We Probably Never Made it to the Moon

a reply to: openminded2011

The information available to the public has been controlled and manipulated long before the dawn of the printing press.

If you're in any doubt have a look at any of the Abrahamic religions and their spread throughout the planet.

The question of doubt over the Apollo missions only reared it's head after we had time to pour over the evidence, which wasn't immediately available.

originally posted by: openminded2011

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: openminded2011

When did i say we faked the moon landings? I questioned some of the evidence, not the event.

Also, if the Russians had questioned the legitimacy of the landings, do you think the press in the West would have reported it?

The western press was not as compromised back then. Also if Russia had questioned it, It would have been all over the world news outlets, not just the western ones.

I think your when you contextualize the media at that time.

Also consider the downside risk to the US if we faked it and that came out. All credibility shattered - and if I know that the Russians certainly knew that - and I don’t think we’d be silly enough to make that mistake as a country at that point in US history (we’ll do it now, though).

When is the next manned mission to the moon?

The lack of stars in pics/video, astronaut movement, dust/footprints, lack of crater, it'll all tally up and be confirmed or busted.

There's a thread on cluesforum titled 'Stanley Kubrick and the Apollo Hoax'. Very interesting!
There's a link to a pdf of a book titled 'Russia's Space Hoax', so there were people back then thinking things were faked on both sides.
cluesforum.info...
cluesforum.info...

a reply to: Grenade

The evidence was immediately available, in terms of how quickly printed media could be made available. I own many copies of documents, photographs and film freely available at the time. Photos and videos were thete for anyone who wanted them (all of them, not just 'greatest hits'). Scientific conferences analysed the data and presented findings (I have copies of conference proceedings).

What wasn't around was a method of instantly sharing ideas and information.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: cooperton

How did we (and the Russians) leave stuff there, then?

Stuff like the five laser retroreflectors that we can now shine lasers off, and get very accurate distance measurements with?

Lunar Laser Ranging experiment From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unmanned mission to moon ?

The Soviets did place two rwflwctors using unmanned probes. We kbow where rhey are and can confirm that by looking at the images they took, the tracks the probes left and the fact that they are visible in images taken from lunar orbit.

The Apollo LRRR are also visible in images taken from orbit. Also visible are the tracks the astronauts left when deploying fhem, as witnessed in TV broadcasts and photographs of that happening. Those photos contain details also confirmed by modern probes from many countries.

All you need to do is prove that those photos and broadcasts were not made on the moon, because the overwhelming weight of evidence says they were.

originally posted by: cooperton
I want to go over some recent developments that show we actually have no clue how to get to the moon. First off, NASA astronaut Don Pettit admits that we "lost the technology (to get us to the moon) and it's a long and painful process to get it back"

Next is a NASA engineer saying we still have yet to figure out how to get through the Van Allen Belts:

"radiation like this can harm the guidance system..shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle goes through the radiation.. sensors aboard will detect radiation from this region for scientists to study.. we must solve this problem before we send people through this region of space" (starts at 3:00 in the video below)

The Van Allen Belts are about 3,400 miles high above earth's surface. To put things in perspective, the International Space Station (ISS) is only about 1/15th of the way to the van allen belts. Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin flight only made it about 60 miles high, which is about 1/60th of the way to the van allen belts. To actually get to the moon is a 239,000 mile journey, which is about 4,000x further than Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin went, and 1000x further than the ISS. So we have NASA astronauts and engineers admitting the difficulty in barely getting outside of earth's atmosphere, as well as private ventures not really getting close at all to the moon.

It would be no easy task to make it through the Van Allen Belts. The Van Allen Belts range from temperatures of 2,000-20,000 degrees Celsius. That's as much as 4x hotter than the surface of the sun. Take for example rock solid meteors that get liquified and dissipate in this layer. This layer is so hot that it can destroy dense solid nickel-iron compounds (the main elements of meteors), so how could the Apollo modules have survive with such skimpy protection?

Look^ the return module even had a window so if the astronauts wanted to they could look into the star-hot radiation that was violently permeating all around them. There's really no excuse for this. If solid meteors can rarely make it through this layer, then that flimsy ship could not. Besides, with temperatures ranging from 2,000-20,000 degrees Celsius that is far more than enough to melt the aluminum alloy that shielded the return module. The melting point of aluminum is 660 degrees Celsius. For perspective, The melting point of iron (meteors) is 1,538 degrees Celsius. No amount of ablative material can help a spaceship withstand temperatures as hot as the sun.

It's not just the trip to and from that would have been arduous. It turns out the moon itself has plasma winds of its own. Something that we simply didn't know at the time of Apollo, and either got lucky or more likely we just faked it. Or the information was known, and simply repressed to make it a more believable fake landing. Japan released information that plasma hot 'solar winds' are constantly bombarding the lunar surface at 500km/second, or 112,000 mph. Yes that's right, 112,000 mph lava-hot plasma winds continually bombarding that lunar surface (link). These winds are so hot they cannot maintain a normal material form, and instead exist in the 4th state of matter known as "plasma". Solar winds can get as hot as 1,000,000 degrees Celsius(source), This proves the following scene was conducted in a Hollywood basement, and not on the moon:

A scientist before the moon filming even called it that we would be unable to land on the moon, due to the plasma nature of outer space:

go to 3:30 to see him discuss how you can't land on the moon because its plasma.

