Moon hoax believers: Apollo 13?

a reply to: turbonium1

I'd like you to show me some examples of this 40 years of 'harassment'....

Some psychopaths will not even let them rest in peace, Patrick.

When is a few minutes of someone who hopes he'll discuss a few points considered 'harassment'?

Anyone who landed on the moon should not be afraid of someone who doubts it. Why fear their questions?


Why would all these great heroic astronauts avoid anyone who questions them?

I would WANT to talk with a doubter, more than anyone who agrees with everything.

If you always hide from any doubters, there is only one reason for it.

Who dares question them!!

Mere mortals, how dare you question our great Apollo Gods!

a reply to: turbonium1

You are hopeless. Enjoy being the only person on Earth who is right.

a reply to: MidnightGoddess

Only people without experience in travelling ever thought that, even back in the days of the early explorers.

Basque fishermen fished for Atlantic Cod off New Foundland. The Vikings sailed far beyond the sight of land. Magellen circumnavigated the world. None of this happens if people think the world is flat. None.

Stop. Just stop. This whole mythos of people thought the world was flat never existed outside of a few tales to make fellas like Columbus look like heroes. Not to say he wasn't brave, but the existance of North America was, more or less, fairly well known in some circles.

a reply to: turbonium1

Only your own laziness and agenda prevent you from finding it on your own. Willing blindness comes quickly to mind.

Any evidence produced either for or against the moon landing hoax cannot be conclusive at this time, IMO. What CAN be conclusive proof for the landings is IF another government or private corporation (preferably not the US of America Is Gone) lands a manned vehicle on the moon in the very not too distant future. With the tech available now, it's going to be pretty hard to fake it.

Having said that, and after much research, I don't believe for a second that the Apollo missions succeeded in landing men on the moon. I don't care what anyone says about the Van Allen Belt (including Van Allen himself if that is really him and/or if he hasn't been compromised) because there is always an abundance of "proof" on the internet FOR and AGAINST no matter what subject you're looking for. The facts/truth remain occluded except to the actual insiders.

Speaking of insiders, the Armstrong story goes a long way in my decision. He not only has not done any interviews but, in his very few camera appearances, he looks like a dejected, morose, beaten man. And that is definitely NOT how the first astronaut who walked on the moon "should" look no matter his personal circumstances. If he were experiencing a personal tragedy of some sort, why not declare that to the world? The world would understand. But no, no such declaration from Mr Armstrong; only dejection and cryptic comments.

I would also say the lack of stars in the night sky during the Apollo missions is ALMOST conclusive proof of a hoax. Oh here it comes... the exposure, the aperture, the camera bla bla bla. BS. They had to know that there might be technical issues with photos and they would have prepared for them like additional cameras etc. Yep, that's a tough one for all you "hoax deniers," sorry too bad.

There is so much more to support a hoax.


But I guess I haven't answered the question posed by the OP. Why was Apollo 13 faked? Uh, diversion/distraction say from the Vietnam war perhaps? Or maybe as a media experiment in puppet mastery ie "how long can we hold their attention?" Etc, etc, etc... nothing is conclusive ESPECIALLY the lunar landings themselves. I'm not even sure the world is spherical anymore but that's another great huge can o worms. I'm definitely on the fence re "the flat earth."

There is one little tangent that I can bring up that is very much not talked about involving a person of some prominence who declared that no man has walked on the moon and was murdered soon after. It's my own theory so I'm going to wait to hear what kind of response this gets (if any) from the crew here.

originally posted by: Mike_A
Something I've always wondered about the moon hoax theory, if it was true what was the point of faking Apollo 13?

Have you ever heard about Black History Month?

Why would there be a need for such a thing?

Did you see them pull down that giant statue of Saddam Hussein in Iraq?

Why did Saddam have such a big statue of himself, in the first place, anyway?

Promoting your self and your own "group" to create that sense of importance and significance to make your group feel proud and better than other groups, has been around for ages.

American first man on the moon. No different.

Every wonder why they never went back to the moon?

