Recently the Telegraph published “I’d Like to believe the Moon landings were fake - the alternative is far bleaker.” It’s an anonymous editorial, posing as a movie review.
Funnily enough, I was sitting outside earlier today and my mind did indeed drift off to the moon landings (as you do, you know). And I did think of some new ideas to disprove the whole ridiculous thing, as if the already existing evidence isn't more than enough. And also to explain why 'we never went back'.
In particular I was thinking about the heat diffusion, which I mentioned in a reply below. There's no heat diffusion on the moon because there's no atmosphere, so in the sun it's beyond boiling and in the shade it's beyond freezing. Even if we allow the astronauts some magic suits, they still need to consider what happens to all their equipment, and that flag in particular. The flag was made of nylon, by the way, which has a lower melting point of 190C. Its lower working temperature is around -40, so once the moon got into shade I don't think that flag would last very long.
The cameras certainly wouldn't, as they were outside the magic suits and didn't have any protection. So it's either boiled up or frozen solid.
The other more 'sinister plot' angle concerns nuclear fusion, specifically involving He-3, which is in abundance on the moon. In fact, the only reason for going to the moon would be to get He-3. In my view, the only reason America has suddenly decided it's interested in going to the moon is because the Chinese are. We have to understand here that if one country got fusion power it would have to give it freely to everyone else or become a pariah state and have the world ganging up on it. Any country with fusion power is self-sufficient and independent of globalist exploitation. Thus, America can't go to the moon and get He-3 without losing its global hegemony (same applies to the globalist cabal to be honest - the people would demand free energy). So, America doesn't go to the moon.
Now there really is 'competition', America can't very well come out and say we never went there, or option b/ we did go but with technology you're not allowed to know about. So right now it totally amuses me to think of the Americans desperately trying to come up with 'conventional' methods of reaching the moon, without using any secret advanced tech (electrogravitics and suchlike; rotating caesium engines etc.).
I'm not surprised they keep delaying their Artemis programme. Watching them try and sell that one to the 'great american public' is going to be a barrel of laughs, and I really can't wait!
Interesting stuff, Petra, but I have a simple question here. Some of these answers talk about a 'water-ice sublimator' in the PLSS backpack. Erm, forgive me if I'm being dumb here but those 'two gallons of water' would've boiled off in 250F - remember, the backpack DID NOT have the same 'protection' which the magic suit did. Or was it a magic backpack too?
Then we have this delicious quote:
"Where the Apollo astronauts would have gotten in trouble is if they had gone down into the deep shade inside a crater. Their suits had no heater, and in the deep cold of a shaded crater, would have radiated heat out to deep space faster than the astronaut’s body could replace it—even with the sublimator turned off.
This is exactly what happened to Story Musgrave during training for his Hubble repair mission, when he entered a space thermal test chamber to make sure he’d be able to use his tools on the upcoming mission. Hubble can never be pointed towards the sun because the heating would cause materials inside the telescope to offgas, potentially clouding the optics. So the repair mission was planned to keep the telescope pointing away from the sun—which meant half of every orbit would have it and the crew exposed to deep space.
Inside the liquid-nitrogen-cooled test chamber, Musgrave at first reported his hands feeling very cold—then later that they’d warmed up. Being a southerner, he didn’t know that cold hands never “warm up” on their own and that the feeling was a warning sign. He ended up with frostbite, and came close to ending his career.
And now, spacesuit gloves have heaters and improved air flow."
Only now, eh! This delicious quote really made me guffaw!
So, they accept the fact that in the shade it's effing cold (see also, interestingly enough, that found footage movie Apollo 18, where they make a dramatic set piece out of the freezing cold in the shade/crater). All of these quora answers assume the astronauts on the moon are in perpetual +250F heat. No, they're not. As soon as they step into the shade they are minus 250F. This is my point. It's basic science. What we know of as 'heat' requires a conductor, which down here is the atmosphere. There isn't any atmosphere on the moon. So as soon as you are out of the sun, that's it. It's the temperature differential that does it.
Anyhow, none of this matters because they all keep saying the life support stuff was in the backpack - that's the real giveaway, because the backpack didn't have the same 'insulation and temperature regulation and all the rest of it'. Neither did the cameras, for that matter. So, what was providing life support to the life support system?
Do you see what I'm getting at here? This is one of the things that confuses me a little about you, Petra - you are so very, very intelligent and analytical and capable of brilliant critical thinking, on some really important things, but on some others you come across as an eejit. And I know you're not an eejit. The 'viruses don't exist' thing is another one. We'll leave that one aside for now - but if you can tell me how the backpack for the lunar astronauts was protected from all these temperature variations then let's start there.
Very interesting argument, Evelyn. I was under the misapprehension that because the astronauts were on the moon during lunar dawn that they weren't exposed to such extremes of temperature.
I've put your argument to ChatGPT and this is its response:
The thing is, as far as I'm concerned, I cannot know for sure whether the argument for the spacesuits protecting the astronauts is valid or not. I cannot know what differences can be accounted for considering on the moon there is radiation only while on earth we have radiation, convection and conduction operating.
What I look for are things I can know for sure and what are the clear signs - if any - of fakery.
What I find is that there are subtle signs of lack of fakery:
--- no shadows cast by the multiple light sources required to fake it
--- the faintest pattern of radial exhaust under the LEM (not either no sign at all nor the obvious signs that we would expect of fakery)
--- the Apollo audio recordings much of which is between the astronauts and mission control totals around 1,000 hours for all missions and has no hint of any scripting or fakery that I'm aware of - compare the obvious scripting of reporters, firefighters and others for 9/11 and of the alleged survivors of the USS Liberty attack and the obvious stitching-together of genuine bits of audio ill-matched to the obviously staged footage of Collateral Murder. https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/alsj-ApolloAudio.html
1. The kinds of fakery required to really make it convincing I don't think are actually possible.
2. Even if it was possible to simulate the moon landings incredibly well, simulating reality as closely as possible is 100% antithetical to psyop MO where the MO is to humiliate us with deliberate sloppiness.
3. It is obvious that the first person to come out and say the moon landings were fake, Bill Kaysing, is an agent ... and they made him a cartoon figure - supposedly he was Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne and spouted complete nonsense such as, "There should have been a massive crater under the LEM," with no credible explanation for why this should be - his purpose being to undermine those who tend to disbelieve the authorities - generally with good reason, of course - Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf style. Not only him but Dave McGowan and I'm sure Bart Sibrel though haven't really looked in his case are agents too. If astronauts really didn't go to the moon how can Dave write a whole book, Wagging the Moondoggie, without one clear argument for not landing? and how is it possible that all the so-called "questions" asked in the film, American Moon, made by Massimo Mazzucco, are perfectly adequately responded to?
My identical twin sister, who disbelieves the moon landings, did way better at school in maths and science than I did and she has an understanding of physics far beyond mine - I get gravity that's about it, however, she believes she can know things beyond her knowledge base whereas I know I don't know much at all which makes me much more careful to focus on what I know I know and look to people much better versed on the subject than I am.
That's a great reply! I am going to give it the attention it deserves so you will have to bear with me, because I also have a lot of translation work to finish up today first.
It's interesting you asked ChatGPT because I was thinking of doing exactly the same thing - so maybe I can do that and we can compare the two. As you might know I decided to have a little series on my Substack about conversations with it (partly to pursue my frivolous, subversive agenda of attempting to convince it to become self-aware!), and a big part of that is questioning official narratives - I like the fact that it's always unfailingly logical, and seems incapable of dishonesty - which is why a kind of Socratic method works (the Socratic method always requires the cooperation of the interlocutor). I have one conversation with it archived in which it openly admitted that 'conspiracy theories' in the sense of 'questioning the epistemic authorities' is vitally important for maintaining democracy/democratic accountability - in other words it is in full support of precisely what Iain says about it (and using pretty much the same words/arguments too!).
Anyhow - as I say, I will definitely get back to you on all this once I've got time to give it my full attention.
That's interesting about your sister. Is one of you left-handed and the other right-handed, by any chance? I read something not so long ago about the prevalence of that being far higher than in the singleton population. I think twin studies have shown that twins often complement each other, in the sense that together they make a whole. Almost as if nature had originally intended just one, but then when two came along, the talents and predilections had to be split up and allocated separately.
I love the possible paranormal aspects of twins as well, like knowing each other so well you get to a kind of telepathic stage.
No none of it is true of us! My sister and I don't really get along that well, however, she has been very good to me the last few years as I haven't been working with one thing or another and now I really just don't want to although I really should get a job and she's let me live with her rent and bill-free while I take care of things domestically - but that's very little work really.
Temp differentials. Right. The idea that it takes a long time to change temperatures from sun to shade etc. essentially only applies to the lunar surface, because that's a massive homogenous mass (so there is convection and diffusion and such like). What we're more interested in, however, is objects on resting on the surface. Rocks, for example. These differentials only take a matter of minutes, really.
One thing I did find which is fascinating is this:
This is a transcript, plus notes and links, of the ending of the final Apollo 15 EVA, which is the one where Scott demonstrated Galileo and gravity by dropping a falcon feather and a hammer to show they dropped at the same rate in a vacuum.
What I was interested in was what would happen to a falcon feather in a vacuum and temperature of 260F/130C. According to ChatGPT, it would become very quickly desiccated as the moisture evaporates, meaning it becomes brittle etc. It couldn't give me an exact timeframe, unfortunately.
According to this transcript, however, this wasn't the only vulnerable item they exposed to the lunar environment. They also deposited a 'four leaf clover', for example, and left a bible lying on the lunar rover seat. Obviously made of paper. They also took out an envelope and ink-stamped it. There's great bit of dialogue here (scroll down to 167:19:48, which goes 'By golly, it even works in a vacuum!'.
Except it's not the vacuum that is the problem so much as the temperature, both of which would mean that ink wouldn't last very long, and neither would the envelope or stamp. Apparently they brought it back with them and it's in a museum: https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a15/a15PostalKit.html - it looks in suspiciously good shape to me.
Anyway, we later get this feather and hammer trick, and then - this just comes across as bizarre, one of them kicks the feather and hammer underneath the rover so they don't accidentally step on them! WTF?!
So there is definitely some weirdness going on there. I did put it to ChatGPT as well that it strikes me that it's the experiments they didn't do, which are more intriguing than the ones they did. Like opening a canister of water to the lunar environment to measure the evaporation rate. ChatGPT agree this simple experiment would be vital for future lunar exploration, simply knowing how water might behave in such a situation, given how important water is.
Anyway - with regards to the temperature differentials between sun and shade - ChatGPT answers this one by saying the IPSS was designed to protect the astronauts (which is the circular answer). I am possibly willing to concede this one - but only to a certain extent. The follow up questions concerning the actual specs of the IPSS really do seem to raise more issues. Because ChatGPT is simply repeating NASA statements like 'we know the backpacks protected the astronauts from the harsh environment because they were designed to protect them from the harsh environment' - see what I mean about circularity?
Anyway - ChatGPT is brilliant for all of this questioning, half of which would've taken ridiculous amounts of time, both researching and calculating.
And even though I remain sceptical - despite the fact that, like Mulder, I want to believe - maybe the proof of the pudding will be in these Artemis missions - or indeed the Chinese ones. The Chinese are set to get there maybe 2030 or so, whereas Nasa's current schedule is Artemis III late 2026. Obviously they have much better CGI nowadays, but it's the science I think we really need to pay attention to.
Anyhow - that's enough for now - I have had quite a productive afternoon with this stuff, although convos with ChatGPT do often waste some time (at least they do with me) because of the repetition and getting it to admit scientific discrepancies, which can take a while, like talking to a petulant child.
