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: