The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Moon Landing Skeptic Archive
The Moon Landings: A Giant Hoax for Mankind?
An introduction to the mother of all conspiracy theories
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Are believers in danger of extinction?

Coming up is the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. In 2016, a survey showed that 52 percent of the British public thought that Apollo missions were faked. Skepticism is highest among those who were too young to see it live on TV: 73 percent of aged 25-34 believe we didn’t land on the moon, compared to 38 percent of those aged 55 or more. These numbers seem to be rising every year. British unbelievers were only 25 percent ten years ago. It is not known how may they are today, but a 2018 poll by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center revealed that 57 percent Russians believe that there has never been a manned lunar landing. The percentage rises to 69 percent among people with higher education: in other words, the more educated people are, and the more capable of rational reasoning, the less they believe in the moon landings. In the US, the percentage seems much lower: A 1999 Gallup poll indicated just 6 percent Americans doubting the moon landings, and a 2013 Pew Research showed the number to have risen to a mere 7 percent. Not surprisingly, then, a 2010 Pew Research poll showed that 63 percent of Americans were confident that NASA would land an Astronaut on Mars by 2050.

The moon hoax theory was almost unheard of before the spread of Internet, and gained momentum with the development of YouTube, which allowed close inspection of the Apollo footage by anyone interested. Before that, individuals who had serious doubts had little means to share them and make their case convincing. One pioneer was Bill Kaysing, who broke the subject in 1976 with his self-published book We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle. He may be called a whistleblower, since he had been working for Rocketdyne, the company that designed and built the Apollo rockets. Then came Ralph René with his NASA Mooned America!, also self published.

Research gained depth and scope, and disbelief became epidemic around the 30th anniversary of Apollo 11, thanks in great part to British cinematographer David Percy, who co-authored the book Dark Moon with Mary Bennett, and directed the 3-hour documentary What Happened on the Moon? An Investigation into Apollo (2000), presented by Ronnie Stronge. It remains to this day greatly valuable for anyone willing to make an informed opinion.

Then there was the much shorter A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Moon (2001), directed by Bart Sibrel, which brings in valuable insight into the historical context. Sibrel also went around challenging NASA astronauts to swear on the Bible, in front of the camera, that they did walk on the moon, and he compiled these sequences in Astronauts Gone Wild, together with more useful footages of embarrassingly awkward statements made by NASA astronauts who are supposed to have walked on the moon but sound hardly competent and consistent; Alan Bean from Apollo 12 learning from Sibrel that he went through the Van Allen radiation belt is a must-see.

Then, using materials from those films and other sources, came the groundbreaking TV documentary Did we land on the moon? (2001), directed by John Moffet for Fox TV. To my knowledge and judgment, this is still the best introduction to the arguments of the “moon hoax theorists”: You can watch it here from its 2013 rebroadcast on Channel 5:

There are very few books available on the subject. I am not aware of a more researched one than One Small Step? The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth From Space by German researcher Gerhard Wisnewski, originally published in 2005, from which I will quote repeatedly.

I am not going to discuss all the evidence presented in these sources. I can only recommend them and a few others on the way. I will simply sort what I see as the most convincing arguments, add a few recent developments, give my best conclusion, place the issue in the broader historical perspective, and draw some lessons from it all about the Matrix we have been living in.

ORDER IT NOW

First of all, we need to be clear about the aim of such an inquiry. We should not expect any conclusive proof that Neil Armstrong, or any other Apollo moon-walker, didn’t walk on the moon. That cannot be proven, absent some indisputable evidence that he was somewhere else (orbiting around the earth, for example) at the precise time he claimed to have spent on the moon. In most cases, you cannot prove that something didn’t happen, just like you cannot prove that something doesn’t exist. You cannot prove, for example, that unicorns don’t exist. That is why the burden of proof rests on anyone who claims they do exist. If I say to you I walked on the moon, you will ask me to prove it, and you will not take as an answer: “No, you prove that I’m didn’t go.” Does it make a difference if I am the NASA? It does, because calling the NASA a liar will inevitably lead you to question everything you have been led to believe by your government and mainstream media. It is a giant leap indeed! Just like children of abusive parents, decent citizens of abusive governments will tend to repress evidence of their government’s malevolence. And so, people choose to believe in the moon landings, without even asking for proofs, simply because: “They wouldn’t have lied to us for more than 50 years, would they? The media would have exposed the lie long ago (remember the Watergate)! And what about the 250,000 people involved with the project? Someone would have talked.” I can actually hear myself speaking like that just 10 years ago. All these objections must indeed be addressed.

But before that, the scientific thing to do is to start with the question: can the NASA prove they sent men to the moon? If the answer is no, the next step is to decide if we take their word for it or not. That requires pondering what could have been the reasons for such a massive lie. We will get to that.

But, first of all, can the NASA provide hard evidence of the moon landings?

Rock-solid evidence from Antarctica

Yes, they can. They brought back pieces of the moon: roughly 380 kilograms of moon rocks and soil samples, all Apollo missions combined. Moon rocks prove the moon landings, don’t they? Yes they do, but only if it can be firmly established that they were not dug out from the earth. And that is the problem. As explained here, “meteorites have been found in Antarctica which have proved to have the same characteristics as the moon rocks.” It may be helpful to know that in 1967, two years before Apollo 11, the NASA set up an expedition to Antarctica, joined by Wernher Von Braun, the leading NASA propagandist for the lunar missions; Antarctica is the region of the earth with the biggest concentration of meteorites, but it is not known whether the expedition included geologists, nor if meteorites were brought back. In fact, it was not until 1972 that lunar meteorites were officially discovered in Antarctica; their lunar origin, of course, was determined by comparison with the moon samples brought back by Apollo crews (Wisnewksi 202).

So the moon rocks are a far cry from proving the moon landings. As a matter of fact, none of the so-called moon rocks can be proven to have been brought back from the moon rather than from Antarctica or somewhere else on earth. But it gets much worse: some of the so-called moon rocks have been conclusively proven to be fake. In the 1990s, British astrobiologist Andrew Steele was granted the special privilege to get close to some of the precious samples locked in NASA safes, and imagine his surprise when discovering in them a bristle, bits of plastic, nylon and Teflon and tiny earthly animals (Wisnewski 207). Another moon rock made the headlines when, 40 years after having been handed personally by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to the Dutch prime minister, it was scrutinized and proven to be petrified wood. Granted, a few fake moon rocks don’t prove that all moon rocks are fake. But it should be reason enough for starting a systematic scientific examination of the dozens of other samples that the USA ceremoniously gave away in 1969 and the 1970s.

The photographic evidence

What other proofs does the NASA have of the moon landings? The films and photographs, of course! The films are notoriously blurry, which makes their examination difficult. How, for example, can you be sure that astronaut David Scott from Apollo 15 is dropping a real hammer and a real feather to demonstrate Newtonian gravity in an atmosphere-free environment, when you can hardly see the objects? We do have a clear photo of the hammer and the feather on the ground, but how do we know they are the same as the blurry objects dropped in the film?

What would be helpful for a proper investigation is the original NASA footage. Researchers have been asking for access to these films for decades, under the Freedom of Information Act. In 2006, they were given an answer. Here is what you can read on Reuters:

“NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing. Since then, Richard Nafzger, an engineer at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, who oversaw television processing at the ground-tracking sites during the Apollo 11 mission, has been looking for them. The good news is he found where they went. The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed — magnetically erased — and re-used to save money.”

Russians are so evil-minded: as a result of this NASA admission, Russian officials have started demanding an international investigation.

Fortunately, we have the photos. Besides planting a US flag and collecting rock samples, the astronauts spent much time taking photos on the moon. And let’s be fair: in 2015, the NASA released to the public thousands of them in high resolution. They are accessible here, and can be examined in detail. Most of them are remarkable for their quality.

The Apollo 11 crew used a standard Hasselblad 500C with a few alterations, including the removal of the reflex mirror. The film used was a standard Kodak Ektachrome diapositive film, 160 ASA. That is a surprisingly sensitive film for a place where the sunlight is unfiltered by any atmosphere, especially considering that some photos, which came out perfectly exposed, were taken directly against the sun. There are also technical issues with the reliability of this material on the surface of the moon, where temperatures go from under 100°C minus to over 100°C plus: the only protection against heat for both camera and magazine was a reflexive coating. (How the astronauts survive such temperatures is an even more serious issue.)

Another problematic aspect is the professional quality of most of those pictures. Every single shot taken by Neil Armstrong, for example, is perfectly framed and exposed. Wisnewski (144-149) quite correctly points out how incredible that is, given the fact that Armstrong (or any other astronaut) could not take aim, since the camera was fixed on his chest where he could not even see it. Not to mention the difficulty of setting aperture, exposure time, focus and field of view manually with his pressurized gloves and no vision of the camera, and with no experience of photography on the moon environment. We need to remember that photography was a very skilled occupation in those days, even on earth, and it is quite astonishing to see that all of Armstrong’s shots were just perfect.

More to the point, is there any evidence that these pictures were shot on the moon? None whatsoever. They are easy to make in studios. As a matter of fact, the NASA went to great length to train the astronauts in indoor settings reproducing the condition of the moon surface as they imagined it, fabricating tons of “moon dust” for that purpose (even before anyone had seen real moon dust), and even simulating the black sky. Some of the photographs taken in these movie-like studio settings, such as the following one from NASA archives, would be hard to distinguish from the “real” thing, if framed differently.

Armstrong and Aldrin practicing on fake moon dust under fake black sky
Armstrong and Aldrin practicing on fake moon dust under fake black sky

Let’s face it: there is no proof that any of the Apollo photographs are genuine. That may not be enough to destabilize the believers. But what should is that quite a few of these photographs are “replete with inconsistencies and anomalies,” in the words of David Percy, who proves his point in What Happened on the Moon? The film contains an interview of Jan Lundberg, the Project Engineer for the Apollo Hasselblad. When asked to explain some of the inconsistencies concerning shadows and exposure (for example, astronauts fully lit despite being in the shadow of the lunar module, as in the photo reproduced on the cover of Wisnewski’s book), he answers: “I can’t explain that. That escapes me… why.”

Incidentally, Lundberg’s embarrassed admission is the perfect illustration of how compartmentalization may have made the moon hoax possible. Like the hundreds of thousands of people involved in the project, he worked on a “need to know” basis, and had no reason to suspect he was working for something else than what he was told, at least until someone challenged him to explain impossible pictures. Just a handful of people had to know the full picture, and it is not even certain that President Nixon was among them. As Wisnewski (121-126) illustrates with the Corona alias Discoverer program (a US research satellite launched around 1959 with the secret purpose of spying over the Soviet Union), it is wrong to assume that the US military, spatial and intelligence communities cannot keep a secret. To take another example, hundreds of thousands of people worked on the Manhattan Project, which remained completely hidden from the public until the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

I will not list and examine the anomalies of the Apollo photographs, since they are analyzed in the documentaries mentioned above. But I do recommend browsing through and zooming on the high definition photographs on the NASA archive site, with the aim of assessing their credibility with basic common sense. Ask yourself, for example, if you can believe that the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle (here, here, or here) could have landed two astronauts on the moon and sent them back into lunar orbit to reconnect with the orbiting Command Module. Or pick Apollo 14’s LM Antares (here), or Apollo 16’s LM Orion (here, or here with the rover that miraculously came out of it), or Apollo 17’s LM Challenger (here). Keep in mind that these shabby huts had to be hermetically pressurized in a vacuum environment, and that, in the last two cases, two astronauts spent more than 3 days (respectively 71 hours and 76 hours) on the moon and slept 3 nights in the module. If you want to be guided along this reflection, I can recommend this 15-minute video.

Apollo 11 Lunar Module with Neil Armstrong
Apollo 11 Lunar Module with Neil Armstrong
Ascent Stage of Apollo 17’s Lunar Module, photographed from the Command Module before rendez-vous
Ascent Stage of Apollo 17’s Lunar Module, photographed from the Command Module before rendez-vous

Where have all the stars gone?

If the Apollo crews had photographed the moon’s starry sky, that could have served the NASA to counter the accusation of fraud. For back in the 1960s, it would have been very hard to make the computer calculation to make the stars constellation consistent. Unfortunately, no one thought about it at the NASA. The astronauts were asked to look down and collect rocks, not to look up and study the stars. It is as if the NASA were a congregation of geologists who despised astronomy. And to think that they spend billions of dollars sending telescopes into earth’s orbit! To be fair, I have read about a telescope installed by the Apollo 16 crew, but it seems that no one has ever seen what came out of it. In any case, not a single picture of the NASA archives show any star in the sky.

The official explanation? There simply were no stars visible in the moon sky. Period. It is so incredible that even some “moon hoax debunkers” prefer to explain the black sky in all Apollo photographs as resulting from low exposure. But they are wrong: the astronauts saw no stars with their own eyes. All of them, from Apollo 11 to Apollo 17, consistently declared that the sky was completely black, “an immense black velvet sky — totally black,” in the words of Edgar Mitchell, the sixth man on the moon.

Was it because the luminosity of the moon surface was too strong, so that their eyes couldn’t adjust (a day on the moon lasts 27 earth days, so the astronauts who landed on the illuminated side of the moon never experienced a night on the moon)? If that was the reason, then at least, the astronauts should have seen plenty of stars when travelling between earth and moon. They didn’t report seeing any. When they orbited around the moon and passed in its shadow, they found themselves in pitch darkness, and saw no stars. Michael Collins, who orbited around the moon several times in the Command Module while Aldrin and Armstrong were on the moon, declared in their 1969 press conference: “I can’t remember seeing any!” That is one of the weirdest remarks you can think of from an astronaut, but the whole press conference is a bizarre experience to watch.

Don’t ask Neil Armstrong

Neil Armstrong’s November 1970 interview is just as bizarre. It has been used by several skeptics as evidence that he is lying. I highly recommend this very professional analysis commissioned by Richard D. Hall of RichPlanet TV from by Peter Hyatt, a nationally recognized expert in deception detection. I find it devastating for the credibility of Armstrong.

After that, Armstrong must have been ordered to keep away from interviews. But when he was allowed to make a last appearance on the the 40th anniversary of his moonwalk, he took that opportunity to compare himself to a parrot, “the only bird that could talk” but “didn’t fly very well,” and to conclude with a cryptic remark about “breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers.” God knows what he would say if he was now invited to speak for the 50th anniversary! Fortunately for the credibility of the Apollo missions, he has now left the earth for good, and his story can now be told by Hollywood.

Fasten your Van Allen Belt

We set out to find out if there is any proof that the moon landings were real. We have not found any. Instead, we have found evidence that they were not real. But in fact, it was hardly necessary: NASA engineers themselves tell us they are impossible, for the simple reason that the astronauts would have to travel through the Van Allen Radiation Belt, which would kill them, and damage the electronic equipment as well. Listen, in the 10-minute video below, to astrophysicists and astronauts inadvertently admitting that the technology to send men beyond lower earth orbit is not yet available.

That may be the reason why, since the presidency of Tricky Dick, no manned mission to the moon, or even beyond low earth orbit, has ever been attempted. Remember, the International Space Station is orbiting at a distance of 250 miles from the earth, whereas the moon is about 237,000 miles away. On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush, speaking at NASA headquarters, announced a new endeavor to “gain a new foothold on the moon” and beyond, remarking: “In the past 30 years, no human being has set foot on another world, or ventured farther into space than 386 miles—roughly the distance from Washington D.C. to Boston, Massachusetts” (quoted in Wisnewski 329). No manned mission to the moon came out of this announcement.

Time is working to the advantage of the moon hoax theorists, for every year that passes makes people wonder: “If it was so easy to send a man to the moon between 1969 and 1972, why has it not been done again ever since?” Less that half of the British and Russians still believe in the moon landings. Among the educated, this percentage is falling fast. What will happen in twenty years, when Americans realize hardly anybody but them believes it? Will the United States of America survive the exposure of this giant hoax?

Manufacturing belief

If the Apollo moon landings were faked, serious questions ought to be asked about the NASA, to start with. Then, there is a need for some deep thinking about what has become of the United States since World War II. And beyond that, the moon hoax is the ideal starting point for reflecting on the hypnotic control that television and the news media have gained over our mind. It is not just a political issue. It is a battle for our souls.

The first step is to grow out of our infantile beliefs about the NASA, and do some basic study on what it is all about. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was founded in 1958 by President Eisenhower. Many people today commend Eisenhower for warning Americans, on leaving office, against the growing threat of the military-industrial complex, and the “potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power.” Ironically, the foundation of NASA was itself a giant leap for the military-industrial complex. There is no question that NASA’s so-called “civilian space program” was first and foremost a cover for a military program. The NASA Act of 1958 made explicit provisions for close collaboration with the Department of Defense, and in practice, the Pentagon was involved in all decisions regarding the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. Erlend Kennan and Edmund Harvey documented this point in Mission to the Moon: a critical examination of NASA and the space program, as early as 1969, and concluded:

“It remains imperative to have NASA keep its status as the decorous front parlor of the space age in order to reap public support for all space projects and give Defense Department space efforts an effective ‘cover’.” (quoted in Wisnewski 296)

Besides launching satellites for espionage purposes, the NASA was to contribute to the development of transcontinental rockets. For after WWII, the equation was simple: “Rocket + atom bomb = world power” (Wisnewski 62).

The para-military purpose of NASA is essential to understanding the Apollo hoax. For in matters of military programs, “what the public knows is also known to the enemy. This means that in principle the public and the enemy can be seen as essentially one and the same thing” (Wisnewski 7). Therefore, we should understand that deceiving the American public was not a perversion of NASA’s original purpose, but an integral part of it.

It fell upon Kennedy to sell the moon program to the Congress and to the American public in order to increase NASA budget dramatically. On May 25, 1961, a mere 43 days after Yuri Gagarin allegedly completed one orbit around the earth, Kennedy delivered before the Congress a special message on “urgent national needs.” He asked for an additional $7 billion to $9 billion over the next five years for the space program, for the purpose, he claimed, of “achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space.”

Kennedy can be blamed for fooling the American public, but it is likely that he had been fooled himself, just like he had been tricked by the CIA into the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion, a mere month earlier. Whatever the case, the moon was Johnson’s idea, not Kennedy’s. It is believed that Kennedy was convinced by a memorandum of Lyndon Johnson, titled “Evaluation of Space Program” and dated April 28, 1961, supposedly based on deliberations with top NASA officials. The memo assured the president of the feasibility of “a safe landing and return by a man to the moon” “by 1966 or 1967”, if “a strong effort” is made. As for the benefit of it, Johnson put it this way:

“other nations, regardless of their appreciation of our idealistic values, will tend to align themselves with the country which they believe will be the world leader—the winner in the long run. Dramatic accomplishments in space are being increasingly identified as a major indicator of world leadership.”

A month after his Congress speech, Kennedy officialy made his vice-president head of the National Aeronautics and Space Council with the charge of exploring the moon project. As Alan Wasser has said:

“Few people today realize or remember, but a single man, Lyndon Baines Johnson, ‘LBJ’, is primarily responsible for both starting and ending ‘The Space Race’”.

That explains why Texan industries were the greatest beneficiary of the space program, and why the NASA Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston was renamed the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in 1973.

Under Eisenhower, Johnson was both the Senate Majority Leader, and a key player in the Texan sector of the military-industrial complex. It is interesting to know that the original draft of Eisenhower’s farewell address, written by his assistants Malcolm Moos and Ralph Williams, spoke of the “Military-Industrial Congressional Complex”, but Eisenhower dropped “congressional”—in fear, perhaps, of Johnson. Johnson’s corruption aggravated after he became vice-president and appointed his Texan friends at the head of the Navy: first John Connally, then Fred Korth, who resigned in October 1963, after the Justice Department (led by Robert Kennedy) implicated him for corruption in the contract for the joint Navy-Air Force TFX aircrafts.

NASA was not just a camouflage for military developments. It was a manufactured dream to keep Americans looking up at the sky while their government was committing atrocities in Vietnam. And so, NASA had also close ties with the movie industry. Its first boss, T. Keith Glennan (1958-1961) had a long experience in running film studios in Hollywood (Wisnewski 298).

Walt Disney with Wernher von Braun, “Father of Rocket Science”, in 1954
Walt Disney with Wernher von Braun, “Father of Rocket Science”, in 1954

During the transition period between Johnson and Nixon, Apollo 8 allegedly carried three astronauts ten times around the moon. Then, after two more testing missions (Apollo 9 and 10), six Apollo crew landed on the Moon from 1969 to 1972, all during Nixon’s presidency. Wisnewski (130-139) provides a spectacular parallel showing how breaking news related to the Apollo program conveniently turned the American public’s eye away from Vietnam war crimes. Apollo 11 landed on the moon two months after the media revealed illegal bombardment in Cambodia, and the Apollo program stopped just after the official end of America’s involvement in Southeast Asia. So, writes Wisnewski,

“while the United States of America was murdering thousands of Vietnamese people, burning down one hectare after another of virgin forest and poisoning the land with pesticides, it was at the same time trying to fascinate—or should one say hypnotize?—the world with a conquest of quite another kind.” (131)

“For the rest of the world the cultural and technological thrill caused by the lunar landings must have been as overwhelming and disarming as the negative blow of September 11. To this day the USA draws strength from the boundless admiration generated by those lunar landings. And I still maintain that this ‘conquest’ of the moon, that ancient myth of humanity, elevated America to the status of a quasi-divine nation. / The moon landings fit in with the country’s overall psychological strategy of self-aggrandizement coupled with subjugating, undermining and demoralizing others.” (287)

“Civilian space travel became a form of ‘opium for the people’, a promise of redemption bringing a new and better future for the universe.” (63)

Indeed, travelling to the moon and coming back alive is a feat of mythical proportions. It is tantamount to travelling to the Other World and coming back to the world of the living with your physical body. That makes the NASA astronauts the equals of ancient supernatural heroes, immortal demi-gods, and that semi-divine quality reflects on the USA as a whole. Such was the significance of the Apollo moon landings: it was about a new world religion that elevated the United States above all other earthly nations. A lot has been said about institutional religions as means of collective mental control. But no religious belief can compare to the moon landings in terms of the cynical abuse of people’s gullibility. And no religion could compete, until recently, for the numbers of believers worldwide.

The deeper lesson is that it was made possible by television, and would have been impossible otherwise. Hardly anybody would have believed it if they hadn’t seen it with their own eyes.

In Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass, Alice tells the White Queen “one can’t believe impossible things,” but the Queen insists it is possible with enough practice: “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” With television, believing in six impossible moon landings came without effort.

Appendix: the Kubrick hypothesis

Before being broadcast on TV, the Apollo moon landings were studio productions. No wonder, then, that one of the most influential whistleblowers was Hollywood filmmaker Peter Hyams with his film Capricorn One (1978).

Although it has no bearing on the issue of the reality or possibility of the moon landings, and should not be taken as argument, I’d like to mention here one of the most intriguing developments of the moon hoax conspirarcy theory: the suggestion that director Stanley Kubrick collaborated with the NASA in the making of the Apollo moon films while making his 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), on which he started working as early as 1964, just after finishing his antimilitary film Dr Strangelove. The rumor has that Kubrick was then pressured into a Faustian pact in exchange for fundings and other help. That Kubrick received support from the NASA for 2001 is actually no secret: the scenario was co-written by Arthur C. Clark, an enthusiastic supporter and contributor of NASA adventures, and several assistants for the film, such as Harry Lange and Frederick Ordway, had worked for NASA and aerospace contractors. Some therefore believe that 2001 was part of a NASA program both to fascinate the public with space travel and to test production techniques.

That hypothesis first arose when skeptics studying the Apollo photos and films became convinced that they had been made in movie studios using the technique called frontscreen projection, which had been perfected by Stanley Kubrick for his film 2001.

The theory had already been around for some time, when a French “mockumentary” called Dark Side of the Moon, directed by William Karel, was aired on Arte channel in 2002, as a very smart but futile attempt to debunk it.

But the theory gained a new vigor when film director Jay Weidner added to it the hypothesis that Kubrick cryptically confessed his participation through his 1980 film The Shining. Weidner presents his arguments in his 2011 documentary film Kubrick’s Odyssey: Secrets Hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick. Part One: Kubrick and Apollo. He also gives a brief summary of his theory in the documentary film Room 237 (2012), available on vimeo (Weidner’s contribution is between 00:44:25 and 00:51:55, and between 1:16:00 and 1:16:45). You can watch here Weidner’s contribution on YouTube:

When I first heard of that theory and watched Room 237 (I haven’t watched Kubrick’s Odyssey), I didn’t think much of it. But after watching anew The Shining with it in mind, studying Kubrick’s other films (especially Eyes Wide Shut, which one way or another killed him) and their layers of hidden meanings , and learning of his perfectionist obsession with every detail, I find the theory not only fascinating, but highly plausible.

Weidner’s starting point is the observation that, although the film The Shining is allegedly based on Stephen King’s novel of the same title, Kubrick ignored the scenario adapted by King himself, and changed so many things in the story that it can be said to be a totally different story—which made King quite resentful. Kubrick seems to have used King’s novel as a cover for a story of his own. What is therefore interesting is to focus exclusively on the elements of the film that depart from King’s novel, and on the details that seem to have no direct bearing on the main narrative. Weidner is not alone in taking this approach: many Kubrick admirers believe that the film has hidden meanings. Some argue, convincingly I believe, that it contains cryptic references to child abuse, also an underlying theme in Eyes Wide Shut. But Weidner reads into the film a subtext that amounts to an autobiographical confession of Kubrick’s role in faking the Apollo moon landings eleven years earlier.

According to that interpretation, Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) represents Kubrick himself, while the Overlook Hotel (built on Indian burial ground), represents America. The manager of the hotel, Stuart Ullman (Barry Nelson), made to look like JFK, represents the US government (as well as perhaps the JFK Space Center), while his assistant Bill Watson, who keeps observing Torrance without uttering a word, represents the Intelligence underworld.

Stuart Ullmann (the State) and Bill Watson (the Deep State)Stuart Ullmann (the State) and Bill Watson (the Deep State)
Stuart Ullmann (the State) and Bill Watson (the Deep State)

Two scenes in particular give the keys to this cryptic narrative. The first one is when Danny (representing Kubrick’s child, that is, the Apollo films) rises up wearing an Apollo 11 sweater, on a rug with a design similar to the Launch Complex from which the Apollo rockets were launched. Soon after, Danny enters room n°237, which contains the secret of the hotel. The room number was 217 in King’s novel, but Kubrick changed it to 237 in reference to the distance of 237,000 miles that separates the earth from the moon (according to the common estimation at the time). The “room n°237” is in fact the “moon room”, because “room” looks similar to “moon” when read backward, and Kubrick has taught us to read words backward in the scene where the word “redrum” becomes “murder” in the mirror.

Danny (Jack/Kubrick’s child) is Apollo 11 (a Disney production?)Danny (Jack/Kubrick’s child) is Apollo 11 (a Disney production?)
Danny (Jack/Kubrick’s child) is Apollo 11 (a Disney production?)

The second most important scene from the point of view of Kubrick’s cryptic subtext is when Wendy discovers that Jack, who is supposed to write a novel, has been typing one single sentence over and over again: “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.” That sentence, which must have been chosen by Kubrick for a very specific purpose, takes a secondary meaning once you realize that All, in American typewriter script, is indistinguishable from A11, which can stand for Apollo 11.

Director’s wife finds out he makes A(pollo) 11 work, and no playDirector’s wife finds out he makes A(pollo) 11 work, and no play
Director’s wife finds out he makes A(pollo) 11 work, and no play

When Jack then catches Wendy reading the pages, he tells her how deadly serious his contract is:

“Have you ever thought for a single solitary moment about my responsibilities to my employers? […] Does it matter to you at all that the owners have placed their complete confidence and trust in me, and that I have signed a letter of agreement, a contract, in which I have accepted that responsibility? […] Has it ever occurred to you what would happen to my future if I were to fail to live up to my responsibilities?”

Besides these two scenes, there are a number of other clues that support this subtextual reading. Why did Kubrick, for example, make the design of the Indian tapestry in the main lounge resemble rockets? Does Jack aiming at them with a ball represent Kubrick “shooting” the Apollo films?

Just after that shot, Wendy and Danny go into the hedge maze. Jack then looks over a model of the maze inside the lounge, which merges with the real maze in cross fading, suggesting that the maze is not real. This is also hinted by the aerial shot of the Overlook Hotel, which clearly shows that there is no maze next to it. Coming from Kubrick, this cannot be a continuity error.

Puzzling spatial impossibilities in the film have also been discovered by careful students of the film such as Rob Ager. They are no mistakes, for Kubrick gave himself a lot of trouble to produce them. Therefore, they must have a message to tell, possibly that what appears to be outdoor was in in fact filmed indoor.

There are also two brief allusions to television that fit with the alleged subtext: a sarcastic remark on the notion that what is seen on television is “OK” (watch the scene here), and a mysteriously wireless television (impossible in 1980) showing the film Summer of 42.

“See, it’s OK, he saw it on television!”“See, it’s OK, he saw it on television!”
“See, it’s OK, he saw it on television!”

Another possible clue left by Kubrick to let us know that he intended The Shining to be read as cryptically autobiographical, is the documentary that he asked his daughter Vivian to shoot on the set of the film (now included as bonus in DVDs). It makes Kubrick appear as a mirror image of Jack Torrance. This has been detected even by critics with no interest in the Apollo theory, such as Rob Ager, who writes:

“Kubrick’s decision to allow a documentary film to be shot on the set of The Shining was an unprecedented departure from his usual ultra-secretive work policy. All of the behind the scenes footage was shot by his daughter Vivian. Without realizing it, many film critics and biographers have accidentally identified Kubrick’s motive for releasing this documentary. Time and time again they have described his edgy behind the scenes behavior as being comparable to the film’s main character Jack Torrance. One of the biographies I read […] even claimed that there were running jokes on set about the similarities in appearance and behavior between Jack Nicholson’s character and Stanley Kubrick. My theory is that Kubrick was deliberately creating these character parallels between himself and Jack, both in the documentary and among his crew in general. But the most prominent example of this parallel is Kubrick’s degrading treatment of the actress Shelley Duvall (Wendy) and the actor Scatman Crothers (Halloran), both of whose on screen characters are victims of Jack Torrance’s madness.”

Jack is writing a horror story, and so is Stanley, here shown typing in his daughter’s documentaryJack is writing a horror story, and so is Stanley, here shown typing in his daughter’s documentary
Jack is writing a horror story, and so is Stanley, here shown typing in his daughter’s documentary
 
Hide 1563 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Ron Unz says:

    Well, I’d never even known that Moon Hoax theories existed until a year or two ago, and my initial impression was that they seemed totally ridiculous. Now after reading this lengthy exposition of the material, my current view is that…they still seem just as totally ridiculous.

    America’s space program and moon landing dominated the headlines and were enormous cultural phenomena during the 1960s and early 1970s, and there must have been a vast number of interviews and media accounts. So the fact that an absolutely infinitesimal fraction of these contain some statements that might be construed as possibly suggesting a fraud hardly seems significant. Aside from that sort of loose speculation, there seems essentially zero solid evidence supporting a Moon Hoax.

    All my history books claim that Columbus discovered the New World in 1492. But suppose some analyst pointed to various minor discrepancies in the historical record and the explorer’s public statements to argue that the voyage was a hoax, and perhaps Columbus himself never existed. Would that be enough to overcome my presumption that every major historian writing about those events had been dishonest or deceived? Absolutely not! A huge amount of overwhelmingly solid substantiation would need to be provided in such a situation. Extraordinarily remarkable claims require extraordinarily remarkable evidence, a situation regularly ignored by conspiratorially-minded individuals.

    Various assertions are made about some of the Moon photos looking very suspicious, and given my lack of expertise I personally can’t evaluate them. But even if some of the photos were doctored, a vastly more parsimonious hypothesis seems obvious. The Moon program apparently cost U.S. taxpayers something like $150 billion in current dollars, and represented a gigantic American commitment of money and prestige. Now suppose that trip went fine, but the actual photos taken by the astronauts came out blurry or were otherwise poor in quality. Isn’t it quite plausible that embarrassed NASA officials might just have had someone in their photo department quietly touch them up or even fabricate them to avoid public embarrassment? A very minor “white lie” like that, involving just a couple of NASA employees, would hardly be earth-shattering. After all, PR people are always touching up the photos for celebrities and politicians, and such touched-up photos hardly constitute evidence that the celebrity is fictitious.

    A gigantic number of Americans were directly involved in the space program. If it were a hoax, surely thousands or even tens of thousands of the employees must have been aware of that shocking fact, and yet after fifty years not a single clear whistleblower has come forward. This total silence renders a hoax extremely implausible.

    The counter-argument is made that huge numbers of Americans were also involved in the Manhattan Project, which was successfully kept secret, but that seems silly. Obviously, during wartime, it’s less likely that vital military secrets would get out into the media, and since almost no one had ever heard of atomic bombs, the workers might simply have mentioned to their family or friends that they were working on a super-powerful new bomb, which is exactly what everyone experts during a war. Also, the secrecy only lasted for a few years rather than a half-century.

    But I think a different argument from silence totally kills the Moon Hoax theory. As everyone knows, one of the biggest reasons for our space program and moon landing was the zero-sum competition for international prestige with Russia during the Cold War, and although it eventually fell behind, the USSR had a very solid space program of its own, with numerous satellites and telescopes. If our Moon landing were just a fraud, it seems totally impossible that the Soviets weren’t aware of that, and they could have totally destroyed America’s international prestige by revealing the hoax. Yet they never made a single such claim at the time. Unless this gigantic issue is effectively addressed, any Moon Hoax theory can be immediately dismissed.

    But here’s a slightly different Moon Hoax “conspiracy theory” that seems vastly more plausible to me. It’s well-known that U.S. government officials and intelligence agencies have grown quite concerned with the spread of popular “conspiracy theories” after the JFK assassination and the 9/11 attacks, with the published documents by the CIA and the statements of Cass Sunstein demonstrating this.

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-the-cia-invented-conspiracy-theories/

    http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-part-i-what-happened/

    Now people who come to believe in one or two unorthodox “conspiracy theories” are obviously much more likely to easily accept others as well. So it wouldn’t really surprise me if various “disinfo agents” began promoting the Moon Hoax as a sort of poisoned bait for conspiracy-activists, hoping lots of them would begin accepting it and making themselves look totally ridiculous. In fact, isn’t that *exactly* what Sunstein had personally suggested a decade or so ago? Perhaps it’s more than a pure coincidence that apparently the only book ever published endorsing a Moon Hoax theory came out in 2005, just as the 9/11 Truth movement was starting to really take off. Hasn’t there also been big wave of Flat Earth videos being promoted on YouTube?

    Anyway, that’s my own “conspiracy theory” regarding a Moon Hoax.

    Moreover, whenever we’ve published an occasional article having any relation at all to the Space Program, it’s been very irritating that “excitable” Moon Hoax people have frequently cluttered up the comment-threads with their strange ideas. Now that they have this dedicated comment-thread for their extended discussion, it will be much more reasonable in the future to just summarily trash their off-topic comments on other articles.

  2. 1) so why didn’t the soviets call out the americans, claim it was fake, then continue with their own manned mission, and land on the moon first themselves?

    because the moon landings definitely did happen, soviet scientists confirmed it, soviets knew they lost the space race, and abandoned their manned moon mission. they were strapped for cash, and moved on to other missions. for instance, landing on venus. which, did that not happen either? which brings us to:

    2) were the mars missions hoaxes too? did a single US built rover ever land on mars? did a single US build satellite ever orbit mars? or is that all bullshit as well?

    i guess we can go even further to:

    3) are there any other planets at all? or is it just ‘turtles all the way down’ as they say. is earth just on a turtle’s back? indeed, is the earth flat too?

    all you need to do is to stand on everest or one of the similar 28,000 foot mountain peaks to see the earth clearly curving, but that’s never enough for the flat earth guys. which will be the case with the moon landing hoax guys. NO AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE will ever be enough for these guys.

    those space missions where human craft land on asteroids, and bring back asteroid samples, they’ll just say those missions are fake too. the japanese are in on it.

  3. It’s pointless to argue with these people. Don’t waste the keystrokes. Nothing will ever convince them.

    • Replies: @Christo
    , @quift
  4. @Ron Unz

    you’re wasting your time, ron.

    astronauts could live stream the trip to mars in 4K video with stereo sound, and these hoax guys would still say it’s fake.

    astronauts could bring back mars rocks and these guys would STILL say it’s fake.

  5. @Ron Unz

    Thank you, Mr. Unz, for saying what needed to be said. When I saw this article and scanned it, I was about to vomit, throw my laptop out the window and decide never to log on here again.

    I am open-minded. I believe in the dialectic that you so admirably facilitate here. I am even subject to some pretty far-out ideas (such as the one I just now wrote about in Steve Sailer’s comment section) but moon hoax feces drives me over the edge and actually makes me mad. It is beyond stupid to the point of being offensive.

    Thank you for putting it in its place, even after providing it with a free speech opportunity. Your golden comment balances out all the pale spittle above it.

    • Agree: MikeatMikedotMike
    • LOL: eah
    • Replies: @Alfa158
    , @Word Killer
  6. joe webb says:

    this is all very interesting but what has it got to do with the proletariat taking over the means of production? And which Oligarchy has most promoted it, the hoax that is?

    And further, Russia may have been in on the Moon Hoax to undermine faith in government in the US.

    • Replies: @TheBard
    , @sally
    , @The Alarmist
  7. Alfred says:

    One glance at the lunar landing module at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington was enough to convince this engieer that there was nowhere near enough fuel to take this thing back into orbit around the moon.

    https://airandspace.si.edu/multimedia-gallery/99-15232hjpg

    OK. We all know that gravity on the moon is 1/6th that on earth, but compare with the size of the rocket that took the thing and a lot more off the surface of the earth.

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/vintagespace/2017/12/14/222/

  8. “Cryptic references to child abuse” in The Shining

    I think I spotted a few. They’re pretty well hidden. There’s the central backstory of Jack injuring Danny, the central plot twist around Wendy’s assumption that Jack injured Danny after the Room 237 incident, the running theme of Grady slaughtering his daughters, and the last 45 minutes of the film in which Jack is trying to kill Danny.

    Very cryptic, blink and you might miss it, but it just MIGHT have something to with child abuse. If you’re conspiracy minded, I mean…

    • Replies: @MacNucc11
  9. Anonymous[144] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    Not to quibble with your point, but I recall Fox back when it was an upstart network running a show calling the moon landing a hoax during what I believe must have been the 1990s.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  10. mijj says:

    the only part i find genuinely intriguing is the “no stars” part.

    The part dedicated to The Shining seems to me to be rather like the “satanic messages in rock records played backwards” epidemic some time ago. Promoted psychological illusions.

    Of course, the whole issue could simply be cleared up by examining the sites of the landings.

  11. Anonymous[285] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    Unz, that comparison with Columbus is asinine and grasping at straws: for one thing, the Spanish didn’t launch just five expeditions in three years, only to stop the project abruptly and then no one ever managed to replicate the feat since then up to the present day, because apparently the technology to cross the Atlantic “just can’t be replicated.”

    Let’s just keep this real simple:
    Do you acknowledge that America in the Sixties had the means and motivation to lie to itself and the rest of the world about its superior tech and achievements in an attempt to upstage the Soviets?
    And do you believe the official televised narrative of every project the US government unveils to the public?
    Vox Day has written extensively on this subject
    https://voxday.blogspot.com/search?q=Moon&m=1

    • Replies: @Wild Man
  12. Thomm says:

    People who believe in the ‘Moon Landing Hoax’ theory are scientifically illiterate and aren’t even good at choosing which conspiracy theory to get behind.

    Sending men to the Moon was not even the most technically difficult thing NASA and other space agencies have done. It had the greatest PR value, yes, at the time it was done.

    But we have since sent unmanned probes as far as Neptune and Pluto. We have landed probes on comets over 1000 times further than the Moon. We have had people up in orbiting space stations for 2 years at a time. We have had rovers on Mars (hundreds of times further than the Moon) in operation for years at a time.

    Yet, landing men on the Moon is a ‘hoax’. These nuts should also list which other space accomplishments (whether by the US, the USSR/Russia, Europe, China, India, etc.) are hoaxes and which are legit. This is where they swiftly reveal how little they actually know about space.

  13. Ever have one of those days when you feel like you’re being played for a fool?

    • Replies: @Truth
  14. apollonian says: • Website

    Who Really, Does Jew, Unz, Think He Fools?

    Unz: WHY wouldn’t the “moon-landing” be a hoax if so desperately pushed by Jews like thou and the lying Jews-media?–that’s called INDUCTIVE LOGIC, sucker–the conclusion that if it isn’t hoax, then it needs to be PROVEN it’s NOT hoax–get it, stupid kike?

    Jew: do thou have ANY proof there was “moon-landing”? Doesn’t it bother thou there’s NO STARS in the innumerable photos of all the pretended “moon-landing” activity? And there’s good reason for the moronic excuses they give for lack of stars showing in photos, eh? Ho ho ho oho.

    Regarding thy putrid web-site for “pilpul” Jews and liars–the whole site is TRASH, like thou, Jew, utterly negligible for any serious people, and thy filthy race of trashy, murdering monsters, called Jews.

    But it’s fitting and interesting to have a site like thine, reduction-to-absurd for pilpul kike liars, their goyim suck-alongs, like “one-born-brainless,” and those precious psychos who keep saying Christianity is just variation of Judaism, “Christ was Jew,” etc., whom thou also make use of, eh?

    And WHAT a pathologic psycho thou are–so obsessively checking and reading EVERY goddam posting entry to MAKE SURE thou censors and deletes the REAL, serious, genuine Christians (hence anti-semites). So that’s how thou think thou shall “normalize” kikery–getting people to “beleeeeeev” that “golly gee, but Jews are like anyone else,” and “there are good Jews along w. some bad,” and “gee whiz, but thou can’t judge all kikes by just one or a few,” ho ho ho ho ho ho.

  15. Yes, while there could well have been enough motive to fake the moon landing evidence if there was a reasonable chance of getting away with it at least for a few years it would be astonishing if the Russians or Chinese or any other country with superior hacking facilities didn’t correspondingly spoil the story. By now too Wikileaks would have had something on it.

    Another test to apply is the wealth of those who could have blown the whistle and their families. Even if there were only 30 definitively credible potential whistleblowers it would surely cost a lot to keep them happy. Let’s say an average of $5 million each in 1973 and a clause in their agreements which might mean they would lose everything if they leaked. There would be a lot of notably rich people now (@6 per cent compounded about $70 million). Alternatively, wouldn’t the now dead (e.g. Neil Armstrong) have given their families something very valuable to sell, like an affidavit made on his deathbed with signature verifiable as the same as in the will of which a court had granted probate? But he does tell a good story doesn’t he.

  16. Thomm says:

    An idiotic sentence from the article :

    Time is working to the advantage of the moon hoax theorists, for every year that passes makes people wonder: “If it was so easy to send a man to the moon between 1969 and 1972, why has it not been done again ever since?”

    Simple : The cost/benefit analysis is horrendously bad, and once the PR value of being first was achieved, there was no reason to spend that much money when no industrial application of any sort emerged.

    No, time is not working to the advantage of the nuts – more and more technologically challenging feats are being demonstrated by multiple space agencies the world over. The Moon landing happened when it was, in fact, technologically feasible within the vast budget involved.

    • Replies: @gsjackson
    , @Ned Ludlam
  17. renfro says:
    @Ron Unz

    ”of poisoned bait for conspiracy-activists, hoping lots of them would begin accepting it and making themselves look totally ridiculous.”

    Yes.
    And I cant wait for the conspiracy guys to tell us where the children that weren’t
    really killed at Sandy Hook are being hidden.

  18. anonymous[734] • Disclaimer says:

    ‘the moon hoax theory was almost unheard of before the spread of the internet’

    I am almost certain this is not true. I am of just the right age to remember when the internet first became a ‘thing’ for most ordinary people and I remember reading before and after about the faked moon landing in places like the readers digest etc. Even if these articles were not agreeing with the conspiracy theorists and were just laying what they said out they were fairly common back before the internet and after.

    • Replies: @Joey Pastrami
    , @Known Fact
  19. If Van Allen Belt radiation “would…damage the electronic equipment” aboard the Apollo spacecraft, then, Moon Landing Skeptic, you need to explain why that radiation failed to damage electronic equipment aboard Mariner, Voyager, and all the other unmanned non-landing exploratory spacecraft and all the landers, such as the ones that alighted upon Mars and, quite recently, upon a comet.

    No stars seen? Have a gander at the images from unmanned exploratory spacecraft – ever seen stars in their images of Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto? Pilots of the X-15 rocket planes reached space and described their heavenward view as “black” – they, too, saw no stars.

    The United States landed American men on the moon and returned them safely to earth.

  20. anonymous[734] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    ‘Well, I’d never even known that Moon Hoax theories existed until a year or two ago’

    Really?

    They are the quintessential conspiracy theory (even the death of JFK does not quite match their stature since many people can genuinely believe that Kennedy was murdered in a conspiracy). I first heard about them when I was seven but of course the internet today makes the most convincing evidence freely available…

    • Replies: @Herald
  21. I believe that NASA successfully landed a manned spacecraft on the moon in 1969.

    Have advanced human civilizations not sent scientific probes into outer space?

    Has we not explored the outer planets?

    Has the US not landed a spacecraft on Mars?–(or is that also fake?)

    But let the debates begin!

    Free speech. Unfettered inquiry. Intellectual freedom. These intellectual pursuits are all essential to a dynamic and open society. This goes without saying. (or at least it should).

    After all, we ‘believers’ in the moon landing might be wrong. I concede this. So bring it on!

    Follow the evidence wherever it leads. Erase all doubt. Keep digging. Examine and cross-examine. History is a process of continuous discovery. (Science and history are never ‘settled’.)

    Contrast this open, intellectual attitude with the concerted, moneyed and dark global effort to quash and criminalize all ‘doubting’ of the official Holocaust narrative (and Jewish death count) that allegedly occurred in Europe from 1942 – 1945.

    There shall be no doubt.

    That’s HATE!

    Doubting the moon however landing is A-Ok and very progressive. Sure, hoaxes do happen.

    Consider this:

    Doesn’t ‘The Holocaust’ fable seem even more fragile (than the moon landing) when one considers the countless fraudulent claims by Jewish ‘survivors’, Israeli advocates and pro-Zionist journalists that have occurred for decades?

    Isn’t it significant that the ‘six million Jews’ meme was trotted out falsely and repeatedly long before Adolf Hitler was even born?

    Zionist Jewry has a proclivity as well as an incentive to lie and to exaggerate.

    Fortified false history however does not occur by accident.

    Sometimes it is used to purify criminality.

    Israel’s brazen taking of Palestine (and manipulation of Washington) requires a yarn of monumental proportions. There must be horrific Jewish suffering and epic, shameful injustice committed by the gentile world against the hapless, innocent Jewish one.

    The stage is set. The tale is written. Guilt is radiated far and wide.

    And the Zionist project benefits.

    But what is NASA’s dark, secret objective?–more funding for a do-nothing government agency?

    Hmm.

    It’s hard to believe that a fraud of this magnitude occurred and that the truth hasn’t leaked by now.

    In any event: let the debates begin!

    Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

    This is normal and natural for those who seek Truth.

    OOPS!

    But wait.

    Holocaust?

    Doubt?

    Cross-examination?

    Denial?

    Wha!?

    (oh never mind.)

    • Agree: ChuckOrloski
    • Replies: @mark green
  22. @Ron Unz

    Your arguments against the Moon Hoax Theory are :

    1) There was a vast number of interviews and media accounts.

    2) The project cost $150 billion.

    Arguments 1) and 2) are consequential arguments, not causal ones. If the decision to cheat was already made, then mass media presentation (the main source for propaganda and it was all about propaganda) and of course the costs would be unavoidable consequences.

    3) Failed photos could have forced NASA to produce fake ones in the studio, but that was a minor deception.

    Well, but what about the missing stars ? Why did the astronauts not see stars in space en route to the moon ?

    4) Too many people were involved in the hoax, but none blew the whistle.

    Most people worked on a need-to-know basis on the ground. The astronauts did go up in rockets, but only orbited the earth. Only the small group of people involved with
    the so-called “communication with the astronauts” needed to be part of the deception.

    5) The USSR did not expose the hoax.

    Russia did not expose the 9/11 hoax either. Either they have been deceived themselves, or they have themselves some skeletton in the closet.

    6) The Moon Hoax Theory might be part of Cass Sunstein’s cognitive infiltration project, just like the Flat Earth Theory.

    The absolutely ridiculous Flat Earth Theory might very well be part of Sunstein’s project, but that is of an entirely different nature than the possible Moon Hoax Theory, which after all is far older than the Flat Earth Theory, which only recently appeared on the Internet.

    There is one single argument that simply cannot be denied : the impossibility of living beings to travel through the Van Allen Belt and stay alive. NASA itself has admitted that it has not solved this problem. No travel through the Van Allen Belt, no journey to the moon, hence it was a hoax. Period.

  23. Anonymous[317] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    Yeah, this one thing completly blows it out of the water.
    Why would the Soviet Union participate in such a hoax? Was the cover up *that* good? How?

    • Replies: @Redking
  24. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:

    The most simple reason against possibility of moon landings with XX century analog technologies, is that while to launch a rocket from Earth we use hundreds of technicians, the launches from the Moon surface are served by a couple of airforce officers, selected by their stamina. Launches from Earth go through testing, numerous fail starts etc. From the supposed moon landings, tinfoil ascent modules always start with no problems, and the crewmen always succeed to meet their rocket somewhere on Moon orbit, with no breeches in their suits, no health damage or disability etc. Moreover, they look great back on Earth. For travel to the moon, humanity still lacks technologies of life support, even without the belt. April the 1st is everyday for many Americans confident with moon landings. The populace was just prepared to believe a scenario following comic books or Frau im Mond.

    • Replies: @Random Smartaleck
  25. Cowboy says:

    If our Moon landing were just a fraud, it seems totally impossible that the Soviets weren’t aware of that, and they could have totally destroyed America’s international prestige by revealing the hoax. Yet they never made a single such claim at the time. Unless this gigantic issue is effectively addressed, any Moon Hoax theory can be immediately dismissed.

    What if the USSR, just like the USA, was a masonic creation. What if the entire cold war was a carefully orchestrated dialectic, a massive hoax placed above the moon hoax?

    If it were a hoax, surely thousands or even tens of thousands of the employees must have been aware of that shocking fact, and yet after fifty years not a single clear whistleblower has come forward. This total silence renders a hoax extremely implausible.

    Did you read about Kubrik? You certainly didn’t address it. Have you looked into the number of people related to the space program who, like Kennedy witnesses and associates, died in very suspicious circumstances in very large numbers? Freemasons are responsible for the murder of untold millions.

    I have told you before Ron, by ignoring the independent and uncorrelated variable of secret societies your welt-anschauung, or understanding of reality, suffers from the omitted variable bias. The same applies to “moon landing skeptic”. The entire moon landing is seeped with masonic symbology and numerology and numerous players were high ranking masons. Exposure of the moon hoax is far more significant than either of you realize.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    , @j2
  26. This sentence jumped out at me:

    “On May 25, 1961, a mere 43 days after Yuri Gagarin allegedly completed one orbit around the earth…”

    Allegedly? So the Russians were faking their space program too?

    • Replies: @Moon Landing Skeptic
  27. @Ron Unz

    But I think a different argument from silence totally kills the Moon Hoax theory. As everyone knows, one of the biggest reasons for our space program and moon landing was the zero-sum competition for international prestige with Russia during the Cold War, and although it eventually fell behind, the USSR had a very solid space program of its own, with numerous satellites and telescopes. If our Moon landing were just a fraud, it seems totally impossible that the Soviets weren’t aware of that, and they could have totally destroyed America’s international prestige by revealing the hoax. Yet they never made a single such claim at the time. Unless this gigantic issue is effectively addressed, any Moon Hoax theory can be immediately dismissed.

    That is also my argument against these Moon deniers and also Americans are a notoriously garrulous bunch who just can’t keep secrets unlike the Chinese and Russians.

  28. eah says:

    they still seem just as totally ridiculous

    OK.

    Speaking of the 52% (of the British public who believe the moon landings were faked), one wonders exactly who and how many were asked, and what fraction of the 52% have actually spent any time looking into it.

    Also it would be nice to hear the story behind the US ambassador giving the Dutch PM a piece of petrified wood, misrepresenting it as a moon rock — ?

  29. The Eye says:

    Nice April Fools joke Ron!

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    , @caltrop
  30. Anon[926] • Disclaimer says:

    This article is racist.

    How dare you suggest that the African American women mathematicians, scientists and engineers who got us to the moon were somehow perpetrating a fraud.

  31. Maiasta says:

    Ron, i suppose it is to your credit that you post something (on April 1st) that you deeply disagree with – a testimony to Unz.com’s intellectual open-ness. There is little doubt that intelligence agencies do try to push retarded concepts (Flat Earth, etc.) in order to discredit other more substantial investigations. But i disagree with your assessment here.

    The article was too broad and unfocused, but it did touch on many of the important points. Given the huge progress in aeronautics, engineering, computer technology, satellites since 1972, and given the fact that an average smartphone is “millions of times more powerful than all of NASA’s combined computing in 1969”, it’s somewhat questionable that nobody has managed to even equal NASA alleged feat, much less surpass it after 50 years. This is not how technological progress works.

    It’s also ludicrous that NASA refuses to divulge radiation data on the Van Allen Belts on the pretext of “national security”.

    Maybe try looking at this subject again, but with a narrower and more focused critique. The Wisnewski book (“One Small Step”) is certainly credible, well-researched and non-dogmatic in its approach. Not a bad starting-point.

    • Replies: @doublethink
  32. Here are 2012 satellite images of Apollo landing sites 11,12,14,15 and 16, with visible landers and rover tracks.

    https://www.space.com/12796-photos-apollo-moon-landing-sites-lro.html

    You’re welcome.

  33. I got into the 3rd chapter before I thought I better hit the comments and see what the trend is before I commit to reading this lengthy piece. The moon landings make more sense to me than 9/11 but who knows WTF reality is anymore.

    • Replies: @Joe Six Pack
  34. Now after reading this lengthy exposition of the material, my current view is that…they still seem just as totally ridiculous.

    So the solution is to give them more exposure, with your imprimatur?

    So it wouldn’t really surprise me if various “disinfo agents” began promoting the Moon Hoax as a sort of poisoned bait for conspiracy-activists, hoping lots of them would begin accepting it and making themselves look totally ridiculous.

    Indeed. We have more than enough ‘genuine’ hoaxes and those perpetrating them would be delighted if all critics were silenced.

    Now that they have this dedicated comment-thread for their extended discussion, it will be much more reasonable in the future to just summarily trash their off-topic comments on other articles.

    Not sure about cause and effect here, but I suppose it’s a plan. Are you going to facilitate this for every variety of lunatic? And what about the inevitable grey areas? Even I’m not quite sure why WTC7 came down.

    Ultimately, I’ve the feeling that a lot of people believe in outlandish conspiracy theories because it’s fun.

    • Replies: @David Bauer
    , @abbybwood
  35. Aww crap, it’s April 1 and I just noticed 😉

  36. You’d never even HEARD of the Moon Hoax theories? At your age? And you still think it was real? Boomer cognitive dissonance.

  37. Sam J. says:

    “…it wouldn’t really surprise me if various “disinfo agents” began promoting the Moon Hoax as a sort of poisoned bait for conspiracy-activists, hoping lots of them would begin accepting it and making themselves look totally ridiculous…”

    I believe this is correct. I think the flat earth business is more of the same.

    I’ve looked at a great, great deal of the moon hoax material and so far I’ve found none of their “problems” that weren’t readily explainable.

    For fun here’s a couple of “problems” you mentioned.

    1. LEM seemingly fragile.
    Here’s a picture of it without the cover. The structure was metal. The outside covers are just a thin metalized film to protect against heat.

    2. Too hot or cold.
    Very thin films can bounce off vast amounts of heat if they are done right and that’s what the films are for. To keep heat in and out. Vacuum is the best insulator we have so all heat is radiated in space. This is also how the astronauts handled the heat. The temperature stated is only if you have a black surface that captures all the heat from the Sun. If you bounce most of it off it’s not hot. Same for the cold, it’s a vacuum so only heat that is radiated away is lost. That’s why they call “space blankets”, space blankets, as they originated in the reflecting material used in space. Here’s a picture of two people in a tent imaged by a thermal camera. The bright spot on the ground is a mouse. You can’t see much in the way of heat being emitted. In space all the heat loss would be from emitted heat so it’s not a lot.

    3. Van Allen radiation belts. Here,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt#Implications_for_space_travel

    They say,”…A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles (320 by 32,190 km)) passing the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year (for comparison, a full-body dose of 5 Sv is deadly). Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt…:

    The astronauts went around most of the inner belt and passed through the outer quickly. Notice the rem count is from being in it a year. I can’t find the link but I’ve read before radiation from the outer belt could be stopped with something as thin as a magazine cover.

    A few other thing. The focus from the camera doesn’t seen to be a problem. Surely they worked the focus and light exposure levels on earth before they got up there. They probably would only need a few set values if they set up the shots right.

    Bright light in supposed shadows is easy too. The astronauts are wearing bright White suits that will be facing whatever they are shooting so the suit will illuminate a a lot. Anyone who’s been on the beach knows the sand reflecting the Sun can be dazzling even though you are not looking at the Sun at all.

    No one, that I’ve seen, has any revelations that would cause me to believe that they didn’t land there.

    And yes I do believe in conspiracies. Any one who looks at building 7 on 9-11 and doesn’t get that there’s a conspiracy there is a fool. I don’t expect Fox news to make a video about that anytime soon.

    • Replies: @abbybwood
  38. @Ron Unz

    Thanks for this post. I was worried you’d gone completely off the deep end.

    As for the “Kubrick hypothesis” and those layers and layers of cryptic clues – thanks for the laughs!

  39. Given what conspiracies are, a “breathing together” of evildoers and the overwhelming preponderance of evildoers in Government and Governments own parasites, it is undeniable that thousands of onspiracies are hatched and executed daily in DC. There is no government activity that is free of them.
    I’ve long heard of this one but not looked at it and probably won’t.
    It falls under The Times category “Small earthquake in Bolivia, Not many dead”.

  40. MarkU says:

    I have spent some time on the moon landing hoax conspiracy story myself. I mainly confined my own study to the scientific aspects of the story. There are plenty of reasons to be suspicious but thus far I have found nothing conclusive in either direction. Ron Unz’s theory that the conspiracy crowd are being baited could be right, but there are a lot of fishy aspects to the story.

    I particularly don’t like the ‘couldn’t see the stars from the moon’ claim at all and have heard no convincing explanation to support it. The moon’s surface may be bright in direct unfiltered sunlight but I can’t see that it would have been that hard to shield ones eyes from the glare, especially with the shadow of the moon lander available. There is no atmosphere on the moon to diffuse the light.

    Until there is some hard evidence to back up the quite understandable suspicions, the jury is still out as far as I am concerned. I eagerly await a more thorough examination of the alleged moon rocks and a verifiable passage through the Van Allen belt.

  41. Correction. The few deceased were Chilean.

  42. Sid74 says:

    There are so many things wrong with this article that it’s unclear as to where to start.

    Let’s start with the basic logic mentioned in the beginning: that it is up to NASA to “prove” the moon landings happened. And of course “proof” is not the entirety of the official record of lead up tests, flights, audio, video, materials and on and on. Since after all intimately everything can be faked.

    Here’s the thing: yes, everything can be faked. I have never been to Antarctica. I only know about it because I keep reading about it. But perhaps it’s all faked as part of a major scam. Ditto everything. Existence of Julius Ceasar? Could be faked. Exoplanets? Could be faked. And on and on.

    Philosophically what every individual human being has to weigh is the probability of an assertion being true vs that it being false. If we take the extreme view that only what we sense through our own organs can possibly exist and everything else needs to be “proved”, I can only vouch for a very very tiny fraction of what’s asserted.

    In order to assess probabilities we need to understand the subject matter of that we are skeptics of at some level. So if one is skeptical of Evolution one needs to understand it first. We need to understand why assertions may be false; the number of people needed to falsify the record; the motivations to lie and so on.

    Skepticism around the moon landing seems to have started with two primary axioms;

    1. It is impossible for humans to get through the Van Allen belts.

    2. Governments lie and government bureaucracies – like NASA – in particular lie to protect their turf and steal money from the public.

    That the Van Allen belts (which by the way I have never personally seen/sensed and only asserted – so may be they are another giant fake?) were a serious consideration by NASA in designing deep space missions is true but any assertions of “impossibility” was just that (and one needs to have some level of education to argue the point).

    The second axiom is indeed true in general – especially where the military is concerned – but skeptics go far beyond that and claim that it’s always necessarily true no matter the subject and how many people it would take to scam/keep the lid on said scam. NASA then is not a collection of disparate scientists, technicians, administrators – all of them human with a capacity to lie of course – but a well oiled machine with a singular purpose to bilk the public of billions.

    Now I have little doubt that NASA would have overcharged on the Apollo missions, that there was corruption etc. If someone came along and showed that the entire thing could have been done at half the cost with half the personnel without compromising safety it may not be far fetched.

    But skeptics go far beyond that. They assert that the moon landings could simply not be true (the above two axioms are a starting point) and start to spin their own narrative about how they could have been faked.

    There are those with greater patience than I who have gone through each one of the standard objections to the moon landing: the photos, shadows etc. One objection noted above – that the astronauts never reported stars on the way to the moon – is false. Of course it could have been faked, but not only did NASA officially carry our astronomical experiments on the way to the moon involving stars, but most famously Apollo 13 used stars to navigate their path home. So at least if NASA faked the whole thing they didn’t forget about the stars. (Incidentally various photos by unmanned craft including that by Russians – and recently by the Chinese and Indian missions – don’t show stars in their pics).

    The moon landing was indeed a great achievement but once one understands the pieces – physics, rocket engineering (even most skeptics don’t deny that you can get satellites into deep space orbit which itself is tricky which is why for a long time only two nations mastered it), crew safety (the toughest bit with the greatest risk – unmanned craft had landed on the moon – which is where it took a long time), it is not unfathomable. One can argue that the Manhattan project was in many ways more challenging given the new physics, time frames and vast unknowns.

  43. How will the Hoax crowd explain the Laser Pulses reflected back by laser retroreflectors left behind by the Apollo programs?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

    For those few misguided souls who still cling to the belief that the Moon landings never happened, examination of the results of five decades of LRRR experiments should evidence how delusional their rejection of the Moon landing really is.[34]

    The NASA-independent Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur, McDonald, Apache Point, and Haleakalā observatories regularly use the Apollo LRRR.[35] Lick Observatory attempted to detect from Apollo 11’s retroreflector while Armstrong and Aldrin were still on the Moon but did not succeed until August 1, 1969.[36] The Apollo 14 astronauts deployed a retroreflector on February 5, 1971, and McDonald Observatory detected it the same day. The Apollo 15 retroreflector was deployed on July 31, 1971, and was detected by McDonald Observatory within a few days.[37]

  44. In my view, it is a logical fallacy, to conclude from public TV pictures shown, that man has not made it to the moon. Man eventually went far beyond the moon, but there is neither a “holocaust” memorial on moon or mars.

    Chemical rockets won’t do the trick obviously, but a field propulsion would, and this is what has been kept secret, going along with stolen patents in Germany.
    The big question is, and so incredibly difficult to track, what precisely happend during the “cold war” really up until today? What happened to these patents and technology stolen? The US B2 is an obvious example of a Horten plane.
    Where is all the gold going?
    Why is there basically a drive to centralize all resources on the planet? For what aim? War against a much more powerful enemy that requires all resources?

  45. @Ron Unz

    Ron, if you read Wisnewski’s book, you will find that his first chapters deal with the Soviet Space program, and give some possible answers to the obvious objection to the Moon Hoax theory: why didn’t the Russians expose the lie? One first response is: why should they? Why not instead use this show of force by the US to tighten the regime and justify boosting its armament effort? But there is more: the Soviet Space achievements, before Apollo 11, were also largely fake, at least Gagarin’s first manned flight around the earth. So another question is: why didn’t the US expose the Soviet lie? Well, why should they? Why not, rather, use whatever proof they have of the Soviet lie to put them in the position where they cannot denie the US’s achievement without exposing themselves to being exposed. In this game of war propaganda, truth doesn’t matter, what matters is the power to impose your narrative, and the basic rule is: he who succeeds in making the last biggest lie wins. Besides, Wisnewski gets into a lot of details about a secret cooperation between the US and USSR in fabricating mutual lies. Again, you should read this book. Of course, I am not saying that everything is easy to explain. A lot remains mysterious, and your objections are valid. I do believe that some conspiracy theories are poisoned baits. The most obvious one, in my view, is the flat earth theory. But why would someone promote this ridiculous theory (and it is very heavily promoted on the Web), if the moon hoax theory is already doing the job, and better? It seems to me that the flat earth theory is specifically designed to discredit the moon hoax theory. That, of course, doesn’t prove the moon hoax theory is true; I’m just mentionning this to provide a different angle on that question. I am open to the possibility of being wrong, and am looking forward to serious countrer-arguments in the comments. Thank you for posting my article and thereby providing an opportunity for this debate.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
    , @siberiancat
  46. mcohen says:

    April fools day is always fun.I told a guy today that during the syrian war it was discussed at nato headquarters, that if turkey were to be attacked from the rear,whether greece would help.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  47. @Ron Unz

    With respect, Mr. Unz, your rebuttal doesn’t really address the litany of technical problems to the Moon Landing claims. Hoaxers are right to smell a rat.
    (Dave McGowan’s “Wagging the Moondoggie” does a great overview: http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/)

    • Replies: @Herald
  48. anon[621] • Disclaimer says:

    Our High School got the arvo off to go home and watch it on TV
    4 others and I went to the Golf Course hunting for lost balls instead. There was just an air of unreality around it.
    Was it a hoax?
    It’s one of those things like the efficacy of vaccines that’s being sprung on us by the Media- you either buy in to drinking the KoolAid, or you’re a NoGoodNik, and maybe even a Terrorist?

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  49. April 1.

    Coincidence?

  50. Willem says:

    Why not solve this question once and for all an go (again) to the moon. If they could do it in the 60s, we can do it now. Such an endeavour would make any country look great (again).

    But if they faked it in the 60s. Not sure if we can do it now…

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  51. Also re Kubrick … 3 days before his death on 7 March 1999, director Stanley Kubrick confessed to fellow film-maker T Patrick Murray, that he had faked the films of the USA claimed 6 ‘moon landings’ of 1969-1972, an era when the CIA had its own film studios at Laurel Canyon, California

    “Kubrick made it clear that he had agreed to the interview for a very specific purpose. He knew that he was close to death & he wanted to get something monumental off his chest before he died. Almost immediately after sitting down, he proceeded to tell the stunned interviewer that the moon landings were fake & he himself had been the director in charge of the filming proceedings.

    T (T. Patrick Murray): That we didn’t land on the moon, you’re saying?

    K (Stanley Kubrick): No, we didn’t. It was not real.

    T: The moon landings were fake?

    K: A, a, a … fictional moon landing. A fantasy. It was not real.

    T: The moon landing in ’69 …

    K: Is total fiction. I perpetrated a huge fraud on the American public, involving the United States government & NASA, that the moon landings were faked, that the moon landings ALL were faked, & I was the person who filmed it.

    T: Why did they have to fake it? Why would they have to do that?

    K: Because it is impossible to get there.

    From the Onion, the ‘true original’ videotape of the ‘men landing on the moon’, full of four-letter words, 2min51, quite funny

  52. A different theory holds that, yes, we did go to the moon; but, on the moon, we encountered extraterrestrials who told us in no uncertain terms to stay out of space on pain of dire consequences.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  53. Thanks. For me the shamed demeanour of the “moonwalkers” while being interviewed, the claim by NASA officials that they have “lost” the technology to return to the moon and then the kicker, the Van Allen belt. Those are the real tells for me. Other astronauts have reported bright flashes and sparks in their vision, painful headaches and a loss of concentration getting even near that radioactive zone never mind flying through it. Hopefully the more erudite commenters will clear those questions up for me.

    Imagine if it did turn out to be a great hoax and the science come to prove that conclusively. That would be the time for all to accept that just about everything else that we’ve been led to understand is real and true is actually not that way at all but often the very opposite and ask, why?.

  54. farang says:

    Curious you chose to make an analogy of the alleged moon landing hoax with your perceived “historically proven” discovery of America by Columbus in 1492.

    Why curious? There is indeed an abundance of evidence that this is a fake story, and one that has had “time altered” and if you wish, I am happy to provide convincing evidence. For instance, his family name wasn’t “Columbus” it was Colombo. And there is the curious “coincidence” of a “Saint Colombo” that landed in Scotland in the 400s A.D…one thousand years earlier almost to the day.

    And the “1492 Colombo/Columbus” was in fact said to be on a Christian crusade to convert the heathens he encountered, but in reality he brought back slaves from the New World, which Queen Isabella granted freedom when they arrived, if they converted. Queen Isabella became an opponent of Colombo/Columbus, who in reality appears to have been a Jew. And she was well-documented to be opposed to Jewish influence in her empire, and it is not difficult to use etymology to understand how Isabella became the “evil queen Jezebel” of Jewish myth. “J” and “I” are interchangeable, as are the “S” and “Z”. There is much more, you have my email, just write and I will provide quite a few well-researched articles on Jewish historical illusions I have composed

  55. farang says:

    And one more thing: there is the alleged mirror left on the moon that the US used to aim a laser at (from Texas if memory serves): I suppose if that mirror can still be detected, it would be difficult to claim no one left it there…

    But Illusions of American MSM are very, very real. In fact, one might say standard operating procedure. William Casey admitted it, just a few days before he “drowned” canoeing.

  56. farang says:
    @renfro

    “And I cant wait for the conspiracy guys to tell us where the children that weren’t
    really killed at Sandy Hook are being hidden.”

    In plain sight. Really, it is quite simple: the hoaxers took photos of children that were kindergartners 3-4 years before Sandy Hook, offered them as current photos of these children, so in actual fact any one looking for those children would never find them: they were already 4 years older.

    The fact the coroner would not allow the parents of these children access to their lifeless bodies (so stated on video news that day) is very difficult to believe: if your child had been shot dead, would anything keep you from their little body?

    These children sang at halftime of a Superbowl, and anyone can see it on youtube. There is no doubt those are the Sandyhook “victims.”

    MSM is Illusion. So said the CIA’s William Casey… just a few days before his “tragic drowning” while canoeing.

    • Agree: apollonian
    • Replies: @JoeFour
  57. @prime noticer

    I have seen it claimed (in these forums) that after the 1972 Soviet crop failure, subsequent American aid (to its supposedly mortal enemy) was essentially blackmail payment to suppress Soviet revelations about the American space program.

  58. Very intelligent presentation of the facts. President Putin was asked by an obviously set up questioner in a town hall forum if the Americans went to the Moon. Putin said “”Of course they did.” However, to explain why Russia has not sent a man to mars, he said “at the present time there is no way to safely travel through the Van Allen Belts.”
    If an adult were to seriously ask us if Santa Claus exists, what should we say?

  59. @Alfred

    You’re an idiot. You cannot possibly be an “engieer” [sic]. If you are, do you have a license to put P.E. after your name? If you do, it should be revoked.

    If you are an engineer, you should be able to really do the math, s*ithead. LOR (Lunar Orbit Rendezvous) was chosen precisely so the lander could be that small and light.

    While you have written some other comments I respect, this one falls to the level of idiotic.

    • Replies: @Alfred
  60. Jake says:
    @Ron Unz

    1970s movie Capricorn One is about a faked Mars landing. That movie is how and when I first heard about a the ‘Moon landing hoax.’

  61. Jake says:

    This – not any evidence about the alleged Moon landing as hoax – is the most important section of the article: “If I say to you I walked on the moon, you will ask me to prove it, and you will not take as an answer: “No, you prove that I’m didn’t go.” Does it make a difference if I am the NASA? It does, because calling the NASA a liar will inevitably lead you to question everything you have been led to believe by your government and mainstream media. It is a giant leap indeed! Just like children of abusive parents, decent citizens of abusive governments will tend to repress evidence of their government’s malevolence.”

    Our government is abusive. It lies better than, and at least as often as, the KGB and Kremlin ever hoped to.

    • Agree: Herald
  62. Robjil says:

    There are lots of reasons for it be hoax.

    A lot of commenters say – The Soviets didn’t say anything against it.

    Well, the Soviets fixed up shower rooms to look like gas chambers after to the war. The west was in on this too. The fixed up shower rooms had weak wooden doors, not good for a gas chamber at all. The Soviets forgot to fix that, “historians” and everyone went along with it and they still do. Why did both the West and Soviets work together on this sham? Both wanted the Jewish people to have Israel without any guilt. So, the Palestinians were kicked off the land and still are be kicked off using this sham.

    After the fall of the Berlin Wall, Auschwitz camp sign changed from four million to one million died. Yet, for forty something years both in West and Soviet lands, in all our media and “history” books it was four million.

    Why didn’t they go back after 1972

    It is not about money. The US has thrown trillions on the dollars to help Israel with the Seven nations to destroy game in the middle east. The US spends 610 billion a year on military. The combined military spending by China, Russia, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, India and Japan is 578 million.

    If the US could go, others nations would have went. It is not about the money. No spaceship has been designed yet to be safe enough for manned lunar landings or manned landings anywhere in our galaxy. All the over the top US military spending for waring with its fellow earthlings is destroying any chance of that happening soon.

    This does not counter of non-manned landings on the moon or elsewhere in our galaxy. It is the manned landings that people are questioning.

    The lunar module is quite flimsy. It does look like something that could take people safely to the moon or anywhere very far in our galaxy.

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
  63. Gordo says:
    @Ron Unz

    Thank you Mister Unz.

  64. @Ron Unz

    Ron, Ron, Ron, the eye’s will never see as long as the mind is blind. Come on, 50 years later and not one manned mission has returned to the moon?
    If you ever manage to let go of your cognitive dissonance and want to look at REAL EVIDENCE, this will be a good place to start.
    https://www.aulis.com/index.html

    • Replies: @Herald
  65. apollonian says: • Website
    @Grahamsno(G64)

    Fact: There’s NO PROOF Of Any Manned Moon Landings, PERIOD, Morons–Face Reality

    Dipshit: HOW do thou know those contraptions (“retroreflectors”) weren’t put there on moon, if they’re indeed there, by means other than manned “moon-landing,” dumbass?

    Simple, easy default conclusion is manned moon-landing is lies like everything else about ZOG, fools–simple product of inductive logic, very basis of science itself, suck-holes.

    So again, question is what PROOF is there of manned moon-landings?–NONE, just the usual lies and unfounded assertions by KNOWN liars and paid flunkies. Humans are supposed to beleeeeeeeeev same morons now pushing “climate-change” lies?–and all the other lies?

    Rulers of this filthy Jew-dominated (Jews the leading Satanists–just ck into their filthy Talmud) dictatorship are same ones living off the US Fed Reserve central-bank of issue–literally legalized counterfeiting (see Mises.org for expo; use site search-engine for particular terms)–which is steadily buying-up all the nation’s and people’s assets.

    Meantime, Satanists at top are steadily killing and poisoning everyone by the toxic vaccines and drugs, “geo-engineering” and “chem-trails,” glyphosate poisons, etc.–this subtle and slow-kill mass-murder, in accord w. Agenda-21 and -2030 GENOCIDE is what’s happening, fools.

    • Replies: @Grahamsno(G64)
  66. farang says:

    There is a trail to be discovered, taking one back through time through the use of language, words. One of these trails is the word “Illusion.” Where did it originate?

    I would offer that the ancient writer called Sanchuniathon left us a big clue: He stated that the “God of Time” was called Chronus, aka “Illu.” This Illu, or Chronus, was an actual, historical person. He was a prince, living in various kingdoms his father ruled, but in one of them, Egypt, he was the “Head Priest” of the two religious centers, the “twin cities” on the Lower Nile Delta, called “Sais” and “On.”

    Later, his son also became “Head Priest” in same cities. It was common practice of the king to place family members in such positions. Sais is the same word the modern Thai call “Sai”: a temple/religious center by a river. “On” is aka the Greek “Heliopolis.”

    Illu, of Sai(s) and On IS Illusion, literally. His son? “Maya.” Maya is the sanskrit Hindu word meaning…Illusion.

    In the Egyptian texts…Maya is the son of “Iawy.”
    Yahweh. He was an Illusionist…and the last kingdom he ruled was known as the Kingdom Of Media.
    He was blinded by a spike in his right eye. Which is why you see actors and actresses placing a hand over their right eye when they sell their soul to the Media of Hollywood.

    He was also called Yuya: his mummy displays the pale skin where he wore the famous mask…and the scar of the spike driven through his forehead, popping his right eye. He is the historical person portrayed on those Chinese statues discovered in 2013, of a person wearing a mask: Yu, the Great.

    He is real, he was a very “Elusive” character…Elu Shiva. Aka “TaeSheba” the Hittite king…who sent a statue of Istar to his brother, the King of Egypt known as Amenhotep III…that my friends is the historical “Queen of (Tae/King) Sheba…a person, not a place. A tale stolen, twisted and then claimed as their own by the worshipers of the Great Deceiver: Illu of SaisOn.

    Chronus is aka Saturn.

    So, when those of us who point out that Sandyhook was an Illusion, those claiming we are “conspiracy theorists?” Who invented that term? The CIA.

    The big clue it is a hoax, an Illusion, is the name of the street that the alleged shooter and his mother lived on. It is named after an Indian Yogi that immigrated to the US in the early 1960s, that stated “The whole world is a stage, and Brahma places us where he will, and we all play our parts.” Yogananda. They lived on Yogananda Street. Curiously, I discovered that David Rockefeller donated a statue of Brahma to a museum. Brahma, the god Hindus don’t build temples to, because he “has a tendency to turn…DEMONIC.” Brahma is a Brahma…Abraham.

    I know what is not real, and Sandyhook was an Illusion. The Moon landing…well…a laser-reflecting mirror seems to indicate otherwise.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    , @Islander
  67. Cowboy says:
    @Moon Landing Skeptic

    why didn’t the Russians expose the lie? One first response is: why should they? Why not instead use this show of force by the US to tighten the regime and justify boosting its armament effort? But there is more: the Soviet Space achievements, before Apollo 11, were also largely fake, at least Gagarin’s first manned flight around the earth. So another question is: why didn’t the US expose the Soviet lie?”

    Because the ones running the show on both sides were freemasons. It explains everything. Plus there is an incredible amount of written and recorded proof of this. Albert Pike explained how the masons wanted 3 world wars in his letter to Mazzini. I know that Ron Unz disputes its authenticity, but just like the protocols of zion it has proved to be uncannily accurate.

    The real question is why would Ron Unz and “Moon Landing Skeptic” ignore a preponderance of evidence showing masonic connections and plans in Nasa and the hoaxed landing? Could they deliberately leave all these questions unanswered as a form of obfuscation? Is it possible that Brother Ron knows that the landing was faked, but due to his oaths to his masonic brothers he cannot be honest?

    The best explanation for this wilful ignorance is that they are freemasons themselves. Especially Ron Unz has been rubbing elbows with masons for long enough to either know about their activities, or to partake in them.

  68. @Cowboy

    If our Moon landing9/11 were just a fraud, it seems totally impossible that the Sovietsgovernment of fill-in-the-blank weren’t aware of that, and they could have totally destroyed America’s international prestige by revealing the hoax. Yet they never made a single such claim at the time. Unless this gigantic issue is effectively addressed, any Moon Hoax9/11 theory can be immediately dismissed.

    Just bit of post-editing there.

    I have told you before Ron, by ignoring …

    Actually, Ron’s problem is that he believes that objective reality is somehow constrained by what his mind can conceive of. (It is not.)

    He is not the only person with this problem.

  69. farang says:

    “Yahweh”/ Yuya was the old king of Media known as “Astyages.” In their language: “Ista-Magu.”

    Astyages seems to be the root for “Astigmatism” and “Ista-Magu” the inspiration for Mister Magoo.

    Both relate to be very near-sighted…or perhaps blind in one eye, as was Yuya/”Yahweh.”

    He was “YWH”: Amenhotep III had that name carved in stone at the Temple of Soleb…”The Shasu of YWH are my enemy.” He was referring to Yuya…Shasu means Children (Chasu) in sanskrit.

    Amenhotep III was called “Shalmanu” when seated on his throne in Urusalim. Shalmanu…the “God of the City” of Urusalim. Figure it out: another stolen myth by the Deceivers.

  70. @Grahamsno(G64)

    I remember reports of Laser beams being bounced off the moon in the early fifties. There is an important principle about lying. If you can lie about one thing, you can lie about another, and another, and…

    • Replies: @james charles
    , @Mr. Anon
  71. MOON LANDING SKEPTIC, whoever you are, thanks for pointing out the total absurdity of the moon landings. I must say it is sad, that no matter how much evidence is presented to show what a total sham the whole thing was, there are many who will never accept the truth. So, I say we have a little laugh with George Carlin, as he tried to tell us it was all a big lie so many years ago.

    • Replies: @Martha
  72. Harold says:

    In 2016, a survey showed that 52 percent of the British public thought that Apollo missions were faked.

    Doubtful. More likely there is something odd about the poll.

    A yougov poll gives 12%, and given 5% of people always lie to pollsters the true number is probably less.

    • Replies: @Aufklærer108
  73. @Felix Krull

    Here are 2012 satellite images of Apollo landing sites 11,12,14,15 and 16, with visible landers and rover tracks.

    https://www.space.com/12796-photos-apollo-moon-landing-sites-lro.html

    I just looked at these and you can’t make out anything! Is this some kind of joke?

    • Replies: @Truth
    , @Felix Krull
  74. @apollonian

    Meantime, Satanists at top are steadily killing and poisoning everyone by the toxic vaccines and drugs,

    Well these ‘Satanists’ have completely succeeded in your case, you have lost your fucking mind you deranged nut job.

    • Replies: @apollonian
  75. Priss Factor [AKA "Asagirian"] says: • Website
    @The Eye

    Perfect day for Moon Loon.

  76. @Willem

    But if they faked it in the 60s. Not sure if we can do it now…

    Well, it appears that both the Russians and Chinese have said they are going to send men to the moon and both have delayed the projected date:

    https://jalopnik.com/how-chinas-planned-moon-landing-will-differ-from-americ-1796095970/amp

    https://sputniknews.com/russia/201601201033407556-russia-postpones-moon-mission/

    The Chinese were going to go in 2020, but delayed it to 2036, it seems, and the Russians now say they are going in 2035. It is one thing to think that the U.S.A. is more technically advanced but frankly, it is absurd to think that it would be anything other than trivial for either the Russians or Chinese in the current day to replicate vintage 1960’s technology.

    All of this strongly suggests that the technology simply did not exist at that point in time.

    If the Russians and Chinese can’t go now and are now talking about going in the mid-2030’s, they don’t have the technology to go now and it becomes a dead cinch bet that the U.S. did not have the technology to do it half a century ago! What I’m suddenly wondering is, if the year 2036 rolls around and neither the Russians nor the Chinese nor anybody else has gone there, how many people will still believe that the Americans went 67 years earlier, in 1969?

    • Agree: Robjil
    • Replies: @ChuckOrloski
    , @Mr. Anon
  77. Wild Man says:
    @Anonymous

    Vox Day also believes that the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (TENS) is bogus. He has recently weighed in on that by misrepresenting (in the most embarrassing and ham-handed way) the mathematics that support TENS concepts such as a species rate of mutation fixing, and when this has been courteously pointed out to him, …. he refuses to acknowledge his basic math errors and instead goes ad hominem upon any commenter that won’t play along with his surprisingly juvenile subterfuge, and deletes these comments from his threads.

    Vox Day really isn’t an authority on any topic as far as I can tell, though he is often entertaining to read nevertheless. He does speculate alot about all kinds of topics and so he does offer food for thought, but I don’t see him as someone capable of converting a speculation into a testable hypothesis. It looks like to me that he doesn’t have the cognitive chops for that (despite his incessant bragging about his supposed elite-level intelligence).

    As well, I have noticed that Vox Day has no aptitude whatsoever with respect to handling metaphysical concepts such as the topic of universals. As such, when he wades into theological speculations – his tendency is to show his hand as one that easily falls prey to the error of taking on an unwarranted ontological conceit (which is an extremely common problem).

    • Replies: @Precious
  78. TG says:

    Our government has lied about so many things, I could believe about anything. Still, a couple of other thoughts:

    Apollo 15 placed a retroreflector array on the moon’s surface. It is routinely observed by laser pulses from observatories around the world. OK it could have been put there by another unannounced unmanned mission, but still…

    Right now nobody can see the landing site from earth. But it’s only a matter of time before other probes etc. get close enough to do so. The evidence of the lunar landings will be there like nearly forever. There are hints of this so far, but not conclusive. But someday we will, indeed, know for sure.

    • Replies: @David Bauer
  79. The moon landings that were shown to the public were faked, but the US has had a secret space fleet for decades that has been to the moon and mars and is called Solar Warden, if interested look up these names; Gary McKinnon, Col. Phillip Corso, Laura Eisenhower, Paul Hellyer, Al Bielek, Preston Nichols, John Lear, Bob Lazar, Corey Goode, William Pawelec, etc..

  80. apollonian says: • Website
    @Thomm

    Below Is Brilliant Example Of Dink Reasoning:

    Thomm tells us:

    “People who believe in the ‘Moon Landing Hoax’ theory are scientifically illiterate and aren’t even good at choosing which conspiracy theory to get behind.”

    But preceding is mere assertion-without-substantiation, like so much of what this dink says.

    Then-

    “Sending men to the Moon was not even the most technically difficult thing NASA and other space agencies have done. It had the greatest PR value, yes, at the time it was done.”

    So, so what?–just more babble.

    Then we get,

    “But we have since sent unmanned probes as far as Neptune and Pluto. We have landed probes on comets over 1000 times further than the Moon. We have had people up in orbiting space stations for 2 years at a time. We have had rovers on Mars (hundreds of times further than the Moon) in operation for years at a time.”

    And assuming ANY of this additional moronic babbling is true, SO WHAT?–does it prove the manned moon-landing?–NO, it doesn’t, fool–known as “red-herring” reasoning and babble.

    The dink finishes off w.,

    “Yet, landing men on the Moon is a ‘hoax’. YES, WHY NOT, SUCKER?–THOU DIDN’T TELL US, DID THOU?] These nuts should also list which other space accomplishments (whether by the US, the USSR/Russia, Europe, China, India, etc.) are hoaxes and which are legit. [WHY?–WHAT WOULD THAT PROVE, SUCKER?–IT’S THOU WHO MUST PROVE THE MANNED MOON-LANDING, MORON.] This is where they swiftly reveal how little they actually know about space.” [YEAH RIGHT–IT’S WHAT THOU PROVES ABOUT THE EMPTY SPACE BTWN THY EARS, HO HO HO HO.]

    Such is dink reasoning, folks–assertions, blather, irrelevancies, and idiot commands as to what others are supposed to do. Hint, suck-holes: it’s NOT about “knowing about space,” but simple logic. Get a clue.

    • Replies: @Thomm
  81. The hammer – feather drop was just another hoax, as this short video proves.

  82. Putting people in space is itself an incredible achievement. It’s also incredibly expensive. It cost taxpayers just over $21 billion to run NASA through September of this year.

    Yet this amount is only a fraction of our national budget. Less than half a percent. Compare this to the $750 billion received by the the Department of Defense. Now that’s alot of money!

    Now I’ll proceed with my opinion.

    What is the value of space exploration? There is no cure for disease to be found in the cosmos.

    Sending a rover to Mars while it seems amazing, which in a way it is, still is nothing but a remote control vehicle. It surveys land. Big deal. Stupid rover falls in a rut, tips over and that’s all folks!

    I can understand the excitement and pleasure engineers feel when seeing their thoughts and ideas in action. That’s great. But the idea that it’s for the good of humanity is ridiculous. It might be good for the rich in a couple hundred years. The Earth might be polluted and too dangerous to inhabit. Maybe technology and infrastructure will one day be possible in space that will allow the rich to live there. I visualize a future along the lines of the movie, Elysium.

    On another note, Border patrol recently seized over 700 lbs of fentanyl. Enough to kill over 50 million people. I don’t have much sympathy for drug addicts, but I do care about their children. They are innocent. And so often are their families. Anyway, if this doesn’t constitute a national emergency, what does? Give Trump $5 billion for a wall.

    The United States isn’t doing too well. Whether or not astronauts walked on the moon is irrelevant. We have enough problems to take care of at home before we go on an expensive vacation.

    • Replies: @Simply Simon
  83. Saggy says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Moon hoax theories are absurd, and you should not publish such idiocy. I did not work on Apollo but I did, as an engineer at Honeywell, work on the stabilization control system for the space station, and I did work with people who had worked on Apollo. I did not read the article. It should be pulled immediately, it makes you and the site look idiotic.

  84. gsjackson says:
    @Thomm

    According to this NASA astronaut, it’s because “we destroyed the technology, and it’s a painful process to put it back together again.” Begins about 1:50

    • Replies: @Moon Landing Skeptic
  85. @Thomm

    The point is not about the ability to send unmanned spacecraft to remote places, the point is to send living people to those places, and here the insoluble problem of the deadly Van Allen Belt comes at play.

  86. @Ron Unz

    A gigantic number of Americans were directly involved in the space program. If it were a hoax, surely thousands or even tens of thousands of the employees must have been aware of that shocking fact, and yet after fifty years not a single clear whistleblower has come forward. This total silence renders a hoax extremely implausible.

    This strikes me as a very very weak argument. It is true that the space program employed directly or indirectly many thousands of people, but surely the overwhelming majority would not be in a position to know whether the overall project was a hoax. If you are one of the many thousands of engineers, you are working on your little piece, some widget that connects to another widget, let’s say.

    Only people very very high up in the project would need to know that the overall thing was a hoax. I have no idea how many people that is, but that would be the relevant question. Obviously, it is a much lower number than the total number of people involved in the project.

  87. @interesting

    Start the video at 7:11 if you want.
    I’m not sure exactly what to make of it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4UP6nRMuGs&feature=youtu.be

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  88. @apollonian

    I don’t like the term “crazy anti-Semite”, but sometimes it seems to be apposite.

    • Replies: @apollonian
  89. apollonian says: • Website
    @Grahamsno(G64)

    Jewwy Shill Can’t Face Truth, Reality

    Ho ho ho oh ho, what’s the matter, “Graham…”? Did I really lose my “mind,” shit-for-brains? So what’s the error in the logic?–tell us, fool–and exactly what is “deranged”?–ho ho ho ho ho.

    We can tell thou are just another Jewwy shill who can’t imagine there’s outstanding evidence for the toxic vaccines and drugs, thou ignorant moron–which thou can easily google or use any other search-engine to find and verify, sucker. Ho ho ho ho

    • Replies: @Grahamsno(G64)
  90. @renfro

    Those Sandy Hook children didn’t exist in the first place. They are vicsims.
    Besides, the school wasn’t in use for years.

    For the idea of vicsims, see : septemberclues.info/vicsims shtm

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  91. By far the most readable and enjoyable writer on this subject is the late Dave McGowan’s WAGGING THE MOONDOGGIE. http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/

  92. @Wizard of Oz

    If they would have killed Neil Armstrong for spilling the beans, they would have killed his family for doing the same. They would have been threatened already before his death.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  93. apollonian says: • Website
    @Saggy

    “Saggy” Doesn’t Realize What Morons Some “Engineers” Can Be, Ho Ho Ho

    Saggy: Only one who looks like idiot is thou–and it goes to show what idiots “engineers” can be, eh? “Space station” is far cry fm manned moon-landing, moron–it doesn’t go through the Van Allen Belts, does it? And DID thou work w. people who worked on “Apollo”?–so what?–so what does that prove, fool?

    Don’t tell us, “Moon hoax theories are absurd,” fool–just tell us what the proof is, and/or give a citation where we might see some evidence–see what a dumbass thou really are?

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  94. @Auntie Analogue

    “…The United States landed American men on the moon and returned them safely to earth…”

    A pious article of faith, but how about science ?

  95. @Anon

    That is the ultimate Wakanda argument, and settles the point !

    • Replies: @anon
  96. April Fools aside, the article was interesting for its mention of the involvement of LBJ, who was a complete rat, and for nuggets like this, which seem to have some probability of being true.:

    It is interesting to know that the original draft of Eisenhower’s farewell address, written by his assistants Malcolm Moos and Ralph Williams, spoke of the “Military-Industrial Congressional Complex”

    Also, someone argued that no subsequent manned landings have occurred because they wouldn’t be cost effective. I confess complete ignorance about it, but would lunar bases be, or not be, cost effective from the point of further space exploration? Furthermore, since when have the ruling classes ever really cared about cost effectiveness when the bulk of the costs can be shifted, in one way or another, to the rest of us schmucks?

    • Replies: @Moon Landing Skeptic
  97. apollonian says: • Website
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    “Franklin”: Jew-Friendly Gate-Keeper Wannabe?–Ho Ho Ho Ho

    “Franklin”: thou poor brainless moron, doesn’t it occur to thou this site, w. all the anti-Semitic -seeming articles needs some serious, genuine anti-Semitism?

    And have thou noticed the lack of serious, genuine Christians (who are extremely anti-Semitic) who are allowed to post on this web-site comments-pages?

    So what’s the deal, dumbass?–thou are saying serious, genuine anti-Semitism is not allowed?–know what thou can do, sucker?

    Know what Jews are?–they’re Talmudists, and those, like Unz, who are related, genetically, and who defend them and thus express loyalty to those monsters–find out what Judaism is REALLY all about, thou ignorant fool–see Talmudical.BlogSpot.com, RevisionistReview.BlogSpot.com, and Come-and-hear.com, and learn something for once in thou idiot’s life.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  98. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Agree, Sandy Hook school was closed in 2008 over asbestos contamination, the school was used for the fema drill no one died and the FBI statistics for Newtown show no murders for 2012, see Wolfgang Halbig and Jim Fetzers reports on Sandy Hook.

  99. @Jonathan Revusky

    This strikes me as a very very weak argument.

    Yes, very weak.

    Just look, for instance, at the tens of millions of people involved in the world wars, including many who were opposed to them, who nevertheless went along with the frauds. Compare that with how few actually “blew the whistle,” and then recall how many of those anyone has ever heard of. How many have even heard of Charles Beard, John Toland, Robert LaFolette, or Jeanette Rankin, for instannce?

    Yes, that type of argument is fatuous at best, and hopefully all of this will enhance curiosity about epistemology, but that seems incredibly unlikely.

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
    • Replies: @Maiasta
  100. @Franklin Ryckaert

    50 years on? Get real. We are talking about something where no one’s career after say 1990 was likely to be affected one way or the other, nothing like the national prestige issue of the early 70s was at stake and no one would have cared enough to go beyond, at most, opining that Neil Armstrong or whoever had gone senile. Have you ever lived in the real world?

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  101. @Ron Unz

    See #16, intended as a reply to #1.

  102. @apollonian

    “Saggy” Doesn’t Realize What Morons Some “Engineers” Can Be, Ho Ho Ho

    That is sooo true.

    It goes for a lot of other “professions” as well. If people only knew how incompetent the bulk of those with advanced degrees and occupying positions of power can be, they’d fill their shorts in record time. And I’m not even mentioning the lying shysters more than a few of them are.

    • Agree: apollonian
  103. @Emblematic

    Allegedly? So the Russians were faking their space program too?

    Yes they did: the Gagarin hoax is almost beyond doubt, as Wisnewski documents (together with other Soviet Space lies).

  104. @Germanicus

    but there is neither a “holocaust” memorial on moon or mars.

    They have already made a start on getting one set up on the moon!

    https://israelunwired.com/watch-live-as-israel-sends-spacecraft-to-the-moon/

  105. @Jonathan Revusky

    Jonathan contemplated, asked: “What I’m suddenly wondering is, if the year 2036 rolls around and neither the Russians nor the Chinese nor anybody else has gone there, how many people will still believe that the Americans went 67 years earlier, in 1969?”

    Hey Jonathan!

    Commenting as a Scranton-based “Homelander,” I do not believe it.

    In fact, had I expendable “Benjamins” and resources to prove the 1969 Moon Landing was a crock, I’d try to make a hefty bet with Moon Walk believer, Ron Unz.

    While ZUSA sanctions & military threatens both Russia & China, I respect your point made on the latter’s delay to land manned spacecraft on Moon, amble around, post respective flags, and collect lunar rocks.

    Thank you, JR! And don’t shoot me…, I am only the Scranton School District bus driver.

    P.S.: Peculiar to me is how NASA has collaborated with Russia, in particular, the Space Shuttle missions.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
    , @Cowboy
  106. @Brabantian

    That is fake; it is not Kubrick speaking. This is taken from the mockumentary “Dark Side of the Moon”, aired on Arte channel in 2002, as an attempt to discredit the whole moon hoax theory, as I mention in my article.

  107. Uh, sory. My Dad worked directly on the moon shot as did thousands of other honest, patriotic Americans. They were all fooled, right? Give me a break. What nonsense.

  108. denjae says:

    Fool’s day . . . Opportunity for majority of commenters to prove themselves to be . . .

  109. @Godfree Roberts

    I have enjoyed reading your heteredox views about China, even the murderous Mao, but I fear you credibility will suffer if you endorse as authoritative the self indulgent windbag that you link. Before putting too much store in handwaving about missing tapes you should at least read
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes?wprov=sfla1

    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  110. Anonymous[301] • Disclaimer says:

    Hoax or no hoax, this achievement needs to be placed in perspective if for no other reason than to keep in check the premature and misplaced chest thumping that goes with these pioneering achievements. Trivial from the standpoint that these “giant steps” in “space exploration” do not even scratch the surface of space and what lies beyond. To reach the moon and bring back some rocks from a satellite that is by cosmic standards not even a stone’s throw away is hardly worth writing home about. An estimated two hundred billion to a trillion galaxies (each with billions to trillions of stars) in the known universe with the distinct possibility of multiverse(s) should put this human achievement in perspective. A drop in the ocean of the moon landing as achievement would be a gross understatement. We humans are intimidated by the unknown and our epistemic impotence in the face of such enormity hits our inflated egos where it hurts most: our inability to control and manipulate such immensity, much as we would like to — and spread our destructive ways to other worlds. Our own history of empires controlling humanity under their rule has been a history of abject failures basically, and learning that we have learned nothing from history. Against this background, it should make little difference if the moon landing was for real or a hoax. Just saying.

  111. apollonian says: • Website
    @Chris Bridges

    No Fair Bringing In Daddy-Dad

    Hey dumbass: how old are thou, moron? My daddy-dad said so, so therefore it’s true, and if thou don’t agree, I’ll sock thou one, eh? So if thy dad told thou so, KEEP IT TO THYSELF, dumbass–don’t tell us, thy dad says so, so therefore it’s true, stupid shit. Is there proof?–YES OR NO. We hope thou don’t get thy (lack of) brains fm thy daddy-dadio, eh? Moron.

  112. Alfa158 says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I like the fact that Ron is stepping up to post alternative viewpoints, no matter how flawed. He is one of the last champions of our doomed Bill of Rights.
    I do enjoy following all these torturous conspiracy theories and whenever I discuss any of them with a believer I hit them with my own fabrication about the sinking of the Titanic being a false flag op. They generally react by either thinking I’m on to something, or get mad when they realize I’m trolling them.
    I’m never sure to what extent the theorists are sincere and operating in good faith as opposed to cynically exploiting the gullible. Perhaps a little of both. You see evidence even inside their own arguments. Just one example from MLS is his version of the Dutch Prime Minister and the fake moon rock. He describes it as having been personally handed to the PM by the Apollo astronauts. Yet the newspaper screen capture he posts says it was given to him by a diplomat who said he got it from somebody in the State Department.

    • Replies: @apollonian
    , @Buzz Mohawk
  113. Alfred says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    When someone reverts to insults, it usually means that they have lost the argument.

    So please tell me sir, where did they hide the fuel that took the lunar lander back to orbit? In its legs? Or did they use a string to pull it back up again?

    FYI, I am a professional engineer. I went to Imperial College, London – twice. I was offered a place at Cambridge and I turned them down.

    https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/imperial-college-london

    How about you. Have you ever heard of Newton’s Laws of Motion?

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  114. @Alfred

    If you are a one glance is enough type I trust you are not actually practising in any potentially dangerous kinds of engineering. Your calculations please, if any?

    • Replies: @Alfred
  115. pidgen says:

    http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/

    This is a series of podcasts on the subject.

    Food for thought and easy listening. Entertaining,

  116. @apollonian

    Ron Unz allows any form of “conspiracy theories” about Jews, both in articles and in comments, and still you accuse him of dishonesty?

    And your kind of “Christian” would not be recognized by Jesus.

    • Replies: @apollonian
  117. @Ron Unz

    What a great flushing out Ron. Most of the usual suspects.

  118. Agent76 says:

    Twain had some wise advise, “Don’t let schooling interfere with your education.” Mark Twain

    Jan 3, 2019 ‘Dark side’ of the moon: China’s Chang’e 4 probe makes historic landing

    A Chinese spacecraft has made the first landing on the far side of the moon, touching down in the South Pole-Aitken basin.

  119. Sally says:
    @prime noticer

    I have to disagree: the excellent presentation of the elements in dispute offered to support “the great man on the moon hoax” hypothesis stands. Images shown by privately owned media alleged to be obtained while on by humans in a USA produced earth to moon; moon to earth vehicle, in the time period in question, they are little more than dubious evidence.

    The USA(is known to never lie, or keeps secrets from those it governs) but their word, unless solidly verifiable, is just more dubious evidence, but evidence cannot challenge hypotheses or any of its premises, it takes facts to challenge hypotheses or premises that support the hypotheses. .

    Nothing in any of the post or the article I have seen here destroys the hypothesis ta human on the payroll of the USA, actually traveled in a vehicle from earth to the moon, landed on, and walked on, the surface of the moon, in the time period alleged (1960s), and reentered the vehicle returned back to earth, nor do any post or the article destroy the competing hypothesis, neither is supported by verifiable fact.
    Both Hypothesis stand until one is proved by fact to be wrong.

    Neither confirmation by 9/11 crooked lying governmental official types or videos produced or aired by privately owned never fake media are facts, such official statements and media presentations might be evidence, but they are not facts, so without facts, both hypothesis stand.

    In mathematics things like this are studied by constraining the situation in a bounded space ( values of dimensions, environments, other variables and circumstances are identified to and defined for the bounded space). Once defined the possibilities are evaluated, one by one, and algorithms that describe the behaviors and activities within that space are then iterated.. through known, possible, even imaginary scenarios, one by one, with the objective to evolve or discover at least one scenario, that can be supported by real facts, that prove the hypothesis or any of its premises to actually be wrong.. at that point the hypothesis and premise are re designed, and restated and the iteration done again and again.. <=unless the hypothesis is defeated by real supportable and verifiable fact, it stands.. hearsay is not fact, it might be evidence.. the contents of videos are not facts, they may be evidence but they are not fact.

    Here we have a hypothesis that exceeds the limits of the belief systems of some people, so they recommend the hypothesis be ignored by everyone else.
    I say it is not possible to ignore the hypothesis (either one); no matter the reputation of the person making such recommendations, just as 9/11 was a insider job hypothesis cannot be discounted, they must all be evaluated one by one, until facts (verifiable, sufficient in every measure), are adequately presented and accurately verified that prove either hypothesis or one of its premises to be wrong beyond doubt <I said prove the hypothesis to be wrong, not discount it as lacking reasonable belief..

  120. It’s great to have a circular File 13 in which to discard this drivel.
    It’s a bit like handling hornets at a picnic. Put all the discarded bones from the fried chicken on a plate away from the rest of the food, so that the pests can feast upon the garbage while the rest of us dine in peace.

  121. James Bond on the moon in 1971 (just for fun):

    • Replies: @Skeptikal
  122. Mulegino1 says:

    I would like to believe that Armstrong and Aldrin made history by walking on the moon, but the arguments that this did not happen are very strong.

    NASA’s Orion spokesman admitted that one of the agency’s priorities was getting space travelers safely through the Van Allen belts twice- 45 years after this was allegedly done on multiple occasions!

    There is also the claim that the technology employed in 1969 was destroyed. That is quite absurd, considering that throughout recorded history (barring major civilizational collapse) technology is almost never lost and tends to progress, not regress. This would have been especially true since the Soviets had equal or even more advanced space flight technology than the U.S.

    The film allegedly used in the astronauts cameras could not have withstood the extreme temperatures on the lunar surface. Those perfect photographs could not likely have been taken on the moon, much less by amateur photographers wearing what amounted to mittens and with no ability to focus or use the camera as it was designed to be used.

    The video of the astronauts which purports to show them bounding around in one sixth earth gravity is merely slow motion video of men in white suits jogging and jumping in earth gravity.

    Since there is no- or extremely miniscule- atmosphere on the moon, how would the cooling/heating system on their backpacks work? The difference between being in sunlight and shadow on the lunar surface was extreme- say from over 200 degrees Fahrenheit to well over 100 degrees below Fahrenheit. To this day, no heating or cooling system can instantaneously change ambient temperature to a level comfortable to humans.

    • Agree: Godfree Roberts
  123. @Wizard of Oz

    Perhaps no national prestige, but NASA itself has its own prestige to protect.
    Senile people tend to forget things, not to make things up.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  124. @Godfree Roberts

    Thanks for bringing this link to our attention. I’ve just read the opening quote, and that’s a nugget:

    “It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth’s gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York’s Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons.”—Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon

    I’ll have to check if it is a real quote!

  125. Alfred says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    All governments lie. I hope you agree with this assertion.

    The Russians had no motive to expose the Americans to ridicule. Because the Americans doubtless have lots of material on individual Russians that would have been used to return the favour.

    The leaders of Russia, China and so on are most of all concerned with retaining power in their own countries. Making the Americans look silly is counterproductive – especially since the Americans have control over most of the world’s media.

    Landing a man on the moon is of no strategic interest whatsoever. It is purely an act of self-promotion

    • Agree: atlantis_dweller
  126. @Anon

    How dare you suggest that the African American women mathematicians, scientists and engineers who got us to the moon were somehow perpetrating a fraud.
    —————————————————————————–
    You mean it wasn’t Dr. Werner von Braun and his German’s who got us there?

  127. apollonian says: • Website
    @Alfa158

    Unz Is For “Pilpul” Trollery–And This Is Training, Exercise Psy-Ops

    Moron writes:

    “He is one of the last champions of our doomed Bill of Rights.”

    No, thou poor deluded fool–he admits he’s Jew, and he perfectly acts like it. This site is PSY-OPS, despite the seeming anti-Semitic articles he posts. LOOK AT THE COMMENTS, see the numerous Jew trolls–it’s FILLED w. Jew trolls.

    And the goyim–observe they’re all such milky, wishy-washy apologists, everything oriented to Jews, Jew-friendly, Jew-serving–designed to normalize Jews as legitimate members of society. Always these stupid goyim must conclude: (a) “there are some good along w. some bad Jews,” (b) “Jews are like anyone else,” and (c) “thou can’t judge all Jews by just a few or just one of them.”

    Note all the Jews and their buddies and defenders among the goyim, but NO serious Christians, no serious anti-semites who are AGAINST Jews and say what they are–MONSTERS and liars who must be removed and eliminated.

    For Jews are SATANISTS, (extreme) subjectivists, holding reality is mere product of mind/consciousness, making subject God, the creator–Satanism by definition–it begins as outright philosophy, against which we Christians hold reality is OBJECTIVE, in accord w. Aristotle.

    Unz thus runs mere psy-ops training “camp,” so to speak, for his “pilpul” (casuistry) Jewwy trolls and shills–that’s why Unz most carefully, intensively CENSORS and screens each and every posting-entry. Unz is NOT NOT NOT for free speech, except only HIS free-speech, sucker–don’t be a fool. Get a brain and get a clue.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  128. @Franklin Ryckaert

    So now we have even NASA organising murders to protect something no current employee has had anything to do with. Yeah, Ron really has flushed them out 🙂

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  129. Truth says:
    @Ron Unz

    Not only is the moon landing a fraud, so is everything associated with it (the galaxy, the milkyway, the heliocentrix solar-system, outer-space, etc.), and while were at it, so is JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING associated with modern day education (the holocaust, the Kennedy shooting, the slave trade, Columbus, dinosaurs, etc., etc., etc).

    But stick with it Unzey, I’m sure the learning curve for 250 IQ guys is quite steep.

    • Replies: @atlantis_dweller
  130. Truth says:
    @prime noticer

    1) so why didn’t the soviets call out the americans, claim it was fake, then continue with their own manned mission, and land on the moon first themselves?

    Because there are no “Soviets” and “Americans” so to speak. Just two wings of the same party that speak different languages.

    • Replies: @james charles
  131. Truth says:
    @Pat Kittle

    Yeah Paddy.

    But I’d make a fair assumtion you have me beat there.

  132. anon[866] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Well, the Van Allen belts don’t completely encircle the Earth but are nearly toroidal in shape. The current explanation (e.g., on Wiki) is that the Apollo missions were sent through the thin part where the inner, more dangerous, belt is nonexistent, and the exposure to the outer belt was brief because of the high speed of travel. I don’t have the background to question that – does anybody here?

    Another objection raised here by a poster was how the lunar module could have possibly taken off from the Moon, given the meager size of its rocket and fuel capabilities. This seems like a fairly basic physics problem that anyone with the right physics background should be able to figure out, and easily demonstrate that it was either possible or impossible. I.e., given the Moon’s gravity, the weight of the module and its occupants, and the ca. 1969 rocket technology, what size of rocket and how much fuel would be needed to leave the Moon? It’s hard to be believe no it has not already been done by independent experts, pro or con. If this were the technical snag for a manned Moon landing (and return), the would-be hoax could’ve been revealed by what must be thousands of people with the physics chops to show the impossibility of it.

    • Replies: @Redking
    , @Stebbing Heuer
  133. @Harold

    given 5% of people always lie to pollsters the true number is probably less

    Fallacy detected: It is extremely unlikely that all lies went in one direction (believers posing as skeptics) Since every one of these lies would be cancelled out by the opposing lie (skeptics posing as believers) we should probably just disregard your point.

    • Replies: @Harold
    , @Harold
  134. Truth says:

    OK guys lets start with the ball on the tee and work our way up:

    How in the fuck did they send a television transmission back 93,000 mil from the moon in 1969 when there is no broadcast facility there?

    • Replies: @gsjackson
  135. TheBard says:
    @joe webb

    It has just been conclusivly proven the the commies put Donald Trump in office to undermine the Republic. Of course they are in on the moon hoax. Only someone in flyover country would believe otherwise.

  136. apollonian says: • Website
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    “Franklin”: Perfect Little Sucker Jews, Unz Lives On

    Franklin: thou are just a stupid, Jewwy liar–Unz deletes/CENSORS MOST of my entries, stupid little scum. And WHAT do thou know about Christ or Christianity, stupid little punk? Christ = TRUTH, moron–see Gosp. JOHN 14:6.

    Jews HATE truth (JOHN 8:44), as Unz perfectly demonstrates every chance he gets–only sometimes he throws a bit of a “curve-ball” to pretend for the morons, like thou, little dumbass. Observe there’s NO serious Christian voice published here on these comments pages–NO serious anti-Semitism allowed. And “exceptions” really only prove the real rule, sucker–thou are just too stupid to think and see.

  137. anon[534] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    “Hidden Figures” proves it – the Hollywood would never lie to us.

  138. @mcohen

    …that if turkey were to be attacked from the rear,whether greece would help.

    Probably, but they’d need more than a little grease.

  139. @ChuckOrloski

    I’d try to make a hefty bet with Moon Walk believer, Ron Unz.

    Well, it might be better to make a bet with somebody who will pay when he loses.

    • Agree: Twodees Partain
  140. @Godfree Roberts

    Loved all of Dave’s stuff as it always took a common sense approach to investigative journalism. Just a common sense working man with a flair for writing and an uncanny ability to sniff out the truth.

    This often leads to a more realistic analysis of a situation than that of an “educated” man who has spent the greater part of his life in propaganda mills known as “schools” and are very adept at quoting so called “settled science”.

    As the Great Mark Twain stated: The trouble with the world is not that people know too little; it’s that they know so many things that just aren’t so.

    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
  141. Truth says:

    This article is racist.

    How dare you suggest that the African American women mathematicians, scientists and engineers who got us to the moon were somehow perpetrating a fraud.

    When all one has is a hammer….

    • Replies: @apollonian
  142. Truth says:
    @Felix Krull

    Wow!

    That ends that argument.

  143. Truth says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Is this some kind of joke?

    Well, not from his standpoint…

  144. apollonian says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz

    “Wizard”–One Of Unz Review’s Prize Trolls

    Kike troll: don’t waste our time kike–just put thy argument in thine own words and work fm there, sucker. But thou can’t do it, being the stupid Jew troll, monster and enemy of humanity thou really are. Thou are one of Unz’s prize trolls, here on Unz Review, we see. Soon enough, enough people will see the psy-ops Unz is running.

  145. We landed on the moon. Several times.
    The Holocaust was a terrible tragedy.
    Oswald killed Kennedy. All alone.
    26 Muslims with box cutters did 9/11.
    WWI was due to an assassination in Austria or somewhere.
    The Jews don’t run Hollywood.

    Governments don’t lie.

  146. To lend credence or otherwise to the idea of a moon landing hoax, look for the suspicious deaths of lots of people with the sort of photographic skills that would have been used.

    They might have been associated with NASA at one time as well.

    • Agree: apollonian
  147. Cowboy says:
    @ChuckOrloski

    “P.S.: Peculiar to me is how NASA has collaborated with Russia, in particular, the Space Shuttle missions.”

    It is not at all peculiar if you accept that both space programs are under the control of Freemasons, who are playing a bigger game than just “Look mom, we can send a man to the moon”, or even “America fuck yeah”.

    How about this one: Why do all the ZOG nations of the planet keep pouring untold billions into CERN, constantly building bigger colliders and searching for really important things like “The God Particle”? Not only is this an Illuminati scientist’s wet dream, it is a phenominal waste of what are supposedly the planets “brightest” scientists. Yet all these guys never leak, never blow a whistle about whats going on.

    These CERN scientists are almost as smart as the ones who have been spent the last 50 years telling us that the polar ice caps and glaciers will all be melted in 5 years. They never stop their blathering, and just like CERN they all toe the line when it comes to dogma. All those nations, even Russians and Chinese, agreeing on this hoax. Why? Could they all be under the influence or control of the same secret society?

    • Replies: @apollonian
  148. apollonian says: • Website
    @Truth

    Truth Is Truth: Reflection Of Reality

    Well, “truth,” buddy: it’s still the truth, isn’t it?

  149. @Ron Unz

    I wish that, while being granted his choice of staying anonymous, the article’s authors would have agreed to append a short description of himself, in the wise of Washington Watcher.
    It would have provided a dash of context, and context is never too much.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  150. @ploni almoni

    Early fifties?

    “The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing laser pulses reflected from the Moon’s surface using a laser with a millisecond pulse length.[2] Similar measurements were obtained later the same year by a Soviet team at the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory using a Q-switched ruby laser.[3] Greater accuracy was achieved following the installation of a retroreflector array on 21 July 1969, by the crew of Apollo 11, and two more retroreflector arrays left by the Apollo 14 and Apollo 15 missions have also contributed to the experiment. Successful lunar laser range measurements to the retroreflectors were first reported by the 3.1 m telescope at Lick Observatory, Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories Lunar Ranging Observatory in Arizona, the Pic du Midi Observatory in France, the Tokyo Astronomical Observatory, and McDonald Observatory in Texas. ”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

    • Replies: @ploni almoni
  151. Question: was Neil Armstrong lying? Is Buzz Aldrin still lying? Should we waterboard Aldrin until he tells the truth?

  152. anon[393] • Disclaimer says:

    On some calendars, 20 July equals 01 April.

    2019 technology ain’t existing to return men from moon.

    Sure as hell didn’t in 1969

    Today’s toy drones more advanced than 1969 NASA technology.