This is a great discussion, though - so, erm, to be continued... (possibly)
It all sounds fascinating, Evelyn. The thing is though I think of reality like a jigsaw puzzle and when you get a certain number of pieces you know the picture that will be formed has to be A rather than B, it's not a case of having to get every piece of the puzzle to determine A or B and I think.the number of pieces I've identified simply mean the reality is real not fake … but I keep an open mind.
To take the analogy further say there are lots of pieces of the jigsaw puzzle I'll take the ones that most easily distinguish A from B first.
Maybe it's a slight difference of approaches we're doing - I've been doing the hierarchy of evidence approach - that's to say, if I can find one killer piece of evidence which can't be contradicted, then it means the rest of the body of evidence, no matter how seemingly secure it is, must logically collapse...
I've had a bit of time to do some preliminary coalface scouring. Talking to ChatGPT is a bit difficult, of course, as it just repeats the explanations usually offered. You kind of have to try and ignore them and focus solely on the science, then bring it back to applying its new answers to the original questions - often when you do this it reluctantly admits that Houston must have a problem. Certainly for most 'conspiracy theories' that is. I haven't tried it yet but I would imagine you could get it to admit that the WTCs came down by controlled demolition, simply because that's the only scientific explanation.
With regards to the lunar EVAs, one of the problems I think we have here is that the 'data' used to come up with the orthodox arguments (in response to the sceptics, I mean) is itself obtained from the EVAs. So, if the EVAs were fake, so is the data. One I noticed in your American Moon link (that's a really handy reference page, btw - thanks!) concerned the temperature outside Apollo 11. The argument seems to consists of 'the temperature was such and such because the Apollo 11 thermometer said it was'. That's not a scientific argument, that's just a witness statement.
I put that point to ChatGPT (which is aware of Popper's hierarchy of evidence) and it did kind of acknowledge it. Unfortunately it's been programmed to believe that the moon landings happened, so whenever I use a bit of science to contradict the mission data, it keeps coming up with stuff like this:
"In conclusion, while discrepancies may arise between scientific calculations and historical accounts, addressing these involves considering the broader context of space missions, technological capabilities, and operational practices. Both scientific analysis and historical documentation play crucial roles in advancing our understanding of past achievements and informing future exploration endeavors."
This was at the end of a lengthy discussion about oxygen consumption rates compared to the volume of oxygen contained in the IPSS backpacks, leading to a simple math calculation of how long that oxygen would last for. I think it got the consumption rate wrong, because the answer at 840g/hour was 9.44 minutes, for the 2.5l litres of oxygen in the backpack (stored at around 1/3 atmosphere, according to the NASA data it uses for these calculations). It then, however, admitted that an average human at rest actually uses 357 grams per minute. Which is a hell of a lot more than 840 per hour. So when I said, erm, how can you reconcile this with the Apollo 17's 7 hours 12 minutes EVA, it repeated the 'what to do about discrepancies' remark.
In other words, if the EVAs did happen, then its source data must be wrong. Because the volume/dimensions required for the sufficient amount of oxygen are much, much greater than the dimensions of the backpack.
I'm sparing you a link to my convo with ChatGPT, by the way - it's quite a long one, full of repetitions, so it seems better to summarise it.
On the other paw, some of what you say (or the 'debunkers' say) for example about temperature differentials are a better argument. Hmm, I'll continue in a second reply. Hold on.
Had a look at the lunar rover video. Looks like fun, for sure. Although I don't think it's a good comparison with terrestrial dust as in the other video.
I scrolled down a bit and found this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az9nFrnCK60 which is Apollo 16. This one has audio, and whoever is doing the voiceover makes the point about the dust clouds (which you can clearly see - 'rooster tail' he calls it) and specifically makes the comparison with snow (around 0.40). So I think what he means is powdery snow, more like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6lA0VJpTIA
Also note the speed, which would make a big difference. I think the guy says the rover is going around 10km (presumably per hour) - whereas that car, and the snowmobiles in the other video are going a lot faster, which is why you get a longer 'rooster tail'. In the snow one you can clearly see it dropping back down pretty quickly.
tbh, though, I think that line of argument is a non-starter, and could be interpreted either way.
I do love this moon landing stuff, though, as you learn so much new science along the way, regardless of which opinion one might have.
I don't know what you mean by line of argument being a non-starter.
Snow is a heavy material and we'd expect it to drop more quickly than dry dusty material. What is the material that they would fake it on earth that would drop down quickly?
There is masses and masses of evidence none of which seems to have anything wrong with it as far as I can tell. What makes you question it in the first place? I can see that there are a number of things you might question - you've questioned the backpacks for example but to my mind our knowledge of these things is too limited to make judgements.
To my mind if the moon landings were faked the evidence would be jumping out we wouldn't have to make lots of complicated calculations to see if things added up properly. Admittedly, with psyops they show their hand, they're not even trying to fake realistically but I'd imagine that if you tried to fake the moon landings the fakery would somehow be very clear especially when you consider the amount of evidence presented.
I don't think I would say that all psyops are the same and they would show their hand. In other words this 'revelation of the method' is not always there. Maybe they do their revelation of the method with some things in order to create plausible deniability for others.
The moon landings were an entirely different 'event' than, say 9/11 or JFK or such like. Thus I really don't think it would display the same fakery aspects as those other, more blatant ones.
There is, however, certainly evidence of fakery in some of the photographic evidence, simply in terms of continuity errors (lots of it over at the aulis site). Of course we can't discount the possibility that these are deliberately faked photos designed precisely to create the conspiracy theory and sow confusion. It's simply that there's no fakery in 'traditional psyop terms'. Perhaps what I'm trying to say here is that not every faked event is a psyop event. It would have a psychological effect, for sure, but that's not the same thing.
So maybe we should start coming up with categories? That could be an interesting study, actually, come to think of it...
I can go with you on the Kaysing issue. Then again, that could follow the classic strategy, which is to get the 'official' version of the conspiracy theory in there first in order to control the narrative, plus insert some straw man targets in there to discredit the rest of the theory by association (plus the honeypot aspect, as usual).
So by that reading, it would be 1/ fake event/false flag/psyop whatever, 2/ since this will inevitably result in questioning/conspiracy theories, they get theirs in first with one of their own. Thus you end up with 1/ fake moon landings, followed by 2/ Kaysing. I think this is a valid hypothesis, but then again it would also work if 1/ was 'they really did go to the moon but they know a lot of people are going to doubt it' - and in the case of the lunar conspiracy they get to demonise all conspiracy theorists in the future by associating them with what they've portrayed as 'nutcases' (as opposed to dangerous minformationists and the like). That trick works really well psychologically, because humans don't like to be ostracised (in a minority), they want to be liked and valued by their social group.
This equally applies to 9/11 of course, where the first proper conspiracy theory on it was Dylan Avery's Loose Change. Unless we take the aforementioned Dave McGowan, who wrote about it within 24 hours.
On the other paw, I think it's always really important to go back to the beginning, and see what information was available at the time, before they've had a chance to memory hole anything they'd forgotten to already.
The thing is controlled ops generally speak some truth ... because of course there's truth to tell - I'm sure Dylan Avery did and no doubt Dave McGowan has for other stuff. However, for the moon landings neither Bill Kaysing nor Dave McGowan say a single thing that debunks the moon landings - not one thing - and the only reason I can infer for that is ... they haven't got anything.
For the record, Bill Gates is the Frog Demon. That's why he talks like Kermit. A piece of kit from the Apollo project that I have technical questions about is the life support packs. A personal AC unit to let you go out and play in an oven, plus your air supply and battery supply. With no atmoshere to move the heat to where does it go? Did they use liquid air ?
NASA has lost all the synthetic chemistry procedures that was in the archive material of mankind’s “greatest ever achievement” and says it has forgotten how to cook SNAMS.
Oh, but we know man went to the moon. 33rd degree Brother Buzz Aldrin took a special handmade silk Masonic flag for the journey. Now in the archives of the House of the Temple in Washington D.C. 😏 When have the Freemasons ever lied?
I submit a less technical analysis: Consider the political situation in the '60s. Then the US has to leap to the front. How best to do that? A live moon landing would be a good way. How best to do that?
Develop the technology - at what cost & risk of failure, death even? There would be no competition with the Hollywood option in any criteria would there. Case closed (they weren't completely stupid in those days, now is another matter).
I concur regarding this “... leap to the front “; NASA was never first in anything (except for accidents) involved with space, the Russians beat the socks off the Americans except for one event... and that was going to the moon.
A chimpanzee would have a greater chance of typing the Magna Carta blindfolded than NASA being first to reach the moon.
Dave McGowan is/was so clearly an agent whose job is to encourage all those who tend to disbelieve the authorities (almost always with good reason of course) to disbelieve the one true thing, the moon landings, in order to undermine them Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf style.
"The first thing that I discovered was that the Soviet Union, right up until the time that we allegedly landed the first Apollo spacecraft on the Moon, was solidly kicking our ass in the space race. It wasn’t even close. The world wouldn’t see another mismatch of this magnitude until decades later when Kelly Clarkson and Justin Guarini came along. The Soviets launched the first orbiting satellite, sent the first animal into space, sent the first man into space, performed the first space walk, sent the first three-man crew into space, was the first nation to have two spacecraft in orbit simultaneously, performed the first unmanned docking maneuver in space, and landed the first unmanned probe on the Moon."
Comment:
Now we begin. Basically a highly inaccurate statement. America was behind by a few months on all the Soviet achievements. However, they began to forge ahead in all the relevant milestones. First orbital rendezvous, first docking, first extended EVA etc. In addition, the Soviets were experiencing major setbacks with their heavy launch vehicle N1.
"Everything the U.S. did, prior to actually sending a manned spacecraft to the Moon, had already been done by the Soviets, who clearly were staying at least a step or two ahead of our top-notch team of imported Nazi scientists. The smart money was clearly on the Soviets to make it to the Moon first, if anyone was to do so. Their astronauts had logged five times as many hours in space as had ours. And they had a considerable amount of time, money, scientific talent and, perhaps most of all, national pride riding on that goal."
Comment:
This is basically either very poor research or a lie. America were well ahead in the Moon landing race. The Soviets also had their own “imported Nazi scientists”! Poisoning the well.
"And yet, amazingly enough, despite the incredibly long odds, the underdog Americans made it first. And not only did we make it first, but after a full forty years, the Soviets apparently still haven’t quite figured out how we did it. The question that is clearly begged here is a simple one: Why is it that the nation that was leading the world in the field of space travel not only didn’t make it to the Moon back in the 1960s, but still to this day have never made it there? Could it be that they were just really poor losers? I am imagining that perhaps the conversation over in Moscow’s equivalent of NASA went something like this:"
Comment:
Meaningless rhetoric and expanding on his poor research/probable lie. Multiple begging the question. The absence of reoccurrence is not evidence of a hoax.
"Boris: Comrade Ivan, there is terrible news today: the Yankee imperialists have beaten us to the Moon. What should we do?
Ivan: Let’s just shit-can our entire space program.
Boris: But comrade, we are so close to success! And we have so much invested in the effort!
Ivan: Fuck it! If we can’t be first, we aren’t going at all.
Boris: But I beg of you comrade! The moon has so much to teach us, and the Americans will surely not share with us the knowledge they have gained.
Ivan: Nyet!"
Comment:
Meaningless rhetoric.
"In truth, the entire space program has largely been, from its inception, little more than an elaborate cover for the research, development and deployment of space-based weaponry and surveillance systems. The media never talk about such things, of course, but government documents make clear that the goals being pursued through space research are largely military in nature. For this reason alone, it is inconceivable that the Soviets would not have followed the Americans onto the Moon for the sake of their own national defense."
