Moon landing: basis for belief - what is it?

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,215
Reactions
16,799
Was browsing through the NFL website and ran into this interview between Jalen Rose, and David Jacoby. Jalen Rose agrees with Golden State Warriors' Stephen Curry, Andre Iguodala, and Atlanta Hawks' Vince Carter on the moon landing being faked by NASA. In the process he is being ridiculed by David Jacoby.


Naturally have a question after this. There is a certain understanding of why people doubt that we went there. But... Why do people believe that we did land on the Moon. One of the reasons is "THE FOOTAGE". We also have the NASA statement that we did. What else?

KD: This thread is not to convince that we did, or did not land on the Moon. It's more for establishing what facts make people believe that we did land there. You are welcome to provide your opinions on those facts, as in why these facts are credible, or not.
 

anotherlayer

Well-known member
Messages
682
Reactions
2,345
What a cringe-y experience that was.

It's going to take about 50 more years of these little clips and the jokes and the innuendo that we all know that it didn't really happen. At that point it will be as easy to come out and say "yeah, yeah, we never went, but that was like 100 years ago and we really didn't know what we were doing".

We say it all the time now... we're still wondering how people didn't poop in the house 100 years ago.
 

trismegistus

Well-known member
Messages
261
Reactions
1,413
I read this morning that Curry released a statement saying that he was "Just joking about the moon landing being fake" AKA he either got a tap on the shoulder or at the very least wants to stay away from controversy/ridicule. Strange how all these major news organizations picked this story up and ran it so hard, considering it was an offhanded comment on a podcast.

I think the mainstream explanation for proof goes as follows:

1. The footage
2. The pictures
3. Moon rocks
4. Satellite photos of landing evidence
5. Russia recorded the whole thing
6. Laser reflectors dropped on the moon in 70s

When you actually take some time to look into it, however...

1. Lost, apparently taped over or just straight up lost somewhere
2. Getting harder and harder to find, very obvious that at least a handful are staged
3. Proved fake
4. Surely you must be joking

aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzAxNS84MzQvb3JpZ2luYWwvYXBvbGxvLTExLW1vb24tbGFuZG...jpg

5. I've never seen the evidence to back up this claim
6. Even Wikipedia admits this is not conclusive evidence...on their conclusive evidence page!

Strictly speaking, although retroreflectors left by Apollo astronauts are strong evidence that human-manufactured artifacts currently exist on the Moon and that human visitors left them there, they are not, on their own, conclusive evidence. Unmanned missions are known to have placed such objects on the Moon as early as 1970. Smaller retroreflectors were carried by the unmanned landers Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2 in 1970 and 1973, respectively. The location of Lunokhod 1 was unknown for nearly 40 years but it was rediscovered in 2010 in photographs by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and its retroreflector is now in use. Both the United States and the USSR had the capability to soft-land objects on the surface of the Moon for several years before that. The USSR successfully landed its first unmanned probe (Luna 9) on the Moon in February 1966, and the United States followed with Surveyor 1 in June 1966, but no unmanned landers carried retroreflectors before Lunokhod 1 in November 1970.
I hate to be "that guy" when I say that the burden of proof for the moon landing lies squarely with those who say we went, but that is the case. There is no compelling evidence that we went there that I can see. There is, however, a lot of compelling evidence that the USA would have very good reason to fake a moon landing to justify black budget projects and create some fantastic propaganda in the meantime.

For those still on the fence, ask yourself these questions when looking into the moon landings.

In this age of "great technological advancement", why is it that the technology for space travel hasn't budged an inch in 50+ years? We are still using massive rockets filled with combustible fuel. Sure, little advancements like "reusable rockets" or more efficient computer systems or fuel have happened; but surely we would have seen far more advanced technologies being applied to this program.

How were we able to have a 100% success rate on these moon landing missions? 7/7 attempts is absolutely insane to comprehend and yet for some reason we stopped and never went back. Hell, most people familiar with the moon landing don't even realize we went back at all.

