Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?

[Brewer]

They wore overshoes.

Why not just provide the relevant evidence to refute Bosphorus's post leave it at that?

Why do the following?

Muusssstt Resissssst. Whups. Down into the gravity well of the Organic Portal I go...

But please, don't let me stop anybody's program from endlessly recursing.

"Captain! Engines are back online!"

"Thank god! Navigation.., punch it!"

"Aye Captain. Thrusters to full."

"Let's put that infernal black hole in the rear-view!"

Does Bosphorus behave in such a manner to others on the forum? Is anyone who questions the official record is an OP, flat earther even?

Bosphorus is from Turkey, perhaps the resources to research the Apollo Hoax Theory are not readily available in his/her native language. Wouldn't a kind and considerate refutation be the way forward here?

Three months previously I posted a link regarding the double shadowed LM. Not one person has commented on it or attempted to debunk Dr Bilbao's work, can't find any online anywhere so far. Feel free to refute his work and anyone else's from the AULIS Apollo site.

 

[nicklebleu]

Not one person has commented on it or attempted to debunk Dr Bilbao's work, can't find any online anywhere so far.

@Brewer - did you actually read the entire thread? If you did, you would understand why there are no takers for your post.

In my view this topic has exhausted itself, there is no point in persisting. There are more important topics afoot at the moment, instead of analyzing (or over-analizing) arcane details of the Apollo missions. My own view is that they probably went to the moon as they claimed - probably - but I am not totally convinced. However - as I just pointed out - there are more important topics to study at the moment, so there is really not much to be gained out of this. It’s basically a waste of my time or my resources. Maybe one day some information might come out that makes the scales tip to one side, and then I might (or not) reconsider.

We already know that governments lie, and they do it all the time. But whether they went to the moon as they claim or not, doesn’t really affect me on a personal level. However to get a grip on world events as they do now (see Covid stroy), to get a grip on my own programs as I navigate the present reality and to see the lies as they are told NOW, may well have a huge impact on my wellbeing - not being sucked into the drama may well make my life much easier, without making it dangerous.

 

[Brewer]

did you actually read the entire thread? If you did, you would understand why there are no takers for your post.

I have and I've seen some laughable examples, like this one. Some of the replies and those who applaud them are educational in themselves! There were no takers for my post and the others, OK but why the attitude when someone posts something that's clearly wrong? Why not just look at that person's previous posts? Look at their profile, country of origin, the conditions they live under etc. build a picture and then reply with appropriate consideration? That person you mock could be making their first tentative steps out of the matrix and that should never be discouraged.

In my view this topic has exhausted itself, there is no point in persisting.

That's your opinion and you have every right to have it and others have every right to keep researching and posting in a thoughtful and considerate manner. If I see a poorly researched post I would gently guide them if someone didn't get there before me and back it up with the relevant information.

there are more important topics to study at the moment

There always is, both on a personal and societal level but we could be missing out on something big. Anyway I don't really spend that much time on researching Apollo but I find it thoroughly enjoyable when I do. I may have been the first to discover some previously unnoticed anomalies in the Apollo record, nothing big but from a forensic point of view, meaningful. Researchers with better brains and equipment than I possess are looking into them now.

We already know that governments lie,

Indeed they do and if you have knowledge of a particular lie and the evidence to prove it then it makes it far easier to guide others in a more positive direction out of the matrix does it not? The Apollo photographic record is just another tool to do so.

Before I go, it appears whenever I do some Apollo research, research that involves me independently studying some anomaly in an image, something within my limited scope of expertise I get attacked. It doesn't happen when I'm reading or watching someone else's work and usually happens a day or two prior to posting a finding here, to another forum or sending it to a researcher. There seems to be something else with an interest in my work, which ain't rocket science! Most of the time it's waking to a negative omnipresent field between two and four AM that is debilitating and the effects last for one or two days afterwards. However I had my first and very draining experience with a MIB a few months ago and three weeks ago I awoke to that familiar negative feeling in the wee hours but this was different. There appeared to be two separate sides to me, one side was hyper-alert, slightly panicky, fearful and in flight or fight mode. The other side was happy, relaxed, observant and calmly exclaimed to the other, "Now that's a powerful magnetic field!" The effect evaporated immediately with no debilitating after effects.