  153. @Truth

    ‘Because there are no “Soviets” and “Americans” so to speak. Just two wings of the same party that speak different languages.’

    You may be right.

    “Taken together, these four volumes constitute an extraordinary commentary on a basic weakness in the Soviet system
    The Soviets are heavily dependent on Western technology and innovation not only in their civilian industries, but also in their military programs.
    An inevitable conclusion from the evidence in this book is that we have totally ignored a policy that would enable us to neutralize Soviet global ambitions while simultaneously reducing the defense budget and the tax load on American citizens.”
    “ His book tells at least part of the story of the Soviet Union’s reliance on Western technology, including the infamous Kama River truck plant, which was built by the Pullman-Swindell company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a subsidiary of M. W. Kellogg Co. Prof. Pipes remarks that the bulk of the Soviet merchant marine, the largest in the world, was built in foreign shipyards. He even tells the story (related in greater detail in this book) of the Bryant Chucking Grinder Company of Springfield, Vermont, which sold the Soviet Union the ball-bearing machines that alone made possible the targeting mechanism of Soviet MIRV’ed ballistic missiles. “
    http://www.crowhealingnetwork.net/pdf/Antony%20Sutton%20-%20The%20Best%20Enemy%20Money%20Can%20Buy.pdf

  154. @Jonathan Revusky

    It is true that the space program employed directly or indirectly many thousands of people, but surely the overwhelming majority would not be in a position to know whether the overall project was a hoax.

    And one of them at the very top, without whom the hoax would not have been possible, the director of the studio recordings down on earth, Stanley Kubrick, eventually confessed. They keep insisting that nobody ever blew the whistle, and when a credible witness of Kubrick’s stature, authority, and reputation does blow it, they still keep insisting that nobody has come forward. I don’t know what they want? Von Braun’s signed confession? That Von had no conscience, and he just reproduced on a grander scale the film sets he was doing for Fritz Lang.

    There are far too many holes in their story. You would have thought the original recordings would have been an American National Treasure and closely guarded and preserved for posterity. But they just disappeared. They were probably destroyed on purpose so as not to reveal whatever clues Kubrick left on the set while filming those original recordings to point out that it was all fake?

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  155. republic says:

    My takeaway from this article is the obvious rise in pseudoscience and that antirationalism is widespread in the global culture of the 21st century.

    It shows a big decline in the education system in the West and the rise of Postmodernism, cultural relativism and Multiculturalism.The leftists want to discredit all white achievement. All 12 of the Apollo astronauts were White

    The apogee of White achievement and confidence was in the 1960s, with the US having a 90% white population.

    Today that figure is but a distant memory.

    • Agree: Dannyboy, Grahamsno(G64)
  156. @Ron Unz

    Like the holocaust hoax and 9/11 hoax, if technical and scientific limitations prevented either from happening as claimed by authorities, then the moon landings didn’t happen.

  157. @Alfred

    Hee hee! Good God man. You are a piece of work.

    So please tell me sir, where did they hide the fuel that took the lunar lander back to orbit? In its legs?

    I know there was no fuel in the legs, because I know the son who now owns and operates the metal shop here in Connecticut where his father made those aluminum tubes and sent them across the sound to Grumman on Long Island. He keeps a few leftover tubes in the shop now, unused pieces of human history.

    I know that’s useless trivia to you, but you are beyond hope.

    Since you are an engineer, I now I understand why British cars have historically been so crapilly made and unreliable. I almost got killed as a boy in one of your Triumph TR-3s. A steering link broke and we flipped over when I was 6. Broke my right arm in two places. Your British engineering is the reason I switched to my left arm and became ambidextrous to this day. Thanks.

    Seriously, you should be ashamed of yourself. The British Interplanetary Society was one of the most august organizations in the 20th century exploring the idea of going to the moon. Your Arthur C. Clarke was a member who reported on Apollo here as it happened. You are not worthy of shining his shoes. Also, it is my experience and observation that some of the most knowledgeable enthusiasts of space exploration and the Apollo Program are Englishmen. You do not deserve the title of Englishman, you moron.

    Have you done the math on the fuel, lunar orbit velocity, or anything? Or did you just eyeball the Lunar Module in Washington? Do you know the specific impulse of the LM ascent engine, or anything at all? No, you don’t.

    I am never this rude on the internet, until now. GFY. And if you don’t know what that acronym stands for, go find out smart man.

    Jesus f*cking Christ. The world is insane.

  158. Harbinger says:

    Notice that all rockets (and now shuttles), all take off travel vertically for ‘x’ amount of miles and then veer off horizontally? Were it the case that they actually WERE going into space and the earth WAS global then any craft could take off as a normal plane does and fly in a straight trajectory reaching space in the same time as if it were going upwards. It doesn’t, because it isn’t leaving the earth.
    I don’t know if anyone’s put this video up for viewing but it’s about Kubrick and the Moon Landing and it’s incredibly interesting. There are also images of the ‘supposed’ Mars mission, being filmed in Greenland.

    I BET THEY DON`T TEACH THIS IN SCHOOL! Want PROOF? Here It Is! (2019 – 2020)

    • Replies: @Honest Abe
    , @Mr. Anon
  159. I always favored the theory that the Shining was an allegory for the genocide of Native Americans. The genesis of this theory was from none other than the Washington Post, back in 1987 (right around the time Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket was released).

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/style/1987/07/12/kubricks-shining-secret/a7e3433d-e92e-4171-b46f-77817f1743f0/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ad8028bebb6d

  160. @mijj

    If you find the “no stars” part intriguing, you should ask a photographer. I’ve been a photographer since 1967, when I was 13 years old. And in the late summer of 1969 I, and tens of thousands of other photographers, both amateur and professional, eagerly awaited those photographs to be published.

    The reason you see no stars on the photographs taken on the surface of the moon by Armstrong and Aldrin is that the cameras were set to properly expose objects illuminated by sunlight. The sun is almost exactly the same distance from the moon as it is from the earth, the difference being far too small to have any affect on the exposure. So the exposure settings on the cameras (aperture diameter and shutter time) would have been the same as here on earth at midday without a cloud in the sky.

    So if you have access to a camera with manually adjustable aperture and shutter time settings, you can determine for yourself whether or not stars ought to have been visible on the images made on the moon. Here’s how you do it. There’s a simple rule for this called “Sunny 16”. The Sunny 16 rule states that in bright sunlight, you set the shutter time to the inverse of the film or digital sensor’s sensitivity. For example, if the ISO sensitivity of the film is 125, you set the shutter time to 1/125 of a second. Then you set the aperture to f:16. For the curious, f:16 means that the diameter of the aperture of the lens is 1/16 the focal length.

    If you’re taking photos on the beach on a sunny day at noon, use the Sunny 16 rule and you’ll get correctly exposed images. So, do that. Set the camera according to the sunny 16 rule and go outside on a sunny day and take a photo. Then, put the camera down. Don’t do anything to it. Just leave it alone. Don’t change any of the settings on the camera. Wait until a few hours after sundown. If the sky is clear, go outside. Wait a few minutes for your eyes to adapt to the darkness and look up at the sky. You’ll see stars. Now, pick up the camera. Don’t change any of the camera’s settings. Just point it up at the sky. Now, take a picture.

    Now, compare the two photos; the photo you took at midday, and the photo you took of the night sky. Notice how the first photo looks just fine. And notice how the second photo is completely black. Same exposure settings, but a rather different result. The reason is that both film and digital sensors have a limited range of sensitivity, much like our eyes. You can certainly photograph stars at night, but you need to use exposure settings that allow more light to enter the camera and expose the film or sensor. And if you were to use those nighttime settings during the day the resulting photographs would be all white, no detail whatsoever.

    But let’s imagine that there should have been stars visible in those photos. Just suppose that I’m all wet when it comes to photographic exposure. It’s possible. I’ve been wrong about a great many things over the years. So, it’s late summer, 1969. The moon photos start showing up in the media such as Life Magazine, which is probably where I first saw them. Thousands of professional photographers all over the world have been waiting anxiously to see them, just as I had. All of these professional photographers would know from years of experience that the exposure settings for bright sunny days should be the same as for photographing the stars, right? Remember that back in 1969 automatic exposure cameras were extremely primitive. The Leica and Nikon cameras most used by pros had no provision for automatic exposure. Every pro photographer had to know how to properly expose a photograph. Now imagine the uproar when NASA publishes photographs that don’t show the stars, when all of those professional photographers knew full well that the stars should have been clearly visible. The noise would have been deafening.

    But there was no uproar at all. It seems to me that the people claiming “HOAX” need to explain the silence.

  161. @Saggy

    Moon hoax theories are absurd, and you should not publish such idiocy. I did not work on Apollo but I did, as an engineer at Honeywell, work on the stabilization control system for the space station, and I did work with people who had worked on Apollo. I did not read the article. It should be pulled immediately, it makes you and the site look idiotic.

    I sympathize — I did wade through it, and the idiocy, ignorance of basic physics and optics in particular, illogic, and overall truculent stupidity pissed me off, too. But I disagree with your conclusion about what Mr. Unz shouldn’t publish, and why. It makes neither him nor the site look idiotic; it makes the site appear to be a place where all voices can be heard, not merely the ones inoffensive to acceptors of the conventional “wisdom.” This is why I read UR every day. Silence the viewpoints that might offend Mr. and Mrs. Teevee Watcher, and you’re left with … what, CNN?

    Still, I feel your pain. I spent years teaching general physics (to engineering students, mind you), and I know that lots of them left my class ultimately unconvinced that two objects, one dropped from rest and the other launched with some horizontal velocity, hit the floor simultaneously. And I had a decent little physical demonstration by which they could actually see (and hear) it happen, right in front of them. You shake your head, ultimately, and move on. Not everyone can, or will, understand.

    Besides, the comments on this piece are a treasure trove of names, or Simple Pseudonymic Handles, that you will know to ignore, or laugh at, in the future.

    • Replies: @atlantis_dweller
    , @turtle
  162. apollonian says: • Website
    @Cowboy

    “Secret Societies” Depend Upon Stupidity Of Over-Populated Morons

    Cowboy, buddy, thou could be on to something, don’t doubt. Observe Gosp. JOHN, Christ (TRUTH, JOHN 14:6) vs. satanic/Jew lies, lying (JOHN 8:44). So what are lies built upon?–the subjective view of reality, whence anything goes, according merely to the whim of the subject. What’s a lie?–it’s a representation which LACKS a basis in OBJECTIVE reality.

    So ask thyself: WHAT is the VERY TOP criminal enterprise?–central banking, literally legalized counterfeiting (see Mises.org for expo; use their site search-engine for particular terms). Note HOW this criminal enterprise works–simply most of the stupid, over-populated scum don’t know what “MONEY” really is and must be. Ironic, isn’t it?–these scummy, ignorant puke don’t know what they think they see and handle practically every day?

    But the dumb bastards are persuaded that CURRENCY is (practically) same thing as real money–which, by it’s nature, must be commodity-based, gold/silver being best.

    And the stupid scum are then persuaded that, geeeee, we should have INFINITE currency–against real money which is necessarily FINITE. And this is how the top Satanists RULE–by the stupidity of the over-populated scum.

    And there’s NO SOLUTION to this problem–stupid people are going to be stupid–AND THEY’RE GONNA DIE, eventually. Such is the satanic society, always dominated by Jews who are simply most COLLECTIVISTIC Satanists, most committed, motivated, and ORGANIZED, always thus dominating the less organized, more “individualist” Satanists among goyim, even though these stupid goyim nearly always out-number the Jews.

    We can only hope the top Satanists (Jews) will fall-out w. one another as they suspect a double-cross, which is what Jews and Satanists always do to the goyim (as in recent “Brexit” difficulties, for example). And it looks as if that double-cross might actually have happened (in 2016) as the usual “leftist” socialist-styled “atheist” Jews were sooooo shocked that Trump was elected, pushed by the “neo-cons” and Israel-first crowd on the phony “right.”

    Regardless, nothing revolutionary will happen UNTIL that central-bank scam is exposed and collapses–which might actually happen soon, some observers say, as US Fed Reserve is considering more “quantitative easing” (inflation), even though int. rates are still too low by normal standards.

    It’s more than mere “secret” society–it’s the specific lies that holds things up, founded upon the stupidity of the over-populated morons–like regarding central-banking and confusion in their little minds regarding real money and mere currency.

    • Agree: Harbinger, DESERT FOX
    • Replies: @Harbinger
    , @Ozymandias
  163. @Wizard of Oz

    It is not the prestige of the employees that is important, it is the prestige of the institute.

    • Replies: @anon
  164. It looks like we will see Americans return to the surface of the Moon very soon

    SpaceX have started working on the rocket for the trip already, and Blue Origin have their own plans

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  165. Christo says:
    @Macumazahn

    It would be worth it to waste a bat-stroke. Or several, just to be sure.

  166. @Alfa158

    Yeah, that wooden moon rock was not given to anybody in the Netherlands by anybody remotely involved with Apollo. Whatever happened, I can tell just by looking at it that it would not fool anybody except the most gullible. And I’ve seen a lot of moon rocks up close. There was either a theft or a fraud there somewhere.

    The hoax idiots who have already swarmed here have only confirmed my sad current belief that humanity is beyond hope. My only hope now is that my wife and I and our loved ones die soon enough that we don’t have to suffer under too many years of the stupidity that lies ahead.

    There is actually a (claimed) British engineer on here arguing and insulting me. He eyeballed the Lunar Module in the Air & Space Museum and just knows that it didn’t carry enough fuel to reach lunar orbit. There is no indication whether or not he knows lawnmower gas from rocket fuel, or anything at all about the ascent engine and its specific impulse and the very special fuel itself. Furthermore, he seems oblivious to the fact that any conspiracists would not build and present to the world anything that a moron like him could “just tell by looking” was insufficient.

    The world is full of idiots. This makes me very sad, because I have loved the Apollo Program since I witnessed it in my pre-teen years. It is one of our species’ greatest achievements, and it pains me to witness so many people now who simply won’t believe it. It was that amazing, so amazing that they can’t believe it.

  167. Cowboy says:
    @Commentator Mike

    I would bet that there is a strong correlation between Maga style thinkers, building 7 deniers, and moon landing faithful. Likely followers of pro basketball, football or baseball are closely correlated too.

    The hoax of America being “exceptional”, starting with their invasion of the south, then claiming that they “freed the slaves”, then the theft of all of Spains colonies by inciting a war, then demanding reparations, then to destroy Europe twice and claim they “made it safe for democracy”, is just too deep a part of the American psyche for these MAGA guys to deal with. The cognitive dissonance has become multi-generational and is now part of their DNA. USA! USA! USA!

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
    , @Alden
  168. AWM says:

    This guy has his own opinions.

    https://diehold.com

    Any truth to this?

  169. Anon[304] • Disclaimer says:

    Making Unz a place for hoaxers to go off on conspiracy theories undermines the website. This is a political site discussing important issues upon which the survival of our country depends. This place should not become a haven for childish crackpots who have poor reality checkers. They can get their own website. It’s irresponsible to allow these nutjobs on the site. We’ve got more important work to do.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
    , @apollonian
  170. @Reactionary Utopian

    If many shared your approach… what an easier world it would be.

  171. No need to speculate or guess. On true pictures of moon you see no sand. There is no sand on the moon. Moon has no atmosphere. Sand on the earth is created by wind and humidity.

  172. Cowboy says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    As much as I enjoy American and English engineers throwing rocks at each other’s glass houses, I feel it is necessary to point out one thing:

    The biggest piece of crap car, likely of the century, is the Tesla Model 3, built in the crappiest tent car factory ever. The pinnacle of American engineering. Musk even bought an entire German Robotics company to make the turd, but then they couldn’t even make the productrion line work. Even the British couldn’t eclipse it.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  173. @NoseytheDuke

    Imagine if it did turn out to be a great hoax and the science come to prove that conclusively.

    Science does disprove it – at least to those who understand basic science and technology and the limitation they impose on human activities and accomplishments.

  174. turtle says:
    @Reactionary Utopian

    And I had a decent little physical demonstration by which they could actually see (and hear) it happen, right in front of them.

    Something like this?

    or this?

    • Replies: @Reactionary Utopian
  175. Thomm says:
    @apollonian

    How stupid could you possibly be?

    Your entire screed effectively says that even though humans did a number of more technologically difficult things, they somehow did not do the less technologically difficult one.

    The most ludicrous thing in your screed is the notion that you possess ‘logic’. Could you BE more Dunning-Kruger?

    Heh heh heh heh

    • LOL: apollonian
  176. Cowboy says:
    @Anon

    I find it quite interesting how these airheads, who so devoutly believe in mother Nasa, are unable to come up with a better argument than:

    “Oy Vey. Da goyim know. Shut it down, Ron”.

    At least this “anon” stopped at “hoaxer”, but I have little doubt that “anti-semite” spittle will be flecked on this thread.

  177. Anonymous[211] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ethelred the Unready

    But the astronauts in several interviews also denied having seen any stars with their own eyes… So it is not just an exposure issue, but it affected their own eyes as well.

    Also the fact that in the photographs you can see many details in the shadows, but no stars at all, even in pictures without any human subjects, which could have been exposed for a longer time (let’s say a few seconds). Anyway, maybe there really are no stars in the Moon’s sky, I haven’t been there to know…

    I also recommend Dave McGowan’s funny take on this issue in “Wagging the Moondoggie”. As for me, I am agnostic on this, but I have to say that the “official story” (as usual) has a few holes.

    http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/

    • Replies: @Ethelred the Unready
  178. apollonian says: • Website
    @Anon

    More Trolling On The Troll Site For Troll Training And Exercise

    Who’s “we,” sucker? “Conspiracy”?–did thou know Christian New Test. is founded upon the conspiracy of Satanists and Pharisees to kill Truth (= Christ), the joke being on Pharisees as TRUTH always resurrects?

    And USA is founded on the consp. noted by Jefferson in Dec. of Independence, btwn King and Parliament to usurp rights of English colonists.

    So consp. is foundation of Western Civilization and specifically of USA so threatened now by Jews and Satanists, like Unz who’s running a psy-op on this site for his buddy Jew trolls and pilpul artists, like “wizard of oz” who likes to waste everyone’s time.

    And thou, “anon”–thou are just ANOTHER troll, eh?–of course–it’s what this site is REALLY all about. Unz the big troll, running a trolling training site for trolls, pretending Jews are “normal” humans, like everyone else, ho ho ho ho ho ho.

  179. @Truth

    You’d probably like C. J. Hopkins’s Zone 23.

    • Replies: @Truth
  180. Redking says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron, kindly read this.

    http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/

    Time is moving forward and we aren’t remotely close to a manned mission past Low Earth Orbit, much less to the moon.

  181. There is a lie.
    Then there is a BIG LIE.
    Then there is 911.

    Santa Claus is a BIGGER LIE than moon hoax.
    Jesus died for your EVILS is beyond all the above.

    Qur’an Chapter 55

    33. O society of jinn and humans! If you can pass through the bounds of the heavens and the earth, go ahead and pass. But you will not pass except with authorization.

    34. So which of your Lord’s marvels will you deny?

    35. You will be bombarded with flares of fire and brass, and you will not succeed.

    36. So which of your Lord’s marvels will you deny?
    https://www.clearquran.com/055.html

  182. Harbinger says:
    @apollonian

    Good reply.

    The people are scum. I won’t deny that. Far too lazy to educate their ignorant selves on what’s actually going on. They’re far too interested in the ‘lives of others’ (those others being dead-head celebrities good at acting, having big tits or kicking a ball about) than the survival of their own civilization and race. And worse, happily being subjugated by a tribal elite, of genocidal Jews, whom they happily allow to be nationalistic, but attack any whites who wish the same. They also fail to see that white nationals only want a home of their own to raise their families and live in peace, compared to the Jew who wants that but the utter obliteration of the world’s population and to have this earth all for themselves.

    Sure, it’s a game between the Jews, that was the election of Donald Trump over Hilary Clinton, but at least it certainly shows ‘in-fighting’ between the nationalist Jews and the globalist ones. This is really the only hope, because if they do screw up, then cracks will start to appear in the facade, that even the dumbest and blindest goyim won’t miss seeing. And then that’s when questions start being answered.

    You know, I was talking to my mother, just today, telling her that Islam will conquer the west and she truly believes there will be a fight back. She recalled the Spanish expulsion of the Moors. I simply stated to her that she fails to see the underlying problem within the west today, NOT there in the past, especially with the Spanish. That is, of course, white race, hating whites, utterly ignorant morons, who happily do the bidding of the genocidal Jews, to exterminate their own race. Nowhere in history, were there ever any western (or world) people, who worked hand in hand with the enemy, to destroy themselves. That was the whole purpose of treason and anyone caught trying to do so met a gruesome, torture execution in public. There was no crime greater than the compromise of one’s people and civilization.

    This is the problem that whites face. Never in any time have there been so many treasonous bastards, selling their race to be slaughtered by the Jews. And when you tell people this, they laugh, utterly ignorant to reality, courtesy of being indoctrinated and brainwashed by the Jewish controlled msm and academia.

    The white civilization is dead.
    The good news is, at least we’ll get the last laugh, because the ‘sellouts’ will eventually wake up, while queuing up for execution, by the immigrant rulers of their land, while the Jew laughs at their stupidity, but good service to them. They will, at that moment realize that we were right all along and had they listened to us and simply removed the Jews, they wouldn’t be about to be butchered.

  183. sally says:
    @joe webb

    Holly costs, moon animations, 11=9’s, Gas lite candles courtesy of Assad, fake terrorism for local schools, bars and gyms, run man run Marathon hoaxes,.from the USS main in the harbor of Cuba to the USS liberty, our propaganda monsters never sleep.. they will invent what ever you want someone else to believe and believe me, they work hard, to make it seem real.. some people will believe anything and our work proves it.

    see

    We don’t charge money for our services, instead we just take your freedoms

  184. Redking says:
    @Anonymous

    Why would you think that the Soviets were even capable of tracking a spacecraft in orbit?

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
  185. @Cowboy

    Tesla is irrelevant to the American automotive industry, and pretty much irrelevant to anything.

    Americans have produced Godawful cars. I know because I came of age in the 1970s, when it seemed that my countrymen had forgotten how to even design and build the things. Nevertheless, it was one American named Ford who figured out how to mass produce automobiles that ordinary people could afford to buy. The rest of the world followed.

    Let me repeat that: The rest of the world followed.

    Now, it is fun to throw rocks back and forth across the pond, when in fact we are family and will never separate our histories. Nothing I say about an Englishman will ever diminish him, just as nothing an Englishman says about me can erase the glorious history of my very own ancestors who kicked British ass and built the greatest nation in the history of mankind.

  186. @anon

    “It’s one of those things like the efficacy of vaccines that’s being sprung on us by the Media – you either buy in to drinking the KoolAid or you’re a NoGoodNik…”

    Why cannot the same thing be said about the “efficacy of circumcision?” It was never part of Christian America (crazy JH Kellogg aside) until the advent of hospital births, and especially not until after WWII and the Jewish takeover of US medicine. At least vaccines (some or most of them anyway) provide a lot of good in preventing the spread of deadly diseases. What good does the Jewish rite of circumcision do anyway? All theories that mutilating a baby’s tiny penis is for the greater good have been debunked. Yet millions upon millions of ignorant, gullible Americans still believe in this Jewish con job. Perhaps they always will.

    If gentiles can be made to believe that robbing their sons of their god-given birthright is a good thing, they can be made to believe in anything. Thus most will always believe that we sent men to the moon and back, that Oswald alone killed Kennedy, and that Building 7 was brought down by a small fire.

    • Replies: @Ozymandias
  187. @james charles

    Yes early fifties. It was a trading card that came with bubble gum.

    • Replies: @james charles
  188. turtle says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    It is one of our species’ greatest achievements

    One of my most vivid memories is of sitting in a darkened room in Berkeley, CA , summer of ’69 ,and watching Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon. Although the audience was an “interesting” mix of political viewpoints, all cheered when Mr. Armstrong’s foot touched the lunar surface.

    At a later date, I can say it was an eerie feeling to stand in front of one of he Apollo capsules on display in Smithsonian and realize this was an *actual* space ship.

    As it happens, I have been personally acquainted with people who designed equipment which was left behind on the moon, including a device which was, and perhaps still is, used for laser range finding.

    Maybe the “hoaxers ” should look up this guy:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Schmitt

    Then again, in the words of the great poet, T.S. Eliot,
    “Mankind cannot bear too much reality.”

  189. @Buzz Mohawk

    This makes me very sad, because I have loved the Apollo Program since I witnessed it in my pre-teen years. It is one of our species’ greatest achievements, and it pains me to witness so many people now who simply won’t believe it. It was that amazing, so amazing that they can’t believe it.

    Keep believing Buzz Mohawk, you obviously need it. On the other hand, if you ever start to doubt, you’ll see, it doesn’t feel so bad. Give it a try!

  190. @apollonian

    Clearly, sir, the time has come for you to answer the big question: Froot Loops or Coco Puffs?

    But you can’t answer the question, can you? And that’s because you are a JEW! I see right through your disguise, and now so does everyone else. So go ahead, JEWBOY, try to answer the question: Froot Loops or Coco Puffs?

    I won’t hold my breath.

    • LOL: apollonian
  191. MarkU says:
    @Grahamsno(G64)

    If for the sake of argument we accept the presence of laser retroreflectors on the moon, how does that prove that a manned space mission placed it there? One could just as easily argue that the presence of the Mars rover ‘proved’ that men had walked on Mars.

    I still stand by what I said earlier, that I have seen no conclusive evidence on either side of this argument.

    • Replies: @james charles
  192. Redking says:
    @Chris Bridges

    Your dad was Wernher von Braun?

    What did he work on? How would he know anything about the other aspects of the build when he wasn’t permitted to know?

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  193. @Anonymous

    Without dark visors, their vision would have been damaged by UV radiation. That may have been enough to make seeing the stars difficult. But put that aside and do another experiment, after making the two photos as I described earlier.

    On a bright sunny day, go inside your house and turn on all of the lights in whatever room has the brightest lights. Just turn them all on until your eyes adjust to the light level, about ten minutes or so. Then walk outside and look around. For a few seconds, is the brightness dazzling? If so, that tells you that direct sunlight is brighter than the lights in that room of your house.

    Next, wait until a few hours after sundown on a night with clear sky. Go to that same room and turn on all of the lights, just like before. Give your eyes ten minutes or so to fully adjust. Next, run outside and immediately look up at the sky. See any stars? They probably won’t be visible for several seconds. And that’s after being in the room at the same light level that wasn’t as bright as being outdoors in full sunlight.

    When the astronauts were looking at the moon’s surface, that surface was many times brighter than the light from any distant star. I’ve never been to the moon but I doubt very much that if I were there on the sunny side that I would be able to see any stars either.

    As to seeing details in the shadows, that’s very easy to explain. The shadows are just those areas not exposed to direct sunlight. But there would still be lots of light that reflected off of the moon’s surface, the LEM and the space suits of the astronauts. There’s nothing about any of the hundreds of moon photos I’ve seen that is at all unusual. Photographers deal with shadows all the time when exposing photographs, and while manipulating those photos in the darkroom, whether digital or analog.

    And again, to anyone who thinks the photos are evidence of a hoax, where was all the uproar from the thousands of professional photographers in August of 1969?

  194. @Anonymous

    Thomas Fleming of Chronicles recounted how he heard the hypothesis from young blacks decades before that. So what we’re seeing is the mainstreaming of ghetto thought.

  195. Redking says:
    @anon

    This isn’t hard. 1/6th gravity. That would suggest it would have to be at least 1/6th the size of the Saturn V (at least – it has to land and take back off).

    Even accounting for different conditions like lack of wind resistance that tiny lunar module isn’t going to make to back to orbit. Let’s not even mention docking with the command module. Read this.

    http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/

    • Replies: @(((They))) Live
  196. @Ethelred the Unready

    The astronauts took terrific, studio quality, photographs without being able to adjust anything or even see through a viewfinder. And they had terrific batteries which are still top secret to cool down the spacesuits in the 260 degree fahrenheit heat in the sunlit part of the moon, and those spacesuit also had to warm them when they stood in the shade which is minus 260 degrees fahrenheit. Our scientists are so far ahead of everybody else it is not funny. When you are great, you are great.

    • Replies: @Ethelred the Unready
  197. @Cowboy

    Well said and truthful..

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  198. @Buzz Mohawk

    In 1956 Werner von Braun, wrote, in what Colliers? that a rocket to the moon would have to be the size of the Empire State building. He sure changed his tune when he saw what America was really capable of.

  199. @Robert Whatever

    Question: was Neil Armstrong lying? Is Buzz Aldrin still lying? Should we waterboard Aldrin until he tells the truth?

    Perhaps they were fooled, too. An early instance of VR.

  200. “… even some “moon hoax debunkers” prefer to explain the black sky in all Apollo photographs as resulting from low exposure.”

    Well, with a proper studio lighting setup and correct exposure settings, you can even make a white backdrop look like a pure black background … wait!

    I guess Mr. Pence better get to getting The NASA better funding to get someone up there pronto before the ChiComs and Russians uncover the truth.

  201. @mijj

    Of course, the whole issue could simply be cleared up by examining the sites of the landings.

