all 39 comments

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

lol this is woke gatekeeping

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (37 children)

This is hilarious.

Within the last decade, Space X finally has built rockets that can land on their thrusters. This is an incredible technical feat of engineering.

Here's a sampling of what we supposed to accept:

  • NASA expects the public to believe that an astronaut could manually land on a rocket engine on the moon 6 times in 3 years?
  • All occurring during Nixon's presidency?
  • And later claim that they lost the technology?
  • And that they accidentally erased the recordings of the lunar landings?


[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (36 children)

They also lost the flight plan and trajectory. Did they or did they not go through the Van Allen Belt? It's a mystery.

Since it's been almost 50 years, do you think they'll make the billion$ in the accounting transparent to show where the money flowed? Doubtful.

They came in peace for all mankind... to Vietnam.

Part of the Navy's secret space program :

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (35 children)

Well, we will find out someday when they go to the moon and the artifacts left by the US either are there or aren't there

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

We know today. Hoax. Impossible in an era of black and white tv.

  • 100% analogue electronics.
  • No laser range finding for the surface.
  • Vacuum tubes, and huge transistors.
  • The astronauts would have landed through the rocket exhaust, so they couldn't see.
  • Radiation sheilding technology that they inexplicably cannot reproduce, because they claim to have lost it.

Nope. Not happening.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Any one detail details the hoax, because 100% of each piece of equipment had to function properly. If any of it it's impossible, then it couldn't have happened. Everything they claim has to be at a minimum 'possible'. Most of it isn't.

Plus fake moon rocks, that are infact petrified wood. Trees. Trees on the moon. :-/

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ehh I don't think it's impossible, it's not that different from putting rovers on the moon.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

One of the big ones for me is the film in their shielded cameras. I'm no radiation expert but space is supposed to be very hostile. But let's just say it wasn't that day (those days). A cool light radiation breeze swept across the surface of the moon, not wrecking any film, just minding it's own business.

I forget who/where/etc pointed out that all the film was numbered. Every photographer knows you need to take 10 pictures before you get 1 good one and you need 10 good ones before you get 1 great one. Well, every single shot those astronauts took is A++ keeper. No photos of thumbs or shoes, or lens flares or whatever.

Further the speculars reflecting of some objects clearly indicate other sources of light, and I'm not talking about the light from bouncing off the surface of the moon.

Also, the background dunes and rock formations are identical for different missions.

That's why I'm certain the images and video were staged. For a while I thought the mission might have been real with the staged imagery for backup. But then (read my other comment "In 2015...").

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I agree completely with the theory that the photos were staged. The best photographers in the world always take multiple photos of any scene. There's no possibility that a chest mounted camera could ever take 200 consecutive C+ quality photos without the use of a viewfinder, or lens focus, or aperture control. It's laughable to imagine.

However, the argument had been made that we did go to the moon, but that the photos were staged.
The photos were 100% staged.

Astronauts flying 250,000 miles to the moon and safely landing an inverted pendulum 6/6 times is so far beyond conceivable, that a person has to literally be brainwashed to believe it.

I was brainwashed for 3 decades, so I'm not criticising anyone in any way. The brainwashing is a fact, and it continues to this day. It's a fact.

The moon landings were faked. Also, an inconvenient fact.

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Astronauts flying 250,000 miles to the moon and safely landing an inverted pendulum 6/6 times is so far beyond conceivable, that a person has to literally be brainwashed to believe it.

It's at 1/6th gravity though, that makes it a LOT easier.

Clearly a giant rocket went up to space, and clearly the astronauts landed in the ocean weeks later, having come from space. That part wasn't faked, it seems. So is your contention that they just went in to orbit around earth for 2 weeks and pretended to go to the moon?

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's exactly what that guy who confronted the astronauts said. (Buzz Aldren punched him.)

His docu showed how, with real footage, they darkened the interior of the cab to shoot it like it was the black of space, and through the round portal window was a section of the blue and white Earth, which provides the illusion of being a planet.

I think that documentary also features how they were asked questions, with a timed pause, were then prompted with "talk" when they should reply - as if it was a real long distance time-delayed conversation.

It's a mediocre documentary with several good points within weak points, ad nauseum.

I'm pretty sure this is that documentary, not recommended unless you're deep into this : "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon"

Not to be confused with the extremely clever Kubrick moon hoax 2002 mockumentary, "Dark Side Of The Moon" (which shouldn't be taken seriously but is very entertaining). And that Kubrick mockumentary should not be confused with the also excellent and well recommended, inconclusive yet riveting 2012 documentary "Room 237" about Kubrick's "The Shining" and it's esoteric Moon Landing symbolism.