I don't mind these attacks happening as they're educational but why the interest? Only makes me want to pursue the subject further.

Just watched American Moon the other day, it's well done. It's produced by Massimo Mazzucco the bloke that also produced the 911 documentary The New Pearl Harbour.

 

[sid]

@Brewer, if someone isn’t interested in reading or taking greater interest in a particular topic than is it not inconsiderate to demand a discussion? Everyone has a few things on their plates some of which have greater priority. Take me as an example. For some reason, lately I find myself reading more and more of Afterlife material and Electrical universe theories - both are so damn interesting to me but I am not posting much about those topics or demanding replies etc.

If you are really interested in Moon landings then by all means continue at your time and pace. Who knows, you might end up connecting a few dots and chance upon some facts. However, please understand that the topic may not be so exciting to others and there is nothing wrong in that. No love lost towards you or anyone. And don’t mind @Woodsman so much - we love his humour and there is never any malintent. Frankly, we can all use a bit of humour these days.

 

[Brewer]

NO BLAST CRATERS​

Even when I believed the official Apollo narrative I was always wondered why there are no blast craters under the LM. I merely accepted the various explanations, that is until I began to began to study the official photographic records and footage. Of all the landings I believe Apollo 14 provides the best example of a pristine landscape that should've been ravaged by the LM exhaust as it landed.

Starting with this video, watch from 0.55 you'll see Shepard, (red stripe) and Mitchell planting the flag. Mitchell drives the lower half of the flagstaff home easily with 16 blows of his hammer, in the Lunar Surface Journal they comment on how easily this is achieved. Here are 2 before and after stills I snipped from the video. The red line marks the top of the lower half of the flagstaff and you can see that it's gone in some distance, Mitchell is 1.8m tall, I estimate they drove it in about 250-300mm.

Anyway, the staff penetrates the regolith with ease, which indicates the area surrounding the flag is deep and dusty, anything up to 15 meters according to some publications. If the surface is made of dust and small rocks then the small craters are also formed of dust, here's one.

As you can see the crater is made of dust and small rocks, it's been damaged by the LM's starboard pad and also by the astronaut's boots. With 16% of Earth's gravity the LM weighed about 2000 kg upon landing, the 'nauts only about 27 kg, the craters are easily damaged. If you watch surface footage of Apollo, you'll see how easily the dust is kicked up and around.

Moving along now to the landing footage, watch from 14.50, you can see the landing site before it was impacted. The red circle marks the crater in the image above, the larger circle denotes the landmarks I used for reference, the 'X' is where the flag was planted and 'I' is where the exhaust impacted. The blue circle highlights a pair of craters that were also close to the blast and I've included the time stamp for easy reference.

As you can see that crater gets smashed by the LM exhaust, as I mentioned before the the LM weighed about 2000 kg upon landing, it would've needed about 2000 kg of thrust to hover. Additionally, in this mission the LM pilot didn't shut the engine down till 1.7 seconds (below top) after landing so this fragile, dusty crater had about 2 tonnes blasting away at 3000 metres per second barely two meters away, yet it sustained little damage! Apart from that there's the usual brownish smudge below the engine bell and some minor ground disturbance. Finally, there is some damage to the blue craters but looks like a shovel load or 2 has been casually tossed onto them (below bottom).


Back in 1966, NASA conducted scaled jet experiments in a vacuum chamber using a helium jet on different media to represent the Lunar surface. Left a crater every time, watch the video, the scientific paper is here. According to NASA's tests the LM engine could fling 6 inch paving stones like Antifa on a Seattle street but the real LM appears to be powered by soy, not hydrazine!

They do mention in the paper that moon dust is more resistant to cratering because of it's 'special properties' that they observed from the Surveyor Missions but my broken down ALDI paint stripper gun outdoes the LM! With it's feeble 10 grams of thrust and 1.5 meter per second velocity it disturbs dust at 400 mm, sand at 300, small stones at 200, makes craters at 100 and pushes 2 gram pebbles about with ease! All this in 1 G and 1 bar! The LM couldn't blow the froth off a cappuccino!