Interestingly enough, The Japanese scientists cited before found that of the immense amount of plasma bombarding the lunar surface, only 0.1-1% gets reflected (same source as above). This may have been the kind of data that the scientist above was referencing when he said the moon itself is actually a plasma. One thing is for clear though, since the moon does not have an atmosphere or magnetic field to dissipate this energy, anything on the lunar surface is going to get destroyed.


If 1,000,000 degree plasma winds continually bombarding the lunar surface isn't sufficient for you, I'm not sure what would convince you we didn't land on the moon. If it were as inhabitable as we were led to believe in the late 60's and early 70's, we would most definitely have a moonbase there by now. If we got the process down so seamlessly that we made it there multiple times in a row without problems, we should be using it by now as a strategic base. But we don't, because like Don Pettit said, we don't know how to get there. The Artemis Project is supposed to have a moonbase by 2025, but that seems like its not happening.

Budget shouldn't be an excuse either. Take for example the 2MHz of RAM that was used on the Apollo mission. To put things in perspective, a Nintendo 64 has 250MHz of RAM. You can get something 1000x as strong and its 475$. The Apollo computer had a memory of 32kb, that's smaller than even a basic Microsoft Word document. Not to mention the vast advancement of technology that has occurred over that past 50 years+

There's also footage from Apollo 14 of a third astronaut manning the camera. Go to the 2:22 mark and wait and tell me if you can see the boot of the mysterious 3rd astronaut: third astronaut on the moon

Many will argue we already have rovers on mars, which is further than the moon. But they actually got ratted out by a lemming located on Devon Island in Northern Canada:

The top photo is supposedly a picture from the Mars rover, but if you zoom in you can see there is clearly a rodent in the picture. These specific types of rodents are native to Devon Island in Northern Canada. But surely this must be a mistake? Nope... NASA is actually stationed in Devon Island:

"In addition to communications, equipment testing, and vehicular and extra-vehicular operations, Devon Island is the site of the Exploration program, which aims to develop new technologies, strategies, and operational protocols to support the future exploration of the moon, Mars, and other planets." -NASA

So that about wraps it up. They're just another bureaucratic agency that has been robbing the American people of 10s of billions of vital funds each and every year.

This is kinda good and exciting news though, who knows what space is ACTUALLY like???

Show it all to Elon and ask him his thoughts. 🤷🏻‍♂️

a reply to: Grenade

When did i say we faked the moon landings? I questioned some of the evidence, not the event.

Also, if the Russians had questioned the legitimacy of the landings, do you think the press in the West would have reported it?

But. Then you go on to post…

The information available to the public has been controlled and manipulated long before the dawn of the printing press.

If you're in any doubt have a look at any of the Abrahamic religions and their spread throughout the planet.

The question of doubt over the Apollo missions only reared it's head after we had time to pour over the evidence, which wasn't immediately available.

Anyway…

Newspaper front pages from 50 years ago reveal how the world reacted to the Apollo 11 moon landing

www.supremecourt.gov...

But it wasn't the top story everywhere. Soviet newspaper Izvestia put stories about communism in Poland and the Soviet Luna 15 spacecraft above the fold, with a mention of the moon landing at the bottom of the front page (where the arrow is pointing).

behind a paywall.

Russians Finally Admit They Lost Race to Moon

www.nytimes.com...

So. Any proof the press of the USSR published any evidence the moon landings were fake?

a reply to: baggy7981

The Encyclopedia Astronautica contains detailed information concerning all rockets and space launches

astronautix.com...

Unlike the "evidence" supplied by you

Here is the reasons for the Soviet failure in their own words

astronautix.com...

Here is the Apollo space program laid out

astronautix.com...

a reply to: Grenade

It’s documented 12 people have set foot on the moon.

Was it the official stance of the USSR that any of the listed people never set foot on the moon?

a reply to: neutronflux

An additional 12 flew to the moon but did not land, either as Command Module Pilots or on non-landing missions. Met 8 of those 24 in person.

All of those missions were recorded in minute and public detail, and there's not one shred of credible, supportable evidence that says they didn't.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

And yet. The people that acknowledge the overwhelming evidence are called “sheep” because we question the lies of those that push all the manned moon landings are a hoax? And are naive state worshipers because we question those that produced a product for consumption the moon landings were a hoax for a target and biased audience?

a reply to: neutronflux

Do you enjoy talking to yourself?

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

It takes time to analyse data, that was my point. Again, people can unquestionably believe their governments, that’s up to them.

a reply to: baggy7981

When is the next manned mission to the moon?

