Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?

[Brewer]

Perhaps the Consortium is so happy with Trump et al., that they will allow for the entire Artemis mission to the moon to proceed as scheduled :

They need permission? Did Apollo need permission from this consortium? Did they help by mitigating some some of the hazards, CMEs VABs etc? I assume that all space faring nations have this permission. Columbia happened during the Soviet era so they would've known about the 3/4th-density Consortium's actions and other actions previous to that. The Russian Federation and Roscosmos would be aware too. It'd be very interesting to see what sort of currency they use. I'd imagine fakery is something the 3/4th-density Consortium would demand as payment. Maybe the blood of an occasional astronaut too.

Close-up footage of the Artemis launch, as seen from a nearby passenger plane:

I thought they created no-fly corridors during launches? If there was a rocket malfunction that plane could've been toast.

Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Cape Canaveral Space Force Station operate under strictly enforced, temporary no-fly zones and designated launch corridors, which are managed by the FAA in coordination with the U.S. Space Force to ensure safety during rocket launches.
Launch Corridors and No-Fly Zones

• Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs): Airspace is not permanently closed, but TFRs are issued per-launch, closing areas for roughly three hours.
• Designated Corridors: Launches utilize specific "launch corridors" with defined "destruct lines" to ensure debris stays within safe zones if a vehicle fails.
• Range Safety: Before launch, surrounding airspace and sea areas are evacuated to accommodate the launch corridor and its associated risk zones.
• Range Size: Depending on the rocket, these zones can be extensive, with Falcon Heavy launches having a downrange hazard area extending up to 1,300 nautical miles.

That plane appears dangerously close, part of the 30%?

It's been 54 years since anyone went to the Moon. Why return now? Or rather, why'd they stop going?

Might be part of some ritual, be interesting to ask. April fools day is an interesting choice!
I've had the occasional glance at the live feed, anyone seen any stars? If my cheap android was there it'd capture a few dozen in this scene without even trying.

 

[Wandering Star]

It's been 54 years since anyone went to the Moon. Why return now? Or rather, why'd they stop going?

Perhaps the epic cowboys who save the world in a thousand movies will find something on the far side of the moon that will be broadcast live on TV.

In any case, it'll be a good use of fuel that will help everyone (sarcasm, just in case).

 

[T.C.]

I've had the occasional glance at the live feed, anyone seen any stars? If my cheap android was there it'd capture a few dozen in this scene without even trying.

Ugh, they forgot to put the stars in again What a set of idiots.

 

[Gaby]

I hate those famous last words:

Moon Mission: Upgrade

The maneuver of moving the spacecraft into a translunar orbit has been completed. The spacecraft passed at an altitude of about 200 km above the Earth (perhaps even above the astronauts' homes) and at the lowest point, turning on the engines for 6 minutes, finally went on a flight to the Moon. The rest of the mission's trajectory is based solely on the gravity of the Earth and the Moon, meaning that instead of engines, the laws of nature (gravity) will control the ship for the next 9 days. Since they are not prone to failures, no matter what happens during the flight, no matter what problems the crew may have, the ship itself will return to Earth in 9 days, which, of course, will not mean its successful landing. There are still many difficulties and nerves ahead.

The maximum approach to the Moon at a distance of about 10 thousand kilometers will take place on April 6-7, that is, next Monday or Tuesday.

 

[Third_Density_Resident]

I've had the occasional glance at the live feed, anyone seen any stars? If my cheap android was there it'd capture a few dozen in this scene without even trying.

That's probably because even cheap phones these days automatically use HDR (high dynamic range). They combine several images taken at various exposures so that both very bright and darker objects are exposed correctly into a single image. The NASA image you screenshotted for some reason used a single-exposure, non-HDR video, and because the rocket is much brighter than background stars, the exposure was set to correctly expose only for the most important part of the image, which is the rocket. The stars would be too dim to show up at that exposure. As an experienced outdoor hobby photographer who has used various DSLR cameras, this is an issue that came up all the time, however I used to use exposure bracketing (which is like manual HDR) to overcome it.

 

[Gaby]

This is also the X-hour for the European Space Agency (ESA), which manufactured this service module at the request of NASA. One can imagine the tension that both the leadership and the ESA engineers are currently experiencing.

I leave here a humble video in recognition of the nerds. Direct quote from the video: Europe is driving

 

[Brewer]

That's probably because even cheap phones these days automatically use HDR (high dynamic range). They combine several images taken at various exposures so that both very bright and darker objects are exposed correctly into a single image. The NASA image you screenshotted for some reason used a single-exposure, non-HDR video, and because the rocket is much brighter than background stars, the exposure was set to correctly expose only for the most important part of the image, which is the rocket. The stars would be too dim to show up at that exposure. As an experienced outdoor hobby photographer who has used various DSLR cameras, this is an issue that came up all the time, however I used to use exposure bracketing (which is like manual HDR) to overcome it.

Yeah, strange how they don't have a single camera capable of such, they'll put them in the simulation though. The program has cost $93 billion so far but they can't capture stars. The ISS live feed captures them, with a huge brightly lit earth in the foreground. Sad, be nice to see them.