Where's the Crater!?!?!

 

[Brewer]

APOLLO SPACE SUITS​

If NASA is to be believed they had space suits that performed flawlessly through multiple Apollo missions. This article explores this in detail and concludes that it was highly unlikely. No need to read through the entire article, the conclusion will do. They've done a lot of the hard work, here's a few of my thoughts on it.

When new technologies are developed all manner of data collection devices are used to analyse it's performance and you can find miles of analytical footage online. V2 rockets, bouncing bombs, Ford Pinto fireballs and so forth. You can also find a lot of NASA footage of various tests on capsules, rockets etc but can you find the same on space suit vacuum chamber testing? After all, the Lunar landings are the greatest achievements ever aren't they? You'd want to keep all this stuff for posterity, right? Like they did for the Mercury Capsule Shingle Tests?

There's quite a bit of suit testing but it's focused mainly on the mobility and dexterity of the suits, the only genuine vacuum chamber footage I can find dates from 1965, was a near disaster. I cannot find any hard vacuum testing for the Apollo or Gemini suits and the material I can find looks more like home movies than actual testing.

Here's Armstrong in chamber B no hard testing evident, he's just shuffling around with some tools, may as well be in his backyard.

Here Michael Collins trains in chamber B no evidence of any serious vacuum testing.

According to Movietone news they spent 8 days seated in the Apollo command module in a vacuum chamber, eating, sleeping, crapping and pissing next to each other. Apart from a few stills I cannot find any more footage except for what Movietone provides.

Here they're testing the Mercury suit can't see any vacuum test but some idiot is smoking a cigar, great idea when there's pure oxygen about!

No wonder they lost Grissom, White and Chaffee.

Moving along to 2020 you'd think with all the advances in data collection we'd some amazing footage of vacuum testing from the 60's to present day. There's none, nothing from the US, Russia or China, there's plenty of stills and footage of astronauts standing around before 'testing'. There are ISS and Russian suit demonstrations but there is no analytical footage of hard vacuum testing. The closest I can find to a genuine test is James May in a high altitude chamber.

Elon Musk claims that his sexy new pressure suits are double vacuum tested, whatever that's supposed to mean! A vacuum can be soft or hard but never doubled! Where's the test footage Elon? Surely if one designed such an efficient suit you'd want the world to know about it so space faring nations would come a knockin' and we all know your're not the type of guy to hold back.

There's an abundance of video of space and Moon walks that spans 60 years. These videos and the official narrative scream, 'It Works!' Still, NASA throws hundreds of millions at space suit development because they're goin' back! What's wrong with the suits they already had?

Looks like they 'lost the technology'

 

[Ocean]

Still on the fence about this though.

Buzz Aldrin reveals 'we DIDN'T go to the moon' in bombshell clip

Buzz Aldrin reveals 'we DIDN'T go to the moon' in bombshell clip

BUZZ Aldrin has sent conspiracy theorists into meltdown after video footage emerged of him saying "we didn't go to the moon".

www.dailystar.co.uk

Buzz tweeted this out in 2014 and then it was quickly removed

 

[Cosmos]

Still on the fence about this though.

Buzz Aldrin reveals 'we DIDN'T go to the moon' in bombshell clip

Buzz Aldrin reveals 'we DIDN'T go to the moon' in bombshell clip

BUZZ Aldrin has sent conspiracy theorists into meltdown after video footage emerged of him saying "we didn't go to the moon".

www.dailystar.co.uk

[...]

That video was discussed before:

- Now the video in questions starts

- Context: Book festival; a girl asks Buzz a question there

- The girls asks Buzz: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?"

- Context here is: The girls question, which clearly states in the sub context, that we went to the moon and that this hasn't happen for a long time since.

- Likely context: Both the girl and Buzz operate on that basic promise/context and approach both the question and the answer from that angle

- Buzz answers with the above context in mind, which is again; we were on the moon and the girl asks why we haven't been there since

- Everything Buzz answers refers back to this context and takes this as the common ground from which to answer the question

- So logically, what Buzz says is likely in direct context to this basic fact and should be interpreted first and foremost in this way before even jumping to any "conspiracy" thinking in regard to the landing

In short, moon hoax believers don't take the context into account and not even try to entertain the logical step that Buzz is not talking about the moon landing being a hoax but the question of the girl with the stated context; the landing happened.

