Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?

[taratai]

If you look at a light source that is strong enough, then weaker lights behind it won't be visible. You could actually try it yourself during the night and look at a street lamp.
And the further away you look from the light source, the more visible weaker lights will become.

Then there is also quality of the pictures and sensitivity of the camera that takes it - it might simply be too weak to pick up weaker light sources like stars.

Thus, i'd say that it's hard to tell whether (and which) moonlanding pictures were faked without ourselves going into space to witness it ourselves.

(and to illustrate it, below are modern pictures from a space station)

 

[Niall]

The Cs did say this about the Apollo missions:

Session 9 September 2000

Q: (L) Okay, moving right along here. We have here a guy who has written a paper that says: "To make interstellar travel believable, NASA was created. The Apollo space program foisted the idea that man could travel to and walk upon the moon. Every Apollo mission was carefully rehearsed and then filmed in the large sound stages at the Atomic Energy Commission's Top Secret test site in the Nevada Desert and in the secured and guarded sound stage at the Walt Disney studios within which was a huge, full scale mock-up of the Moon." Is it true that the Apollo missions were films as described here?

A: No.

Q: (L) Did the Apollo missions actually go into space as we think they did?

A: Yes.

Q: (L) This guy further writes that "All names, missions, landing sites and events in the Apollo space program echo the occult metaphors, rituals and symbology of the Illuminati secret religion. The most transparent was the fakes explosion on the spacecraft Apollo 13 named 'Aquarius' at 1:13 on April 13, 1970, which was a metaphor for the initiation ceremony involving the death, placement of the coffin, communion with the spiritual world, and the imparting of esoteric knowledge to the candidate, rebirth of the initiate, and the raising up of Phoenix, the new age of Aquarius by the group of the Lion's Paw..." and so on and on. Was this occult significance applied to these events, either deliberately or accidentally?

A: Maybe coincidentally.

Q: (L) If there was any coincidence of application of these principles, did it bespeak an underlying synchronous or nonlocal reality of oneness?

A: These ideas being put forth this evening are entertaining if nothing else!

So, the Cs put this one to bed... 26 years ago?!

Anyway, the questions keep coming, so here's the most recent attempt to get the Cs to say what really happened in them lunar launches:

Session 24 January 2026​

(Brewer) Did they accomplish the moon landing mission as described, using a single rocket?

A: Yes

Q: (Brewer) Did they transport the necessary equipment to LEO using multiple launches before travelling to the moon?

A: No

Q: (L) What's LEO?

(Niall) Lower Earth Orbit.

(L) Oh. Well, I'm just not on top of these things.

(Niall) "The moon landing was a hoax." People are convinced that the physics of how they could do it in 1969 were not possible. So they're trying to come up with ways to make it fit. But the Cs answers keep saying, no, they did it. They did it as described.

(L) They did it, they just didn't do it again.

(Niall) Yes, because of something they saw there.

(Brewer) Did Apollo's missions 12 through 17 happen as described?

A: Close.

Q: (Brewer) What is meant by "altered reality" on the moon?

(L) Who said there was an altered reality on the moon?

(Joe & Gaby) In the last session.

A: Heavy 4D vibrations.

Q: (Brewer) Is it a "high strangeness" type?

A: Yes

Q: (Joe) Is that a permanent status on the moon?

A: No

Q: (Brewer) Is there altered perception also?

A: Yes

Q: (Brewer) What percentage of space imagery and video is faked?

A: 30.

Q: (L) 30 percent.

(Brewer) Did NASA know of "aliens" and other high strangeness before the missions?

A: Yes

Q: (Nienna) Many say that humans cannot survive radiation from the Van Allen belt. If we did go to the moon, and man has walked on it, how did they survive the radiation of the Van Allen belt?

A: Trajectory, speed, and shielding.

Q: (Joe) Physics, science!

(L) So in other words, they had special trajectories.

(Joe) They used trigonometry. [laughter]

(L) They were passing through very fast. And they used shielding.

(Joe) And they used insulation. [laughter]

(Niall) This is the result of all the other shenanigans. People no longer... They just doubt everything. "It was all fake the whole time!" It's a shame.

(L) Well, you get to the point where you think everything they say is a lie!

(Niall) Nowadays especially. But it's a shame because some of the actual achievements, they don't believe in them anymore. And it causes loss of morale and depression.

(Chu) Yeah, but when you have 30% fake images, it gives you cause to doubt.

(Niall) Yes. Reason to doubt, but not to go, "Oh, the Earth is flat as a result!" But that's where they go.

 

[Macrocosm]

I used to be more invested in the moon landings when I was younger, but haven't touched that subject in many years (I was squarely on the side of it being fake).

Years later, I visited the National Air and Space Museum in DC where they had fragments of the rockets and shielding on display. The shielding didn't look much thicker than aluminum foil to me. That made me more convinced it wasn't real.

A while later, I came across a video by S G Collins saying it was impossible to have faked the filming. The original video is not available anymore, so here is a repost from another channel.

I don't have a stance now for or against, but I still have doubts about why it's taking so darn long to go back (the counterarguments center around the lack of budget, the phasing out of old infrastructure and the need to rebuild the entire supply chain), or why hasn't anyone else done it?

 

[Ca.]

So, the Cs put this one to bed... 26 years ago?!

Indeed, supported by extensive photographic documentation from the crew of the Apollo 11 mission on July 11, 1969, by Neil Armstrong (Commander), Buzz Aldrin (Lunar Module Pilot), and Michael Collins (Command Module Pilot).