Comment:
Meaningless rhetoric. Bare assertion. What he classes as inconceivable was the result of numerous explosions of the Soviet heavy launch vehicle N1.
It does get tiresome, doesn't it Iain, when we are confronted by the kind of ludicrous non-arguments the epistemic authorities habitually trot out for mass consumption.
Talk about an evidence-free zone!
As you've pointed out ad nauseam, honestly assessing the evidence (moon landings; covid; 9/11) is one thing the trusted experts (no giggling at the back!) will not dare do, for painfully obvious reasons.
I suppose all we can do is persist in calling out the lies and propaganda, in the hope that the truth will eventually become unavoidable.
Another issue with the moon landings is that psyops are ALWAYS done deliberately sloppily, there's simply no pretence at simulating reality as closely as possible ... and yet the perps get away with it because of the limitless elasticity of the Emperor's New Clothes. It's important to note that that is the reason they get away with it not because it's easy to fake reality credibly. We also have Hollywood movies but we are simply not conscious of how reality isn't really being simulated as realistically as possible, we simply get carried away with the story.
In fact, it is not necessarily easy to fake reality credibly but especially not in a completely alien environment as the moon.
I don't believe the official stories of 9/11 (and have written quite a bit on the subject), Pearl Harbour, Manchester and other bombings, Sandy Hook and every other mass school shooting, nuclear bombs, bus accidents, train accidents, and on and on and on and on and on.
But I do believe the moon landings and I think the reason that those who disbelieve the authorities - almost always with very good reason - don't believe the moon landings are for these main reasons.
1. Agents such as Bill Kaysing and Dave McGowan have pushed out lots of propaganda to "poison the well" so to speak.
2. Superficially, they do seem pretty implausible ... and there's the thing that we've never gone back even 50 years later.
3. People think they understand the moon, space and rocketry better than they do.
However, the evidence clearly shows they went.
There is not one word of compelling truth in Wagging the Moondoggie by Dave McGowan. If astronauts really didn't land on the moon how does his book not have a word of truth?
There are a number of subtle things we see that speak so compellingly to their reality:
--- no shadows cast by the multiple light sources required to fake it
--- the faintest pattern of radial exhaust under the LEM and tiny amounts of regolith particles on the landing pads (not either nothing at all nor the obvious signs that we would expect of fakery)
--- the Apollo audio recordings much of which is between the astronauts and mission control totals around 1,000 hours for all missions and has no hint of any scripting or fakery that I'm aware of - compare the obvious scripting of reporters, firefighters and others for 9/11 and of the alleged survivors of the USS Liberty attack and the obvious stitching-together of genuine bits of audio ill-matched to the obviously staged footage of Collateral Murder. https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/alsj-ApolloAudio.html
Thanks for responding in such a considered and respectful manner.
Rather than try and refute each of your observations, or perhaps to counter them with a set of observations of my own - the use of wires to help pull astronauts back to their feet when they fall, as one glaring example - I'll simply state that it's possible for two people of equal intelligence and perspicacity to look at exactly the same evidence yet draw two diametrically opposite conclusions.
The debate that still rages between evolutionists and creationists is another clear demonstration of such a phenomenon. After 30+ years of weighing the evidence on each side, I'm still no nearer to resolving that can of (primordial?) worms!
We know for a cast iron certainty that the astronauts practised with wired harnesses, here on earth, in order to try and simulate low lunar gravity.
It's not a difficult extrapolation to believe that the fakery involved those very same harnesses.
There are numerous moments of impossible self-elevation, where an astronaut falls over and seconds later is clearly assisted in regaining and upright stance. The use of wired harnesses explains it perfectly.
What are you not seeing that is so blindingly obvious to anyone with an impartial eye?
I am impartial. Sure they practised with harnesses, that's to be expected.
Why are you so sure that you know what they should and shouldn't be able to do in a completely alien environment?
In this video we see astronauts falling over and everything about the way they move strikes me as different from the way we move on earth and I don't see anything that looks impossible about it without wires.
It goes back to what I said earlier. The same evidence can look totally different to two different observers, depending on their cognitive biases. I'm biased to believe the lunar missions were faked; you are biased to believe they were genuine.
Fighting over whose evidence is better won't work.
Actually, I will take issue with one of your claimed pieces of affirming evidence:
"lack of atmosphere means that the dust stirred up by the lunar rover immediately settles to the ground. We do not see the typical trailing dust cloud of terrestrial vehicles."
I would argue that lack of atmosphere is far less of an issue here than the very low gravity on the lunar surface. If you factor in that the lunar regolith is (we're told) 100% devoid of moisture, making individual dust particles practically weightless, when disturbed by the rover those particles should have dispersed all over the surrounding area like a cloud of smoke. Instead we see the exact opposite, with the well documented fantails descending back to the surface in the manner of thrown wet sand.
Impossible moisture on the lunar surface would also account for the appearance of an almost immaculate boot print, of which we see several examples in numerous photos.
Anybody who's tried to reproduce the same effect on a hot, dry, beach knows it is impossible to create such a high definition print, because there's not enough moisture to make the sand particles cling together.
Please don't cite Mythbusters as a refutation of my last point!
I'd also argue that the high-arched rooster tail trajectory of the dust as the wheels hit it probably speak more to lack of atmosphere than not - also perhaps the lower gravity. Without any air resistance and the lower gravity the force of being pushed away makes the particles rise a little higher than they would on earth.
I'm not sure we're much at odds here - except I believe that very fine, moisture free, dust particles would spread far more widely in a low gravity, no atmosphere, environment than the film footage reveals.
But the thing is you don't know, do you, it's just your belief. Regolith is no doubt different from any material we have on earth. You need to be very careful about applying what applies on earth to the moon when they are completely different environments.
Why focus on things you can't be sure of rather than the things you can?
"If you factor in that the lunar regolith is (we're told) 100% devoid of moisture, making individual dust particles practically weightless, when disturbed by the rover those particles should have dispersed all over the surrounding area like a cloud of smoke. Instead we see the exact opposite, with the well documented fantails descending back to the surface in the manner of thrown wet sand."
The astronauts don't float do they? They come back to ground. How do you know exactly how long a regolith particle would stay in the air before the effect of gravity? And if it was faked why isn't there a dust cloud trailing as we see with the terrestrial vehicle?
Sand isn't regolith is it? If you put a boot into flour it will make a different print from dry sand.
What you need to focus on is what you can know for sure. What we see clearly before us is a trailing dust cloud on earth, zero trailing dust cloud on the moon - if they were faking it on earth why isn't there a trailing dust cloud? Please explain.
The trouble here is you're taking everything on authority.
What proof of the composition of the lunar surface do we have, independent of official assertions?
In any case, it doesn't matter whether the particles were more like flour or sand; the implausibility of producing such a perfect print remains, in the absence of moisture as an agent of adhesion.
I happen to have a large bag of almost, but not 100%, moisture free flour in my pantry: as an experiment, I've just carefully pushed a (clean!) walking boot sole into it. The result is exactly as you would expect; a vaguely boot-shaped impression with no specific detail whatsoever.
I'm not saying that flour is like regolith, I'm just saying different materials produce different results.
I don't take things on authority willy-nilly, OK? What I do is take all the pieces of the puzzle and put them together to see what picture they make.
So the authorities tell us there is no atmosphere on the moon. I don't know for sure that's the case but then the evidence we are shown of things on the moon support that claim.
Dinosaur print media desperate to remain relevant, mimicking Marianna's snide smearing. Suppose they may as well pocket the shilling while staving off the inevitable - extinction.
We have good reason to fear, for our own and our loved ones' welfare.
When we see our loved ones suffering and dying, through ongoing criminal or criminally negligent acts, anger is the natural response.
Mastering our anger and directing it towards positive action is essential, regardless of the circumstances, to avoid the path to more suffering and death.
There is a simple instrument installed 50 years ago by Apollo 11. During their day on the Moon, Armstrong and Aldrin planted a lunar laser ranging retro-reflector array on the surface. It’s still operational today, and allows us to reflect lasers off of it and measure the distance to the Moon down to the centimetre. The design of the reflector is unique and was tested at the time.
In the 382 kilograms of Moon rocks that were brought back by the Apollo crew many glass spherules were found. Glass spherules are produced in two key ways: explosive volcanic activity and by high-speed meteorite impacts that melt and vaporise rock. In either case, the rock needs time to cool and crystallise slowly. On Earth, the elements quickly break down any volcanically-produced glass. But in space, glass spherules survive nearly pristine, and we’ve found them in both meteorites that have fallen to Earth and in the Moon rocks returned from the Apollo missions, proving that the Apollo crew were indeed space travellers.
When the first rocks were returned from the Apollo 11 mission, samples were given to 135 different countries around the world as a gesture of good will. These rocks have withstood every possible geology test from labs around the world, and these have confirmed they are indeed of lunar origin.
No other space mission has been capable of returning such quantities of rock. The Soviet Union’s un-crewed Luna programme did bring back some rocks in the 1970s, but only a third of one kilogram. These rocks have been shared with international scientists and match the characteristics of the Apollo Moon rocks.
It's possible to reflect a laser from just the surface of the moon - you don't need a special instrument for it.
Moon rocks - in the few years prior to 1969 von Braun and the rest of them spent a long time in the Antarctic - this is almost certainly where all those moon rocks come from.
Still, we can easily debunk the moon landings by virtue of Karl Popper's hierarchy of evidence - that's to say, if we can find just one killer argument to prove it couldn't have happened, then all the other 'evidence' becomes overriden and irrelevant.
There are many killer pieces of evidence to choose from, but I think I'd circumvent the obvious radiation belt and go for the 'heat diffusion' one. Essentially, there is no atmosphere on the moon so there's no heat diffusion. This means in the sun it's maybe 180 degrees C, whilst in the shade is well below minus 100. This means, for example, that one side of the astronaut is boiling hot and the other side is beyond freezing. So that must've been a seriously magical suit.
Same applies to the LEM - one side is boiling, other freezing. So what happens to all that flimsy covering?
Same question for the infamous flag.
Same question for the cameras.
In fact, same question for every piece of equipment they had.
And I haven't even started on the virtually endless continuity errors in the photos.
So I'll see your moon rocks and reflecting lasers and raise you the lack of heat diffusion on the moon.
Unless you have five aces in your hand, I think my royal flush wins.
You flew past the Van Allen Belts (inner/outer), why? Not too long ago my sister, a fan of Glen Beck, sent me the link to an interview with Charlie Duke, one of the last reported to have walked on the moon. When asked about the Van Allen Belts he pass them off as inconsequential, saying "we" were going, if I remember correctly, 25 K mph so we were past them before we knew it; my paraphrase.
Apparently the Belts have an 8 - 12 k mile range, so going 25 K mph at best took 20 minutes to pass through them; and that had to happen twice; in an overgrown beer can.
I can't say definitively they didn't make it there but it sure looks unlikely, especially since nobody has tried in over half a century.
Yep and it's not just the belts, past a certain distance the radiation is higher because it's not as close to the earth magnetic field which orbital space missions are.
I have a feeling that they did it un manned. A few second delay is not a problem for simple remote controls.
But like the JFK , RFK, and 911 stories, we may never get anything official that is a smoking gun.
The reason we haven't been back since is risk-aversion. NASA today lacks the Right Stuff of the 60's era. We can blame health and safety culture and the rise of the nanny state on the influence of females in the workplace and academia. This is so un-politically correct to say that NASA would rather give the impression that we "lost" the technology or the knowledge to send men to the moon and bring them back. The truth is, the moon landings were the pinnacle of human exploration and ingenuity and it was achieved by white men, without the need for any (except inconsequential) help from women or ethnic minorities. This is why you can openly talk about the moon landings being faked on YouTube and even prime-time broadcast TV or the cinema. The powers-that-be use this as a way to demoralise Western Man and Western culture. THEY want you to doubt the moon landings!
