Neil took a rock, put it in his pocket, and then latter personally gave to the prime minister of Netherlands which was put in a museum, and only a few years ago was the rock found to be fake.

Dutch doubt authenticity of ‘moon rock’

AMSTERDAM – It’s not green cheese, but it might as well be. The Dutch national museum said Thursday that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by U.S. astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood.

www.spokesman.com

(this is from the article and it rings a bell a little bit, no?: "Rijksmuseum spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation that proved the piece was a fake, said the museum will keep it anyway as a curiosity.")

(Comment: the story wasn't known until 2009. That could imply that the story was made up then.

Now, the astronaut from the podcast claims that the moon rock that this museum got doesn't look like a moon rock he collected and that the ones he collected looked like "Big Muley" which you can look at here: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16BigMuley61016.pdf

But that doesn't mean that museum doesn't got a moon rock, because astronauts had different sites they went to to pick up rocks, so there may be some different types of rocks on the moon.)

Baldy also claims that Wernher von Braun went to Antarctica and that he picked up meteorites there and that those were the moon rocks that NASA presented. see:10.7 Were the Moon rocks actually meteorites collected in Antarctica by Wernher von Braun?

I just realized something funny. In the last link I sent about the moon rocks, you go to the page and you see in Content table that moon rock stuff is in section of "alternative realities" which reminded me of "altered reality" C's mention... And up there on that page are all the reasons people think that moon landing was a hoax and that's what I wanted to write about cause Joe said someone should list the main reasons for it not being (allegedly) possible for humans to have traveled to and walked on the moon. So there it is... MOON HOAX: DEBUNKED!

 

[Brewer]

Any astronaut who hadn't gone to the moon wouldn't know about what happened on the first one.

How do you know that? Six orbited the moon prior to Apollo 11, including the commanders of A16 and 17 in A10 and they didn't bother to tell their fellow Masons/Astronauts that they saw some weird stuff? Charlie Duke of A16 was capsule communicator or CAPCOM for A11 as part of mission control, so I'd imagine he heard from them directly on the day as they described what they saw. If he didn't warn the others then he's a dickhead. That he never blew the whistle makes him a bigger dickhead.

 

[Ian]

How do you know that? Six orbited the moon prior to Apollo 11, including the commanders of A16 and 17 in A10 and they didn't bother to tell their fellow Masons/Astronauts that they saw some weird stuff? Charlie Duke of A16 was capsule communicator or CAPCOM for A11 as part of mission control, so I'd imagine he heard from them directly on the day as they described what they saw. If he didn't warn the others then he's a dickhead. That he never blew the whistle makes him a bigger dickhead.

Sure, but I think that the situation is far more complex than you describe it here…We don’t know when and how they saw what they saw. I was thinking that it could be something like an abduction. And they figured out what they saw when someone put them under hypnosis. Mabye that was a protocol they used to discover what else they saw? Maybe they saw aliens in an altered reality and for some reason that’s why noone who was on the line with them knew about it or whatever…I also thought, just to get it on record right now, that 16th july landing could maybe be explained with a time anomaly. Also, maybe the technical parameters NASA gave for their tech. out in public was not correct for political and secrecy reasons…Or maybe 16th july wasn’t the launch date and that would explain why there is little media coverage that day about it? Just some thoughts…