    There are images of the landing sites from the lunar reconaissance orbiter (LRO) visible here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

  202. Sal says:
    @renfro

    You can not hide children that did not exist at the time of Sandy Hoax alleged incident,and you can not hide stars from sparkling onto the moon, show me one picture taken of earth on the moon with the astronaut pausing in it together or even a pic of just the earth that is 5 times larger than the moon you should see it 5 times larger from the moon srface plain and simple

  203. Ron, there are a lot of idiots here, including the author of the article, who actually gold-box replied to me. It just makes me want to die. Please don’t foster any more of this.

    They now have their playground and their 15 minutes of free speech, thanks to you. They have come out of the woodwork. That should be enough. It certainly is enough for me to see how many there are.

    In the words of John Derbyshire, “We are doomed.”

  204. @Harbinger

    I hope this is satyre.

    • Replies: @Harbinger
  205. Cowboy says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Thanks. They are called “Yankees”. I believe it ultimately traces back to Conversos who fled Spain and Portugal and landed in Amsterdam. Those same “humans” who ran the slave trade and the opium trade.

  206. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @renfro

    Perhaps Ron Unz will consider adding IDIOT to the list of one word responses!

    • LOL: turtle
  207. @ploni almoni

    Yes. von Braun had to be convinced that Lunar Orbit Rendezvous (LOR) was the best approach at the time. LOR is what eliminated the need for a giant lunar lander. He was stuck in the 1950s era paradigm of giant rocket ships containing everything doing everything. He even wanted to establish an Earth orbit space station before venturing anywhere beyond. He thought that was necessary.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_orbit_rendezvous

    John Houbalt, the American who championed LOR:

  208. @Redking

    Its very clear you don’t understand how the Moon mission worked

    The Saturn V launched the lander, the return capsule, the service module, and 3 astronauts and supplies, must of the lander was left behind on the surface, only the small assent stage was used to return the astronauts to the service/command module

  209. @Buzz Mohawk

    Well. That escalated quickly.

  210. This was fun as an exercise. A few years ago when I started getting in to these “conspiracy theories,” I suffered what I call an epistemological crisis, and I began to give every wild conspiracy theory credence, including the moon theory. I mean a cautious suspicion, not full on certainty. How do we know what real anymore? After reading Michael hart’s Synopsis of the moon landing in his latest book, that cleared up the scientific question I had about the landing.

    Regarding the “no stars” argument—isn’t that exactly what you would expect during day on the moon? The sun would overpower the stars just as on earth, but the sky would be black because there is no ozone to scatter the blue light. You see, this was a carefully crafted hoax…

  211. The title of this article has a question mark at the end. It is up to us to decide what the answer is. Personally, I can’t imagine the controllers would ever say anything remotely close to any form of truth. I grew up in the Soviet Union, and clearly remember how people who dared to question Bolsheviks crimes were looked at; People used to say: “yes there was corruption and brutality but definitely not on such a massive scale”. The truth is that that scale was much bigger than anybody could ever imagine. To me, the moon landing is a lie! Most people still don’t know that the biggest film studio in the world, TSM3K, is owned and run by the pentagon.

  212. Horst says:

    I don’t have the truth, but doubt.

    – It’s marked by the numbers, the spell 11. 911.
    – Prepared for decades, Frau im Mond 1929, even with feminism.
    – Doubting NASA does not mean to doubt the globe. Doubting the official picture the world does not mean buying the flat Earth.
    – The truth can’t be found by staring at photos. No smoking gun there.
    – Truth is in the big picture, the timetable of the program. The lack of testing, compared to similar projects. The immediate transition to the space station insanity with constant need for spacewalks.
    – No casualties, except on Earth. Apollo 1, all dead.
    – Like concerning 911, the number of people who would actually know is not big.
    – The argument, the Russians would have told, is weak. They are waving the same colors on their flag, they receive technology, they are friends in space.
    – Just step back, see the big picture. What do we get, in the age of 4k mini cameras.

    Israeli moon landing, tomorrow!

    Judge, what you are presented.

  213. Read “How Apollo Flew To The Moon” by David W. Woods. Case closed.

    • Replies: @apollonian
  214. @ploni almoni

    Von Braun also wanted to send astronauts on to Mars by the 1980s, so he wanted bigger rockets, in the end a Saturn V sized rocket got the job done, BTW the Soviets also came the more or less the same conclusion on the size of rocket needed, their N1 rocket would have had a similar payload to the Saturn V, larger rockets than the Saturn V are possible, and there are at least 4 of being worked on right now, I expect to see 3 of them launch in the few years

    Or course they are people who argue that the best way to get to the Moon is to use multiple launches of smaller rockets to construct the spacecraft and lander in LEO, they might be right

  215. @Ethelred the Unready

    Michael Collins never went to the surface of the moon.

    He stayed up in the orbiting thing while Neil and Buzz played golf down below.

    Still didn’t see any stars.

    • Replies: @Ethelred the Unready
  216. @Buzz Mohawk

    It was that amazing, so amazing that they can’t believe it.

    It was that amazing, so amazing that they can’t disbelieve it.

    There. Fixed your cognitive disorder.

  217. @joe webb

    “And further, Russia may have been in on the Moon Hoax to undermine faith in government in the US.”

    Those wily Russians knew that one day they would have a puppet in the White House, and this just gave them one more string to pull.

  218. @follyofwar

    “If gentiles can be made to believe that robbing their sons of their god-given birthright is a good thing,”

    Dick Cheese, gentile’s God given birthright. Thanks, Jesus.

    • Replies: @Alden
    , @follyofwar
  219. I’ve scanned thru most of the comments and none I’ve read have mentioned the great work of YouTuber Owen Benjamin. Yes, he is a comedian, but he’s also a truth teller, having given up a Hollywood career, and millions of dollars, because of its moral rot. I hadn’t given much thought to the alleged mood landings for years until I stumbled upon his live streams debunking the subject. As on many other subjects, including the Jewish takeover of America, he provides much food for thought.

  220. joel says:
    @Ron Unz

    One could examine mountains of data to verify the veracity of the “moon landings” or more simply and entirely within our own grasp we could go outside on a bright moon night and make a “zetetic” observation. I do it with out any camera or lense, just with my own eyes and you can clearly see ……Wait for it……..
    clouds behind the moon!!! Period, end of story. No technology, no devices, no one else but me interpretting the “data” Clouds behind the moon>>>Also clouds can be seen behind the sun. So, I don’t care. I saw it with my own eyes. If there are clouds behind the moon and the sun. Then all that billions of dollars and illusions, opinions, interviews, speculations, Kubrick movies, bla bla, bla…Its all out the door. We must learn to observe the truth before our eyes without our cultural programming. THis is the way out of this absurd, deceit-ridden place we find ourselves in. Try it, just go out and look at the moon at night. Clouds are like 10-20 miles away….So now you realize that you don’t know shit.

    • Replies: @Ozymandias
  221. @ploni almoni

    I know nothing about top secret batteries. But I do know a lot about photography. With a small aperture, the lens will give sharp focus over a wide range of distances. I don’t recall if the lens were set to a fixed focus or not. I suspect they were. But at f:22 or so they would have had sharp focus from about ten feet to infinity. Do a web search on “Hyperfocal Distance”.

    The lack of a viewfinder is not a problem. They would have practiced with the camera before blasting off and so they would have known how still they had to be, and they would have known what to expect from each exposure.

    These are things that anyone with a camera can test for themselves. Just start a camera to your chest a take a photo. See how the photo is framed. Now try another. It won’t take long until you can quickly predict what will be in the photo and what will not.

    This isn’t rocket science. It’s photography. You don’t have to take my word for anything. I’m not telling anyone what to believe. I’m just tell everyone how they can find out for themselves where or not the moon photos show evidence of a hoax. You don’t have to believe me. All you need to do is learn some basic things about photography and you can figure it out for yourself.

  222. It’s entirely possible that the moon landings happened but it’s not possible that it happened using the technology that was available at the time. There is no way they could get beyond the Van Allen radiation belts. NASA scientists claim today that they do not have the technology to do so. NASA also claims to have lost the science that was used in the Apollo missions. That’s so over the top that it’s hard to believe any one takes it seriously. If the US did indeed go to the moon it was done using advanced technology was secret and that remains secret.

  223. gsjackson says:
    @Truth

    I believe the prevailing authorities say the moon is around 234,000 miles from Earth. (The sun, which, like the moon, appears to the human eye to be a couple hundred miles away, is supposed to be 93 million miles from Earth — because it has to be for the heliocentric model to hold up.) No less a Grand Eminence of SCIENCE than Neil DeGrasse Tyson lists as his first argument against a moon landing hoax the fact that they took just enough rocket fuel for a 468,000 mile round trip. How he knows how much fuel they used he doesn’t share.

    I was always impressed with the immediacy of the phone connection between Nixon and the moon. Today there is a lag of several seconds between transmission and response just for a televised phone call across the Atlantic. Apparently no such problem at 234,000 miles back then.

    • Replies: @Truth
    , @turtle
  224. Alden says:

    The worst part of the article was trying to tie in Kubrick’s movie the Shining into some kind of confession by Kubrick that he participated in the moon landing hoax.

    There were no hidden hints of child abuse and out of control temper. The Nicholson character had been fired from teaching jobs because of his temper. The precipitating factor that sent the family to the hotel was his injuring a student. He’d hurt Danny and the wife was very nervous around him because of his temper and violence

    And what does the movie have do do with the moon landing? Nothing at all. There are no movie studios or other commercial buildings in residential only zoned Laurel Canyon.

    When Laurel Canyon blvd gets to the top of the hill and leaves the Canyon it becomes a commercial street. It’s certainly possible there was a small movie lot somewhere along Laurel Canyon blvd but no commercial buildings in the canyon itself.

    The part about hints in Kubrick movies that he produced the hoax is about as silly as the stories about the Beatles music worshipping the devil if played backwards or that McCarthy died young and that the Beatles brought in a double.

    Then there’s the fact that I went to college with aeronautical and astronautical engineers who worked for NASA and were sent to Texas to work on the program

  225. a german says:

    Fascinating, moon hoax because deathly van Allen belts?

    They simply didn’t passed them due to the over the poles trajectory.

    Kubrik (RIP) confessed days before his death?
    He died on a heart attack, how did he now that?

    Need 1 minute to know that, why do made fools out of yourself?

    “The people go to moon in 1969?
    I am not totally sure, I wasn’t on the moon than

    Did they fake going to the moon?
    No, I am pretty sure they didn’t

    because they couldn’t”

  226. @Ethelred the Unready

    Without dark visors, their vision would have been damaged by UV radiation.

    Any theories as to why sensitive film in cameras was not damaged by UV radiation?

    • Replies: @Ethelred the Unready
  227. I feel like I am in a very smelly bus station or a mental hospital (and I’ve been in both, so I know what they’re like.) Is this really what UR is? Am I just a dirty, f*cking moron who doesn’t realize it? Is that why I am here? I can’t freakin’ believe this.

  228. Alden says:
    @Ozymandias

    One thing about the moon landing. It was a real triumph of WASP, German descent White American men. Could it be that the entire hoax myth is just another Jewish attack on White men like the attacks on Columbus and the other Portuguese and Spanish explorers and our own ancestors who colonized America?

    Something to think about.

    • Replies: @Ozymandias
  229. @anonymous

    I was in Elementary School when the Challenger blew up. Kids talked about the moon landing hoax in 3rd grade. It was a very common idea.

  230. @Stebbing Heuer

    I can only guess as to why he didn’t see stars. My guess is the Apollo had darkly tinted windows to protect the astronaut’s eyes from the extremely high intensity UV. Here on Earth the atmosphere filters most UV. No atmosphere in space.

  231. Patricus says:

    Didn’t astronomers from smaller nations have telescopes with which they could monitor the flight to the moon and other lunar activities?

    We probably don’t need to send people there again. It is an uninhabitable moon and it is hard to justify the costs for bringing any matter back, no matter how rare and valuable. We could probably build a hotel five miles below the ocean. Astronomical costs would stop any second attempt.

    If the entire moon landing enterprise was a fake it has to be the largest hoax in history.

  232. gsjackson says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Arthur C Clarke was a science fiction writer (and, I believe, a 33rd degree Mason — relevant because many of those who think NASA and the moon landing are fraudulent believe high-level Masons are at the heart of the hoax) whose imagination apparently had prophetic power. He imagined geo-stationary satellites, put them into a story, and ten years later they were reality.

    But has anyone ever confused him with a scientist?

    • Replies: @Truth
    , @Buzz Mohawk
  233. Che Guava says:

    Dear Mr. Unz.

    It is a little cheap of you to reply immediately after a silly but entertainng Moon landing hoax article. April Fool’s Day or not (and it wasn’t yet in ynur time zone)..

    • Replies: @republic
  234. ” However, in 2009 the Rijksmuseum of the Netherlands declared that the “goodwill Moon rock” it had received in 1992 from the estate of Netherlands Prime Minister Willem Drees was bogus. This “Moon rock,” which had been exhibited for more than a decade on a gold-colored piece of cardboard, weighs 89 grams (3.1 ounces) – far larger than the 1 gram piece of lunar basalt 70017 affixed to the Netherlands Apollo 17 lunar sample display. Testing of the Rijksmuseum “Moon rock” in 2009 showed it to be a piece of petrified wood, likely from Arizona. The Rijksmuseum had insured this “Moon rock” for ƒ100,000 (€50,000 [$85,000] in 2012 currency) upon its receipt.[4][5][6][7][8]

    “An investigation showed that United States Ambassador J. William Middendorf II had presented Drees with the “Moon rock” on October 9, 1969. The Apollo 11 astronauts were visiting the Netherlands at that time on a goodwill tour. Drees’ grandson speculates that his grandfather, who was nearly deaf, and blind at the time, formed the mistaken impression that the “Moon rock” he received was from the Apollo 11 mission. When Drees’ “Moon rock” was received by the Rijksmuseum in 1992, the museum phoned NASA to verify its provenance and was told over the phone, without seeing the piece, that it was “possible” it was a Moon rock.[4] USA Today says the discovery of a bogus “Moon rock” at the Rijksmuseum should serve as a wake-up call for all the countries of the world and all the states of the United States that received the Apollo 11 and 17 lunar plaque displays from the Nixon administration to locate the displays and fully secure them.[4][5][6][7]

    “According to Moon rock researcher Robert Pearlman, both the Netherlands Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 lunar sample displays are in the National Museum of the History of Science and Medicine in Leiden, Netherlands.[1][2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_lunar_sample_displays

    • Agree: eah
  235. Alden says:
    @Cowboy

    Are you a Jew? All my life I’ve noted that the “ America is bad and evil, Americans invaded and stole everything Americans are bad and evil on and on “ mantra is a Jewish, especially a Jewish intellectual thing.

    The whole rational for the Jewish lawfare drive for desegregation school bussing, soft on black crime, affirmative action, endless third world immigration is based on the Jewish view that White Americans and our European ancestors are some kind of devils that must be destroyed by Jews black stormtroopers

    More and more I think the moon landing was a hoax story is just more Jewish propaganda that the White goyim just aren’t smart enough to land men on the moon.

    If you hate Americans so much, move to Israel.

    • Replies: @Cowboy
  236. @Carroll Price

    I don’t remember what film they were using. But film would not be damaged by UV. UV can cause a blue cast to color slide film, and UV filters are readily available in camera shops to deal with it.

  237. Truth says:
    @gsjackson

    Right.

    I seem to remember, circa early 1970’s, several delays and interruptions watching Muhammad Ali fights from EUROPE.

    The bottom line is, in order to transmit a signal, even now, you need a system of transmission, the further the distance, the more powerful the transmission. The power outage needed would have had to have been massive broadcast a signal this far, and the antenna would probably have had to have been as high as the World Trade Center.

    • Replies: @Ethelred the Unready
  238. Mike P says:

    Another nail in the coffin is radiation dosimetry. There is a series of published scientific articles that report how much radiation the crews aboard various spaceflights received. The following table is from one such article.

    Notice how the lowest orbits (Gemini) resulted in the lowest daily doses, whereas higher orbits produced higher dosages (STS-41C, Skylab). The Apollo missions – with the exception of Apollo 14, but including Apollo 13, with all its anomalies – are right in the middle. This could hardly be the case if they had gone through the van Allen belt. Also notice the vagueness of the info – just “lunar orbital flight,” when for all others the detailed heights and inclinations are given.

    Fake.

  239. @Ron Unz

    Well, I’d never even known that Moon Hoax theories existed until a year or two ago

    This is legitimately impossible or a blatant lie. You’ve written about the Holohoax and 9/11 Truth and yet claim to have never even heard of the Apollo hoax until your 50s. It seems this site serves the same poisoning-the-well tactic as Sunstein.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  240. @Ron Unz

    But Paul McCartney is really dead.

  241. It’s entirely possible that the moon landings happened but it’s not possible that it happened using the technology that was available at the time. There is no way they could get beyond the Van Allen radiation belts. NASA scientists claim today that they do not have the technology to do so. NASA also claims to have lost the science that was used in the Apollo missions. That’s so over the top that it’s hard to believe any one takes it seriously. If the US did indeed go to the moon it was done using advanced technology that remains unknown.

  242. Truth says:
    @a german

    We didn’t have the technology to make a sophisticated movie in 1969, when we had been making movies for 80 years.

    But we did have the technology to go to the moon in 1969 when we had never even attempted it up until that time.

    Maybe the stupidest 13 minutes I have ever watched.

    • Agree: Johnny Walker Read
    • Replies: @a german
  243. What about the USA Surveyor 3 camera that was removed by the Apollo 12 astronauts and returned to earth and is now on public display? Is that faked as well?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_lunar_sample_displays

    https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/documents/NTRS/collection2/NASA_SP_284.pdf

  244. turtle says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    I now I understand why British cars have historically been so crappily made and unreliable.

    LOL
    Aww, give him a break, Buzz.
    After all, the British motorcar industry did invent Lucas “electrical systems,” which were so efficient that much of the time they used no detectable amounts of electricity at all.

    • Replies: @AWM
    , @Alfred
  245. @anon

    I think you’re right about the ascent of the lunar module – surely somebody would have worked that out by now. Physicists are some of the cleverest people, engineers not far behind. This shouldn’t be a difficult problem.

    Re. the Van Allen Belts – so why haven’t we sent anyone through them since the Apollo missions, and out of low-earth orbit? Done numerous times already, it shouldn’t be hard to repeat.

    Unless that article weekend is correct. Boy, our collective IQ is plummeting faster than WTC 7!

  246. MacNucc11 says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    yes, consider yourself flushed but then most of us already knew that so no surprise.

  247. @turtle

    Something like this?

    I did also use a shoot-the-monkey demo … not nearly so fancy as those. The one I was remembering was simpler yet: a spring-loaded plunger and two steel balls. You leveled the device, and set the spring. When released, the plunger gave one ball a horizontal whack, while depriving the second ball of its support so that it fell vertically from rest. The balls made a nice simultaneous click when they hit the linoleum floor.

    This was supposed to convince my students that projectile motion should be analyzed by treating its horizontal and vertical components separately, since they are mutually independent. But there’s something about that idea that profoundly offends the intuition of many (most, really) people.

    Oh, well …

  248. @Buzz Mohawk

    Wait. That can’t be true. Hidden Figures told us the black women did it all!

  249. @Truth

    The images from the moon landings were very low resolution. Presumably a more powerful transmitter would have sent higher resolution images. But I fail to see how the distance to the moon would mean that no image at all could be transmitted.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
    , @Truth
  250. @joel

    “Clouds behind the moon>>>Also clouds can be seen behind the sun.”

    So… you can see right through the moon? What is that, like x-ray vision or something?

  251. @Joe Stalin

    If the Russians or the Chinese really wanted to destroy America’s spirit they could simply send unmanned vehicles to the various Lunar lander sites to get video.

    Hmmm, actually, even if they faked such video plenty of people would believe it, since so many seem to think America Was Never Great.

  252. Anonymous[426] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    How would the Russians prove was fake?
    Even assuming it was fake, calling it fake would just make them look stupid.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  253. @Buzz Mohawk

    Am I just a dirty, f*cking moron who…

    Yeah, man. Self-awareness can be painful.

    • LOL: Buzz Mohawk
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  254. @(((They))) Live

    Let me know when this happens eh buck-o. I’m guessing it’ll be about the same time “Q” will be able to get Hillary put in leg irons. It will all be about as real as Elon’s “roadster on a rocket”. Hahahahaha

    • Replies: @(((They))) Live
  255. Truth says:
    @gsjackson

    He imagined geo-stationary satellites, put them into a story, and ten years later they were reality.

    Well, about that…

    So the earth rotates the sun at 66,600 miles per hour and somehow, a man-made, fuel-propelled object can keep up with it (just how large are these gas tanks anyway?)?

    “But…but…but…Grav-it-eeee!”

    So gravity is strong enough to pull “satellites”, along with us at 66.6 (wink) million mph, but not strong enough to pull them to the ground.

    If you see it on the news, it’s a lie. It is as simple as that.

  256. While the Ides of March have passed, the fools associated with 1 April seem to be alive and well. 🙂

  257. @Alden

    Probably my fault. I keep posting pics of mission control filled with all those White dudes.

  258. SafeNow says:

    Regarding large numbers of people uniformly keeping a secret, a recent example is the Flight 800 preposterous coverup. Regarding the Flight 800 coverup, Ron Unz wrote the best explication of this, short of reading the entire Cashill book. Mr. Unz’s tone in the comment above surprised me, in light of his Flight 800 essay.

  259. @Ethelred the Unready

    God help me, many moron’s abound here.

  260. @Joe Stalin

    Sorry, that should be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3 not Netherlands.

    Surveyor 3 landing site from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter 2009.

  261. turtle says:
    @gsjackson

    Your recollection is flawed.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-second

    The average distance between Earth and the Moon is about 1.282 light-seconds.

    Roundtrip time = (2)(1.282) = 2.56 sec.
    That is minimum time, with zero allowance for pause in conversation.

    Houston to Apollo stops @ 0:53
    Apollo to Houston reply @ 0:59 => 6 sec.
    Nixon to Apollo stops @ 2:13
    Apollo to Nixon reply @ 2:20 => 7 sec.

    I expect your response to be that NASA knew this would happen (since they were well aware of the speed of light) and “faked ” the time delay. No problem, eh?

    • Replies: @gsjackson
  262. Harbinger says:
    @Thomm

    “We have…..We have…..We have…..”

    Have we?
    And the proof?
    Books, newspapers, TV and all the people involved you say/imply?
    And you’re 100% certain they’re all being honest?
    Freemasonry…..you’ve heard of that? You know they’re bound by an oath of secrecy? You know those who uphold it are richly rewarded? You know a horrific execution awaits for those who break it? You know freemasons do and never qustion their orders? You know there are millions of freemasons on this earth? You know that they control every establishment on this earth? You know that all aristocracies are freemasons?

    You see there’s one main problem with people like you. You simply accept the status quo and history as read, show how incredibly gullible you are, with zero skepticism and no critical thinking skills. You are the tyrant’s wet dream.

  263. gsjackson says:
    @prime noticer

    You’ve stood on Everest? I’ve stood at a point in the Sierras that overlooks an expanse of over 120 miles — from Mt Lassen to Mt Shasta. Over such a distance there is supposed to be nearly two miles of earth curvature. None is visible. No curvature is visible from an airplane at 35,000 feet. I’ve looked several times on very clear days in Arizona, able to see 100 miles in either direction.

  264. @Maiasta

    April 1st is a great day for the article and Ron’s rebuttal. Is his rebuttal tongue in cheek? Like the Russians have been so vocal about 9ll or the holocaust! NOT

  265. @Buzz Mohawk

    The old public radio series “Car Talk” always amused when some theory was presented and the Car Talk guys would ask: “You’re an engineer, aren’t you?”

  266. @Ozymandias

    Your remark is so typical of the circumcised man. People like yourself live in a world of denial.

  267. j2 says:
    @Thomm

    “But we have since sent unmanned probes as far as Neptune and Pluto. We have landed probes on comets over 1000 times further than the Moon. We have had people up in orbiting space stations for 2 years at a time. We have had rovers on Mars (hundreds of times further than the Moon) in operation for years at a time. ”

    Let me make a very stupid question. Have you got back any of the probes you sent to these planets? That is, the astronauts flew back with the landing module. The moon radius is 1/3.66 of the earth’s and the mass is 1/81 of the earths, thus gravitation on the moon surface is 1/6 of that on the earth and the work to do to exit the gravitation field of the moon is 1/22 of the work to exit the gravitation field of the earth. To fly away from the earth takes a big rocket, but these astronauts flew away from the moon with a landing module. Do you Americans do such often? I mean, I guess you send the probes back after they have collected some planet stones?

    • Replies: @Thomm
    , @James Forrestal
  268. @Ethelred the Unready

    Same as if you are in a brightly lit city. You hardly see any stars due to the background starlight and the sun is many times more luminous than the ambient light from any man made source. The reason the sky is black is that there is no ozone to scatter the light.

  269. Harbinger says:
    @Honest Abe

    If you don’t even know the difference between a nature spirit and a comical ridicule of one’s belief, then how can I take anything you write seriously?

  270. @Jonathan Revusky

    Yep, I’m in a smelly bus station all right, complete with the same dirty, rude characters.

    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
  271. @gsjackson

    This is what I get for humoring an idiot and trying to insert a little history.

    This is pointless.

  272. turtle says:
    @a german

    Great video. 🙂
    Vielen Dank.

    • Replies: @a german
  273. With no atmosphere and low gravity allowing for lower orbits and given our current satellite abilities, there shouldn’t be anything we can’t see on the moon including Neil Armstrong’s golf balls.

    The rover tracks and footprints should be clear as day.

    There should be a list of interesting geological features and other anomalies on the moon with resolution equivalent to the level of being able to read license plates.

    Where are the ultra high resolution pictures of the moon?

    • Replies: @retiredmecheng
  274. The true reason, why the Soviets never exposed the moon-landing hoax, is the American National Space Defense Force, which has got the Soviet Cosmos Colonist Army on the ropes.

    The true reason why the Trump administration has started the trade war is due the China’s reconquest of Ganymede’s portal to Elysium.

    • Replies: @turtle
  275. turtle says:
    @prime noticer

    all you need to do is to stand on everest or one of the similar 28,000 foot mountain peaks to see the earth clearly curving,

    No need to climb Everest, or any other mountain.
    Go down to the seashore, watch ships disappear from sight past the horizon.
    Ancient people knew this as well.
    http://www.geo.hunter.cuny.edu/~jochen/gtech201/lectures/lec6concepts/Datums/Determining%20the%20earths%20size.htm

    Do the “flat Earthers” have an “explanation” as to where the ships go so we can no longer see them?
    I’ll bet it’s a real hoot.

    • Replies: @gsjackson
  276. Liza says:

    In the recent movie Apollo 11 there are crowds of people, thousands of them, waiting for and looking at the liftoff (?) 8 miles away. I saw this film and as far as I know all those people look mighty genuine for 1969 (as far as I can say, though I wasn’t so old at that time). What would they have been looking at if not the launching. I say they’re not actors. Just opining here, mind you.

    • Replies: @gsjackson
  277. apollonian says: • Website
    @Dr. Krentist

    Troll Or Dumbass?

    Dumbass: If the book by Woods is really worthwhile, as thou pretend, then thou would understand it and be able to make an argument in thine own words–don’t direct attn. over somewhere else, moron. But thou cannot make thine own argument as thou doesn’t know anything. And we see thou are just another moron trolling, like “wizard,” eh? Case closed.

  278. @atlantis_dweller

    The author is almost certainly Wally.

    • Replies: @Wally
  279. Dannyboy says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Absolutely agree. Well said, sir.

    People, ideas, and hardware — In that order! – Col John R. Boyd, USAF

    Unfortunately, the quality of the first two are sorely lacking nowadays. As for the third, well, it’s much easier, safer and more profitable to churn out trinkets like smart phones than it is to put men on the Moon.

  280. @Ron Unz

    Quote: Now that they have this dedicated comment-thread for their extended discussion, it will be much more reasonable in the future to just summarily trash their off-topic comments on other articles.

    Reply: That’s a mighty broad brush to wipe dissenting voices under the rug. On 9/11,physics went out of the window. I think it’s therefore wise to keep all options open and on the table, until proven wrong. One can’t blame people for being skeptical, when it comes to government propaganda, lies and half-truths.

    Torches of Freedom [cigarettes], DDT, Softenon, etc. are ample proof of deceitful manufacture/governmental cover ups. Why should it stop there?

    Have you ever taken a film roll through X-ray machines in airports. What a hoot.

    • Agree: Alfred
  281. Maiasta says:
    @jacques sheete

    The idea that “vast numbers of people” couldn’t keep a secret is a boilerplate argument of the anti-conspiracist crowd. They use it to dismiss inside orchestration of the S-11 attacks, JFK assassination etc. But it’s simply refuted by the observation of how some 100,000 people worked on the Manhattan Project and yet nobody leaked anything about that for many years afterwards. Obviously a man mining uranium ore in Canada in 1940 would have no idea what it was for. Similarly, the individual engineers and technicians of the Apollo proramme would also not have an overview of the mission’s totality (one who did – Bill Kaysing of Rocketdyne – did actually blow the whistle).

    This can all be summed up in one word: compartmentalisation.

