Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?

[Beau]

Well well well... this is interesting.

How could he have taken man's first step on the moon if the Atlantians had bases in Mars tens of thousands of years ago...

I think the C's understood the spirit of the question and answered accordingly.

 

[nature]

But how did they come back on Earth, without propulsion system there to re-launch the space shuttle?
Where did they land on Earth when they came back? And why is there no video showing their arrival, their landing on Earth?

 

[axj]

And why is there no video showing their arrival, their landing on Earth?

There are videos of Apollo 12-17 parachute splashdowns and recovery in the Pacific.

 

[Jones]

Didn't the C's indicate that the technology that the govt has is about 150 years ahead of what we have access to or know about? If that's the case then there may have been real moon landings and fake ones. The latter for public viewing and to hide the level of technology that they were actually using.

 

[Brewer]

So you're saying there's a chance...
If what we have here is a 'false positive'... then Schrödinger's Moon Landing lives!

It lives in same realm as climate change, global warming, covid and Erika. Some question suggestions.
Were Grissom and Baron murdered?
Is Baron's damning report on NASA true?
What percentage of space travel has been faked?

 

[Brewer]

I guess you should learn how cameras operate
night sky needs exposure in 20 seconds range, sun lit surface of the moon in fractions of one
either you have stars and overblown moon surface or moon surface and no stars, you cant have both, not even with modern camera

I know something, had my own darkroom as a teen, friends with a pro photographer who shot with Apollo era Hasselblads. My phone can video stars with a lit foreground. Anyway, no problems seeing stars here with a brightly lit earth in frame, earth is far brighter than the moon.


Question: In this image taken from the original scans show duplicated shadow lines.
Which shadow is the real shadow line, the outer or inner and why?

 

[axj]

Question: In this image taken from the original scans show duplicated shadow lines.
Which shadow is the real shadow line, the outer or inner and why?

The lander had many reflective surfaces with odd angles, which could have reflected some sunlight into the lander shadow.

And I don't know if you noticed, but the next few Apollo 12 pictures after that at the link you gave have stars in them:

 

[Cosmos]

I’m still of the opinion that it might be a mix of faking stuff to some extent (pictures/videos etc.) basically for making it a much more appealing show/event with lots of propaganda value for America, but ALSO, that real landings happened including those mentioned astronauts walking on the moon.

That would also explain why both camps keep thinking they must be right and why the “all faked from start to finish“ group will probably never be convinced that there was quite some real stuff going on too which includes the most important parts.

And I should add that in my opinion it is likely that most if not all the things people point out “as proof“ for why “the landings were fake“, such as taking pictures and videos apart or questioning technological capabilities is filled with make believe, selective, and black and white thinking. I also seem to have noticed that some if not many of the proponents of “it is a all fake from start to finish“ seem pretty obsessed with that moon landing topic.

 

[Deneb]

I know something, had my own darkroom as a teen, friends with a pro photographer who shot with Apollo era Hasselblads. My phone can video stars with a lit foreground. Anyway, no problems seeing stars here with a brightly lit earth in frame, earth is far brighter than the moon.
View attachment 112820

Question: In this image taken from the original scans show duplicated shadow lines.
Which shadow is the real shadow line, the outer or inner and why?
View attachment 112821

What was position of the sun in the moment of taking this photo?
Because if surface was lit by moon or even stars and not the sun, with long enough exposure you could have both

 

[Brewer]

What was position of the sun in the moment of taking this photo?
Because if surface was lit by moon or even stars and not the sun, with long enough exposure you could have both

About 5.5 degrees, the earth was about 19% illuminated, a crescent. Moon was lit by the sun and has a far lower albedo than the earth.

The lander had many reflective surfaces with odd angles, which could have reflected some sunlight into the lander shadow.

To make 2 fairly neatly defined shadow outlines 73 meters away? That's how long the shadow is.

And I don't know if you noticed, but the next few Apollo 12 pictures after that at the link you gave have stars in them:

Or they're holes or missing matt black paint on the backdrop. Most likely dust or flaws in the emulsion caused by sloppy lab work which are legion in the archive.
NASA never explains the two shadow anomaly, that's left to the fanboys. They say it's because the photos where taken through the double paned window of the LM but only affects the LM shadow for some reason, doesn't duplicate anything else except for a couple of horizons: a crater shadow here and there. It has at least once made moon rocks duplicate and dance.
You can even see the shadows change position in real time in this clip from Apollo 11.
So which outline is the shadow, inner or outer?