These NASA Moon Mission pioneers had access to top-tier photographic equipment by a Swedish inventor named Victor Hasselblad at a time when digital photography was not available, and in its infancy.

The Moon camera

European Space Agency, ESA
Jul 17, 2019 #Hasselblad #Apollo #ESA
Which camera to send to the Moon? The iconic images taken with the Hasselblad 500 series captivated the world. Today, Hasselblad cameras are synonymous with the Apollo missions. We visited Gothenburg to find out how a Swedish camera made it to the Moon. Learn more: http://bit.ly/BuzzAldrinAndTheEagle

 

[ECsFd]

I used to be more invested in the moon landings when I was younger, but haven't touched that subject in many years (I was squarely on the side of it being fake).

Years later, I visited the National Air and Space Museum in DC where they had fragments of the rockets and shielding on display. The shielding didn't look much thicker than aluminum foil to me. That made me more convinced it wasn't real.

A while later, I came across a video by S G Collins saying it was impossible to have faked the filming. The original video is not available anymore, so here is a repost from another channel.

I don't have a stance now for or against, but I still have doubts about why it's taking so darn long to go back (the counterarguments center around the lack of budget, the phasing out of old infrastructure and the need to rebuild the entire supply chain), or why hasn't anyone else done it?

Yes, thanks for that. I watched that video some time ago. If I had a dollar for every time a self-proclaimed 'expert' appeared on You Tube to give an authoritative and sarcastic account of a topic, well, I would have quite a few dollars more.

He said he wasn't on the Moon. I would wonder if he was even alive when the first purported landing occurred. He claimed that the technology wasn't in existence at the time to fake it. Nasa wasn't just developing and building rockets to send people to the moon. It was doing so to screw nuclear and conventional weapons aboard and send them to the other side of the world to kill lots of people. That put Nasa very close to the military. And the greatest leaps and bounds in technology occur when mankind has a propensity to kill each other. Thirty years or more before the first landing the atom was split, a fantastic achievement, a functioning computer was developed and built and of course the rocket was developed and built. All for war. So, to say the technology wasn't available to the military to fake a moon landing is stretching it a bit. The civilians only get technology from the military when it has been superseded.

He says the lighting wasn't available. Both British and German militaries developed and built very powerful lights during WW2, both spotlights for searching for aerial bombers to strafe and powerful floodlights to illuminate a base or airfield at night if necessary.

He claims to be a film maker/director. I would suggest he may have been that in his later years, but he provides no evidence. In fact, he provides no support to his allegations at all, just voices an opinion whilst saying he is experienced in the matters. He has an opinion and he is entitled to that. However, I don't want opinions. I seek evidence, and he provided none. He provided clickbait and made some advertising revenue. And like many he may have an agenda.

Having said that, I agree that it is a little strange that no-one has returned. They were going up and down like a yo-yo back in the 1970s and then suddenly stopped. And now it seems no-one can barely get off the ground. And why go so many times. Did they keep leaving something behind? If it was all about being the first, then once is enough. Edmund Hillary only climbed Mt Everest once!

Just to add to your second paragraph. I watched the first landing live feed (via satellite) on the family black and white TV. A few years later the capsule that the Astronauts were alleged to have ascended into the ocean did the rounds and appeared for display at the local movie theater for school kids to view. I recall being impressed at the time but in retrospect, and the memory of it is a bit vague, it was quite rudimentary for something that was used to traverse what would probably be the most hostile environment ever. I seem to recall it may have had rivets, although I may be wrong in that recollection.

 

[ECsFd]

If you look at a light source that is strong enough, then weaker lights behind it won't be visible. You could actually try it yourself during the night and look at a street lamp.
And the further away you look from the light source, the more visible weaker lights will become.

Then there is also quality of the pictures and sensitivity of the camera that takes it - it might simply be too weak to pick up weaker light sources like stars.

Thus, i'd say that it's hard to tell whether (and which) moonlanding pictures were faked without ourselves going into space to witness it ourselves.

(and to illustrate it, below are modern pictures from a space station)

I'm with you 100% about the camera not having the sensitivity or resolution to pick up the ambient light in the distant black background. There used to be an old saying, 'the camera never lies'. Actually, that was never true and is certainly not today. Although I suspect that if the camera were positioned in a shadow, i.e. behind a landing craft then the stars could be visible. The starlight on the Moon would not be 'weak'. There is no atmosphere and no water vapor and no reflective surface. The stars would look very similar to those pictured in my post #600.

I am familiar with the fading visibility of starlight when ambient light exists. Your example obviously relates to a city or town. Starlight is poor in cities due to ambient lighting and pollution. If the city is low altitude or coastal water vapor is going to fade even more. The Moon has no atmosphere or water vapor. If you were to go rural and 1 km above sea level you would notice that the milky way is a virtual bar of bright light. With no atmosphere at all that milky way would seem hard to miss in a black void on the moon.

To add to the images you provided from the space shuttles. Both those appear to include the Sun, so likely involved a filter. I would wonder if the images were taken in the opposite direction whether or not stars would be visible without the need of a filter (as with that in my post #600).

 

[taratai]

I am familiar with the fading visibility of starlight when ambient light exists. Your example obviously relates to a city or town. Starlight is poor in cities due to ambient lighting and pollution.

It's not just starlight. Try looking through a street lamp at a building with lights on (of course it might be difficult given how high street lamps are, so something like a strong car light might be better).

If the light is strong enough, everything behind it will appear pitch black, even if you know very well there should be light sources there. And if not outright invisible, the very least they will appear dimmed, until you can posiiton yourself that the strong light isn't directly in your face.