    • Replies: @Alfred
  282. Why does earth need a Van Allen Belt?

    To hold up its Van Allen pants!

    WAKKA WAKKA!

    • LOL: atlantis_dweller
  283. @Anon

    …with no breeches [sic] in their suits…

    What does the astronauts not wearing pants have to do with it?

  284. @Buzz Mohawk

    Oh, c’mon, Buzz. Lighten up. I know you have a good sense of humor. A lot of these people don’t. This is quite an entertaining thread.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  285. @Ron Unz

    I was aware of this theory for years, and I asked many Russian space scientists whether it is true. I never met one (and some of my interviewees were deeply engaged in the space conquest) who would unequivocally say the Moon landings were a hoax. Majority would say “it is complicated”, and minority would say there is no doubt about the landings. Nobody said he knows it didn’t happen. It is not a proof, but that’s what I got.

    • LOL: Mike P
    • Replies: @Alfred
  286. @renfro

    Two different issues – don’t conflate them!

    As Ron Unz correctly noted, this article is terrible. If this article is the ultimate authority in “moon hoax theories”, then I am now even more convinced than ever that yes we did indeed go to the Moon back in the late ’60’s and early ’70’s.

    Sandy Hook, on the other hand, has a number of legitimate questions that scream for answers. I don’t know what happened that day in Newtown, Connecticut, but I don’t trust the mainstream media’s version of events.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  287. gsjackson says:
    @turtle

    Yes, it’s pretty much the first thing any of them bring up, considering it a softball served up by people completely unfamiliar with the discussion. They will tell you to get out a telescope and the bottom of the ship will come back into view because it has not gone over a curve. The law of perspective means objects moving away eventually appear smaller from the bottom up, but due to the limitations of human vision, not a curving earth.

    The official story, however, apparently admits of no limitations on human vision, since it holds that we can see stars quadrillions of miles away.

    Now which of these accounts requires more credulity?

    • Replies: @Reactionary Utopian
  288. @Ron Unz

    I am dumbfounded that Ron Unz has apparently swallowed this thoroughly ridiculous canard hook line and sinker. Huge amounts of evidence destroying the official story are now available on the internet; even a child could see it was a hoax. Ron obviously didn’t spend much time looking into this.

  289. apollonian says: • Website
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Humanity Is Essentially Anti-Semitic, Don’t Forget

    Newsflash, sucker: MOST humans are anti-semites, just naturally–excepting only (a) some, but not all, of those on Jews’ payroll, and (b) those fortunate souls who don’t know about kike filth who say they’re “chosen” by God (honest, we have their word for it), that collectively they’re co-equal w. God, the most wonderful thing God ever created, and all the rest of the idiot, psychopathic crap one finds in Talmud and Zohar, etc. No decent person calls himself Jew, sucker. Get a clue, scum.

  290. Cowboy says:
    @Alden

    “Are you a Jew?”

    No, I am agnostic. I sang in the choir in an Anglican church for 3 years.

    My Grandma was from Cairo in little Egypt. Her people fought with the south.

    The US was lost when they turned down the articles of Confederation and signed onto the masonic Constitution.

    If you look close enough, you can trace the moon landing hoax back to the “civil war”, and then back even further.

  291. red rider says:
    @prime noticer

    The rocks were fake genius.

    • LOL: apollonian
  292. @Wizard of Oz

    you might care to rebut what is said here

    You’re not serious. Professor Scudder merely parrots the official NASA narrative, using their own potentially corrupt data.

    You want to get real about the damaging radiation potential of the Van Allen belts? We’re sending out probes and rovers all the time. I’m sure we have radiation and telemetry data from every single mission, including many from just the past few years (since NASA “lost” all the original Apollo data). So are they matching that idyllic 0.38 rad number Professor Scudder quotes? Or are they at sufficient levels to kill a man?

    That bit about minimizing their effect because we’re going super-fast is ridiculous.

  293. gsjackson says:
    @Liza

    There have always been plenty of people at the launches, legitimately there to see what they think is history. They see the rockets take off vertically, then level off into a horizontal trajectory heading out to sea.

  294. Mike P says:
    @a german

    Fascinating, moon hoax because deathly van Allen belts?

    They simply didn’t passed them due to the over the poles trajectory.

    It is kind of hard to find the orbital parameters for Apollo 11, but for Apollo 8 wikipedia states an orbital inclination of 32 degrees (relative to the equatorial plane). That doesn’t permit egress over the poles – and you certainly wouldn’t waste fuel on changing the orbital inclination before egress if you could help it; you would launch into the proper orbit right away. So your thesis is untenable.

    Yet, the radiation dosage measured on Apollo 8 was comparatively low (see my earlier post).

    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @a german
  295. anonymous[389] • Disclaimer says:

    Lol! This moon “hoax” theory is nothing!! Only idiots will find any value is following such a fool’s errand.

    The whiteys have been perpetuating a far greater hoax for millennia. To know more about it, look up a certain ideology called the “Trinity.”

  296. I note that you don’t actually say what mass or volume of fuel would have been needed.

  297. gsjackson says:
    @turtle

    So, if you think that’s an expected delay of transmission in 1969 from 234,000 miles, now please answer truth’s question about how it was transmitted.

  298. Mike P says:
    @Mike P

    Earth orbit data for all Apollo missions here – all similar to Apollo 8, none compatible with polar egress. They would definitely have gone through the van Allen belt.

  299. MacNucc11 says:
    @Sollipsist

    I read the book and only caught parts of the movie but it didn’t seem to me that there was anything in the movie about the incident that was torturing Jack. He had hit a child on a bicycle with his car killing them. I thought this article was good except I wanted to hear more about the connection with Kubrick and what did the movie Eyes Wide Shut have to do with the moon landing.

  300. MacNucc11 says:
    @Auntie Analogue

    The stars in the sky thing seems a little odd but not totally disproving the fact that the moon landing did or did not happen. On earth here it is possible to take pictures without seeing stars. Would stars be more or less visible from the moon? Possibly it being more near the sun makes stars harder to see and possibly no night time occurred to allow them to be seen.

    • Replies: @alonizar
  301. Alohajim says:

    Wow. Mr. Unz, wow. The moon landings were faked completely. The Soviets DID call it fake at the time in 1969 but were easily written off as simply being jealous losers. They obviously received some benefit in backing off the claim. There is no question whatsoever that ALL of the photographs were faked, or, rather, shot on earth in a studio. The most damning evidence is the lack of fuel carrying capacity of the module and lander. The initial news conference of the ‘first men to set foot on the moon’ is almost as equally damning. Only an idiot could look at the so called Lunar Lander and conclude that it protected humans from the moon’s atmosphere while sustaining them for days with power, food, waste facilities, heat, and oxygen.

    We’ve been living in a world of lies for a long, very long time. I come to the Unz. review for some truth. Not anymore. Like any successful disinformation campaign, 99% of truth is delivered for the express intent of delivering the monumental lie.

    Dummy or liar, doesn’t matter – result is the same – hiding truth and spreading lies. Owning the media and ‘entertainment’ industries, well, since they began, sheenies are the absolute masters of lies, deception and subterfuge.

    Governments = Corporations = Banks. A three headed hydra run, owned, and controlled by the same vile predator class that derives it’s power from their exclusive, government given ‘right’ to create currencies from nothing and charge the world ‘interest’ on it. Enforced by government force, this massive con and wealth transfer scheme is maintained by lies distributed 24/7 from cradle to grave by academia, media, & ‘entertainment’ venues. Successful today only because of folks like Mr. Unz who supports and nourishes the lie that governments exist to serve the people, don’t lie to us, and the far bigger and most unfortunate lie that ‘entertainment’ means watching something instead of doing something.

    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @Grahamsno(G64)
  302. The moon landing a hoax? Ho-hum. Let’s face the fact that the moon itself is a hoax!

    Happy April Fool’s Day!

  303. @gsjackson

    The law of perspective means objects moving away eventually appear smaller from the bottom up,

    I promised myself I wouldn’t engage the stupidity overflowing this post and its already-long comment thread, but I’m weak, and I can’t help it. Which “law of perspective” are you babbling about? Maybe it’s some law enacted by a parliament of dunces somewhere?

    They will tell you to get out a telescope and the bottom of the ship will come back into view

    Sorry, I misplaced my magic telescope that allows me to see through the ocean. But if I find it, I plan to start scouting for sunken pirate treasure and hot topless mermaids and stuff.

  304. apollonian says: • Website
    @prime noticer

    Jews And Their World Of Lies, Lying, Liars, Special-Pleading, And Question-Begging–An Endless Universe Of Fakery, Fraud, And Flim-Flam

    Tell us, moron: how many times do thou have to be lied to by kikes and their suck-alongs before thou concludes everything and anything they say is probably a lie?–this is called INDUCTIVE logic, sucker–it’s natural and native to the human qua human–how we think, if and when healthy.

    And what’s the necessity of beleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevin’ anything? Beleeeeeeevin’ something doesn’t make it true, and truth is precious thing–it deserves proof–and if it’s really, genuinely true, then it doesn’t fear simple little thing, like PROOF, sucker. And if it’s really true, then it can stand proof, and more proof, and yet more proof.

    So necessary, default conclusion is if it is told by Jew, it’s surely a lie. And now how long have Jews ruled?–probably since Napoleon at least. We KNOW Rothschilds have ruled Europe since early 19th cent., after Napoleon.

    Thou scummy filth positively stink–sooooo butt-hurt that people don’t want to beleeeeeeeeeeev thy stupid lies and lying. Why is it soooooooooooo goddam necessary that people beleeeeeeeeeeev scum like thou?–have thou ever wondered?

    Get a clue, sucker: reality is OBJECTIVE, for if not, then ANYTHING and everything is both true and not true at same time. ONLY objective reality makes any sense as objectivity and only objectivity renders the logical method and science.

    So if there’s any objective basis, then and only then is it, and can it be verified by sense-perception–that’s “PROOF,” by definition. So we look for EVIDENCE–both in science and in legal investigations. So what’s evidence and/or proof for manned moon-landings?–TELL US, SHOW US, scum.

    The “evidence” we have indicates it’s all lies on top of lies–no stars in the pictures–for good reason, because then they’d have problem for the constellations. The shadows of the pictures are pointing diff. ways. When the film (or video) is slowed-down, it shows just earth-like jumping distances–it’s all fake, fake, fake. And THEN we get thy stupid butt-hurt idiocy because people know thou are just lying, special-pleading, and begging for credibility, as liars always do.

    Thou are just a bunch of lying scum, like w. all the other lies scum like thou tell–about “climate-change” and 9/11, and Sandy hoax, and holohoax. Thy lies and lying just never end. Thou live in a world of lies, liars, and lying–just like Christ warned.

  305. anon82822 says:
    @apollonian

    I agree completely with Ron Unz’s first post.

    Besides, I attended a technical school involved in developing some of the technology that had gone into the Apollo project. I think I would have heard at least rumors of a fraud if fraud there had been, and I didn’t.

    It’s people like apollonian” and a few others here who give antisemitism a bad name, LOL.

  306. @Reactionary Utopian

    Aw, what the hell, let’s have some fun. If the earth is flat, where’s the edges? Why aren’t there any pictures of them? Or does it just go on forever?

    And how come people in Australia see constellations that I’ve never seen? That damn Southern Cross … must be a hoax, too.

    • Replies: @Backwoods Bob
    , @Ozymandias
  307. anonymous[191] • Disclaimer says:

    I always have believed that the moon landings were for real because I saw it happening on the televitz as a boy. Fast forward, 50 years later and I’m not so definite in my belief. The technology was available to create very realistic depictions of space as shown in movies such as 2001 a Space Odyssey and we haven’t been back for 50 years. That alone is very peculiar. We know that the government has been lying to us about Pearl Harbor, WW2, Vietnam War, Bay of Tonkin incident, USS Liberty Incident, and the Twin Towers. With the consistency of lies about other subjects, why not this one too? We have motive (they wanted the Russians to think we had this technology and having achieved this we would have respect from all over the world). Some of the scientific angles quoted by the debunkers are in areas where I don’t have enough knowledge to agree or disagree with but taking the whole thing in perspective, and weighing the pros with the cons, I choose to have an open mind on the subject.

  308. Get your conspiracies straight.

    It is the Van Allen Belt that is fake, not the moon landings.

    Sheesh.

  309. @Paul Jolliffe

    One of the Sandy Hook father’s recently committed suicide over his child’s murder. Perhaps you think that that is a hoax too.

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
    , @Paul Jolliffe
  310. @American citizen

    I agree with your comments in many ways. I once posted remarks similar to yours on another thread and was immediately flamed as a Neanderthal. In many ways the space program has been high dollar welfare for the scientific community. This has meant billions of dollars have been directed to a relatively small part of our economy. Meanwhile much of our infrastructure is desperate need of replacement or upgrade.but the money never seems to be available.

  311. apollonian says: • Website
    @anon82822

    Jews Are Sooooooooooo . . . Uh, Brilliant–Yes, That’s It….

    Anti-Semitism is simply obedience to God, sucker–and didn’t cha know all humanity is anti-semitic?–kicked out of practically EVERY country on earth, multiple times. Christ was anti-Semitic–just ck Gosp. MATT, all 39 verses of ch. 23 where he calls those dear Pharisees “serpents and vipers.”

    And what’s this?–so thou “attended” a tech “school” and didn’t “hear rumors,” so therefore thou agree w. thy fellow Jew liar, Unz?–golly gee, but what a surprise, ho ho ho ho ho. Good gravy, but I thought thou kikes were supposed to be “smart”? But actually, all anyone needs do is to get thou talking and lying, and there goes so quickly thy reputations and boasting of “high IQ,” eh?–ho hoo ho ho oho. Don’t stop, kike–by all means keep talking to us, and tell us more–we love it, ho hoh o ho ho.

  312. Mike P says:
    @Alohajim

    The Soviets DID call it fake at the time in 1969 …

    Do you have any source for that? Thanks, M.

    • Replies: @Alohajim
  313. @Reactionary Utopian

    God are you stupid.

    There is a 200 foot wall of ice around the entire rim. Nobody can fly past the wall because the government won’t let you.

    Those charter flights to the South Pole – all fake. The people who go on them – fake. But the people are starting to rise up. Rage against the machine!

    • Replies: @turtle
  314. @farang

    I think you mean William Colby

  315. Maybe Bill Cooper can inject a little common sense into the brains of these NASA loving day dream believers. Here’s your science!!!

  316. Peredur says:

    It is good to see so many intelligent conspiracy realists on this site. So many have responded effectively to Mr. Unz’s arguments against the Moon landing hoax theory that I hardly feel the need to chime in, but I will anyway.

    It was actually realizing that the Moon landings must have been fake that caused me to start reconsidering the mainstream narrative of the Cold War. As other commenters have pointed out, it appears likely that the Cold War was a manufactured dialectic. One purpose of this dialectic was to provide an excuse to build up the military-industrial complex and intelligence services, with their many levels of secrecy. The Powers and Principalities show on the thkelly67 channel on YouTube is a good source of information on this.

    I have written a number of comments about the Moon landing hoax on other alt-right websites. The level of vitriol coming from some commenters trying to shout me down is remarkable. (In fact, I strongly suspect that some of the persistent commenters who were doing this were paid trolls.) One doesn’t need to get angry and/or abusive if one is defending something obvious, like the fact that the Earth is round. The “truth” of the Moon landings, on the other hand, is not obvious at all, given how need-to-know secrecy works and given that we have been unable to put people above low-earth-orbit since then.

    I encourage open-minded and undecided people to spend time looking into this. The information is easy to come by, e.g., on YouTube. There have been many, many deceptions. Realizing this can be anxiety-provoking at first, but don’t worry: the Earth will still be round at least.

    The key is in realizing where the information bottlenecks lie. That is where deceptions occur. Information bottlenecks lie in complexity and limited access to information. Also, disinformation campaigns are used to discredit true conspiracy theories. I think that the flat earth theory is an example of such a disinformation campaign and that its purpose is primarily to discredit the true Moon landing hoax theory.

    • Agree: apollonian
    • Replies: @follyofwar
  317. It’s suspicious that this comes out on April 1.

    But anyway, one thing that did annoy me is when I learned that there was only one TV receiver. NASA received the signal then the TV networks pointed their cameras at the TV provided by NASA. This was in the late 1960s and 1970s and TV magic was all the rage.

    One of the reasons the video may have been erased is that they don’t want it compared to stock footage from the networks. There may have been a delay so they could edit out anything unfortunate.

  318. @Johnny Walker Read

    I know very little about the whole “Q” business, I think its just some dude trolling

    As for SpaceX, yeah I think they will land people on the Moon in the next few years and then send people to Mars, they are clearly headed in that direction, right now SpaceX have the most powerful and therefore the best rocket in the world, the Moon hoax people around here keep pointing out that NASA can’t send people beyond LEO and back to the Moon, and its true NASA don’t have a big enough rocket to do this, but SpaceX do, it would be easy enough for SpaceX to put a Dragon capsule onto a Falcon Heavy and send a few people on a trip around the far side of the Moon and then back to Earth, not as good as Apollo 11, but not bad either

    Watch the news over the next few weeks, you might see videos of SpaceX testing their next gen Moon/Mars rocket in Texas

    Keep in mind that the richest man in the world is also working on his own space program and he is also headed for the Moon, unlike Musk he has more capital to play with

  319. a german says:
    @Truth

    “Maybe the stupidest 13 minutes I have ever watched.”

    Too far away for the inverse square law to make a difference? 😉 .

    • Replies: @Truth
  320. Franz says:

    Admit that Apollo and most of NASA was political to begin with. When Kennedy said “Moon before 1970” all the engineers groaned, he had no clue how many hurdles were in the way. They had barely put a few communications satellites up.

    So it’s only the political aspect of Apollo anyone really discusses. And it’s a fact that 1969 was a quiet year for sunspot cycles besides. The real conspiracy is — are these cycles encoded in ancient literature and is that what they want to keep hidden?

  321. mcohen says:

    What armstrong said about one small step makes me think about how things have changed and what is possible.
    I collect slide rules and ask any person under 30 today and they will not know what a hemmi is.Yet in the days ago engineers built these amazing machines using slide rules to compute complex equations.
    The hoax generation are simply too easy to fool.

  322. April Fools!

    • Replies: @Peredur
  323. a german says:
    @turtle

    Gern geschehen

    you’re welcome

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  324. Swan.Knight says: • Website
    @prime noticer

    My argument exactly. How about Cassinni Huegens getting guided through Saturn’s rings and then soft landing a probe on Titan?

  325. Priss Factor [AKA "Asagirian"] says: • Website

    Hey, Russians landed in the White House.

  326. Truth says:
    @a german

    This gentleman’s argument is that in 1969 we were advanced enough to design a rocket capable of going to, and returning from, the moon, but not advanced enough ro design a larger film canister.

    • Replies: @a german
  327. Peredur says:
    @George Taylor

    I am convinced that the manned Moon landings were fake, and I didn’t see anything in the article to suggest that it was meant as an April Fools prank. Given the number of articles that have been posted on this site advancing other controversial conspiracy theories, I would not be too confident about this article being a joke if I were you.

  328. a german says:
    @Mike P

    Sorry i do not find the original website:

    But you can read here (states you are right and shoes the flight paths).
    https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SMIII_Problem7.pdf

    and here

    Konkret: Die Astronauten von Apollo 11 erhielten während ihres 195 Stunden dauernden Fluges insgesamt eine Strahlendosis von 6 mSv.

    Apollo 11 Astronauts gets an total Dose of 6mSv during the whole flight.

    My “over the pole” is incorrect (thank you for correction), but “around the belts” is what they did.

    Time to find 5 minutes. Making a fool out of yourself in denying this don’t change.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  329. Priss Factor [AKA "Asagirian"] says: • Website

    Is this April Fool joke or not? I can no longer tell?

    https://apnews.com/657853d5c23346fa9a45eaa71cf10d07

    The story says some homo guy used his sperm to fertilize the egg of his sister. That would be genetic incest. And his mother carried the child. That would be double-incest, sort of.

    But the homo guy and his ‘husband’ are pretending that they had the child together.
    Is (genetic)incest okay if in service of homomania?

    Feminists bitch about how ‘patriarchy’ commodifies women into objects in dumb stuff like HANDMAID’S TAIL, but if anything uses women’s body like rental commodities, it is the sick vanity of homos and trannies.

    • Replies: @apollonian
  330. @Peredur

    The article may not be a April fools day joke, just the content……the conspiracy theory’s are more complicated than the actual moon landing, Occam’s razor Dude.

    • Replies: @Peredur
  331. @Peredur

    Peredur said: “I am convinced that the manned Moon landings were fake,”

    Hey Peredur!

    You are not alone?

    Fyi, am convinced that both the capture & lynching of Saddam Hussein & the killing of Osama bin Laden were “fake.”

    Thanks! But one more thing. Try to keep fresh in mind, TV’s X-Files slogan, “Trust no one.” Fyi, I support that, especially when a person is either a suspected or known Israeli fanatic.

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
    • Replies: @Peredur
    , @Mishko
  332. @follyofwar

    The Sandy Hook school was closed in 2008 because of asbestos contamination, no one died at the school, FBI records for Newtown show no murders in 2012, it was a FEMA drill, look up Jim Fetzer and Wolfgang Halbigs reports on Sandy Hook.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  333. gsjackson says:
    @Reactionary Utopian

    If you get out your telescope — give it a try — and the bottom of the ship comes back into view, then you aren’t looking through water, are you? You’re looking at an object atop the water that has not gone over any curve. Reading comprehension can be your friend — try a little harder with it.

    As for the standard bullshit about where’s the edge — you have no idea how tiresome it is for people who follow this discussion to hear this time and again from ‘debunkers’ who have no familiarity at all with the issues. Ten minutes exposure to just about any flat earth video will tell you what their position is on the edge. Believe me — you’re not being devastatingly incisive, posing unaswerable questions.

    • Replies: @Reactionary Utopian
  334. @Si1ver1ock

    I too have wondered why we haven’t seen any high resolution video (or even photos) of the abandoned landing sites. Satellites have frequently orbited the moon, and I believe some are even doing so now. It shouldn’t be a big deal to shoot some detailed video (with “licence plate” resolution) of at least one of the sites, and it would put this controversy to rest. And yes, with time, the population of doubters grows (as it should)…

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  335. Herald says:
    @anonymous

    Yes, the opening admission is scarcely credible. Also strangely for Ron, the rest of his fairly lengthy piece is far from compelling. Perhaps he is simply having a Stanley Kubrick moment.

  336. @Ron Unz

    one of the biggest reasons for our space program and moon landing was the zero-sum competition for international prestige with Russia during the Cold War, and although it eventually fell behind, the USSR had a very solid space program of its own, with numerous satellites and telescopes. If our Moon landing were just a fraud, it seems totally impossible that the Soviets weren’t aware of that, and they could have totally destroyed America’s international prestige by revealing the hoax. Yet they never made a single such claim at the time. Unless this gigantic issue is effectively addressed, any Moon Hoax theory can be immediately dismissed.

    The counter to this which is not absurd is that the Cold War itself was a hoax. Russkies and Yanks both pawns of the powers that be that run everything in secret.

    I don’t buy this but it is not logically fallacious.

    The overarching problem is the obsession with secrecy. We really have no idea how big the black budgets are or what is done with them. We might have men on the moon right now. I think it is very likely that we went to the moon in 1969 but the true facts are nothing like the story fed to the public.

  337. JoeFour says:
    @farang

    “So said CIA’s William Casey…just a few days before his ‘tragic drowning’ while canoeing.”

    I think you’ve confused William Casey with William E. Colby…

    Pics of the Sandy Hook kids can be found easily using a simple Google search and seem to support your comment.

    In my old age I’ve come to the conclusion that all “official stories” explaining nationally significant, tragic events are chock full of lies and misdirection and are purposely intended to lead one far, far away from the actual truth of what happened.

  338. apollonian says: • Website
    @Priss Factor

    Satanism In Thy Face, Suckers–And Remember Judaism IS Satanism, Never Doubt

    Tell me what thou think: IS THIS SATANISM?–and is this what we get w. those precious kikes in charge of our culture, given their control and use of that thematic criminal enterprise that literally defines the rest of the satanic culture–CENTRAL-BANKING, legalized counterfeiting?–see Mises.org for expo; use their site search-engine for particular terms.

    Thus the satanized goons, morons, scum, filth, weaklings, suckers, and inferiors–grossly OVER-populated–have decided they want INFINITE CURRENCY–not real money which is necessarily FINITE in amount–legalized counterfeiting which steady “inflation” devalues the currency units, despoiling and impoverishing the stupid suckers, destroying the economy, etc.–the stupid, brainless puke, called “the people,” thoroughly satanized, idolizing their precious kikes who lead them in suicide, death, destruction, starvation, warfare, famine, pestilence, etc.

    So what happens is we Christian (hence genuine anti-Semitic) heroes and patriots must simply continue preaching anti-Semitism till the “people” get tired of being killed-off–there’s no other way.

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  339. Ron Unz says:

    Well, I’ll admit I’ve only skimmed over the more than 30,000 words of angry comments on both sides of the issue, but I think my argument from silence is still very strong.

    For example, my original training was as a theoretical physicist and I don’t really know anything about the Van Allen radiation belts. But I’d think that there are many, many thousands of astrophysicists and astronomers who certainly do, and large numbers of these surely had been working for NASA. Most of the Moon Hoax people claim that astronauts would have faced certain death from radiation in their trip, thereby proving it never happened. But if that were true, then all those thousands of scientists knew the lunar trip was an impossible suicide mission and therefore an obvious hoax. Yet 100% kept their silence for fifty years, which seems exceptionally implausible to me, especially since so many of them worked for the rival USSR. Science is science and radiation calculations don’t lie.

    The Moon Hoax people also claim it’s obviously impossible for the return module to have had the fuel to lift off the lunar surface, returning the Moon-walk astronauts to orbit. Once again, this is a question of simple engineering, and if it really were impossible, many tens of thousands of aeronautical engineers, including all the NASA employees who allegedly designed the return module, would have known that, and therefore must have been aware of the hoax. Yet none of them spoke up at the time or during the fifty years that followed, which seems very implausible to me. Once again, science is science and lift/fuel calculations can’t be that difficult to check.

    It looks like many of the Moon Hoax people similarly believe that earlier Gagarin space mission was also a total hoax. But why would America have not exposed it at the time, and humiliated the USSR? One possibility suggested by some commenters is that the entire US-Soviet Cold War was also a complete hoax, with both the US and the USSR secretly controlled by closely-allied Masonic sects. I suppose that possible, and Khrushchev and Nixon had actually exchanged secret Masonic hand-shakes before their harsh public denunciations, but I’d really need to see some hard evidence before I accept that theory.

    According to the Moon Hoax people, it’s very simple and ironclad science that the astronauts would have been killed by radiation and that they couldn’t have possibly had the fuel to lift back off from the lunar surface. Well, maybe. But apparently, the silence of tens of thousands of astrophysicists and aeronautical engineers over fifty years suggests that either that they disagree with this simple scientific assessment or that they were participating in a remarkably large and long-lived conspiracy, one which seems rather unlikely to me.

    The 9/11 Truthers endlessly refer to the thousands of architects and engineers who have publicly signed the 9/11 Truth Statement, saying the official story of the WTC attacks is physically impossible.

    If the Moon Hoax people are correct that the official Apollo story is so blatantly impossible based on very simple radiation and aerospace issues, why haven’t they put together a website with the public signatures of thousands of astrophysicists and aerospace engineers confirming this position?

  340. Gus Flory says:
    @Grahamsno(G64)

    The Russians also put laser reflectors on the moon in 1970 and 1973. You can bounce lasers off their reflectors as well.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retroreflectors_on_the_Moon

    • Replies: @Grahamsno(G64)
  341. @Reactionary Utopian

    “Aw, what the hell, let’s have some fun. If the earth is flat, where’s the edges? Why aren’t there any pictures of them? Or does it just go on forever?”

    It’s turtles all the way down. Don’t you know anything?

  342. This April Fools day hoax or not presentation offers some serious questions. The one I wonder about is how the astronauts came away unscathed going through the Van Allen Belts. Apparently it’s because of the trajectory used and the fact they went very, very, very fast. Okay then?
    https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts#page-4

    • Replies: @Alfa158
  343. @Ron Unz

    I am slow and methodical, so it took me this long to figure out that this article and comment thread is just an April Fools joke.

    Ha ha ha. You really are a genius, Ron. Thanks for the laughs. 🙂

    • Replies: @apollonian
  344. Herald says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Practically all of the major points are covered by you briefly and succinctly.

    One reply to your post mentions the ability of Apollo missions to thread their way through the lower radiation parts of the Van Allen belts. It seems more than strange that Nasa could do this seemingly at will some 50 years ago, while it tell us, at length that this is now one of the major stumbling blocks to manned space flights above low orbit. Then however unlikely it would seem, we have to assume that not only has the famous Saturn technology been mislaid but also it seems that this really uncanny ability to navigate the Van Allen belts has been similarly lost without trace. They are just so bloody careless at Nasa.

    Now, for true believers, facts do not matter and cognitive dissonance or is faith will always win the day.

  345. republic says:
    @Che Guava

    Moon Landing Skeptic , no author listed

    That is the the title for this article. How many previous Unz articles have been anonymous?