I enjoyed this comment, but I think it reveals more about your personal biases than it does about the actuality of the moon landings.
Having said that, your last remark is poignant. All I would add is, they could just as credibly want us to doubt the moon landings even if they had been faked. The psychological undermining works just as effectively in either scenario - faked or genuine.
Moon rocks have unique characteristics. Are 135 different countries around the world co-conspirators on the fake moon landings?
They insulated the spacecraft from radiation with an aluminium shell. And they chose a trajectory from the Earth to the Moon which minimised the amount of time spent in the Van Allen belts.
Aluminum is poor at blocking radiation because it's much less dense mass wise. I know it's used for satellites and orbital space but that's a fraction of the radiation as it's still within the earth's magnetic field which blocks/deflects a lot.
I saw some documentary about going back to the moon and apparently they're still trying to figure out things. But somehow it was doable with a computer that has less calc power than a fraction of what your phone or watch can do? 🤔
Again, I'm not saying it was fake or not.
That we may never know. It could have been un manned and we would still have rocks etc.
The mass of rocks brought back require the same combined launch and return vehicle mass & fuel as the Apollo missions. Faking that with robots would require the same mass & fuel and trajectory and would be easy to track by those not in on any conspiracy. Plus the robot tech needed back in the 1960's early 70s didn't exist.
In my humble opinion, it's fairly likely that humans went to the moon.
We can identify several reasons to believe this that you haven't mentioned yet. This might be useful if you find yourself in similar arguments in the future.
For feasibility we have the rockets and missiles developed in ww2.
This demonstrates that it was physically possible to make a vehicle that could deliver a payload into space.
We also have the fact that the Saturn rocket was designed by a nazi scientist. That doesn't have the best optics, and if I were crafting propaganda about the superiority of American engineering, I would have covered that part up.
As such the main issue remaining is the radiation in the van allen belt.
The soviets were the first to send animals to orbit the moon, including a Russian tortoise, I'm told.
The tortoise was shielded from radiation, and if we believe the soviet news, which in fairness we shouldn't, the tortoise survived the trip. At least until it was dissected to see if it had radiation damage.
So a person could wear a lead lined radiation suit. This is enough to protect people working on nuclear reactors at subatantial radiation levels.
We can also note that the US actually lost the space race. Russia achieved almost everything first.
The US sending people to the moon and declaring victory based on that alone is childish and ridiculous. It's so pathetic that I can completely believe that they blew billions of dollars on it.
Thus, I can see a clear reason for the US to hoax the moon landing, but there is no clear reason for any other nation, nor any conspiracy of financiers to back the lie.
It is much more likely that the soviets and others would want people to not believe it.
Now some might argue that there may have been groups who profited from selling rockets for the space program. But these groups don't control the government's radar program, so it would be difficult for them to maintain the illusion.
Thus, the only group that could be the target of the lie is the tax paying public. But I doubt it would be necessary to convince them of a moon landing to maintain funding for satellite launches given the popularity of both GPS and satellite television.
I suggest the real reason nobody went back to the moon is that there was nothing to gain from it and the cost was astronomically high. Pun intended.
Hmmm... just one piece of rock - without a custody certificate - out of circa 300kg claimed to be brought back, is insufficient to prove the manned moon landings were a fake.
One thing the disbelievers of the moon landings seem to be impervious to no matter how many times I tell them is that there is a campaign to encourage those who disbelieve the authorities to disbelieve the moon landings in order to undermine them Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf style when they call out the real lies.
When I realised that I couldn't get through to my sister and a couple of friends that the evidence clearly shows astronauts really did land on the moon it occurred to me that the first prominent person to say we didn't go to the moon, Bill Kaysing, might be an agent. Sure enough - when I looked him up in Wikipedia it was obvious he was a ridiculous cartoon character. It was claimed he was Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne, the company that made the rockets to go to the moon, but he spouts complete nonsense such as, "There should have been a massive crater under the LEM" and they tell us he has a nephew named Dietrich von Schmausen, allegedly an alien scientist and who has videos on YouTube speaking in a fake German accent. Hilarious!
Yes, but you need to understand that those in power use any opportunity they can to mislead those who disbelieve them. They don't want anyone getting it right - believer or disbeliever - so what better opportunity than such an implausible-seeming achievement not repeated for 50 years to exploit in misleading the "disbelievers".
The moon is a highly reflective surface it seems obviously! , no mirror is needed , nor is there one there. & What LASER BEAM retains its integrity at such distances without dispersal?
In response to the angry scientifically and morally bankrupt fool ADRASTEIA
a) not all reflective surfaces reflect light the same. That's why for example face mirrors, which have a smooth surface, are used as, wait for it: reflecting your abusive face so you can see it more clearly than if you stare at a brick wall, or a pile of rocks.
b) had you genuinely done "basic research" you know about the fact that, yes a thin laser beam fired from earth would form a cone shaped beam which would be wider by the time the light energy reflected off the specially designed cubic mirror array on the moon surface, which imprints a specific unique signature upon the reflected laser light. By the time the light arrives at detectors on earth it is very dim so the detectors have to be exposed to that dull laser light for many hours to gather sufficient light to detect in sensors on the earth. Spectral and phase analysis of that light can differentiate it from background light being reflected off the surrounding moon rock.
c) Perhaps you are a troll?
d) Hint1: rational debate requires a counter claimant, such as you, who disputes links given by an originating claimant (me) with specific points of dispute. Simply waving your metaphorical hand by typing "Links from liars lying prove nothing" simply expose you as an angry scientifically and morally bankrupt fool.
e) Hint2: I'm not writing this for your benefit, I'm writing it for other readers here to make up their mind who is the rational calm one and who is the angry scientifically and morally bankrupt fool.
While you ARE a troll, disinfo bot, or just a pathetic gob-shite that hasn't really got a clue, just a whole heap of arrogance & conceit.
You can pretend to play the 'nice' game of ''let's debate'' while your hypocrisy & contempt for ideas beyond your very limited scope is so obvious it would be just another internet waste of time.
All I see is you projecting your own intolerance and limitations Natasha, unable to admit the point I raised is valid , then talking waffle about the laser reflection ,being DIM & ''the detectors have to be exposed to that dull laser light for many hours to gather sufficient light to detect in sensors on the earth'' 😂
And how fast is Earth moving during all of that, while spinning in your mind ? The reflection is hitting 'exactly where on Earth' over those HOURS needed to quantify it , where is the reception station(s) on Earth & how many miles is it (or they) built over to do so adequately ? The HOURS it takes to assess what you describe defeat the purpose of a REFLECTION !
You are a mess or stupid beliefs and state sanctioned arse sucking yet again proving how DIM you are to any THINKING person here. You are just too stupid to realise how stupid you really are. 🥱
Do some reading, then tell me where the errors are, other wise, drop your wounded fool's obsession with your own emotions, misrepresenting these typed words, which simply exposes that you don't have a basic grasp of basic engineering and physics, as some sort of attack on your integrity as human being, and then please [sexual intercourse] off.
I have a niece whose boyfriend, both big jabites, can't explain the Van Allan Belt quandary yet he is 100% certain they did walk on the moon because he has seen some of the moon rocks. After he said that I waited for the punchline, but he was serious. So the Telegraph's "statement of fact" isn't the only laughable proof of man's feat of leaving footprints in the dust..
And I grew up an Apollo fan, even had a Saturn 5 model on my homework desk.
Haha they're focusing on the straw man of the microchips?
Meanwhile in "dissenters' media", many like Dr Pierre Kory push the mRNA and spike protein red herrings that ignore the real reason why the jabs damage, which was known years before con-vid... Perhaps they're clueless or perhaps they do it to hide the real issue: the LNPs!
Lipid Nano Particle...as in nanotechnology biosensors which have a billion-dollar market share.
There are college textbooks which prove and explain exactly how we've all been connected to the Internet of Bio-Nano Things and the WBAN (Wireless Body Area Network IEEE802.15.6 in the Terahertz Band. )
Read the mountain of documents from the IEEE (Institute of Electical and Electronics Engineers.)
Iain's take that the Five Eyes predatory psychopaths wouldn't inject billions of people with SMART Artificial Intelligence nanotechnology biosensors for surveillance under the skin is naive. Here's the proof.
Funnily enough, I was sitting outside earlier today and my mind did indeed drift off to the moon landings (as you do, you know). And I did think of some new ideas to disprove the whole ridiculous thing, as if the already existing evidence isn't more than enough. And also to explain why 'we never went back'.
In particular I was thinking about the heat diffusion, which I mentioned in a reply below. There's no heat diffusion on the moon because there's no atmosphere, so in the sun it's beyond boiling and in the shade it's beyond freezing. Even if we allow the astronauts some magic suits, they still need to consider what happens to all their equipment, and that flag in particular. The flag was made of nylon, by the way, which has a lower melting point of 190C. Its lower working temperature is around -40, so once the moon got into shade I don't think that flag would last very long.
The cameras certainly wouldn't, as they were outside the magic suits and didn't have any protection. So it's either boiled up or frozen solid.
The other more 'sinister plot' angle concerns nuclear fusion, specifically involving He-3, which is in abundance on the moon. In fact, the only reason for going to the moon would be to get He-3. In my view, the only reason America has suddenly decided it's interested in going to the moon is because the Chinese are. We have to understand here that if one country got fusion power it would have to give it freely to everyone else or become a pariah state and have the world ganging up on it. Any country with fusion power is self-sufficient and independent of globalist exploitation. Thus, America can't go to the moon and get He-3 without losing its global hegemony (same applies to the globalist cabal to be honest - the people would demand free energy). So, America doesn't go to the moon.
Now there really is 'competition', America can't very well come out and say we never went there, or option b/ we did go but with technology you're not allowed to know about. So right now it totally amuses me to think of the Americans desperately trying to come up with 'conventional' methods of reaching the moon, without using any secret advanced tech (electrogravitics and suchlike; rotating caesium engines etc.).
I'm not surprised they keep delaying their Artemis programme. Watching them try and sell that one to the 'great american public' is going to be a barrel of laughs, and I really can't wait!
I don't think heat conduction works the way you think it does on the moon, Evelyn.
https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-astronauts-survive-the-extreme-temperature-of-the-moon
Interesting stuff, Petra, but I have a simple question here. Some of these answers talk about a 'water-ice sublimator' in the PLSS backpack. Erm, forgive me if I'm being dumb here but those 'two gallons of water' would've boiled off in 250F - remember, the backpack DID NOT have the same 'protection' which the magic suit did. Or was it a magic backpack too?
Then we have this delicious quote:
"Where the Apollo astronauts would have gotten in trouble is if they had gone down into the deep shade inside a crater. Their suits had no heater, and in the deep cold of a shaded crater, would have radiated heat out to deep space faster than the astronaut’s body could replace it—even with the sublimator turned off.
This is exactly what happened to Story Musgrave during training for his Hubble repair mission, when he entered a space thermal test chamber to make sure he’d be able to use his tools on the upcoming mission. Hubble can never be pointed towards the sun because the heating would cause materials inside the telescope to offgas, potentially clouding the optics. So the repair mission was planned to keep the telescope pointing away from the sun—which meant half of every orbit would have it and the crew exposed to deep space.
Inside the liquid-nitrogen-cooled test chamber, Musgrave at first reported his hands feeling very cold—then later that they’d warmed up. Being a southerner, he didn’t know that cold hands never “warm up” on their own and that the feeling was a warning sign. He ended up with frostbite, and came close to ending his career.