Very hard to "fake" a moon landing today, with all the technology in the hands of ordinary folk capable of watching.

Doesn't it surprise you, that when the technology was so primitive, man still made it all the way to the moon and back "safely", yet today, with all the amazing advances in technology since then, it's still impossible to repeat that feat?

Doesn't that seem just a bit strange?

I'll bite. The USA stopped going to the moon because it was... I was going to say "astronomically expensive", but now I wonder whether the Apollo 11 mission wasn't the inspiration for that phrase. $25 billion dollars.

That's in 1969's pricing, so more or less seven times as much in today's dollars if we adjust for inflation.

Also, it was very risky (as several deaths and near-misses attest), what with relying on what were essentially 1940s doodlebugs scaled up for fuel capacity, and deep-sea diving suits with interior fitted electric blankets.

But the main thing was, it was pointless. There was no prospect of getting enough people up there to build a moonbase, or the technology that they would need to do it. Or in fact anything much.

It was a historical achievement, it electrified the world, it established the US as the winners of the 'space race', but that was it. And when the enthusiasm ran out, and congressmen started asking pointed questions about the amount of money that was being burned in return for nothing except nice pictures, it sort of fizzled out.

A propaganda exercise, more or less.

originally posted by: audubon

It was a historical achievement, it electrified the world, it established the US as the winners of the 'space race', but that was it.

And that was it.

All that could be more easily accomplished with a secret fake landing, than a real one where something could actually go wrong.

Never take a "risk", when you can achieve the same effects with a "risk free" strategy.

The people who are the most successful in this world, take the fewest risks.

a reply to: AMPTAH

I think the thing that cuts against that (rather cynical) view is the fact that the technology really existed to do it. There had been years of manned spaceflight leading up to the 1969 landing. It was the natural culmination.

The first man-made object to reach the moon was the Soviet lander Luna-2 and that touched down in 1959, for crying out loud. Did the Soviets fake that? If they did, why didn't the USA expose them - and don't tell me that the USA would have let the Soviets get away with it!

The year before Apollo 11, the crew of Apollo 8 had orbited the moon and come back safely. Was this fake too? If it was fake, why did they even bother, why not just go straight to the 'money shot' of an actual landing?

a reply to: AMPTAH

The people who are the most successful in this world, take the fewest risks.

Exactly wrong. That is why you are poor and and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are rich.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: AMPTAH

The people who are the most successful in this world, take the fewest risks.

Exactly wrong. That is why you are poor and and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are rich.

That's a myth. Bill Gates took no risks. He had contacts inside IBM that enabled him to get backing for his DOS venture. So, his funding source came from one of the largest and most successful computer corporations. Then, he simply bought the operating system, that had already been produced, instead of taking the risk of developing something entirely new from scratch. And he sold that OS under a new name DOS. etc..Microsoft then grew like "packman", absorbing all the ideas from the small risk taking ventures that tried to develop some new idea in computing. All of the real risk takers failed, while the one "harvesting" their ideas became the greatest success in history.

That's how the system works.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
All of the real risk takers failed, while the one "harvesting" their ideas became the greatest success in history.

That's how the system works.

Yes, you take a risk, and it is called a risk because you are not guaranteed to win. This is actually confirmation of the point you are trying to disprove.

If you only bet on certainties, the world's economy would be based on the game of 'dead pool' rather than on stock markets.

originally posted by: audubon

Yes, you take a risk, and it is called a risk because you are not guaranteed to win. This is actually confirmation of the point you are trying to disprove.

If you only bet on certainties, the world's economy would be based on the game of 'dead pool' rather than on stock markets.

Yes, only bet on certainties.

There's actually a book on this, (I read many years ago, can't recall the name at the moment), which did a study and showed what it took to be successful.

The key thing was to avoid the risks, other people take, but to watch what they do and wait for the right time to jump in and profit from their ideas, once the ideas have become accepted by the public.