 

[Brewer]

Ugh, they forgot to put the stars in again What a set of idiots.

Yeah, budget blow out! They do put them in the simulation though, when the live feed is down! Good news is, they appear to have dumped the wild hair; mom calls home and musical recitals, for that I'm grateful!

 

[Kreu]

Hi everyone,
I was just curious if anyone else watched the whole 10+ hour livestream on Netflix of the Artemis II flight? My eyes weren't glued to the screen the whole time but I was so curious to see if anything "strange" would happen, but no, it seemed smooth sailing, for the most part.
It really makes you wonder if there were things they edited out (I'm sure they have the technology even if it was "live") or if things really did go the way they showed. Nowadays it seems our skies are filled with UFO's (or whatever they're calling them now) so it seemed strange that not one anomaly showed up...
Anyway, I was just wondering if anyone else had any thoughts or feelings watching this, if you did at all.
Sorry if something similar has been posted already! I did a quick search but didn't find anything so hope this is ok :)

 

[Gaby]

Hi everyone,
I was just curious if anyone else watched the whole 10+ hour livestream on Netflix of the Artemis II flight? My eyes weren't glued to the screen the whole time but I was so curious to see if anything "strange" would happen, but no, it seemed smooth sailing, for the most part.
It really makes you wonder if there were things they edited out (I'm sure they have the technology even if it was "live") or if things really did go the way they showed. Nowadays it seems our skies are filled with UFO's (or whatever they're calling them now) so it seemed strange that not one anomaly showed up...
Anyway, I was just wondering if anyone else had any thoughts or feelings watching this, if you did at all.
Sorry if something similar has been posted already! I did a quick search but didn't find anything so hope this is ok :)

The reports from the astronauts, footage which was not released, are very telling:

The best news from the weekend. It's on SOTT now:

Here are the relevant excerpts:

The lunar meteors were a complete surprise. "We're seeing them near and south of the Moon's equator," reported Wiseman during the live webcast. Later, his crewmate Victor Glover spotted one near the Moon's South Pole.

Lunar meteors are different than Earth meteors. Here on Earth, meteoroids burn up in the atmosphere. On the airless Moon, they slam into the surface, creating an explosion amounting to many kilotons of TNT. NASA has been monitoring these impacts since 2006, logging about 20 per year on average. The crew of Artemis II saw 5 or 6 in a single hour.

The funny thing is that they had an eye on the South because that is where they want to land next year. It reminds me of the Mothman Prophecies and how the high strangeness interacted with people's expectations.

The meteroid impacts and the white flashes reported over the last few decades on the moon are related. Mainstream science says they're meteroids. Cs hint that it's also related with "altered reality" and essentially 4D activity. It could be one or the other depending on the event. It's doesn't have to be mutually exclusive either.

Persej quoted some relevants quotes and sessions below, in the Near-Earth objects and close calls thread:

That could explain the altered reality on the Moon.

The other interesting part is to see the usual arguments as to how is all faked. They come out all in unison repeating the same things over and over again. It sounds like the new version of flat earthers.

 

[Laurentien2]

I was wondering yesterday if one of the reason for Artemis II mission is far flyby (Its nearest approach was about 6,500 kilometers, nearly twice the Moon’s diameter) could be to "protect" the astronauts from, as noted in Persej post, A: Aliens and altered reality. But it seem that it was only for technical characteristic and capacity of the Artemis II space capsule as explained in this RT post.
But still, they may have considered it when they determined the mission is spec.

Artemis II hits a milestone as NASA abandons key parts of its Moon strategy

As Orion completes its historic lunar flyby, NASA is accelerating some Artemis goals, delaying others and effectively shelving Gateway

www.rt.com

 

[Nienna]

Here’s a video where the podcaster, Dave McKeegan, discusses how the Apollo Astronauts went through the Van Allen Belts and compares it with what the Artemis II astronauts ventures into the Belts.

He says that getting through the Van Allen Belts is not the impossibility that the hoaxers would have us believe. NASA had actually sent micro-organisms and sensitive equipment to the moon before sending humans.

Someone had sent an email to Dr. Van Allen (which is shown in the video) asking him about the danger of the Van Allen belts and he replied that a person on the space shuttle in the most intense region of the inner belt would receive a lethal dosage after being in it for a week. The Apollo Astronauts went through the weaker region of the belts and were only in it for 15 minutes so they were not anywhere near getting a lethal dose.

So I suppose you can say that the Cs were correct when they said that the Apollo crew were able to go through the Van Allen Belts safely with their trajectory, speed and shielding.

Also, NASA and the astronauts were aware of the Van Allen Belts, even though there are those hoaxers who said they were not aware of the Van Allen Belts at that time, and the astronauts gave radiation readings to NASA several times throughout their journey to and from the Moon.

And humans actually pass into the Van Allen Belts on the space station when they fly over the South Atlantic Anomoly where the inner belt drops much closer to Earth.

The Artemis II crew will be going through the Van Allen Belts 5 times compared to the Apollo crew’s 2 times.