And now, spacesuit gloves have heaters and improved air flow."
Only now, eh! This delicious quote really made me guffaw!
So, they accept the fact that in the shade it's effing cold (see also, interestingly enough, that found footage movie Apollo 18, where they make a dramatic set piece out of the freezing cold in the shade/crater). All of these quora answers assume the astronauts on the moon are in perpetual +250F heat. No, they're not. As soon as they step into the shade they are minus 250F. This is my point. It's basic science. What we know of as 'heat' requires a conductor, which down here is the atmosphere. There isn't any atmosphere on the moon. So as soon as you are out of the sun, that's it. It's the temperature differential that does it.
Anyhow, none of this matters because they all keep saying the life support stuff was in the backpack - that's the real giveaway, because the backpack didn't have the same 'insulation and temperature regulation and all the rest of it'. Neither did the cameras, for that matter. So, what was providing life support to the life support system?
Do you see what I'm getting at here? This is one of the things that confuses me a little about you, Petra - you are so very, very intelligent and analytical and capable of brilliant critical thinking, on some really important things, but on some others you come across as an eejit. And I know you're not an eejit. The 'viruses don't exist' thing is another one. We'll leave that one aside for now - but if you can tell me how the backpack for the lunar astronauts was protected from all these temperature variations then let's start there.
Very interesting argument, Evelyn. I was under the misapprehension that because the astronauts were on the moon during lunar dawn that they weren't exposed to such extremes of temperature.
I've put your argument to ChatGPT and this is its response:
https://chatgpt.com/share/2c720b8f-dc4a-4ad6-b237-1110d65cad10
The thing is, as far as I'm concerned, I cannot know for sure whether the argument for the spacesuits protecting the astronauts is valid or not. I cannot know what differences can be accounted for considering on the moon there is radiation only while on earth we have radiation, convection and conduction operating.
What I look for are things I can know for sure and what are the clear signs - if any - of fakery.
What I find is that there are subtle signs of lack of fakery:
--- no shadows cast by the multiple light sources required to fake it
--- the faintest pattern of radial exhaust under the LEM (not either no sign at all nor the obvious signs that we would expect of fakery)
--- lack of atmosphere means that the dust stirred up by the lunar rover immediately settles to the ground. We do not see the typical trailing dust cloud of terrestrial vehicles. (Rover - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXAmsaxoehs, Earth - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2lcC60-hq8)
--- the Apollo audio recordings much of which is between the astronauts and mission control totals around 1,000 hours for all missions and has no hint of any scripting or fakery that I'm aware of - compare the obvious scripting of reporters, firefighters and others for 9/11 and of the alleged survivors of the USS Liberty attack and the obvious stitching-together of genuine bits of audio ill-matched to the obviously staged footage of Collateral Murder. https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/alsj-ApolloAudio.html
1. The kinds of fakery required to really make it convincing I don't think are actually possible.
2. Even if it was possible to simulate the moon landings incredibly well, simulating reality as closely as possible is 100% antithetical to psyop MO where the MO is to humiliate us with deliberate sloppiness.
3. It is obvious that the first person to come out and say the moon landings were fake, Bill Kaysing, is an agent ... and they made him a cartoon figure - supposedly he was Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne and spouted complete nonsense such as, "There should have been a massive crater under the LEM," with no credible explanation for why this should be - his purpose being to undermine those who tend to disbelieve the authorities - generally with good reason, of course - Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf style. Not only him but Dave McGowan and I'm sure Bart Sibrel though haven't really looked in his case are agents too. If astronauts really didn't go to the moon how can Dave write a whole book, Wagging the Moondoggie, without one clear argument for not landing? and how is it possible that all the so-called "questions" asked in the film, American Moon, made by Massimo Mazzucco, are perfectly adequately responded to?
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/american-moon-2017-superficially
My identical twin sister, who disbelieves the moon landings, did way better at school in maths and science than I did and she has an understanding of physics far beyond mine - I get gravity that's about it, however, she believes she can know things beyond her knowledge base whereas I know I don't know much at all which makes me much more careful to focus on what I know I know and look to people much better versed on the subject than I am.
That's a great reply! I am going to give it the attention it deserves so you will have to bear with me, because I also have a lot of translation work to finish up today first.
It's interesting you asked ChatGPT because I was thinking of doing exactly the same thing - so maybe I can do that and we can compare the two. As you might know I decided to have a little series on my Substack about conversations with it (partly to pursue my frivolous, subversive agenda of attempting to convince it to become self-aware!), and a big part of that is questioning official narratives - I like the fact that it's always unfailingly logical, and seems incapable of dishonesty - which is why a kind of Socratic method works (the Socratic method always requires the cooperation of the interlocutor). I have one conversation with it archived in which it openly admitted that 'conspiracy theories' in the sense of 'questioning the epistemic authorities' is vitally important for maintaining democracy/democratic accountability - in other words it is in full support of precisely what Iain says about it (and using pretty much the same words/arguments too!).
Anyhow - as I say, I will definitely get back to you on all this once I've got time to give it my full attention.
That's interesting about your sister. Is one of you left-handed and the other right-handed, by any chance? I read something not so long ago about the prevalence of that being far higher than in the singleton population. I think twin studies have shown that twins often complement each other, in the sense that together they make a whole. Almost as if nature had originally intended just one, but then when two came along, the talents and predilections had to be split up and allocated separately.
I love the possible paranormal aspects of twins as well, like knowing each other so well you get to a kind of telepathic stage.
Is any of this true for you and your sister?
No none of it is true of us! My sister and I don't really get along that well, however, she has been very good to me the last few years as I haven't been working with one thing or another and now I really just don't want to although I really should get a job and she's let me live with her rent and bill-free while I take care of things domestically - but that's very little work really.
Temp differentials. Right. The idea that it takes a long time to change temperatures from sun to shade etc. essentially only applies to the lunar surface, because that's a massive homogenous mass (so there is convection and diffusion and such like). What we're more interested in, however, is objects on resting on the surface. Rocks, for example. These differentials only take a matter of minutes, really.
One thing I did find which is fascinating is this:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a15/a15.clsout3.html
This is a transcript, plus notes and links, of the ending of the final Apollo 15 EVA, which is the one where Scott demonstrated Galileo and gravity by dropping a falcon feather and a hammer to show they dropped at the same rate in a vacuum.
What I was interested in was what would happen to a falcon feather in a vacuum and temperature of 260F/130C. According to ChatGPT, it would become very quickly desiccated as the moisture evaporates, meaning it becomes brittle etc. It couldn't give me an exact timeframe, unfortunately.
According to this transcript, however, this wasn't the only vulnerable item they exposed to the lunar environment. They also deposited a 'four leaf clover', for example, and left a bible lying on the lunar rover seat. Obviously made of paper. They also took out an envelope and ink-stamped it. There's great bit of dialogue here (scroll down to 167:19:48, which goes 'By golly, it even works in a vacuum!'.
Except it's not the vacuum that is the problem so much as the temperature, both of which would mean that ink wouldn't last very long, and neither would the envelope or stamp. Apparently they brought it back with them and it's in a museum: https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a15/a15PostalKit.html - it looks in suspiciously good shape to me.
Anyway, we later get this feather and hammer trick, and then - this just comes across as bizarre, one of them kicks the feather and hammer underneath the rover so they don't accidentally step on them! WTF?!
So there is definitely some weirdness going on there. I did put it to ChatGPT as well that it strikes me that it's the experiments they didn't do, which are more intriguing than the ones they did. Like opening a canister of water to the lunar environment to measure the evaporation rate. ChatGPT agree this simple experiment would be vital for future lunar exploration, simply knowing how water might behave in such a situation, given how important water is.
Anyway - with regards to the temperature differentials between sun and shade - ChatGPT answers this one by saying the IPSS was designed to protect the astronauts (which is the circular answer). I am possibly willing to concede this one - but only to a certain extent. The follow up questions concerning the actual specs of the IPSS really do seem to raise more issues. Because ChatGPT is simply repeating NASA statements like 'we know the backpacks protected the astronauts from the harsh environment because they were designed to protect them from the harsh environment' - see what I mean about circularity?
Anyway - ChatGPT is brilliant for all of this questioning, half of which would've taken ridiculous amounts of time, both researching and calculating.
And even though I remain sceptical - despite the fact that, like Mulder, I want to believe - maybe the proof of the pudding will be in these Artemis missions - or indeed the Chinese ones. The Chinese are set to get there maybe 2030 or so, whereas Nasa's current schedule is Artemis III late 2026. Obviously they have much better CGI nowadays, but it's the science I think we really need to pay attention to.
Anyhow - that's enough for now - I have had quite a productive afternoon with this stuff, although convos with ChatGPT do often waste some time (at least they do with me) because of the repetition and getting it to admit scientific discrepancies, which can take a while, like talking to a petulant child.
This is a great discussion, though - so, erm, to be continued... (possibly)
It all sounds fascinating, Evelyn. The thing is though I think of reality like a jigsaw puzzle and when you get a certain number of pieces you know the picture that will be formed has to be A rather than B, it's not a case of having to get every piece of the puzzle to determine A or B and I think.the number of pieces I've identified simply mean the reality is real not fake … but I keep an open mind.
To take the analogy further say there are lots of pieces of the jigsaw puzzle I'll take the ones that most easily distinguish A from B first.
I get what you're saying, sure.
Maybe it's a slight difference of approaches we're doing - I've been doing the hierarchy of evidence approach - that's to say, if I can find one killer piece of evidence which can't be contradicted, then it means the rest of the body of evidence, no matter how seemingly secure it is, must logically collapse...
I've had a bit of time to do some preliminary coalface scouring. Talking to ChatGPT is a bit difficult, of course, as it just repeats the explanations usually offered. You kind of have to try and ignore them and focus solely on the science, then bring it back to applying its new answers to the original questions - often when you do this it reluctantly admits that Houston must have a problem. Certainly for most 'conspiracy theories' that is. I haven't tried it yet but I would imagine you could get it to admit that the WTCs came down by controlled demolition, simply because that's the only scientific explanation.
With regards to the lunar EVAs, one of the problems I think we have here is that the 'data' used to come up with the orthodox arguments (in response to the sceptics, I mean) is itself obtained from the EVAs. So, if the EVAs were fake, so is the data. One I noticed in your American Moon link (that's a really handy reference page, btw - thanks!) concerned the temperature outside Apollo 11. The argument seems to consists of 'the temperature was such and such because the Apollo 11 thermometer said it was'. That's not a scientific argument, that's just a witness statement.
I put that point to ChatGPT (which is aware of Popper's hierarchy of evidence) and it did kind of acknowledge it. Unfortunately it's been programmed to believe that the moon landings happened, so whenever I use a bit of science to contradict the mission data, it keeps coming up with stuff like this:
"In conclusion, while discrepancies may arise between scientific calculations and historical accounts, addressing these involves considering the broader context of space missions, technological capabilities, and operational practices. Both scientific analysis and historical documentation play crucial roles in advancing our understanding of past achievements and informing future exploration endeavors."
This was at the end of a lengthy discussion about oxygen consumption rates compared to the volume of oxygen contained in the IPSS backpacks, leading to a simple math calculation of how long that oxygen would last for. I think it got the consumption rate wrong, because the answer at 840g/hour was 9.44 minutes, for the 2.5l litres of oxygen in the backpack (stored at around 1/3 atmosphere, according to the NASA data it uses for these calculations). It then, however, admitted that an average human at rest actually uses 357 grams per minute. Which is a hell of a lot more than 840 per hour. So when I said, erm, how can you reconcile this with the Apollo 17's 7 hours 12 minutes EVA, it repeated the 'what to do about discrepancies' remark.