If somebody feels the need to break this down even further, by dissecting everything he said there, step by step, that could be done too. Do we really want to go there though and invest even more energy? I can tell you now, that all he said can be logically and sensibly interpreted not with him "knowing the landing was fake" but instead with him "knowing it happened". It is a far more logical step to interpret it this way, especially considering the context, instead of going the "hoax" way.

Quite clearly, Buzz is not talking about the moon landing being a hoax but is referring to a completely different context which both he and the girl understand to be true IMO.

 

[duyunne]

Still on the fence about this though.

Buzz Aldrin reveals 'we DIDN'T go to the moon' in bombshell clip

Buzz Aldrin reveals 'we DIDN'T go to the moon' in bombshell clip

BUZZ Aldrin has sent conspiracy theorists into meltdown after video footage emerged of him saying "we didn't go to the moon".

www.dailystar.co.uk

Buzz tweeted this out in 2014 and then it was quickly removed

View attachment 37685

Hi Ocean

As result of a life time of twisted media events to lead the masses into non reality, I have a rather strong bias against Apollo 11. The footage doesn’t help, also the bizarre circumstances of some astronauts post space missions also muddy things for me. Anyway what I’m saying is that I have a rather strong bias against this being factual for too many reasons. I can go on all day, to discuss the various rebuttals against the suspicions and go back and forth and argue all day but the truth is that neither side of this debate holds actual evidential proof.

I believe that this tweet might actually just be a photo shop. Either that or he was hacked and the hacker decided to have a laugh, considering his age, and from my existence as a tech support rep, he probably had a easy password. Whatever the story there, I take that image of his tweet with a grain of salt. But hey who knows what the man does? He could have been deep into a bottle of liquor on a lonely Thursday evening and wanted some repentance, but I just can’t help but doubt the images authenticity.

 

[Brewer]

BAD LIGHTING​

I'm going to provide a few examples of lighting that are impossibilities if they were filmed on the Moon. These were all taken from the same video.

This was filmed with the aperture at f2.8 with a 1/60 shutter speed allowing more light in than the following snips and in it you can see a very well lit moonscape. It looks pretty good at first glance, the lighting is consistent, no noticeable bright spots. I doubt whether the front of the LM should be so well lit but you know that moondust is special stuff! However, shortly after this they have a flag raising ceremony and things go downhill!

According to NASA, this was filmed at f8 with a 1/250th second shutter speed because they were in full sunlight and did not wish to over expose the film, finally, the Sun was 14 degrees above the horizon. In the gold circle you'll see a clear bright spot, the white circle is it's centre with dramatic falloff to the right and below. It's not the Heiligenschein Effect, that would appear in the centre of the image, where the 'naut on the left is. This is impossible on a naturally lit landscape, the sun illuminates everything equally. It's not the f-stop on the camera, the 'nauts are properly exposed and if you did open the aperture you'd still have that bright spot. Other noticeable anomalies in this segment:- Two wide spaced reflections of the 'sun' in the visors, one 'sun' bigger than the other, (should only be one); double shadows (indicating 2 light sources) thrown by the backpacks; bright spots within the shadow thrown by the LM legs onto the spacesuits. Not included here, maybe another post. Lot's of material to work with, it's everywhere!

According to NASA, this segment was filmed with the same settings as the previous segment, 180 meters from the LM with the Sun at about 15 degrees. The bright spot is to the left. Despite being filmed later in the Lunar morning at the same settings, it does seem a little underexposed because the moondust can't perform it's magic and brightly illuminate the shadow side of the 'nauts! At the end of this footage a curious thing happens.

A 'naut approaches the camera and whether by accident or design moves the camera to the right, captures the very edge of the 'sun' and suddenly the whole scene brightens then changes color. The brightness possibly occurs due to opening the aperture (difficult in those bulky pressurized gloves) and the color change is probably due to light contamination of the film but the drop off still occurs, a bright spot on the left and a dark area in the yellow oval. A fully suited 'naut is about 2.1 metres tall and that dark spot to the left of the 'sun' is not that far away which means the 'sun' is only a dozen metres away, if that.