The thing is, when you stick your neck out, to invent or create anything entirely new, that comes with great risk. Because you don't know whether your new gadget or service will be accepted and wanted by people. Even if you believe that it will one day succeed, you can't determine "when." You then have "to educate" the potential buyers, on why they should buy your product. This is where the "failure" occurs. It takes too much time to educate people on something that's too new, while your bills pile up, and the venture collapses.

So, the very first law of success is to "avoid the risk" of being "the innovator."

Instead, wait until people have learnt that the new gadget or service is useful in their lives. Let the "risk takers" do all the educating for you. And once you see the sales start happening, then, with that "innovation risk" out of the way, jump in and sell a very similar product or service at a discount. That's where all studies show the real money is made. After the initial risk is out of the way.

You want to get in early, after "innovation risk" is gone, but before everybody else gets the same idea to compete, and the profit margins shrink through intense competition.

So, all business ideas go through a certain cycle, from the initial innovation, through copycats, to finally stage where the gadget or service becomes a "commodity", with very slim margins, and only the biggest survive.

The biggest profit, comes in being the first copycat.

It has no risk, since the "innovation risk" is out of the way, and people already know they need or want this thing. And it has little "competition risk", since the initial innovator is on the point of "failing", and the other copycats haven't moved fast enough to enter the arena, so you get to establish your business venture at the "right time" when the risks are the least, and your profits soar.

The corollary to this, is to look and see what has been successful in developed markets, and introduce those same products into less well developed markets, where they don't yet exist. Again, removing the most important risk, which concerns the "adoption" of the tech or service by people.

That was the essential message of the study done on when and why and how business get to be successful.

You see all the innovations out there, and "assume" that it's a result of all the "risk takers". But, what most people don't know is that the "risk takers" fail, and pass their best ideas off on to the "smart investors" who take no risk, but just "harvest" and "consume" the outputs of the real risk takers.

Best way to success, take no risk.

Let the "risk takers" do all the educating for you.

So there you go again. There are 'risk takers' at the heart of this.

"Venture capitalism" exists precisely because it is a venture (as in: "Nothing ventured, nothing gained"). People are willing to risk large sums on new projects - but obviously they do their homework first. They didn't get rich in the first place by backing three-legged donkeys.

If the innovators don't take care of their intellectual property, via patents and copyrights and similar, then they are taking too big a risk.

What you're saying is that the bigger profits come later on, when the innovation goes to the mass market. Well, that is true of course. But even at the mass market stage, an idea can still flop. Bill Gates is not immune to flops - see the Microsoft "Bob" operating system. And Apple got burned with the "Newton" touchscreen device.

There are always risks involved. This was known over 2,000 years ago.

The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.

a reply to: audubon

The US A12/SR71 reconnaissance programs of the 1950's were costly and dangerous.
Those programs had relatively inexpensive ejection seat systems in the event of an equipment failure, and there were many.
The decision to use unmanned satellites was made in the early 1960's.
There is some pretty compelling declassified evidence on the web that the Apollo program was an NWO project with Russia.
Of course this conflicted with the Cuban missile crisis meme that ran concurrently.
So I guess you get to chose your own history these days with the internet.

a reply to: Cauliflower

The A-12 didn't start flying until 1962, and the SR-71 in 1964. The SR-71 was actually announced before it made its first flight. The first spy satellite was the Corona program, which was put in orbit in 1959, and ran until 1972.

What, credible, evidence is there that Apollo was "an NWO project with Russia"?

a reply to: Cauliflower

Link it please. Credible and the net aren't always synonymous.

Also, I'm fairly sure that JFK was privately proposing, or had even mentioned in public, a starry-eyed dream about a joint USA-USSR moonshot, as a symbol of peaceful co-operation. I'll have a rummage online and see if I can track down my source for this (a few years back, now) and if I can then I'll come back and edit this post.

Edit: Yup, here we go.

Kennedy announces prospect of joint USA-USSR moon landing (20 September 1963)

Soviet premier Krushchev's son reveals that if the JFK proposal had been offered, Krushchev would have accepted (October 1997)

There's a summary from Scientific American and a little bit of video-repartage from 2012, here