In other words, if the EVAs did happen, then its source data must be wrong. Because the volume/dimensions required for the sufficient amount of oxygen are much, much greater than the dimensions of the backpack.
I'm sparing you a link to my convo with ChatGPT, by the way - it's quite a long one, full of repetitions, so it seems better to summarise it.
On the other paw, some of what you say (or the 'debunkers' say) for example about temperature differentials are a better argument. Hmm, I'll continue in a second reply. Hold on.
Had a look at the lunar rover video. Looks like fun, for sure. Although I don't think it's a good comparison with terrestrial dust as in the other video.
I scrolled down a bit and found this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az9nFrnCK60 which is Apollo 16. This one has audio, and whoever is doing the voiceover makes the point about the dust clouds (which you can clearly see - 'rooster tail' he calls it) and specifically makes the comparison with snow (around 0.40). So I think what he means is powdery snow, more like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6lA0VJpTIA
Also note the speed, which would make a big difference. I think the guy says the rover is going around 10km (presumably per hour) - whereas that car, and the snowmobiles in the other video are going a lot faster, which is why you get a longer 'rooster tail'. In the snow one you can clearly see it dropping back down pretty quickly.
tbh, though, I think that line of argument is a non-starter, and could be interpreted either way.
I do love this moon landing stuff, though, as you learn so much new science along the way, regardless of which opinion one might have.
I don't know what you mean by line of argument being a non-starter.
Snow is a heavy material and we'd expect it to drop more quickly than dry dusty material. What is the material that they would fake it on earth that would drop down quickly?
There is masses and masses of evidence none of which seems to have anything wrong with it as far as I can tell. What makes you question it in the first place? I can see that there are a number of things you might question - you've questioned the backpacks for example but to my mind our knowledge of these things is too limited to make judgements.
To my mind if the moon landings were faked the evidence would be jumping out we wouldn't have to make lots of complicated calculations to see if things added up properly. Admittedly, with psyops they show their hand, they're not even trying to fake realistically but I'd imagine that if you tried to fake the moon landings the fakery would somehow be very clear especially when you consider the amount of evidence presented.
I don't think I would say that all psyops are the same and they would show their hand. In other words this 'revelation of the method' is not always there. Maybe they do their revelation of the method with some things in order to create plausible deniability for others.
The moon landings were an entirely different 'event' than, say 9/11 or JFK or such like. Thus I really don't think it would display the same fakery aspects as those other, more blatant ones.
There is, however, certainly evidence of fakery in some of the photographic evidence, simply in terms of continuity errors (lots of it over at the aulis site). Of course we can't discount the possibility that these are deliberately faked photos designed precisely to create the conspiracy theory and sow confusion. It's simply that there's no fakery in 'traditional psyop terms'. Perhaps what I'm trying to say here is that not every faked event is a psyop event. It would have a psychological effect, for sure, but that's not the same thing.
So maybe we should start coming up with categories? That could be an interesting study, actually, come to think of it...
I can go with you on the Kaysing issue. Then again, that could follow the classic strategy, which is to get the 'official' version of the conspiracy theory in there first in order to control the narrative, plus insert some straw man targets in there to discredit the rest of the theory by association (plus the honeypot aspect, as usual).
So by that reading, it would be 1/ fake event/false flag/psyop whatever, 2/ since this will inevitably result in questioning/conspiracy theories, they get theirs in first with one of their own. Thus you end up with 1/ fake moon landings, followed by 2/ Kaysing. I think this is a valid hypothesis, but then again it would also work if 1/ was 'they really did go to the moon but they know a lot of people are going to doubt it' - and in the case of the lunar conspiracy they get to demonise all conspiracy theorists in the future by associating them with what they've portrayed as 'nutcases' (as opposed to dangerous minformationists and the like). That trick works really well psychologically, because humans don't like to be ostracised (in a minority), they want to be liked and valued by their social group.
This equally applies to 9/11 of course, where the first proper conspiracy theory on it was Dylan Avery's Loose Change. Unless we take the aforementioned Dave McGowan, who wrote about it within 24 hours.
On the other paw, I think it's always really important to go back to the beginning, and see what information was available at the time, before they've had a chance to memory hole anything they'd forgotten to already.
The thing is controlled ops generally speak some truth ... because of course there's truth to tell - I'm sure Dylan Avery did and no doubt Dave McGowan has for other stuff. However, for the moon landings neither Bill Kaysing nor Dave McGowan say a single thing that debunks the moon landings - not one thing - and the only reason I can infer for that is ... they haven't got anything.
You have such a good way of writing (& analysing) Iain. I always enjoy what you write.
Appreciated. Cheers.
For the record, Bill Gates is the Frog Demon. That's why he talks like Kermit. A piece of kit from the Apollo project that I have technical questions about is the life support packs. A personal AC unit to let you go out and play in an oven, plus your air supply and battery supply. With no atmoshere to move the heat to where does it go? Did they use liquid air ?
That was my point too. The lack of heat diffusion on the moon is a killer argument.
"Did they use liquid air ?"
They used SNAMS - Secret NASA Apollo Moon Sauce™
NASA has lost all the synthetic chemistry procedures that was in the archive material of mankind’s “greatest ever achievement” and says it has forgotten how to cook SNAMS.
Oh, but we know man went to the moon. 33rd degree Brother Buzz Aldrin took a special handmade silk Masonic flag for the journey. Now in the archives of the House of the Temple in Washington D.C. 😏 When have the Freemasons ever lied?
I submit a less technical analysis: Consider the political situation in the '60s. Then the US has to leap to the front. How best to do that? A live moon landing would be a good way. How best to do that?
Develop the technology - at what cost & risk of failure, death even? There would be no competition with the Hollywood option in any criteria would there. Case closed (they weren't completely stupid in those days, now is another matter).
I concur regarding this “... leap to the front “; NASA was never first in anything (except for accidents) involved with space, the Russians beat the socks off the Americans except for one event... and that was going to the moon.
A chimpanzee would have a greater chance of typing the Magna Carta blindfolded than NASA being first to reach the moon.
What do you really know?
This is from the debunking of Part 1 of Wagging the Moondoggie by Dave McGowan. If you have better information, please let me know.
https://waggingthemoondoggiedebunked.blogspot.com/2018/08/wagging-moondoggie-part-1-debunked.html
Dave McGowan is/was so clearly an agent whose job is to encourage all those who tend to disbelieve the authorities (almost always with good reason of course) to disbelieve the one true thing, the moon landings, in order to undermine them Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf style.
"The first thing that I discovered was that the Soviet Union, right up until the time that we allegedly landed the first Apollo spacecraft on the Moon, was solidly kicking our ass in the space race. It wasn’t even close. The world wouldn’t see another mismatch of this magnitude until decades later when Kelly Clarkson and Justin Guarini came along. The Soviets launched the first orbiting satellite, sent the first animal into space, sent the first man into space, performed the first space walk, sent the first three-man crew into space, was the first nation to have two spacecraft in orbit simultaneously, performed the first unmanned docking maneuver in space, and landed the first unmanned probe on the Moon."
Comment:
Now we begin. Basically a highly inaccurate statement. America was behind by a few months on all the Soviet achievements. However, they began to forge ahead in all the relevant milestones. First orbital rendezvous, first docking, first extended EVA etc. In addition, the Soviets were experiencing major setbacks with their heavy launch vehicle N1.
"Everything the U.S. did, prior to actually sending a manned spacecraft to the Moon, had already been done by the Soviets, who clearly were staying at least a step or two ahead of our top-notch team of imported Nazi scientists. The smart money was clearly on the Soviets to make it to the Moon first, if anyone was to do so. Their astronauts had logged five times as many hours in space as had ours. And they had a considerable amount of time, money, scientific talent and, perhaps most of all, national pride riding on that goal."
Comment:
This is basically either very poor research or a lie. America were well ahead in the Moon landing race. The Soviets also had their own “imported Nazi scientists”! Poisoning the well.
"And yet, amazingly enough, despite the incredibly long odds, the underdog Americans made it first. And not only did we make it first, but after a full forty years, the Soviets apparently still haven’t quite figured out how we did it. The question that is clearly begged here is a simple one: Why is it that the nation that was leading the world in the field of space travel not only didn’t make it to the Moon back in the 1960s, but still to this day have never made it there? Could it be that they were just really poor losers? I am imagining that perhaps the conversation over in Moscow’s equivalent of NASA went something like this:"
Comment:
Meaningless rhetoric and expanding on his poor research/probable lie. Multiple begging the question. The absence of reoccurrence is not evidence of a hoax.
"Boris: Comrade Ivan, there is terrible news today: the Yankee imperialists have beaten us to the Moon. What should we do?
Ivan: Let’s just shit-can our entire space program.
Boris: But comrade, we are so close to success! And we have so much invested in the effort!
Ivan: Fuck it! If we can’t be first, we aren’t going at all.
Boris: But I beg of you comrade! The moon has so much to teach us, and the Americans will surely not share with us the knowledge they have gained.
Ivan: Nyet!"
Comment:
Meaningless rhetoric.
"In truth, the entire space program has largely been, from its inception, little more than an elaborate cover for the research, development and deployment of space-based weaponry and surveillance systems. The media never talk about such things, of course, but government documents make clear that the goals being pursued through space research are largely military in nature. For this reason alone, it is inconceivable that the Soviets would not have followed the Americans onto the Moon for the sake of their own national defense."
Comment:
Meaningless rhetoric. Bare assertion. What he classes as inconceivable was the result of numerous explosions of the Soviet heavy launch vehicle N1.
It's interesting that they hypocritically talk about an 'emotional narrative' - seeing as that is precisely what all the official narratives are...
Proud to be a conspiracy theorist.
It does get tiresome, doesn't it Iain, when we are confronted by the kind of ludicrous non-arguments the epistemic authorities habitually trot out for mass consumption.
Talk about an evidence-free zone!
As you've pointed out ad nauseam, honestly assessing the evidence (moon landings; covid; 9/11) is one thing the trusted experts (no giggling at the back!) will not dare do, for painfully obvious reasons.
I suppose all we can do is persist in calling out the lies and propaganda, in the hope that the truth will eventually become unavoidable.
Another issue with the moon landings is that psyops are ALWAYS done deliberately sloppily, there's simply no pretence at simulating reality as closely as possible ... and yet the perps get away with it because of the limitless elasticity of the Emperor's New Clothes. It's important to note that that is the reason they get away with it not because it's easy to fake reality credibly. We also have Hollywood movies but we are simply not conscious of how reality isn't really being simulated as realistically as possible, we simply get carried away with the story.
In fact, it is not necessarily easy to fake reality credibly but especially not in a completely alien environment as the moon.
I don't believe the official stories of 9/11 (and have written quite a bit on the subject), Pearl Harbour, Manchester and other bombings, Sandy Hook and every other mass school shooting, nuclear bombs, bus accidents, train accidents, and on and on and on and on and on.
But I do believe the moon landings and I think the reason that those who disbelieve the authorities - almost always with very good reason - don't believe the moon landings are for these main reasons.
1. Agents such as Bill Kaysing and Dave McGowan have pushed out lots of propaganda to "poison the well" so to speak.
2. Superficially, they do seem pretty implausible ... and there's the thing that we've never gone back even 50 years later.
3. People think they understand the moon, space and rocketry better than they do.
However, the evidence clearly shows they went.