"Room 237"

Find your "friendly" version :

Or a cropped/pirated version of "Room 237 (2012)- Bill Blakemore, Geoffrey Cocks, Juli Kearns" :

"Dark Side Of The Moon" aka "Opération Lune"

Almost all but disappeared:

For more, search for yourself :

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yea, the dark side of the Moon hoax video totally duped me the first time I saw it.

I was thinking that it was amazing!

Too good to be true!
It was.. too good... They got me the first time I watched it. :-/.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As incredulous as it was it had me going for a while. I was astounded at the interviews with Rumsfeld etc. There were a few intentional tells that had me questioning the veracity, but then when they talked about the lenses used to shoot Barry Lyndon by candle light (a great novel too), as a Kubrick fan and filmmaker I knew they were bullshitting the first time I saw it.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Satellites are real. Space shuttles are real. These travel in near Earth orbits.

The farthest the shuttle has gone is just over 400 miles, which is 1/15th the distance across the US. The moon is an orbiting object that is 250,000 miles away.

1/6 gravity may help, but having no atmosphere means that all motion control is 100% caused by both gravity and thrusters. One tiny overcompensation and it's over.

One mistake = Over.

In that instant the manually controlled craft starts overrotating the thrust that balances against the pull of gravity is off-balance. Gravity continues to pull towards the center of the moon. Any horizontal force vector applied by the rocket being out of alignment will:

1) push the craft sideways.
2) create a rotational moment, and begin to rotate the craft around it's center of mass.
3) reduce the force vector that was decelerating the craft against the moons acceleration/gravity.

For perspective: It's probably a good time to consider the fact that all of the controls on the lunar lander are either mechanical, or electronic. Not computer controlled. All manual. The computer controls used in modern ABS brakes far exceeds anything available in 1969.

There's no guidance to save them.
No accelerometers.
No laser guidance or laser range (distance) finding.

Just 3 pilots sitting in a windowless aluminum box that is 10 feet (or so) above a giant lunar landing rocket booster (which is huge, but still undersized; given its supposed to launch then back into space from the moon).

Again, just 3 pilots in a windowless aluminum box, with steering controls consisting of:

  • Electronic/mechanical analogue knobs.
  • Electronic/mechanical switches (on/off).
  • Mechanical/electronic analogue steering controls.
  • Manual controlled side thrusters (4)

This is truly an impossible feat. This is a basic descriptive breakdown of only one necessary portion of the supposed to the moon.

This is beyond impossible. Space X crashed 1/3 rockets during their recent falcon heavy mission, and they have the best and most modern computer-controlled equipment that money can buy.

Manually Landing on the moon is not even remotely possible for a single landing in a thousand attempts. 6/6 successful NASA lunar landings in the 70s is slapstick comedy.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Having no air resistance is both a pro and a con. It's neither something to rely on or "lean" against nor something to complicate things.

I'm not saying your wrong, but you're comparing apples and orangutans.

The ace pilots would be better than computers at a lot.

The Space X vehicles are sooo different than the lander.

A better point to make is that their failures with the LLRV.

They claim to have gotten a handle on it.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed. The lander vs. space X crafts are very different.

The space X versions are superior in nearly every capacity. Yet, 33% (1/3) crashed upon landing. The lunar lander had a 100% (6/6) successful landing record on the moon...?

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Added links to another comment.

I think all these comments will become a TT20 Counter Points To The Official Moon Landing Story.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I’m not a 153news subscriber because the place is a hivemind for shills who push the mandela effect and flat earth but I found this video hilarious.

For me, American Moon documentary 2017 made me rethink my position on the moon landings and NASA (Never A Straigh Answer).

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

American Moon documentary 2017

Thanks for the reference. Will check it out after your other post.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

My other post is kind of crap, I just found the chicken dance hilarious. American Moon is a much watch though, same with the New Pearl Harbor doc.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

One mainstream exception worth noting, in the movie set in the future by Christopher Nolan, "Interstellar", the "backwards" teacher no longer teaches that the Moon Landing was real - and it is handily left in the air unresolved. I don't know if this was for his "scientific accuracy", (especially when their crafts don't have much need for large fuel tanks to get on/off planets).

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Years ago I heard they got good photos of the moon. I don't know if they have a Google Moon as good as Google Earth, but I'd be interested to know whether/how/if they faked the images too.