 

[Brewer]

McKeegan does some good work in debunking flerfers. However he often ignores most of the most glaring Apollo inconsistencies.
Here's a fanboy's take on the proposed method, he's rather puzzled. His granddad worked for NASA and it was so easy back then!

 

[axj]

Most likely dust or flaws in the emulsion caused by sloppy lab work which are legion in the archive.

It's the same stars in several pictures in different parts of the photographs.

And as @Cosmos pointed out, even if some of the footage was faked on Earth that does not mean that all of it was faked or that the landings didn't happen. That would be black and white thinking.

India photographed the Apollo 11 landing site, the laser reflectors (for distance measuring) that were placed by Apollo work, etc. There is a lot of evidence other than just the Apollo videos and photos.

Maybe ask yourself why you seem so invested in the Moon landings being fake? Isn't it better to be open towards all possibilities?

 

[Debra]

I’m one of those older Boomers who can remember and I have experienced all the excitement and interest at the time of all the space missions.
The term “Geek Girl” wasn’t in use then, I was just weird.
The moon landing was such an amazing time to witness.

I’m also reflecting on those years in the 60’s and 70’s and marveling at how trusting and naive we all were.

With that said, has anyone else watched the movie “Fly me to the Moon”?

It was released in 2024, and showed up on Netflix I think, during late spring of this year.
Anyways, I enjoyed it a lot, as it exemplified the darker side of manipulation by the PTB, as well as how collective naive gullibility can and is manipulated for gain.
Or attempted to be manipulated, and fails due to genuine honesty and integrity being maintained by some.

Here’s a bit of background about the movie, from wiki:
“In late 1968, Manhattan advertising executive Kelly Jones is offered a high-stakes job by Moe Berkus, a covert government operative working for President-elect Richard Nixon. He tasks her with revitalizing NASA's public image amidst waning interest in the Space Race. Under threat of being exposed for her deceptive past, Kelly reluctantly agrees and moves to Cocoa Beach, Florida, with her loyal assistant, Ruby.[…]

Now This next bit deals with the “Fake Moon landing” fiasco:

“As NASA prepares for the historic Apollo 11 mission, Kelly suggests broadcasting the moon landing using a television camera on the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM), a proposal Cole dismisses as impractical. However, Moe secretly endorses the idea and reveals an additional, shadowy directive to Kelly: she must prepare a fake moon landing to be aired if the real mission fails, a project codenamed "Artemis".

I did a search for “collective consciousness” messaging, and synchronicity flowed, with @thorbiorn having justcposted a new compilation. Thank you.
Thread 'The cosmic mind sends many clues, but who is listening?'
The cosmic mind sends many clues, but who is listening?

 

[Brewer]

It's the same stars in several pictures in different parts of the photographs.

Or flecks of dust on the lens.
'Stars' appear and vanish randomly in images throughout the archive. Here's 2 consecutive images with only a few pixels lateral movement to the right between them. That 'star' circled in white should be in the first image, especially as the first image is slightly more exposed than the latter. Probably one f-stop between them.

And as @Cosmos pointed out, even if some of the footage was faked on Earth that does not mean that all of it was faked or that the landings didn't happen. That would be black and white thinking.

Black & white or wishful? I think black & white is by far the lesser of two evils. A spoonful of B&W may have saved Charlie. Wishful thinking may impact transmissions from us in the future.

India photographed the Apollo 11 landing site, the laser reflectors (for distance measuring) that were placed by Apollo work, etc. There is a lot of evidence other than just the Apollo videos and photos.

Check out worldview. Lasers have been bounced off the moon since the early 60s. They could've dropped reflectors via probes and if those Indian images are real then they could be of an unmanned probe.

Maybe ask yourself why you seem so invested in the Moon landings being fake? Isn't it better to be open towards all possibilities?

Not invested, its one of my rainy day hobbies these days when the conditions aren't right for hunting and fishing. A life affirming activity.