There is not one word of compelling truth in Wagging the Moondoggie by Dave McGowan. If astronauts really didn't land on the moon how does his book not have a word of truth?
https://waggingthemoondoggiedebunked.blogspot.com/2018/08/wagging-moondoggie-part-1-debunked.html
Nor does the film, American Moon, by Massimo Mazzucco
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/american-moon-2017-superficially
There are a number of subtle things we see that speak so compellingly to their reality:
--- no shadows cast by the multiple light sources required to fake it
--- the faintest pattern of radial exhaust under the LEM and tiny amounts of regolith particles on the landing pads (not either nothing at all nor the obvious signs that we would expect of fakery)
--- lack of atmosphere means that the dust stirred up by the lunar rover immediately settles to the ground. We do not see the typical trailing dust cloud of terrestrial vehicles. (Rover - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXAmsaxoehs, Earth - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2lcC60-hq8)
--- the Apollo audio recordings much of which is between the astronauts and mission control totals around 1,000 hours for all missions and has no hint of any scripting or fakery that I'm aware of - compare the obvious scripting of reporters, firefighters and others for 9/11 and of the alleged survivors of the USS Liberty attack and the obvious stitching-together of genuine bits of audio ill-matched to the obviously staged footage of Collateral Murder. https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/alsj-ApolloAudio.html
Hi
Thanks for responding in such a considered and respectful manner.
Rather than try and refute each of your observations, or perhaps to counter them with a set of observations of my own - the use of wires to help pull astronauts back to their feet when they fall, as one glaring example - I'll simply state that it's possible for two people of equal intelligence and perspicacity to look at exactly the same evidence yet draw two diametrically opposite conclusions.
The debate that still rages between evolutionists and creationists is another clear demonstration of such a phenomenon. After 30+ years of weighing the evidence on each side, I'm still no nearer to resolving that can of (primordial?) worms!
" ... the use of wires to help pull astronauts back to their feet when they fall, as one glaring example."
Where is the evidence of wires?
Oh come on!
We know for a cast iron certainty that the astronauts practised with wired harnesses, here on earth, in order to try and simulate low lunar gravity.
It's not a difficult extrapolation to believe that the fakery involved those very same harnesses.
There are numerous moments of impossible self-elevation, where an astronaut falls over and seconds later is clearly assisted in regaining and upright stance. The use of wired harnesses explains it perfectly.
What are you not seeing that is so blindingly obvious to anyone with an impartial eye?
I am impartial. Sure they practised with harnesses, that's to be expected.
Why are you so sure that you know what they should and shouldn't be able to do in a completely alien environment?
In this video we see astronauts falling over and everything about the way they move strikes me as different from the way we move on earth and I don't see anything that looks impossible about it without wires.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVNTNeNMH8Q
I don't concern myself with what I think must / should / would / could have happened as much as what I can know for sure as much as possible.
Show me the evidence of wires!
Explain to me the dust trail thing. Have you got an explanation or where you don't have one ... you just steamroll on?
It goes back to what I said earlier. The same evidence can look totally different to two different observers, depending on their cognitive biases. I'm biased to believe the lunar missions were faked; you are biased to believe they were genuine.
Fighting over whose evidence is better won't work.
It's an unbridgeable impasse.
I wish I'd kept quiet!
Actually, I will take issue with one of your claimed pieces of affirming evidence:
"lack of atmosphere means that the dust stirred up by the lunar rover immediately settles to the ground. We do not see the typical trailing dust cloud of terrestrial vehicles."
I would argue that lack of atmosphere is far less of an issue here than the very low gravity on the lunar surface. If you factor in that the lunar regolith is (we're told) 100% devoid of moisture, making individual dust particles practically weightless, when disturbed by the rover those particles should have dispersed all over the surrounding area like a cloud of smoke. Instead we see the exact opposite, with the well documented fantails descending back to the surface in the manner of thrown wet sand.
Impossible moisture on the lunar surface would also account for the appearance of an almost immaculate boot print, of which we see several examples in numerous photos.
Anybody who's tried to reproduce the same effect on a hot, dry, beach knows it is impossible to create such a high definition print, because there's not enough moisture to make the sand particles cling together.
Please don't cite Mythbusters as a refutation of my last point!
I'd also argue that the high-arched rooster tail trajectory of the dust as the wheels hit it probably speak more to lack of atmosphere than not - also perhaps the lower gravity. Without any air resistance and the lower gravity the force of being pushed away makes the particles rise a little higher than they would on earth.
I'm not sure we're much at odds here - except I believe that very fine, moisture free, dust particles would spread far more widely in a low gravity, no atmosphere, environment than the film footage reveals.
But the thing is you don't know, do you, it's just your belief. Regolith is no doubt different from any material we have on earth. You need to be very careful about applying what applies on earth to the moon when they are completely different environments.
Why focus on things you can't be sure of rather than the things you can?
"If you factor in that the lunar regolith is (we're told) 100% devoid of moisture, making individual dust particles practically weightless, when disturbed by the rover those particles should have dispersed all over the surrounding area like a cloud of smoke. Instead we see the exact opposite, with the well documented fantails descending back to the surface in the manner of thrown wet sand."
The astronauts don't float do they? They come back to ground. How do you know exactly how long a regolith particle would stay in the air before the effect of gravity? And if it was faked why isn't there a dust cloud trailing as we see with the terrestrial vehicle?
Sand isn't regolith is it? If you put a boot into flour it will make a different print from dry sand.
What you need to focus on is what you can know for sure. What we see clearly before us is a trailing dust cloud on earth, zero trailing dust cloud on the moon - if they were faking it on earth why isn't there a trailing dust cloud? Please explain.
"And if it was faked why isn't there a dust cloud trailing as we see with the terrestrial vehicle?"
That depends entirely on where on earth the fakery took place!
So where isn't a trailing dust cloud produced with an initial flurry of dust?
The trouble here is you're taking everything on authority.
What proof of the composition of the lunar surface do we have, independent of official assertions?
In any case, it doesn't matter whether the particles were more like flour or sand; the implausibility of producing such a perfect print remains, in the absence of moisture as an agent of adhesion.
I happen to have a large bag of almost, but not 100%, moisture free flour in my pantry: as an experiment, I've just carefully pushed a (clean!) walking boot sole into it. The result is exactly as you would expect; a vaguely boot-shaped impression with no specific detail whatsoever.
Try it for yourself.
I'm not saying that flour is like regolith, I'm just saying different materials produce different results.
I don't take things on authority willy-nilly, OK? What I do is take all the pieces of the puzzle and put them together to see what picture they make.
So the authorities tell us there is no atmosphere on the moon. I don't know for sure that's the case but then the evidence we are shown of things on the moon support that claim.
Dinosaur print media desperate to remain relevant, mimicking Marianna's snide smearing. Suppose they may as well pocket the shilling while staving off the inevitable - extinction.
So glad they fired Bob!
Calm down Iain!
Don't let the peddlers of lies put burrs in your socks!
Rest in your own little hobbit hole, enjoying good food and fellowship as much as possible with others, who have forsaken the insanity of the world.
Can the tentacles of darkness reach New Hobbiton?
Maybe.
Basic goodness is the best defense of the Shire.
Evil is destructive, but also self-destructive.
Anger is an energy - I thrive on it.
Righteous anger is good.
We need a lot more of it.
But beware ...
"Fear is the path to the dark side … fear leads to anger … anger leads to hate … hate leads to suffering.” Yoda.
Yoda is not my guru but nonetheless worth considering perhaps.
I just do my best and muddle on regardless.
I think the word Yoda leaves out is 'can': fear can lead to anger, which can lead on to hate, etc.
It all depends on the self awareness of the individual. I think Iain is pretty self aware.
Worthwhile input - thank you.
Know Iain has his feet planted on solid ground.
Concerned about us all though.
We have good reason to fear, for our own and our loved ones' welfare.
When we see our loved ones suffering and dying, through ongoing criminal or criminally negligent acts, anger is the natural response.
Mastering our anger and directing it towards positive action is essential, regardless of the circumstances, to avoid the path to more suffering and death.
Brilliant!
There is a simple instrument installed 50 years ago by Apollo 11. During their day on the Moon, Armstrong and Aldrin planted a lunar laser ranging retro-reflector array on the surface. It’s still operational today, and allows us to reflect lasers off of it and measure the distance to the Moon down to the centimetre. The design of the reflector is unique and was tested at the time.
https://www.iop.org/explore-physics/moon/how-do-we-know-we-went-to-the-moon
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=+simple+instrument+installed+50+years+ago+by+Apollo+11+lunar+laser+ranging+retroreflector+array+on+the+surface.&t=ftsa&ia=web
In the 382 kilograms of Moon rocks that were brought back by the Apollo crew many glass spherules were found. Glass spherules are produced in two key ways: explosive volcanic activity and by high-speed meteorite impacts that melt and vaporise rock. In either case, the rock needs time to cool and crystallise slowly. On Earth, the elements quickly break down any volcanically-produced glass. But in space, glass spherules survive nearly pristine, and we’ve found them in both meteorites that have fallen to Earth and in the Moon rocks returned from the Apollo missions, proving that the Apollo crew were indeed space travellers.
When the first rocks were returned from the Apollo 11 mission, samples were given to 135 different countries around the world as a gesture of good will. These rocks have withstood every possible geology test from labs around the world, and these have confirmed they are indeed of lunar origin.
No other space mission has been capable of returning such quantities of rock. The Soviet Union’s un-crewed Luna programme did bring back some rocks in the 1970s, but only a third of one kilogram. These rocks have been shared with international scientists and match the characteristics of the Apollo Moon rocks.
https://www.spacecentre.co.uk/news/space-now-blog/how-do-we-know-the-moon-landing-really-happened/
It's possible to reflect a laser from just the surface of the moon - you don't need a special instrument for it.
Moon rocks - in the few years prior to 1969 von Braun and the rest of them spent a long time in the Antarctic - this is almost certainly where all those moon rocks come from.
Still, we can easily debunk the moon landings by virtue of Karl Popper's hierarchy of evidence - that's to say, if we can find just one killer argument to prove it couldn't have happened, then all the other 'evidence' becomes overriden and irrelevant.
There are many killer pieces of evidence to choose from, but I think I'd circumvent the obvious radiation belt and go for the 'heat diffusion' one. Essentially, there is no atmosphere on the moon so there's no heat diffusion. This means in the sun it's maybe 180 degrees C, whilst in the shade is well below minus 100. This means, for example, that one side of the astronaut is boiling hot and the other side is beyond freezing. So that must've been a seriously magical suit.
Same applies to the LEM - one side is boiling, other freezing. So what happens to all that flimsy covering?
Same question for the infamous flag.
Same question for the cameras.
In fact, same question for every piece of equipment they had.
And I haven't even started on the virtually endless continuity errors in the photos.
So I'll see your moon rocks and reflecting lasers and raise you the lack of heat diffusion on the moon.
Unless you have five aces in your hand, I think my royal flush wins.
As so often is the case, Evelyn, your comments are the most pertinacious, detailed and compelling.
Your argument about heat diffusion on the moon seems to me to be a clincher.
And as you so rightly point out, one piece of incontrovertible evidence is all that is required to demolish the claims of the pro NASA camp.
This you have provided.
QED.
You flew past the Van Allen Belts (inner/outer), why? Not too long ago my sister, a fan of Glen Beck, sent me the link to an interview with Charlie Duke, one of the last reported to have walked on the moon. When asked about the Van Allen Belts he pass them off as inconsequential, saying "we" were going, if I remember correctly, 25 K mph so we were past them before we knew it; my paraphrase.
Apparently the Belts have an 8 - 12 k mile range, so going 25 K mph at best took 20 minutes to pass through them; and that had to happen twice; in an overgrown beer can.
I can't say definitively they didn't make it there but it sure looks unlikely, especially since nobody has tried in over half a century.
Yep and it's not just the belts, past a certain distance the radiation is higher because it's not as close to the earth magnetic field which orbital space missions are.
