Some here say moon landings etc were faked. I don't know as I haven't looked into it. This thread isn't for an argument about whether its real or not, though.
My question is: Why bother faking it? For shits and giggles? What is gained?
Comments (32)
sorted by:
What is gained? How about $58million per day in tax funding. NASA was concieved during the JFK years, capitalizing on imaginations of all the space scifi stuff shown on those new tell lie visions. It also is a good metric to gauge the level of control over public perception.
Income tax was supossed to go away after the war. The govt realized how effective taxation was and needed a new scam to draw more, all the while keeping the public supportive of the postion through fairy tales and special effects.
You can not review the footage of the moon landing, speeches, astronot talks and possibly come to the conclusion it was real.
The real question is why were Moon missions planned in the first place, because the answer to both questions is the same. The vague consensus among those who've looked into the Apollo hoax missions in great detail is that NASA fully intended to go to the moon, but they discovered about half way (or more) through the decade of build up to first launch that they could not send humans into space and have them come back alive. By that point the propaganda build up to the missions was extreme, as was the spending, construction etc. It was decided to not reveal a weakness and disappoint people and humiliate themselves by revealing cold hard reality, and to use their vast funding to fake the documentation of the missions instead. The many training projects and models built in the decade of run up to the missions contributed to pulling of the fakes.
If you have more questions then you really should watch American Moon, since probably every question you could think of to ask on this topic is covered in that documentary:
https://youtu.be/KpuKu3F0BvY
Thanks - I will watch that when I've got a free time slot for it. Am I to assume that the international Space Station lies empty of astronauts, then?
Heh, a bit of a mindfuck realising how not questioning a topic can lead to wildly off-base ideas about our species' situation. These last five years have been such an eye-opener to me.
The international space station is not in space really, but in low earth orbit. The name is propaganda. It could have people on it sometimes, but NASA has also been caught faking footage of people on it, so I really don't know. The very first, short-lived "Space Station" launched by NASA was entirely fake:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab
It's to see how much the public can take.
Everyone took it at that time because it has nothing to do with them unlike Khmer Rouge or Covid World.
PS now even ACTUAL NPCs I talked to knew it was faked.
Ah okay, thanks, that makes some sense.
The people who say the moon landing was faked are the same brain-dead, low IQ morons who think the earth is flat. There will always by conspiritards pushing non-sense and subjective reasoning, but in the end, everything they say, and I mean EVERYTHING they use to show evidence is pure unadulterated bull shit.
Hey, if you think crappy 60s CGI is the real thing, go ahead. Just don't pretend you're any better than a flat earther yourself.
Lol, I am MUCH better, hands down better if you think that is fake CGI. Just stop being a fucking shill for the conspiritards.
You can literally watch they launch a “spinning satelite” on a fucking wire bro. You better wake your ass up.
No 'Bro', I like reality and not beta males pretending they 'know" things.
My guy, this is the most basic level conspiracy possible. Any window licking retard can figure this one out.
Watch the interview, looks like someone shot their dogs instead of them pulling off mankinds greatest accomplishment.
Cant return today, technology destroyed. Van allen belts.
Phone call 237,000 miles away when your cell loses reception at the the bottom of a hill.
Who filmed the spaceship leaving and panned up the camera?
Why are the same backgrounds seen in several locations?
Why do we still not aphave a photo of earth?
Wake up man, put your patriotism to the side, you’ve been douped.
"Watch the interview, looks like someone shot their dogs instead of them pulling off mankinds greatest accomplishment."
Taking words out of context is not proof.
"Cant return today, technology destroyed."
What are you talking about? Hundreds of unmanned missions are in the can. We could go back easily.
" Van allen belts."
200 x that of earth for 8 days is not going to kill you.
"Phone call 237,000 miles away when your cell loses reception at the the bottom of a hill."
20 watt radio is more than enough you fuck wit. Cell phones use a fraction of that so it does not radiate your head.
"Who filmed the spaceship leaving and panned up the camera?"
Nasa sent guidance to the camera which only starts panning upwards 2-3 seconds after liftoff. So it is plausible that the operator only sent the command to start panning at liftoff, or just a little before. And it's not like they didn't have a nice countdown leading up to it. In general, the tracking really doesn't seem all that accurate; the ascent module barely stays within the frame.