Elon Musk and SPACE X could if they want, sent a mission to the moon using their Dragon Crew spacecraft and FALCON HEAVY booster

Constraints are cost

A FALCON HEAVY cost 90 million recoverable and 150 million expendable

Who wants to pay for it

There are 4 Dragon Crew Spacecraft, 3 are currently being used, 2 docked at ISS, Another on upcoming launch, scheduled for April 21

Crew - who flies on it, would take several months of training for crew

Launch pads - Musk has 2 launch pads at Cape Canaveral , FALCON HEAVY can only use Pad 39

SPACE X has scheduled 60 launch for year, more that 1 a week for STARLINK, NASA, SPACE FORCE and commercial launches

Bit of a traffic jam

Than what mission mode A simple flyby is easier. A Lunar orbital, aka Apollo 8 redux, is possible with additional stage

(Delta K or P, a modification of Lunar module descent stage)

a reply to: Grenade

Which government? The US government is nothing to do with me, and I have nothing but contempt for my own.

It's nothing to do with believing a government, it's to do with looking at the available data and checking that the data matches with what you'd expect. They do.

Questioning things us fine, but not if you've decided on the answer already. If you're questioning evidence, also question the hoax claims to see if they hold water. They don't.

Said it before, ad nauseum, and have NEVER read a rebuttal or alternative explanation that can make it past the scientific gauntlet presented below.

We have in our possession ~800 lbs of moon rocks. As collected during the missions, on most of the large specimens, one side, the side facing open space, have micro-meteorite impacts. Impossible if they were moon rocks kept outside on Earth, as no meteoroids that small can possibly pass through Earth atmosphere at cosmic velocity without being completely vaporized. We certainly have micro-meteorite samples all over Earth surface, but they got here only as the remnants of larger meteors that disintegrated and fell at terminal velocity.

The other sides of these rocks, the side facing toward the moon surface, do not have these features. They have been laying in that position in situ, since they themselves were the remnants of hugh impacts and are scattered everywhere. The moon, not having an atmosphere, allows extremely small cosmic velocity particles to hit it because there is no friction to slow them down, and the exposed surface of the moon is totally peppered with the dust they create as the micrometeoroids slam into the lunar surface.

They have the isotopic signatures of moon rocks, so they ARE moon rocks.

If we did not go to the moon, then how did they get here?

Until someone comes up with an other reasonable and plausible explanation for the existence of these rocks, there is no argument that we did not go to the moon and retrieve them. This fact trumps all other "anomalies". It is definitively the standing proof that we went to the moon.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Exactly, but it takes time to pour over the evidence and confirm it’s validity. Hence in this thread I’ve highlighted some of my concerns regarding the evidence. I’ve also changed my stance several times when presented with conclusive proofs.

I’ve seen some of the hoax claims refuted and as a result changed my mind, that’s hardly a rigid and unquestioning belief. Not once have I said the moon landing was a hoax, simply asked people for explanations on evidence I’ve found questionable.

Again, thank you for the satellite imagery analysis, I found it very convincing.

Never really looked into the Apollo landings before or the arguments for it being a hoax, which is why I’m so interested. People trying to shoot me down as being dishonest, a liar or a hoaxer are showing a level of disrespect and arrogance I won’t tolerate.

a reply to: charlyv

Again, very interesting and convincing. I came into this thread with an open mind, never really had an opinion one way or the other. I appreciate posts like this rather than people automatically assuming I’m a hoaxer, why would I wait nearly 20 years as a member to suddenly start spreading lies or disinformation. I’m genuinely interested in the science of space travel.

My distrust of the US government is probably why I was leaning slightly to the hoax side and why I think it’s fair to question the evidence with thorough examination.

a reply to: Grenade

You

Exactly, but it takes time to pour over the evidence and confirm it’s validity.

It’s been decades with how many threads concerning the moon landings on ATS. With pretty much real time third party verification by radar, radio transmissions, and radio telemetry for each of the Apollo moon landings.

So. What aspect needs to be explored and demonstrated?

By the why…

It’s documented 12 people have set foot on the moon.

Was it the official stance of the USSR that any of the listed people never set foot on the moon?





If your going to not reply by replying, you might as well answer the question. Not ignore things that hurt your case.

I can very well start a running list of your misconceptions, and answers you cannot/will not answer like I do for the flat earther’s……

a reply to: Grenade

Thanks for taking the time to read it. Nice to know it wasn't a waste of time

As I said, it's not a matter of trusting governments, it's the data. Politicians lie, governments hide things, but facts and figures don't. Not trusting a source doesn't automatically invalidate it. The data presented are either correct or they aren't. If my satellite analyses are wrong I'm happy to correct it, but I am happy that everything I've looked at is right. I have actually done my research.

Many people come at this with a blind "anything NASA says is a lie" approach without ever showing that NASA actually lied - they just heard someone else they prefer to believe say it.

People will trot out things they heard without bothering to check, like that there are no visor up images, or that astronauts never photographed Earth, the lack of stars, cherry-picked misquotes and so on. Hoax proponents (and I'll take your word that you aren't one) will repeat these ad nauseam without questioning them, or considering that their source might not be trustworthy, or that perfectly logical explanations exist for the things they don't understand and seem to avoid attempting to understand.

To then have those kind of people accuse me of not understanding the subject, of not researching it, of telling me 2+2 = purple, or that I'm just accepting things on blind faith, is what I find unacceptable.