 

[Brewer]

That video was discussed before:

Hello!

Nothing to with that particular video but this does concern Aldrin and his iconic Apollo XI photo. I discovered the author of this article on that same photo and the AULIS site when I found that he saw my question and decided to write a paper on it. Thanks Dr Bilbao!

The Universe works in the most wonderful and mysterious ways!

In the article Dr Luis Bilbao analyses the image of Aldrin and comes to the conclusion that it's fake, it's lit by more than one light source and that there are anomalies in the visor reflections, image below.

It's an interesting read, as are many of the AULIS articles. It's a complicated read too but worth the effort. Enjoy!

 

[Brewer]

Never A Straight Answer​

Many people, myself included believe(d) NASA had it's heyday back in the 60s and 70s. According to the official narrative NASA went to the Moon and back with little drama and relative ease compared to today. Then the rot set in, the more I read the more it looks like things were rotten to begin with.

Here's an article from 1966, detailing some NASA shenanigans. Here's one from July 2020 where NASA is getting roasted for spending billions..... and not even getting a crew above LEO let alone to the Moon! .

But they're goin' back!!!

Maybe Trump will sort NASA out in his next term.

​

 

[WIN 52]

With actual technology being much farther advanced than the general population knows about, people have been on the moon much more than is known by public, in general. 100,000 years ago we made regular flights between all of the satellites in our solar system. You all in here need to accept this.

Who really cares what the public thinks? Currently public opinion is caught up with a virus that is less deadly than driving a vehicle. What people are led to believe is not always the facts.

Apparently, space travel is old hat to humanity. Even interdimensional travel has been accomplished. With the memory wiping we suffer every time we regenerate here, it's easy to forget.

Discussing this is likely a waste of time.

 

[Brewer]

With actual technology being much farther advanced than the general population knows about, people have been on the moon much more than is known by public, in general. 100,000 years ago we made regular flights between all of the satellites in our solar system.

We're talking about Apollo here, not ancient space travel! I'm not going to dispute your claim as this is a moon landing thread but feel free to provide the evidence. I doubt, on the evidence presented by NASA they achieved lunar orbit let alone a landing, low earth orbit at best.

You all in here need to accept this.

Seriously?! Why? Like people are supposed to accept the 'new reality' of covid? This is a Moon landing conspiracy thread, I'm not demanding anyone to accept my posts but if they're useful they're free to use them. They're also free to criticize and poke holes in my research. The official record is there and I merely dispute it with the resources at my disposal. Don't have to accept anything!

Who really cares what the public thinks? Currently public opinion is caught up with a virus that is less deadly than driving a vehicle. What people are led to believe is not always the facts.

Indeed the public is caught up in the virus but this is a moon landing conspiracy thread! I'm disputing the Apollo record because people have been led to believe that it's factual! Why bring covid into it? Don't worry, I'm a medic, I'm exposed to covidiots all the time and can hold my own! I'm not stopping anyone on this forum from discussing the virus insanity.

Apparently, space travel is old hat to humanity. Even interdimensional travel has been accomplished. With the memory wiping we suffer every time we regenerate here, it's easy to forget.

Got the evidence for that? Perhaps it is old hat and inter-dimensional travel is available to a select few but with the power that such technologies would bring why is the official record so lame and poorly executed using early to mid 20th century techniques to fake it, surely they could do better? Would've saved them a lot of trouble in the future! Modern day space travel as portrayed to the masses is nowhere near the level you describe and they've gone to a lot of trouble to maintain a narrative, perhaps even killing astronauts and a safety inspector to keep the whole lie going. Even the LROC images are pathetic, there's better resolution of earthbound objects (using the same hardware) from 25 times the altitude with the atmosphere obscuring the view than there is of the Apollo sites . It would be really nice to know why they did it and why they continue to do it.