Why are there still NASA engineers concerned with getting through the Van Allen Radiation belts in the 21st century when we did it seven times in the 20th century? Surely they would just need to use the same tech that got us there before. If anything, we should have lots of data from previous missions and the tech should be better than when we were just "winging it" back in the day with no real data to support the protection of astronauts and equipment.
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,215
Reactions
16,799
I read this morning that Curry released a statement saying that he was "Just joking about the moon landing being fake" AKA he either got a tap on the shoulder or at the very least wants to stay away from controversy/ridicule. Strange how all these major news organizations picked this story up and ran it so hard, considering it was an offhanded comment on a podcast.
I also found it interesting how quickly Curry backpedaled.
 

freezetime26

Well-known member
Messages
81
Reactions
222
6. Laser reflectors dropped on the moon in 70s
In the Cluesforum.com website they debunked this, that laser reflectors in fact wouldnt work or something like that because the "Information loss" or "noise" that it happens when you point a laser at long distances. If i found that thread i will post it here.
 

BrokenAgate

Well-known member
Messages
366
Reactions
1,314
I believe men landed on the moon, but I also believe they saw things that they weren't allowed to report. Look at Alan Bean's paintings, he was there, and he knew something that we don't know. One of his paintings is titled "Colors of the Moon." Bean showed beautiful pastels--blues, pinks, etc. Okay, maybe it's just artistic license. We are led to believe that the moon is all a uniform dull gray, but in the transcripts of the astronauts' conversations, they described seeing white, black, reds, and other colors. In the earliest images, you can make out the faint outlines of enormous structures, what appear to be the shattered remnants of glass buildings. The hypothesis is that sunlight retracting off this glass is what produces these colors that are reminiscent of a sunset. In many other images, you can see what are plainly machine parts and architectural elements mixed in with the planetary rubble. The same is true for Mars, as well.

I firmly believe that there was a vast civilization spread across the entire solar system, and then something terrible happened and wiped it all out. All these myths of angels, gods, and other beings living in the sky, and the stories of a war in heaven, all are based in truth. And all over the world, no matter the race, religion, or nationality, you'll find countless reports of UFOs. And on the space station, they can't point the cameras anywhere without seeing THINGS flying around in the background, checking out what the silly humans are doing. I think we are being monitored by the descendants of some of the species with whom we shared our world and our solar system.

In conclusion, if this is all being faked, then they are doing a lousy job of it. And if something IS faked, it is to distract us from the truth.
 

Ice Nine

Well-known member
Messages
752
Reactions
3,229
It's so simple, people believe it because authority figures told them. NASA, Goobermint, news reporters. What's to question, they're now too busy watching Toddler's and Tiaras and The Bachelor and Swamp People and Football and NASCAR. Whatever normal people do to amuse themselves. :rolleyes:

I won't veer off topic, who me?!, but just think quietly to yourselves how many other "incidents" we are told what happened and "nothing to see here folks, just move along". "This is what happened and to think otherwise is absurd, why almost bordering on insane." Again apply that to any number of things over the years. Nuff said.
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,215
Reactions
16,799
It is July 20th, 1969, and man is about to land on the Moon. Eagle will touch down approximately 4 hours, and 17 minutes from now.

One of the contributing factors :unsure:



Curry's getting trolled
hard to be open minded these days
 

Timeshifter

Well-known member
Messages
416
Reactions
1,322
I was a motor mechanic in a previous life, I always doubted the tech. For me the proof of fakery was in the images/ video. I always thought this, but once I'd established photography being my area of expertees I looked harder & cannot see anyway the images purported to be shot on the moon could have been. Physical imposibility to set up & take the images for an experienced photographer, never mind an astronaught in thick gloves with no vision. Further obviously doctored prints & visual discrepances. Then I read Wag The Moon Doggie, which explained so much more.