I just looked it up but I guess the resolution is not good enough yet to show gear or tracks.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

There is a laser range-finder that is on the moon that you can bounce a laser off of of, which clearly exists. But that just proves it's possible to put satellites on the moon, not humans. I'm not sure telescopes exist that are powerful enough to see the lunar landing launch module or the flag that was planted, from the Earth.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

You don't need powerful Earth telescopes if you have Lunar orbiting satellites with decent imaging gear - which I feel like they'd have done by now. Unless it was in their best interest not to.

Makes me reconsider this whole Flat Earth thing...

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

They do have those, they're just not publicly view-able yet. Here's a list of all the man-made satellites orbiting the moon.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

A bunch of those (that we know of) are from the 1970s.

In 2009 half a billion+ and we get :

And the images we get are like these 256x256 Apollo missions with an arrow :

Wait I found one! That smudge :

Oh. It's just a robot.

And yes, the copyright free images above have sources that are equally disappointing.

And with further digging, this is the best they've got:

Maybe it is legit.


[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The second to last link shows a lunar Rover. Why would they bring that to the moon? The moon is the destination. Where are they driving that thing to? Nowhere, cause it's a hoax.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It was supposed to allow them to explore further than walking distance.


[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The idea that an astronaut could land a lunar rocket with 60's technology rocket thrusters is beyond absurd. Inverted pendulum rocket control technology has only recently been achieved. Balance a broom upside down on a rocket and land on the thruster?! It's impossible to have landed 6/6 times in 3 years.
There's a reason we never went back. We couldn't do it even once in the 60's.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You might be right, I'm on the fence about it.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Imagine if they landed the inverted pendulum lander on a 20 degree incline, because they couldn't see the ground. The moon is covered in craters, so it's highly probable. It would crash at worst, and tip over at best. They'd be completely fucked. Fucked.

The fact that NASA had to be given the benefit of doubt in so many scenarios is testament to the genius of this particular PsyOp. It's a difficult pill to swallow, but the illusion is quickly dispelled once you stop overlooking inconsistencies and seriously consider the facts.

The inverted pendulum landing is the WTC Building 7 of the moon landings. Gravity doesn't care, and it will reveal the facts. Literally impossible to manually accomplish. It's certain death.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In 2015 when I started delving into all conspiracy theories I took a hard look at the Moon Landing.

All of the documentaries I saw were shit. All of them. Their arguments were poor, the filmmaking was poor, everything was generally poor, but there were nuggets of legit questions mixed in. That guy who accused all the astronauts had a video that was okay but certainly not great.

During this "exploration" I went from 50/50 to 80% sure it was faked and back to 50/50 for the landing but 95% sure the images were faked. And as an armchair amateur I know nothing about radiation regarding human endurance so I simply don't count that part or its pro and con arguments that seem to require legit knowledge or deep trust in the sources arguing about it.

The last year two things came from nowhere to push me much farther into the hoax camp. I forget one source talking about the geopolitical ramifications, how every war/event is a scam, etc etc etc and only touched briefly on the Moon Landing before continuing. While I knew the space race was a game, I'd never really tilted it that far and much of it lined up.

The second was a TruthStream Media video about how they lost the video, the flight log, and the craft blueprints, etc. I was like WTF! Nail in the coffin. -ish.

Conservatively I feel 90% confident it was all staged. But everything I see is now through a biased lens. I try to remain neutral, as with the extra looking for all those links above to make sure I don't make an absolute ass of myself. None of those images are convincing and look like a 2 year old could have photoshopped it.

All that's left is some irrefutable evidence or an admission of guilt. I expect neither soon.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The TruthStream Media video I mentioned...

"The Two Most Hilarious Things NASA Has Ever Said" (2017-08-03) :

Another one I hadn't seen until now, but topical...

"Just One More Reason Why People Don't Trust NASA" (2015-09-24) :

And they have a new tremendous documentary well worth seeing...

"The Minds of Men | Official Documentary by Aaron & Melissa Dykes" :

There are a lot of good, bad, and ugly sources out there.

James Corbett is one of the oldest and most reliable YouTube truther, but often terribly technical and dry and/or long in his deep deconstructions, analysis, and contexualization.

Only a few stand out to me as being perpetually interesting with good to great fimmaking craftsmanship on the Truther front on YouTube...

TruthStream Media :

ReallyGraceful :

Jay Myers Documentaries :

The Corbett Report :

The Corbett Report Extras :

There are a lot of reasons to distrust a lot of sources online. IMHO, all these folks have earned my trust and I think they are as close to 100% legit and without bias as possible, until proven otherwise, though I will remain skeptical and open to all criticisms.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Have you watched American Moon film by chance?

It is made by the same director who created September 11th New Pearl Harbor, in my opinion the most thorough of all 9/11 documentaries.

[–]JasonCarswell[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks. I'll watch it now.