I've heard every angle of this one. What's the best arguments either way? How can I be sure what's actually original video/pictures these days and what has been edited?
Comments (30)
sorted by:
AMERICAN MOON https://odysee.com/@QuantumRhino:9/American-Moon-(2017):1
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon (2001) https://odysee.com/@QuantumRhino:9/A-Funny-Thing-Happened-on-the-Way-to-the-Moon-(2001):2
ASTRONAUTS GONE WILD https://odysee.com/@QuantumRhino:9/Astronauts-Gone-Wild--An-Investigation-Into-the-Authenticity-of-the-Moon-Landings-(2004):5
I've seen two of those documentaries, I'll have to check out the third at your recommendation.
American moon is excellent , hard evidence
Thank you, saving for later
There was absolutely no going back for me after I read Wagging the Moondoggie by Dave McGowan. Same guy that did the Laurel Canyon book, with which many more conspiracists are familiar.
Excellent suggestion. RIP mcgowan, they murdered him :(
McGowan said himself he didn't think he had gotten weaponized cancer, but to this day I find that a hard pill to swallow. I'm 100% sure Hunter Thompson was murdered, but his family goes along with the suicide story and they were right in the house at the time. I think a deal was struck, like safety for silence, and I wonder if it was the same with McGowan.
But in any case, Dave, thanks and RIP.
How come? I am very interested!
Often times it is never an "official" deal of any kind, just the implication that something like what just happened to their loved one could happen to anyone which assures such silence. It's literally in these monsters' handbook.
In any case, RIP hunter as well! I still look towards LA with the right kind of eyes, and I am no f*cking dancer.
Working from memory, a few of the details that stuck in my mind were:
Here's a link, but you'll see that already some of the details have been lost: Hunter S. Thompson Murder
I have had the pleasure of firing one. It is a hand cannon. Even the entire encyclopedia falling couldn't make that sound. She may have been describing a "silenced" shot...
Interesting. Thanks for the link, I'll check it out!
oh, nice to see you posting the same link i just did
McGowan was a treasure...
Might be nothing but it's always bothered me how small earth appears. The moon appears larger in the sky and is like 1/6 the diameter at the same distance.
The most obvious evidence that the footage was filmed in a studio is the vanishing point of the light not being parallel. This suggests a nearby floodlight not solar source.
Well, nasa claims that they flew through the weakest part (the poles) and that the astronauts were exposed to such little radiation that it wasnt an issue.
Thing is, those belts are there for a reason, they absorb not just solar but cosmic radiation. It's possible they flew alllll the way to the moon, without getting zapped by a random radiation wave. But it just amazes me no one ended up sterile or crazy. If they made it there, it was literally by the grace of god. (They dont even mention the sparkles that many iss astronauts see when they close their eyes and cosmic radiation goes through them.)
The only reason we are not exploring space today is because there is no technology to protect us from said radiation. I believe we had/have the technology to reach low earth orbit and thats it.
One of the ways they talked about blocking some of the radiation, on say a trip to mars, is by filling the walls of the ship up with poo. No joke.
There is a book about how cosmic radiation, which is all over space, not just random rays bouncing around, will start destroying proteins in your brain immediately.
Does it matter? You dont live in that USA.
That world is gone. In the past. Dead.
Make a new future
The moon is a semi transparent luminary. No physical surface to land on.
I would be very surprised if that were true!
When I became a man, I learned to put away childish things. No arguments (manipulation) anymore, just earnest research.
You can't. You also can't confirm that the original unedited footage is fake (it is). But I may be able to help assist you.
Would you be interested in joining me on the community I created specifically to discuss such topics? I'm sure you will find it rewarding, even if you vehemently disagree. If so, just click my username - it is the only community I moderate.
oh ffs....this useless shit taking up the front page again? we have more important conspiracies to worry about that are happening RIGHT NOW.
Dust can't exist on the moon. In order to have dust you have to have atmosphere between the particles of dirt.
In an age where anyone can cry "photoshopped" (with or without knowledge of how hard it is to fake content on the kind of physical media used for the missions), a lot of discussion on the landings ends up being a "he said, she said" dead end.
Instead, I think it would be interesting to try a new approach - what we might call Poirot over Holmes - and focus our little gray cells on matters of motivation and opportunity, rather than having the exact same "the flag sways to the wind / the flag is hanging from a horizontal pole" debate that everyone's had before. So, here goes:
Evidence for the landings: They came as a natural step in space development, after sending objects in orbit, animals and people in orbit, and two manned lunar flybys immediately before. However...
Evidence against the landings: Most of those firsts were done by the Soviets, and Americans badly needed a victory to boost their international prestige. Especially with the Vietnam War not going nearly the way they wanted - so they could use a major distraction there as well, and they certainly weren't above trying to fake the whole deal. However...
For: The Soviets had the requisite equipment to triangulate if the Apollo signals came from space or not, and would be the first to cry foul if they could. They didn't. But instead....