We havent been to the moon, Im sure of that, not sure on reasons to fake it, other than to perpetuate the globe earth/ space narative, Iam still pondering that one...
 

sonoman

Well-known member
Messages
312
Reactions
711
I have no real reason to 'believe' or cast doubt either way but if I did, I would work to eliminate such belief or doubt with knowledge.

the only way I know to do that, since its all hearsay from my perspective, and be able to take a solid stance eitherway is to dig into official records and see if there is two witnesses (astronauts) sworn statements by affidavit or other documentation (also with two witnesses signatures) with an official state seal, then have those seals and signatures authenticated by the S.O.S.

I still wouldnt have any firsthand knowledge of the facts but I would have evidence backed by the full faith and credit of the Corporate U.S. with which to work from and if it later proved to be false (with real, verifiable proof, not more hearsay) then that would also be proof of a commercial dishonor and be quite costly to the U.S. corporation. and If I were to continue following the Law, I would deposit that check into the united States of America's Treasury department (not to be con fused with the U.S. Dept. of Treasury)

that would take some effort start to finish and I have a plate full with all the other corporate U.S. BS so I'll just have to remain on the fence for now LOL
 
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
4,215
Reactions
16,799
NASA conveniently lost all the records, so not sure what we have there to search.
 

sonoman

Well-known member
Messages
312
Reactions
711
NASA conveniently lost all the records, so not sure what we have there to search.
seems to be standard operating procedure thesedays for the U.S. corporation. if this is indeed the case then the only way I know to get to the bottom of it would be through serious litigation but in order to do that you'd have to be a legitimately interested (vested interest) party and also be able state a claim for which relief could be granted.

this would also have to be done very precisely by writ of Mandamus into the highest commercial court via Universal Postal Union. (UPU)

Mandamus - Wikipedia

If (Big If) one has a valid cause of action, it could be done IMO
 

AgentOrange5

Well-known member
Messages
40
Reactions
166
Given the state of computer technology at that time (at least according to officials), it seems very unlikely that we went to the moon--it would have been incredibly risky, with a great chance of failure. Still government does often do risky things with other people's lives, and the computer technology could have been much better at the time than we are told. I am personally undecided about the moon landings, too many unknowns.

But what I do know, it does seem pretty obvious, that at least some of the moon footage was faked, So either it was all faked, or if we did go to the moon, the government wanted to cover up certain things discovered on the moon, and hence faked footage to replace the covered up footage (which would explain why the moon tapes were somehow "lost"....I know government can be pretty inept, but seriously, does anyone really believe the moon tapes were all just "lost?")
 

ScottFreeman

Well-known member
Messages
122
Reactions
434
In addition to all that's already been pointed out here there's always the post landing press conference.
When I first saw it I was struck by their body language, being a kid I didn't know "why" it felt wrong but in the days of youtube video comments ...apparently I wasn't alone in my reaction. As my dad said later "they don't look like they just made it safely from back from the moon, they look like someone just shot their dog" (he was a test pilot, I think he'd have been really excited)
 

asatiger1966

Well-known member
Messages
235
Reactions
1,087
I believe men landed on the moon, but I also believe they saw things that they weren't allowed to report. Look at Alan Bean's paintings, he was there, and he knew something that we don't know. One of his paintings is titled "Colors of the Moon." Bean showed beautiful pastels--blues, pinks, etc. Okay, maybe it's just artistic license. We are led to believe that the moon is all a uniform dull gray, but in the transcripts of the astronauts' conversations, they described seeing white, black, reds, and other colors. In the earliest images, you can make out the faint outlines of enormous structures, what appear to be the shattered remnants of glass buildings. The hypothesis is that sunlight retracting off this glass is what produces these colors that are reminiscent of a sunset. In many other images, you can see what are plainly machine parts and architectural elements mixed in with the planetary rubble. The same is true for Mars, as well.