"Why are the same backgrounds seen in several locations?"
No idea what you are talking about.
"Why do we still not aphave a photo of earth?"
Like these?
https://www.google.com/search?q=apollo+image+of+earth&rlz=1C5CHFA_enCA784CA784&sxsrf=ALeKk00Aa6ukdXfz1KGKe3MsGwiRE3xpjw:1627315715919&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwioxry5j4HyAhVQsZ4KHRqYAToQ_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1440&bih=713
Hahahahahahaha. Those are “images” bro not photos. You’ve been duped.
NASA sent guidance to the camera? Haha right and I bet use a robot toggle camera they wifi’d the footage right back to earth huh? They didnt have to go back for the tape lol.
20w radio will not go a quarter million miles you meatstick. The best two-ways on the market go 100 with towers, Ham 500 max. 12w barely do 15 miles of open terrain. Don’t try fibbing a equipment operator about radios I use them daily.
NASA’s lead astronaut Don Petite said they can not return to the moon and they destroyed the tech.
Van Allen belts is 16 rads according to NASA, 300 being lethal yet NASA funded popular mechanics admitted 6’ of lead sheilding would be required to safely pass through.
Stanley Kubrick admitted filming it on his deathbed and showed you in the Shining.
This is basic shit dude. I bet you think Elons reverse landing rockets are real too lol.
Yes, it's called reality vs. retardedness
Oh, my friend, it's just the way you view the situation. Once again, we are at...no evidence is not evidence. The thing that makes me suspicious is that they lost the evidence. They LOST the files and such. Lol..ok. NASA trust is pretty low.
Oh boy, you again? Anything you say is nothing more than drivel and low IQ pablum. You're a literal fucking twat and a colossal waste of oxygen.
Well damn, mr round earth, sounds personal. Do you have a NASA dildo in your ass or what? They lost the moon landing info....
You suck at insults shitbag.
"mr round earth"
Such a professional insult, I don't know how I'll ever recover.
That's a compliment. I like your round earth rants on flat earth posts. No need to be hostile, a smart man looks at all the possibilities of a situation. You seem to revere NASA with the utmost respect. I do not share that view. I actually believed in the moon landing until they came out and said that they lost all the info on it. Old computers and some crap. Did you see them say that? I fear everything they have told us is a lie.
See you around, I'm not your enemy, I just think more. Lol
Cheers for the input ^^ I will keep an open mind when researching it but will not just believe it without something rigorous and substantial
Rigorous and substantial? Each mission has reams and reams of data, images and testimonials you can clearly research and even buy DVDs for each mission. How anyone can casually think that all the missions were faked are beyond stupid. Just look at the notion that the radiation would have killed everyone on board. Utter garbage. The fact is the radiation is 200x greater than flying in a jet. Walking on the moon is not a walk in the park but nothing close to being lethal. Airline pilots are exposed during their lifetime to far greater amounts, yet they live to be old pilots.
Ha, I meant rigorous and substantial that they were faked, too. The thing about radiation, though - one short burst of heavy radiation is more damaging than it being drip-fed over time, I would have thought. Like someone drinking 30 bottles of wine over a year is going to be fine, but someone drinking 15 bottles in an hour is going to have problems. I haven't researched either argument yet, so I don't know what side to take, but that seems like a counter-argument one could make. I am not a scientist, but that sounds like it would be the case.
"I am not a scientist"
No fucking kidding. I'll bet you don't even know there is more than one kind of radiation. Don't jump into water you don't know how deep it is.
Actually, I did know that. You are not the most intelligent person here, thinking that ONLY THE GREAT AND WONDERFUL YOU would know something so basic. (Srsly thats like child-level knowledge. If you are proud of knowing that then I feel sorry for you). Does what I said not make sense, though? Each mission having reams and reams of data would settle things. People here have said that they claim to have "lost" that data, which is suspicious af. I will try to dig these reams up and see.
Oh, and I will jump. Isn't that the case for anyone learning about anything for the first time on this forum? Isn't that the wonder of learning, in general?