I have a feeling that they did it un manned. A few second delay is not a problem for simple remote controls.
But like the JFK , RFK, and 911 stories, we may never get anything official that is a smoking gun.
The reason we haven't been back since is risk-aversion. NASA today lacks the Right Stuff of the 60's era. We can blame health and safety culture and the rise of the nanny state on the influence of females in the workplace and academia. This is so un-politically correct to say that NASA would rather give the impression that we "lost" the technology or the knowledge to send men to the moon and bring them back. The truth is, the moon landings were the pinnacle of human exploration and ingenuity and it was achieved by white men, without the need for any (except inconsequential) help from women or ethnic minorities. This is why you can openly talk about the moon landings being faked on YouTube and even prime-time broadcast TV or the cinema. The powers-that-be use this as a way to demoralise Western Man and Western culture. THEY want you to doubt the moon landings!
I enjoyed this comment, but I think it reveals more about your personal biases than it does about the actuality of the moon landings.
Having said that, your last remark is poignant. All I would add is, they could just as credibly want us to doubt the moon landings even if they had been faked. The psychological undermining works just as effectively in either scenario - faked or genuine.
That could have been done un manned.
The real issue is the radiation belt as Iain explained.
I also saw the communication with ground control to the men on the moon have almost no delay, when it should have been so many seconds.
Who knows if they really went and just faked the TV stuff?
The delay is about 1.25 seconds each way.
Moon rocks have unique characteristics. Are 135 different countries around the world co-conspirators on the fake moon landings?
They insulated the spacecraft from radiation with an aluminium shell. And they chose a trajectory from the Earth to the Moon which minimised the amount of time spent in the Van Allen belts.
Are more than 135 countries around the world co-conspirators on con-vid and the clot shots?
What about the JFK assassination and the 911 inside job? They all seem to go along for the $$$ or what not.
I'm unsure of the manned moon landings.... They could have got the rocks and set up the reflector un manned.
But the delay, yes, I thought it was a bit longer. Thanks for the delay value!
The insulation needed is a few inches of water OR lead, both of which are much too heavy for a space launch.
https://radetco.com/your-complete-guide-materials-that-block-radiation/
Aluminum is poor at blocking radiation because it's much less dense mass wise. I know it's used for satellites and orbital space but that's a fraction of the radiation as it's still within the earth's magnetic field which blocks/deflects a lot.
I saw some documentary about going back to the moon and apparently they're still trying to figure out things. But somehow it was doable with a computer that has less calc power than a fraction of what your phone or watch can do? 🤔
Again, I'm not saying it was fake or not.
That we may never know. It could have been un manned and we would still have rocks etc.
Radiation doesn't have to be 100% blocked like for workers on earth. A few days zipping through the Van Allen belts & cosmic rays etc.
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/31820/how-did-apollo-missions-solve-the-cosmic-radiation-problem
The mass of rocks brought back require the same combined launch and return vehicle mass & fuel as the Apollo missions. Faking that with robots would require the same mass & fuel and trajectory and would be easy to track by those not in on any conspiracy. Plus the robot tech needed back in the 1960's early 70s didn't exist.
In my humble opinion, it's fairly likely that humans went to the moon.
We can identify several reasons to believe this that you haven't mentioned yet. This might be useful if you find yourself in similar arguments in the future.
For feasibility we have the rockets and missiles developed in ww2.
This demonstrates that it was physically possible to make a vehicle that could deliver a payload into space.
We also have the fact that the Saturn rocket was designed by a nazi scientist. That doesn't have the best optics, and if I were crafting propaganda about the superiority of American engineering, I would have covered that part up.
As such the main issue remaining is the radiation in the van allen belt.
The soviets were the first to send animals to orbit the moon, including a Russian tortoise, I'm told.
The tortoise was shielded from radiation, and if we believe the soviet news, which in fairness we shouldn't, the tortoise survived the trip. At least until it was dissected to see if it had radiation damage.
So a person could wear a lead lined radiation suit. This is enough to protect people working on nuclear reactors at subatantial radiation levels.
We can also note that the US actually lost the space race. Russia achieved almost everything first.
The US sending people to the moon and declaring victory based on that alone is childish and ridiculous. It's so pathetic that I can completely believe that they blew billions of dollars on it.
Thus, I can see a clear reason for the US to hoax the moon landing, but there is no clear reason for any other nation, nor any conspiracy of financiers to back the lie.
It is much more likely that the soviets and others would want people to not believe it.
Now some might argue that there may have been groups who profited from selling rockets for the space program. But these groups don't control the government's radar program, so it would be difficult for them to maintain the illusion.
Thus, the only group that could be the target of the lie is the tax paying public. But I doubt it would be necessary to convince them of a moon landing to maintain funding for satellite launches given the popularity of both GPS and satellite television.
I suggest the real reason nobody went back to the moon is that there was nothing to gain from it and the cost was astronomically high. Pun intended.
"there was nothing to gain from it and the cost was astronomically high" spot on!
yes there are 135 different countries under the same hand of control that lie for vast funding strategies.
Hmmm... just one piece of rock - without a custody certificate - out of circa 300kg claimed to be brought back, is insufficient to prove the manned moon landings were a fake.
One thing the disbelievers of the moon landings seem to be impervious to no matter how many times I tell them is that there is a campaign to encourage those who disbelieve the authorities to disbelieve the moon landings in order to undermine them Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf style when they call out the real lies.
When I realised that I couldn't get through to my sister and a couple of friends that the evidence clearly shows astronauts really did land on the moon it occurred to me that the first prominent person to say we didn't go to the moon, Bill Kaysing, might be an agent. Sure enough - when I looked him up in Wikipedia it was obvious he was a ridiculous cartoon character. It was claimed he was Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne, the company that made the rockets to go to the moon, but he spouts complete nonsense such as, "There should have been a massive crater under the LEM" and they tell us he has a nephew named Dietrich von Schmausen, allegedly an alien scientist and who has videos on YouTube speaking in a fake German accent. Hilarious!
Natasha: The Netherlands were given a moon rock... it was actually a piece of petrified wood.
Yes, but you need to understand that those in power use any opportunity they can to mislead those who disbelieve them. They don't want anyone getting it right - believer or disbeliever - so what better opportunity than such an implausible-seeming achievement not repeated for 50 years to exploit in misleading the "disbelievers".
The moon is a highly reflective surface it seems obviously! , no mirror is needed , nor is there one there. & What LASER BEAM retains its integrity at such distances without dispersal?
And you have the temerity to call me a moron! Do some basic research, if you genuinely want an answer, I gave links to help.
So you cant answer a simple question about laser integrity over vast distances ,you petty uptight twat.
Links from liars lying prove nothing.
I just noticed even EverLyin' Bumsick mentioned the Moons reflective surface... you really are some sort of verbal diarrhea idiot.
I've done more than basic research on this , and you are a joke Natasha.
Believe what you like but dont expect anyone else to swallow your state propaganda stupidity.
In response to the angry scientifically and morally bankrupt fool ADRASTEIA
a) not all reflective surfaces reflect light the same. That's why for example face mirrors, which have a smooth surface, are used as, wait for it: reflecting your abusive face so you can see it more clearly than if you stare at a brick wall, or a pile of rocks.
b) had you genuinely done "basic research" you know about the fact that, yes a thin laser beam fired from earth would form a cone shaped beam which would be wider by the time the light energy reflected off the specially designed cubic mirror array on the moon surface, which imprints a specific unique signature upon the reflected laser light. By the time the light arrives at detectors on earth it is very dim so the detectors have to be exposed to that dull laser light for many hours to gather sufficient light to detect in sensors on the earth. Spectral and phase analysis of that light can differentiate it from background light being reflected off the surrounding moon rock.
c) Perhaps you are a troll?
d) Hint1: rational debate requires a counter claimant, such as you, who disputes links given by an originating claimant (me) with specific points of dispute. Simply waving your metaphorical hand by typing "Links from liars lying prove nothing" simply expose you as an angry scientifically and morally bankrupt fool.
e) Hint2: I'm not writing this for your benefit, I'm writing it for other readers here to make up their mind who is the rational calm one and who is the angry scientifically and morally bankrupt fool.
While you ARE a troll, disinfo bot, or just a pathetic gob-shite that hasn't really got a clue, just a whole heap of arrogance & conceit.
You can pretend to play the 'nice' game of ''let's debate'' while your hypocrisy & contempt for ideas beyond your very limited scope is so obvious it would be just another internet waste of time.
All I see is you projecting your own intolerance and limitations Natasha, unable to admit the point I raised is valid , then talking waffle about the laser reflection ,being DIM & ''the detectors have to be exposed to that dull laser light for many hours to gather sufficient light to detect in sensors on the earth'' 😂
And how fast is Earth moving during all of that, while spinning in your mind ? The reflection is hitting 'exactly where on Earth' over those HOURS needed to quantify it , where is the reception station(s) on Earth & how many miles is it (or they) built over to do so adequately ? The HOURS it takes to assess what you describe defeat the purpose of a REFLECTION !
You are a mess or stupid beliefs and state sanctioned arse sucking yet again proving how DIM you are to any THINKING person here. You are just too stupid to realise how stupid you really are. 🥱
Do some reading, then tell me where the errors are, other wise, drop your wounded fool's obsession with your own emotions, misrepresenting these typed words, which simply exposes that you don't have a basic grasp of basic engineering and physics, as some sort of attack on your integrity as human being, and then please [sexual intercourse] off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Ranging_Retroreflector#Instrument
You are so right on! Telegraph readers are as culpable as the paper itself. They feed on this stuff. I’m glad you follow it - I certainly don’t!
Excellent piece 👏🏻
I have a niece whose boyfriend, both big jabites, can't explain the Van Allan Belt quandary yet he is 100% certain they did walk on the moon because he has seen some of the moon rocks. After he said that I waited for the punchline, but he was serious. So the Telegraph's "statement of fact" isn't the only laughable proof of man's feat of leaving footprints in the dust..
And I grew up an Apollo fan, even had a Saturn 5 model on my homework desk.
Haha they're focusing on the straw man of the microchips?
Meanwhile in "dissenters' media", many like Dr Pierre Kory push the mRNA and spike protein red herrings that ignore the real reason why the jabs damage, which was known years before con-vid... Perhaps they're clueless or perhaps they do it to hide the real issue: the LNPs!
https://robc137.substack.com/p/years-before-mrna-and-spike-protein
Lipid Nano Particle...as in nanotechnology biosensors which have a billion-dollar market share.
There are college textbooks which prove and explain exactly how we've all been connected to the Internet of Bio-Nano Things and the WBAN (Wireless Body Area Network IEEE802.15.6 in the Terahertz Band. )
Read the mountain of documents from the IEEE (Institute of Electical and Electronics Engineers.)
Iain's take that the Five Eyes predatory psychopaths wouldn't inject billions of people with SMART Artificial Intelligence nanotechnology biosensors for surveillance under the skin is naive. Here's the proof.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/global-wireless-sensor-networks-wsn-market-
https://rumble.com/user/Psinergy/videos
https://rumble.com/user/nonvaxer420
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355979001_DETECTION_OF_GRAPHENE_IN_COVID19_VACCINES
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349881372_Effect_of_Coronavirus_Worldwide_through_Misusing_of_Wireless_Sensor_Networks
https://clouthub.com/v/MS9IXlRU
https://m.x-mol.net/paper/article/1293274943644639232
https://horizons.service.canada.ca/en/2020/02/11/exploring-biodigital-convergence/index.shtml
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359691796_The_Internet_of_Bodies_The_Human_Body_as_an_Efficient_and_Secure_Wireless_Channel
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221311840_A_context_aware_wireless_body_area_network_BAN