I firmly believe that there was a vast civilization spread across the entire solar system, and then something terrible happened and wiped it all out. All these myths of angels, gods, and other beings living in the sky, and the stories of a war in heaven, all are based in truth. And all over the world, no matter the race, religion, or nationality, you'll find countless reports of UFOs. And on the space station, they can't point the cameras anywhere without seeing THINGS flying around in the background, checking out what the silly humans are doing. I think we are being monitored by the descendants of some of the species with whom we shared our world and our solar system.

In conclusion, if this is all being faked, then they are doing a lousy job of it. And if something IS faked, it is to distract us from the truth.
After a while words come into focus and meanings develop. Words are so powerful that evil rushes to speak in your behalf. Words such as "faith, believe, certitude, logic, honest, man, myths on and on are nothing more than bars on your cage, leaving only you with the key".

This subject is one of many that was intentionally clouded. The event is so layered with propaganda and counter propaganda that the civilians are hard pressed to make sense of any aspect of the event, as planed beforehand.

Everything is a lie of one sort or another. We were taught to "look around the experience" do not get sidetracked with logic, feel the experience, question all preconceived ideas. See everything for the first time

My opinion
 

TH Dialectic

Well-known member
Messages
110
Reactions
523
Words such as "faith, believe, certitude, logic, honest, man, myths on and on are nothing more than bars on your cage, leaving only you with the key".
I agree with for the most part, but the words honest and logic resonate with me most.

If we can apply honest logic to our everyday objective life we would better understand our world or experiences. By honest logic I mean logic applied through either empirical evidence and first hand demonstrable, scalable experiments, not pseudoscientific first principles and postulates.

I am a firm believer in living a virtuous life. I will undoubtedly lay excellent foundations and create incredible experiences using honesty and logic. I can vouch anecdotally for my above statement.

Virtue is knowledge.
Virtue is happiness.

Virtue can only be attained through a logical mind, free from preconceived ideas and full of experience and good will.

Sorry if I took the post away from its original content but logic and honesty are very important tools of a virtuous life.

TH
Post automatically merged:

https://youtu.be/sj6sj6a0Wrrh1g

2mins 40seconds.

Back to Earth ...

I wonder if they left Harry S. Stamper to record this highly accuracy recording of the Apollo 17 Luna Module returning to Terra Firma.

513MK7WMfOL.jpg

Even if the camera was being controlled from mission command, imagine the latency back then in 1972!

A few comparisons ...
The Apollo 11 computer code had references to the Black Power movement and quoted Shakespeare

Flying a spacecraft is incredibly complicated. If the trajectory is even one degree off during reentry, everyone on board could die. Human error is a serious risk. So what do you do?

Simple: You write some software to fly it for you.

And, because your team has a sense of humor, you call the ignition sequence "BURN, BABY, BURN," and quote Shakespeare's "Henry VI" in the code.

These and other bizarre quirks are coming to light, thanks to a former NASA intern's decision to re-post Apollo 11's guidance computer code to the Internet last week. You can check it out here, mostly unchanged from when it was crammed into 36 kilobytes of glory. (For the sake of comparison, if this article were a Microsoft Word document, it would be 72 kilobytes.)

But first, it might help to know a bit about the computer.

Apollo 11's onboard guidance computer had a processing speed of 1 MHz, and had about 4 kilobytes of reusable memory. The original Nintendo Game Boy, released in 1989 a mere 20 years after the first moon landing, was four times faster at 4MHz and had double the memory.

Or, put another way: the iPhone 6S is at least 1,800 times faster — and has 500,000 times more memory — than the computer that guided Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on their history-making expedition.

TH
 
Last edited:

Pilgrim

Member
Messages
14
Reactions
83
I used to believe that the U.S. had manned moon missions and landed there because of what I was taught in school. That's probably true for most of us. I don't know if any of us can know with absolute certainty whether we did or didn't, but I think it's worthwhile to look at the evidence and try to discern the trustworthiness of the information we are presented, regardless of who the source happens to be.