For: All the landings happened during the term of Richard Nixon, the go-to "evil president" media bogeyman before Trump, meaning his in-country opponents had every reason to discredit his achievements as president. Which doesn't quite explain why...
Against: The manned landings stopped with the end of Nixon's presidency, and further lunar missions have been token at best. But then again...
For: The manned missions didn't have much practical utility over robotic explorers - which were sent by the Soviets - and the samples taken by the Apollo crews, coupled with ever-advancing spectroscopic analysis, would provide ample scientific data for decades to come. And culturally, while the space program was a cornerstone of Soviet propaganda, Americans quickly lost interest after these first manned missions, making them a costly and risky endeavor with next to no return. Though still...
For: The leftover equipment from the landings is still visible by telescope, including ones that can be rented for private purposes. Meaning that serious skeptics can still pool resources and produce new images of the sites, conclusively proving them to be barren and untouched, if they were. But again, this also hasn't happened.
Overall, we certainly have motive for the crime, but not quite the opportunity - the Soviets could easily spot them for trying, and an exposed faking of the landings during the Cold War, especially the Vietnam years, would mean a massive hit on American prestige that they could not afford. However, there's plenty of motives and opportunities for the local opponents of the Nixon administration to attempt a frame-up, while his subsequent post-resignation demonization would affect all projects during his term, including the space program.
This argument is SHIT. Russia is engaged with a proxy war with the USA in Ukraine now, and we will see if after 6 months? they will refuse to transport American Astronauts in their Rockets. If yes, what does this tell us, that there is a fake war, or that russians and americans are so good and they keep space exploration or FAKERY outside the day to day political theater?
So, either space is a global conspiracy, and all major powers are ok with keeping whatever secret there is hidden, or the wars and conflict on the planet arent as bad or PRINCIPLED as they claim to be... So which is it?
2 against, 5 for
Of course.
We all know why you are here.
Even if this was the case this could easily be faked. NASA could have sent a probe that sent a signal just to convince the soviets that the signal was coming from space, Or even a probe that was transmitting the FAKE footage prerecorded on the studio by Kubrick.
On this I actually agree. A disposable probe with only flyby capabilities and no need for reentry navigation - well within the technology of the time. It flies off, plays its tune, burns up in atmo on the way back, and the ships "find" the splashed-down crew module at the designated location.
That said, they'd still need pinpoint script timing to pull off the impression of real-time conversation between the pre-recorded messages from the probe, and the responses of mission control. And, of course, rely on absolutely nothing happening during the inevitable signal loss when the probe is behind the Moon. The fact the Soviets sent a robotic lander the very next year, speaks highly of the remote control technology of the time, at least for tasks as simple as driving a glorified RC buggy on flat rock.
But that's the thing - with automated technology being that advanced, it would cost nothing to strap on a couple of human passengers anyway, at least for bragging rights. Life support issues are the main concern, of course, but most of the conditions would be the same as in orbit - and those were already covered ground by the time.
And of course, this still leaves the smoking gun - terrestrial telescope images of the landing sites. Either put by hand or by machine, the one thing certain is that something manmade was placed there within the past fifty years or so.
As for the Ukraine conflict, Russia has already announced it will suspend joint operations in the ISS until the sanctions are lifted... however that is supposed to work, since the hub and life support modules of the thing are Russian. Either it's a token announcement with no practical substance, or, cynical as it may be, a testament that matters of space always have and will continue to be guided by terrestrial concerns, at least for the foreseeable future. So there's that.
BTW, you are missing the argument that NASA most likely purposefully destroyed a lot of data about the Apollo mission.
https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1 best arguments on this article... lengthy but golden
tldr: usa, the nation of cars had foldable cars in the 60s but never marketed? lunar landing modules out of scale... and it was the only technological feat of the human race that was never repeated better after?
humans were there once but weren't allowed to return, though...
that's why Ingo Swann was hired by the CIA to remote view the dark side of the moon as he explains on his book 'Penetration: The Question of Extraterrestrial and Human Telepathy'.
Yes, a set was constructed to film a fake moon landing. This was the backup plan. Thankfully the primary plan succeeded. Our government lies to us constantly, but we have plenty of evidence that Apollo missions were successful.
Pretty much. Particularly regarding government lies, spreading the conspiracy theory might have been a dodge regarding another thing - massive corruption around the early Space Shuttle program (which everyone forgets began around the time of the final moon flights). Fact is, the Shuttle never fulfilled its designated purpose - cheap transport to low-earth orbit - yet managed to bury billions in spending, along with over a dozen human casualties of designer hubris and management incompetence. It was a criminal flop through and through, needing a quick change of subject - so, how `bout them moon landings, huh? Something fishy going on there, that's fer sure. Never mind the Shuttle, it can wait, just keep looking at the moon, that's a good boy.
All in all, as with most crimes, government lies also tend to involve money first, pragmatism second, nebulous nefarious plans last, if at all.