Discussing this is likely a waste of time

Disagree,
1) At a birthday party last Saturday, the birthday boy's dad brought out his silver halide photography equipment. I used to enjoy the same hobby and we had a great technical discussion. Long story short, eventually we began discussing the Apollo images and eventually he realized they were fakes, simply because the film would never have survived the missions, he thought the cameras were specially made to withstand the harsh lunar conditions, they weren't. He woke up a little that night, open to other possibilities, like the fact covid is fake, he's in early 80's, never too late. Took very little effort on my part.

That makes three so far, all face to face and thanks mostly to dodgy Apollo images! Knowledge of the dodgy Apollo history also helps but the images have the greatest impact because they're accessible to almost everyone with a PC and internet connection. The analytical software is freely available and I find it a lot of fun, it's like a hobby to me now, a self affirming activity.
2) The other good thing about Apollo is that unlike 911 it's a 'feel good' fake. People are generally not so defensive about it and it's easier to show some of the lamest fakes in the collection to get them thinking without severe emotional reactions. It's also easy to reassure them and suggest that Apollo was real but the images were destroyed by the harsh space conditions so they had to fake them as this gentleman claims here.
3) It's educational, learning how a mass fraud is committed is always beneficial, you can apply it to other frauds as well. Knowledge protects.
4) I watched Apollo XI as a kid, loved NASA and collected a lot of stuff, built model rockets and so forth. I religiously believed in it and I broke that spell when I clicked those links on the Apollo archive. Eighteen months in now, been a great journey!
5) It's history, and history is extremely important.
6) Finally, it seems I get attacked when I'm researching this, especially when I'm about to post here or elsewhere. However the more research I do I'm finding the attacks are dissipating somewhat. It peaked about 3 months ago when I awoke to what seemed to be a serious cardiac event. It seems that they do take an interest in this and want to shut it down.

 

[BHelmet]

What is the big picture here?
On one level, "so what". They went or they didn't. It doesn't make a huge difference one way or the other. Just another brick in the wall.
OR is it?

Assume the landing was fake / "Reality" has been faked.
Is that anything new?

But Why? Why Bother in the first place?

a. Simple distraction away from other events occurring at the same time. (viet nam, assassinations, societal upheaval etc)
b. Test humanity's willingness to believe manufactured lies.
c. Test their ability to pull off such a fake.
(including managing the whistle blowers. Were there scientists questioning the Van Allen Belt narrative at the time? IDK)
d. Create a fake program (NASA) to divert huge sums of taxpayer money into the expansion of the deep state apparatus
e. cold war propaganda
f. several of the above

other ideas of why even bother to fake it?

yes we have bigger fish to fry now but this is possibly a prototype fish of the same nature, so it is worth study

Personally, the significance of a moon fake would be as a part in a series of fakes which extend from the post WWII era right up to 911 and the current pandemic and into the future. To create a virtual reality just as we have historians with serious doubts about the veracity of human history as it is told by academia: a virtual history. It all boils down to "believe in the lies we tell you". (if they are lies)

I have to say - as I looked for videos and articles on this - things are being scrubbed. It used to be easy to find. Not any more.

One other question - the filming and transmission back to earth and verbal communications seems like a stretch.

Here is an explanation of how they did it that sounds patently absurd.

"The solution was called Unified S-band or USB. It combined tracking, ranging, command, voice and television data into a single antenna. Voice and biomedical data were transmitted on a 1.25 MHz FM subcarrier, telemetry was done on a 1.024 MHz bi-phase modulated subcarrier, and the two spacecraft — the command and lunar modules — would use a pseudo-random ranging code using a common phase-modulated S-band downlink frequency of 2287.5 MHz for the CSM and 2282.5 MHz for the LM. In short, every type of information traveling between the ground and a Moon-bound spacecraft had its place."

A single antennae. To transmit to the earth from the moon. 4 tightly arrayed signals along with a television feed. With every kind interference and distance problem imaginable. How much power would that signal require? where did the power come from? An AC/Delco car battery under the floorboards? Isn't this a huge issue? All these signals and the video signal went through space to Australia. And it worked like a charm - and the conversations had no lag... no massive latency... and it was a first time try without a single glitch and no way to really test it before doing it. That in and of itself is pretty damning right there too.