There may be some people who are convinced of the moon landings by these photos of the lost & irreplaceable tech and machinery of the Apollo 11 landing craft:

Apollo11.jpg


Closeup of one of the landing pads:

Apollo11Closeup.jpg


Many more photos can be found on NASA's site: Apollo 11 Image Gallery

Apparently, the state of US tech & engineering must have been so advanced in the 60s that the current Chinese moon-landing crafts utilize many of the same features (such as orange foil and landing pads).

This craft (Chang'e 3) landed on the moon in 2013:
change3.jpg


And then just a few days ago (January 3, 2019), this craft (the Chang'e 4) landed on the far side of the moon:

Chang e 4.png


(I couldn't find an actual photo of the Chang'e 4 lander. I could only find computer generated images or mockups and models. Someone else might have better luck.)

I noticed that with the Chang'e 4 mission, the press keeps emphasizing "SOFT LANDINGS." "A soft-landing means that rather than crashing onto the surface of a celestial body – a hard landing – a spacecraft lands on the surface of a celestial body, under guidance and monitoring by a control centre back on Earth." What you need to know about China’s lunar mission. As you can see from the Apollo 11 photos, these soft landings are really really SOFT. The moon surface is virtually untouched.

Does any of this look and sound sketchy to others? At the very least, we are not getting the whole story. At the very worst, some very powerful people are playing a long game with some very tall tales.
 

BStankman

Well-known member
Messages
628
Reactions
2,966
I used to believe that the U.S. had manned moon missions and landed there because of what I was taught in school. That's probably true for most of us. I don't know if any of us can know with absolute certainty whether we did or didn't, but I think it's worthwhile to look at the evidence and try to discern the trustworthiness of the information we are presented, regardless of who the source happens to be.

There may be some people who are convinced of the moon landings by these photos of the lost & irreplaceable tech and machinery of the Apollo 11 landing craft:

View attachment 15100

Closeup of one of the landing pads:

View attachment 15101

Many more photos can be found on NASA's site: Apollo 11 Image Gallery

Apparently, the state of US tech & engineering must have been so advanced in the 60s that the current Chinese moon-landing crafts utilize many of the same features (such as orange foil and landing pads).

This craft (Chang'e 3) landed on the moon in 2013:
View attachment 15102

And then just a few days ago (January 3, 2019), this craft (the Chang'e 4) landed on the far side of the moon:

View attachment 15103

(I couldn't find an actual photo of the Chang'e 4 lander. I could only find computer generated images or mockups and models. Someone else might have better luck.)

I noticed that with the Chang'e 4 mission, the press keeps emphasizing "SOFT LANDINGS." "A soft-landing means that rather than crashing onto the surface of a celestial body – a hard landing – a spacecraft lands on the surface of a celestial body, under guidance and monitoring by a control centre back on Earth." What you need to know about China’s lunar mission. As you can see from the Apollo 11 photos, these soft landings are really really SOFT. The moon surface is virtually untouched.

Does any of this look and sound sketchy to others? At the very least, we are not getting the whole story. At the very worst, some very powerful people are playing a long game with some very tall tales.
Odd how the moon is made of Portland cement in 1969, cat litter in 2013, and 100% poor CGI in 2019.
 

Pilgrim

Member
Messages
14
Reactions
83
Odd how the moon is made of Portland cement in 1969, cat litter in 2013, and 100% poor CGI in 2019.
So true!

I still can't find an actual photo of the Chang'e 4 lander, but the CGI lander was able to take this color photo of China's moon rover:
yuta-rover-rolling-1546879144.jpg


Is this convincing of an actual landing?

Also, if anyone is wondering why the moon's far side appears to have a red tint, here's someone's explanation: Chang'e 4: why the moon's far side looks red in new images

Quote from article: "So how can we be sure of the colour on the moon? When the Apollo astronauts took their colour photographs (and in those days it was photography, using colour film, rather than digital imaging like today), they placed a colour calibration target containing patches of known colour in the field of view. This made it possible to get the colour balance right during developing and printing."
 

Top