    • Replies: @Carroll Price
  346. gp says:

    The Channel 5 “documentary” is “still the best introduction to the arguments of the “moon hoax theorists””

    Somebody better come up with a better “best” then. It’s a typical inept TV “documentary” that has 3 minutes of meat and 42 minutes of filler. Who can sit all the way thru those awful things? Take pity on us, and just write one paragraph of bullet-points.

  347. @Ron Unz

    The moon landing that was shown to we the people was faked, however the US has had a secret space program called Solar Warden that has put men on the moon and mars and still is in operation, google Solar Warden and has been in operation for decades.

  348. @Anon

    Given their position at the time they would have had no idea what was actually going on…

  349. apollonian says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Hmmmmmmmmmm

    “…[W]hy haven’t they put together a website with the public signatures of thousands of astrophysicists and aerospace engineers confirming this position?”

    Gee whiz, but does it take a “theoretical physicist” to figure-out it could be harmful to career or even life by doing such dastardly thing to ZOG?

  350. Redking says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron Unz – these things are not as easy to check as you suggest. Try getting proper coordinates for the moon landings. You would think this would be easy to get – nope!

    Don’t you find it odd that all of the original high quality video footage of the moon landing was “lost”? The low quality footage was transmitted “from the moon”, but high quality footage was available from the tapes brought back from the moon. That was lost/destroyed.

    Again, I enjoin you to read “Wagging the Moondoggie”. If the conspiracy theory about the moon landing is as absurd as you say then you shall have no problems poking holes in Dave McGowan’s thesis.

    http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie/

  351. RobRich says: • Website

    Columbus’ walk on the New World was a hoax.

  352. If you look at the USS Liberty in 1967, the parabolic dish on the ship was intended to transmit signals using signals bounced off the moon to NSA receivers – a half-million miles ONE WAY.

    “Troposcatter” communications links were a regular feature of military communications over half-a-century ago. Thats RF scattered enough to be received above the noise to generate sufficient S/N for transmission of intelligence.

    Very low RF noise in microwave environments means you can make up for low RF ERP with high gain antennas – that’s why they got great big dishes in Australia.

  353. @Peredur

    From time to time I enjoy watching the humorous as well as informative daily videos from Lionel Nation. He’s subject to repetition, but is quite fond of quoting Gore Vidal, who said he wasn’t a conspiracy theorist but, instead, a (((Conspiracy Analyst))). Lionel applies that logic to 9/11. All we can do is raise the questions, but the average joe is in no position to answer them. It’s up to the authorities to do so, but don’t hold your breath waiting for an answer. The same is true of the alleged Moon Landings. Something stinks to high heavens here. Only Luddites dismiss our questions out of hand.

  354. AWM says:
    @turtle

    Thanks to our experience with Triumph and BSA motorbikes, we were familiar with the phrase “Lucas Electrics, Prince of Darkness.”

    • LOL: turtle
  355. apollonian says: • Website
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Not “Genius” At All, Really–Just Typical Jew Insidious Subversion, Psy-Ops

    “You really are a genius, Ron.”

    I don’t know if it was “genius,” but it sure was clever and insidious, regardless–to bring together all these “anti-Semitic” articles–who else would/could have done it?

    BUT notice then, in comments pages, the strange lack of serious, genuine anti-Semitism and real, genuine Christianity and Christian advocacy–is there anything more anti-Semitic?–Christianity being worship of TRUTH (= Christ, Gosp. JOHN 14:6) against Jew/Satanist lies, lying, and liars (JOHN 8:44).

    So we see the very interesting strategy of Jew advocate (“golly gee, but Jews are just ‘normal’ people–like anyone else, eh?”), Unz, who, despite the anti-Semitic articles, and like the most obsessed and pathologic control-freak, carefully CENSORS and suppresses genuine anti-Semitism and esp. serious CHRISTIAN (anti-semitic) advocacy in proper spirit of the anti-Semitic articles presented by Unz Review.

    Further, we see the legion of Jew/Jewwy trolls Unz allows in, to exclusion of genuine Christian anti-semites, and still further, the luke-warm, apologetic gentile milquetoast “critics” of the Jews, who are so wishy-washy for their pathetic complaints and nit-picking it’s enough to make one sick.

    And again, note the obvious pupose of the site and editorial policy–the NORMALIZATION of Jew monsters and anti-human psychopaths and satanists within the society of genuine humanity–which is all lost on the stupid goyim who are allowed to post and publish on Unz Review, the dumb, brainless scum.

  356. @gsjackson

    If you get out your telescope — give it a try — and the bottom of the ship comes back into view, then you aren’t looking through water, are you? You’re looking at an object atop the water that has not gone over any curve. Reading comprehension can be your friend — try a little harder with it.

    As for the standard bullshit about where’s the edge — you have no idea how tiresome it is for people who follow this discussion to hear this time and again from ‘debunkers’ who have no familiarity at all with the issues. Ten minutes exposure to just about any flat earth video will tell you what their position is on the edge. Believe me — you’re not being devastatingly incisive, posing unaswerable questions.

    I guess the Law of Perspective ceased to be interesting, hmmm?

    Where’s the edge? Seems like a simple question. How about just answering it, instead of suggesting I go look up videos?

    And why do those antipodean types go out on clear nights and see different stars from the ones I see? Could it be that “up” is a significantly different direction, depending on where one is? Sounds like we might all be living on a, ummm, curved surface?

    Here’s another simple question: why do lookouts on ships perform their duty from the highest perch available, such as a masthead? Yes, I know, more standard bullshit, and therefore won’t be answered. I’m sure I’ll be told to spend ten minutes on a flat earth video. Yeah, sure.

  357. Kubrick’s moon landing videos were faked. Francis Coppola was actually hired by Aristotle Onassis to hatch the scheme. What made the ploy so dastardly was that Kubrick was led to believe that he was filming authentically fake footage of men landing on the moon, but in actuality he was filming artificially fake footage.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  358. @Ozymandias

    It’s turtles all the way down. Don’t you know anything?

    No, but I’s a-learnin. Just gots to find me some-a them flat earth videos.

    • Replies: @Half-Jap
  359. Thomm says:
    @j2

    Relaunching from the Moon is nowhere near the hardest part.

    Plus, people have come and gone from space stations hundreds of times.

    Get a clue. Neptune and Pluto are each over 15,000 times further away from the Moon, plus any probe that leaves the Hill Sphere of the Earth has a far greater engineering challenge ahead of it – staying out of the Sun’s gravity well. A trip to the Moon does not have to take the Sun’s gravity well into account, as it is within the Earth’s Hill Sphere.

    You probably don’t know what a Hill Sphere or gravity well is.

    Going to the Moon with a manned vessel, landing there, having them walk around, and then launching from there to get back to Earth is NOT the most difficult thing that has been done by space programs (both US and others).

    That is why ‘Moon Hoax’ idiots are so comical.

    • Replies: @Lurker
  360. turtle says:
    @Backwoods Bob

    There is a 200 foot wall of ice around the entire rim. Nobody can fly past the wall

    No, of course not.
    Anyone who could penetrate the Alien Force Field and fly over The Wall would be able to photograph the Secret Nazi Bases on the Other Side, which the Nazis access via Secret Untersee Doors through The Wall, where Adolph & Heini’s grandchildren have rendezvoused with space alien refugees from Area 51 in order to complete the tunnel system from the Parallel Universe Beyond The Wall to the Tunnel Transport nexus located deep below Dulce, NM in our universe.

  361. @republic

    Moon Landing Sceptic probably works for a US corporation and wants to keep his job.

  362. @mark green

    BTW- the 8-minute video that documents published Jewish claims of ‘six million Jews’ dying or suffering before the outbreak of WWII (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=111&v=YqACgRA6XuI) does not include other published documents I have seen that come from the 19th century (!) concerning–you guessed it–‘six million Jews’ either dying, suffering, or in mortal danger.

    The ‘six million Jews’ meme is a high-mileage, pre-owned kosher fantasy that was just waiting to be re-issued after WWII.

    Is it any wonder why the Tribe doesn’t want any critical analysis of the granddaddy of all ‘conspiracy theories’? Of course not. These earlier fabrications speak volumes about the Jewish tendency to exaggerate, prevaricate and deceive.

    The pre-WWII ‘six million Jews’ meme is a fatal embarrassment to today’s high-powered Holocaust Industry. And they surely know it.

    This explains why Jews today have globally championed the criminalization of speech and ‘anti-Semitic’ political expression. The truth is not their friend.

    • Agree: apollonian
  363. @MikeatMikedotMike

    The moon walk scenes were shot on the Grassy Knoll. Interior spacecraft TV transmissions were made from inside the Book Depository (for the Command Module) and the Dal-Tex building (for the Lunar Module.) Kubrick directed, but a man named Zapruder handled cinematography.

    Hmm… Now I see what Ron means by fake conspiracy theories spoiling the real ones.

    • Agree: MikeatMikedotMike
  364. turtle says:
    @Ozymandias

    It’s turtles all the way down.

    Verily. An uncountable infinity.

    Don’t you know anything?

    Nuffin, son. The proper word is nuffin.

    MfG,

    turtle

  365. utu says:
    @Ron Unz

    I suspect that the argument that the Soviets could expose the fakery is specious.

    What could Soviets verify? How was the Apollo mission tracked? Was a passive tracking possible at these long distances for such a small object with radar or optical and/or microwave telescopes? Or was it done by transponder signals from Apollo by triangulation by the set of antennas on Earth? Were the transponder signals encrypted?

    It seems that for Soviets w/o hacking of the US tracking stations they knew nothing and would not know where to look.

    How did the Apollo crew know its position? They had a small telescope and a sextant (as a back up I presume) so they were supposed to see stars to the contrary of what they claimed later and presumably they were getting feedback from Earth after their position was calculated via the triangulation from transponder signals via Doppler shift.

    http://web.mit.edu/digitalapollo/Documents/Chapter8/trackingapollo.pdf

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_PGNCS
    Tracking data from NASA’s Deep Space Network was processed by computers at Mission Control, using least squares algorithms. The position and velocity estimates that resulted were more accurate than those produced by PGNCS (primary guidance, navigation, and control system). As a result, the astronauts were periodically given state vector updates to enter into the AGC, based on ground data. PGNCS was still essential to maintain spacecraft orientation, to control rockets during maneuvering burns, including lunar landing and take off, and as the prime source of navigation data during planned and unexpected communications outages. PGNCS also provided a check on ground data.

    How the US was supposed to confirm that Yuri Gagarin mission took place on a given date and that (1) it landed with a live human being and (2) that it was Yuri Gagarin?

    My working compromise theory is as follows: There was no landing on the Moon with humans. The Apollo crew stayed on the Moon orbit and returned the same way as Apollo 9 and 10. It is possible some lander was placed on the Moon but doing it with humans was just too complicated and too risky. The US could not afford a failure though otoh a spectacular and heroic death of American astronauts on the Moon would give America the greatest sympathy boost all over the world for the open democratic society just as they did get it after the tragedy of Apollo 1. The tragedy of Apollo 1 demonstrated to the world that Americans are open and do not cheat unlike the Soviets who would report only the successful mission after their completion.. From the point of view of competition with the USSR Americans knew that if they do not cheat the Soviets would, so it was decided to out-cheat the Soviets. And they succeeded.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  366. @retiredmecheng

    During the late 1950s and 60s, we were repeatedly told that US spy planes flying over Russia (then Soviet Union) at very high altitudes could easily read license plate numbers on cars parked on the streets of Moscow. Of course no proof was ever offered to prove it, but if that were indeed the case, then (as you suggest) why not put all the moon landing hoax rumors to rest by snapping a few pictures of footprints left on the moon, along with the abandoned Luner Rover, flag etc?

  367. Classy says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Why so emotional and rude old man?

    You should come out of your trailer from time to time to get some fresh air and, perhaps, go and ask any honest mechanic about the reliability record of American turd car manufacturers such as Chryslers and Cadillacs or Teslas before accusing a British engineer of incompetence.

    Maybe afterwards you could tell the internet how the “new”, all American f-35 is doing, and while you are at it, explain how Boeing lousy engineering killed 300 people after fitting too big engines in an old fuselage to save $$$, and not happy with that and to compensate for the loss of air worthiness of such a flying turd added some moronic software, the sole function of which was “helping” the crew to bring the plane crashing down to avoid a stall.

    Instead of insulting and mouth frothing you could try and answer the gentleman’s very legitimate question in a polite and respectful way next time.

  368. utu says:

    Soviet space pig (A fun video – Not a documentary)

    • Replies: @turtle
  369. Wow!…
    .
    This, obviously, requires a JOINT legal exercise on the part of “trained” legal minds… with each of the members watching the backs of the participants!… yea, in constant communication with the members at all times!
    .
    Honestly!… this is very nasty stuff! And it should tear at the heart of thinking souls! Nevertheless, one can defeat this mountain of lies perpetrated by NASA!
    .
    MY suggestion, would be to hold a GLOBAL LEGAL CONFERENCE on the deception, and toward the development of a concise legal plan of approach!… and hopefully, one with professional security personnel in attendance! This evil has to end!
    .
    The pristine landing pads really caught MY attention!… and, of course, the inexplicable deaths of a number of astronauts. It’s time for action!… and resolution!
    .
    Please!… no emails!

  370. turtle says:
    @Ron Unz

    So, Mr. Unz,

    How long before you have enough data to write up the results of the psychology experiment known as Project Unzdot con?
    Or is all to be kept under wraps to allow further development of the various avatars which “post” here?
    DARPA must be keeping you in high cotton for this “experimental” web site to have gone on so long.
    Live long and prosper..
    🙂

  371. Alfred says:
    @turtle

    This is actually quite funny. I have, in my reckless youth, owned a Triumph motor bike – luckily for me not the Bonneville. Naturally, I managed to smash it up and suffered minor cuts.

    I also worked as a long range planner at Lucas/CAV – which at the time had the largest manufacturing plant in London. In Acton, to be specific.

    This moon-landing business is so obviously an American con-job – carried out by a predecessor of Steven Spielberg.

    The funniest thing of all is that NASA is now proposing to send a man to the moon again – with an unknown due-by date.

    Apollo’s Legacy Is NASA’s Future

    https://www.nasa.gov/specials/apollo50th/back.html

    The fact remains that they needed a colossal amount of fuel to get to the moon and an almost invisible amount to return to orbit around the moon.

    • Replies: @turtle
    , @Twodees Partain
  372. apollonian says: • Website

    Thomm Deprives Us Of Info, Enlightenment–This Is Discriminatory

    Thomm, the dink genius tells us:

    “You probably don’t know what a Hill Sphere or gravity well is.

    “Going to the Moon with a manned vessel, landing there, having them walk around, and then launching from there to get back to Earth is NOT the most difficult thing that has been done by space programs (both US and others).

    “That is why ‘Moon Hoax’ idiots are so comical.”

    Hey “thomm”: tell us what is thy academic degree is in “space” -matters–would that be cosmology? “Gravity well”?–gosh, sounds soooo scientific–too bad thou don’t know anything about logic, eh? How long have thou spent in “space programs”?–and what “space-program” were thou part of?–was it Nigeria?–Uganda?

    I guess I’m “moon hoax” ‘idiot’ because I demand to know the PROOF there was manned moon landing–thou don’t seem to know of any, do thou?–but why is it “funny”? But we sure are lucky we have thou to inform us, I must admit. Talk to us; we need info for proof and evidence–don’t leave us hanging here–that would be too cruel and unusual.

    • Replies: @Thomm
  373. @apollonian

    So what are you doing here, then?

    • Replies: @apollonian
  374. Alfred says:
    @Maiasta

    “compartmentalisation” = “need to know”

  375. @anonymous

    Capricorn One — the Elliott Gould/James Brolin/OJ Simpson flick about a Mars landing hoax, was made in ’77 — so the theme was certainly out there pre-internet.

    • Replies: @utu
  376. Gus Flory says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron, the U.S. government denied the existence of the SR-71 Black Bird for nearly 30 years. The Black Bird was an engineering marvel, the fastest airplane ever built, one of the most technologically advanced and impressive aircraft in the history of aviation. Thousands of aerospace engineers, technicians, maintenance personnel, fuelers, pilots, radar operators, etc. worked on the top secret project. None of them came forward and revealed the existence of this airplane while it was classified. No one leaked about the Black Bird because they held security clearances and would face serious repercussions if they did.

    Government spokesmen lied straight-faced to the camera and said there was no Black Bird. Then one day the Black Bird was declassified and now you can see it on display on Air Force bases and in front of museums. For decades the government said it didn’t exist and then one day it said it did. That’s the way it works.

    The government said it retired the Black Bird and did not replace it because satellites can do what the Black Bird did. But many people don’t believe this and speculate that the Air Force replaced the Black Bird with a faster plane called the Aurora. Of course, the government denies the Aurora exists, says it’s a myth.

    For decades now, something has been flying fast around the world causing huge sonic booms that register on the Richter scale. No engineers have come forward and leaked about the Aurora project, although thousands must have worked on it if it exists. If it exists, it surely flies over Russian airspace like the Black Bird did, although the Russians have not confirmed its existence.

    Maybe some day the project will be declassified and we’ll see the Aurora on display in front of Air Force bases despite the fact that the government explicitly denies its existence and no one has leaked information about it. Like with the Black Bird, the government will say, yeah, we were just joshing when we said, Scout’s Honor, it didn’t exist, even though it did, but we couldn’t tell you, for national security reasons, you know. We’re allowed to lie about these things for the good of the nation.

    As far as the moon landings, this is the one conspiracy theory that has the potential of really capturing the public’s imagination, especially overseas where American patriotism is not an obstacle. Fifty years have passed. Each year that goes by makes believing in Apollo that much more difficult, especially when it appears the feat can’t be replicated.

    What’s going to prove the moon landing once and for all is if the Chinese or Russians can get someone out of Low Earth Orbit. Right now they can’t. Neither can we, even though the Constellation program was in the works to do that back in 2005, followed by the Orion program in 2011. Orion is a second attempt to replicate Apollo, but like Constellation, the project is facing all kinds of obstacles and setbacks.

    One of the main principles of the scientific method is reproducibility. In science, if you can’t replicate it, then it’s not proven. No one has replicated the Apollo missions in 50 years. In fact, the Apollo missions are the only time humans have allegedly left Low Earth Orbit.

    Orion was scheduled to take astronauts on a lunar flyby in 2021, but they pushed the date back to 2023. Trump is saying he wants Americans to land on the moon again. Apparently, he’s pushing for Orion to land on the moon in his second term if he’s re-elected. NASA is playing along. My money says NASA is going to keep pushing the date back, play for time.

    Or maybe the government will finally admit that Apollo was a hoax, done for national security reasons, you see. But that might open a can of worms with the potential to bring down the government. Hopefully, they’ve thought this through.

    If no one gets out of Low Earth Orbit in the 2020s, no rational person is going to believe Apollo was real. Only fools will believe it. Pay attention to the Orion spacecraft. If Orion can get astronauts out of Low Earth Orbit, that will be proof enough for me that Apollo was real. But I’m skeptical. And skepticism is the foundation science is built upon.

    • Replies: @turtle
  377. Many people today commend Eisenhower for warning Americans, on leaving office, against the growing threat of the military-industrial complex

    Almost everyone is familiar with the “military-industrial complex” meme from Eisenhower’s 1961 speech:

    “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

    Yet the lines which immediately follow it in the same speech are largely forgotten:

    “Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

    In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.”

    https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-cia-and-nsa-research-grants-for-mass-surveillance/

    https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e

    https://wikileaks.org/google-is-not-what-it-seems/

    “Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields…”

    The legacy media regularly promotes the “military-industrial complex” meme as having great explanatory power. But does it make sense? Does it fit well with the reality that we see? For a simple example: within the US government, who has more power — the “military complex,” or the “State Dept./ intelligence community complex?”

    The answer should be obvious. For anyone in doubt, I suggest that you look at the history of the US attack on Libya in 2011 — who supported it? Who opposed it? Who won?

    Or read some (((Moldbug))). In particular, his suggestion that almost any time you see the phrase “international community” used in a legacy media narrative, it can be replaced with “US State Dept.”… without any significant loss of meaning. Think about it.

    What about the “industry” part of this meme? Sure, aerospace/ defense industries still have some power. But what about banking/ finance? Take a look at the last few presidencies — how many cabinet members/ high level officials are (((Goldman-Sachs))) people? Now compare that to, not just any other single company, but any entire sector of manufacturing/ mining/ resource extraction… what do you see?

    And what about the media/ academia/ NGO complex?
    That doesn’t seem to be a thing, either — at least in within the constraints of The Narrative. Clearly powerless. Insignificant, really. The power to shape the beliefs/ worldviews of an entire population doesn’t matter at all.

    Honest.

    More Moldbuggery:

    “The key to power in the Fourth Republic is that no one who has power wants anyone to think of them as having power.”

    https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/05/iron-polygon-power-in-united-states/

  378. Alfred says:
    @israel shamir

    The Russians used to assume that the USA is a better place with a free unbiased media – because Hollywood and the Voice of America told them. They assumed that their media always lied about the USA. Heck, you could get a beautiful girl for a pair of crappy Levis. 🙂

    Not so much now. LOL

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
  379. @a german

    Gern geschehen

    you’re welcome

    If in Bavaria one could also reply with “Bitte” or “Bitte schön” if I remember correctly, no?

    • Replies: @a german
  380. Anon[162] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ron Unz

    Isnt this another way of trivializing the discussions here? You put junk posts like these mixed with intelligent posts from Philip Giraldi and Alison Weir to make the people who visit this site look stupid to newbies. And to take away the importance of dissenting voices like Giraldis

  381. Alfa158 says:
    @Alfred

    That must have been the most talented engineer in human history. With just a glance he can measure the total takeoff mass, fuel mass, specific impulse of the engine, and then calculate the orbital injection trajectory in his head.
    I take my hat off to him.

  382. Vinteuil says:
    @Ron Unz

    Wow – The Unz finally discovers a conspiracy theory that doesn’t float his boat.

    Of course, he immediately insinuates that the promotion of this conspiracy theory must itself be a conspiracy, meant to discredit the conspiracy theories that *do* float his boat.

    Come to think of it – that’s not *totally* implausible…

  383. To me , it comes down to just one question. Did they or did they not fly through the Van Allen belts?

    That’s all I want to know.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
  384. @Redking

    Maybe he’s like Obama’s uncle, who was in the Red Army apparently (having helped “liberate”’Auschwitz).

  385. @Buzz Mohawk

    You do realize, don’t you, that no one gives a fuck that you’re getting all worked up over this?

  386. caltrop says:
    @The Eye

    What have the Jews done for us?

    Day 1, Nisan 1, New years day in Israel’s calendar, Exodus 12:2 “This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.”
    .
    Nisan 1 corresponds with April 1 which is April fools day.
    .
    The Crucifixion of Christ on April1 [ April fools day ]
    .
    And know thou also that Christ dwelt [Fol. 43b, col. 2] in Mary, and suffered in Nazareth, and was born in Bethlehem, and was laid in a manger, and was carried by Simeon in the Temple of Solomon, and was reared in Galilee, and was anointed by Mary Magdalene, and ate the Passover in the house of Nicodemus, the brother of Joseph of Rametha, and was bound in the house of Hannan, and was struck with a reed in the house of Caiaphas, and embraced the pillar and was scourged with a whip in the Praetorium of Pilate, and on Friday, on the first day of Nisan (April 1 ), on the fourteenth day of the moon, our Redeemer suffered.
    .
    http://sacred-texts.com/chr/bct/bct09.htm
    .

  387. Corvinus says:
    @DESERT FOX

    “The Sandy Hook school was closed in 2008 because of asbestos contamination, no one died at the school, FBI records for Newtown show no murders in 2012, it was a FEMA drill, look up Jim Fetzer and Wolfgang Halbigs reports on Sandy Hook.”

    Which has been debunked.

    https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-everyone-must-check-in-sign-evidence-of-fema-drill.t6933/

  388. @Alfred

    Sanitary engineers aren’t engineers, although linguists do theorize that janitorial concerns have conspired to convince the public that they are some kind of technical professional, albeit with brooms and sawdust for puke, in order to command higher salaries.

  389. Alfa158 says:
    @CheshireCheese

    Yes that is correct. The transit time through the belts was short so the total radiation dose was not harmful. You would not want to spend a lot of time though, in an unshielded space station orbiting in the belts.
    There is however a serious issue with long duration space interplanetary flights. In earth orbit you still get protection from the fact that the earth blocks all radiation from one side, and the magnetic field reduces (somewhat) the rest. In interplanetary space your ship is exposed to cosmic rays and the solar wind. There are concerns about serious long term medical effects including permanent brain function loss and increased possibility of cancer. These ship would also need small heavily shielded shelters so the crew can survive severe solar flare events.
    Overall though the probability of doing or or after an interplanetary flight are probably no higher than the death rates for Mt. Everest climbers which is around 3% , so you probably won’t have any trouble finding volunteers.

  390. a german says:
    @jacques sheete

    “Danke schön – Bitte schön” is all over Germany.

  391. @Anonymous

    Exactly. American propaganda organs would have had their first mockery of a “conspiracy theorist”. No one in the West would have believed them, even fellow travelers. The Soviets, like the Russians now with 9-11, simply had no benefit in expressing any skepticism over this. Plus their own closets overflowing with skeletons.

  392. @Moon Landing Skeptic

    FYI:

    The Russians are still flying basically the same rocket that took Gagarin to space. The R7 family of launch vehicles.

    Is ISS a fake?

  393. jamie b. says:

    My Opinion of the Unz Review has just dropped 60 points. What’s next, a defense of flat Earth???

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  394. apollonian says: • Website
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Unz: Insidious Troll Master, Trainer

    Ho ho ho–take a guess, sucker, ho ho ho ho–bang thy head against the wall, maybe it will get thy brain cells going, eh?–ho ho ho ho

    Hint: HOW ELSE would thou be apprised as to the psy-ops going on here?–a veritable training-camp for Jew/Jewwy trolls and “pilpul” (casuistry) artists–do thou think? Purpose is to “normalize” Jews within the Jewwified society of Jew world order. “Golly gee, but there are good Jews and some bad Jews”–“Jews are like anyone else, after all”–“Gee whiz, but thou can’t judge all Jews by one or just a few.”

    But I’m serious, genuine Christian, hence staunch anti-Semite (anti-Satanist), and I noticed the great contrast of the articles with–the utterly Jewwy-dominated comments pages, full of Jew and Jewwy trolls and pilpul artists and outright liars, Unz being one of them, pretending he’s for “free speech,” and first amendment–and lying, like typical Jew, telling the public he’s “light” on the “moderation.”

    Doubt Unz has nothing but contempt for gentiles?–just read or re-read his “Open Ltr to Alt-Right.” The gentiles who are allowed to comment, including thou, I submit, are weak and insipid, accommodating these Jew monsters and liars.

    I’m not saying I knew all this (above-noted) fm very first–I’ve only lately come to these observations and conclusions about the psy-ops and specific goings-on here.

  395. @anon82822

    You didn’t hear any rumors because you’re too stupid to be trusted with any sensitive information.

  396. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

    But millions of European Jews just nipped over to Siberia on holliers, eh?

    • Replies: @Roderick Spode
  397. Mike P says:
    @Ethelred the Unready

    Unlike on Earth though there is no atmosphere that would scatter light in all directions. By simply pointing the camera away from the sun and the moon surface, you would have gotten rid of all interfering light and would have been at leisure to adjust exposure to the stars, which should have shown in never before seen splendour. That should have occurred to them at least on the second mission.

  398. @Andre Citroen

    Why? What does that tell you except that the problem of largely evading the radiation from/in the Van Allen Belt is manageable – as the relevant Wikipedia article explains. Or are you trying to set up reliance on such explanations as ridiculous because you are qualified to do so and want to?

    • Replies: @Andre Citroen
  399. turtle says:
    @Another German Reader

    China’s reconquest of Ganymede’s portal to Elysium

    What about the Army of Mars?
    Do they have any part to play in this?
    Inquiring minds want to know…

    • Replies: @Another German Reader
  400. Ron Unz says:
    @Joey Pastrami

    Well, I’d never even known that Moon Hoax theories existed until a year or two ago

    This is legitimately impossible or a blatant lie. You’ve written about the Holohoax and 9/11 Truth and yet claim to have never even heard of the Apollo hoax until your 50s. It seems this site serves the same poisoning-the-well tactic as Sunstein.

    Well, it happens to be true. Indeed, the whole Moon Hoax theory seemed so shocking and ridiculous to me that I even left a lengthy comment when I first encountered it back in 2017:

    http://www.unz.com/article/hidden-figures-myth-dissolves-it-wasnt-blacks-who-got-america-to-the-moon-they-actually-wanted-to-stop-it/#comment-1761596

    Why would I have previously heard about a Moon Hoax? It was never seriously discussed in my morning newspapers, nor on any of the “alternative” websites I regularly visited. I’ve never been a “conspiracy person” so I’ve never spent any time on “conspiracy” websites. I only had the vaguest notion of who Alex Jones was until all the stories came out about how he’d been banned from Social Media.

    I do think I may have heard something about that Capricorn One film from the 1970s, but I’ve never seen it, and just because somebody made a Hollywood film about some woman giving birth to the Antichrist doesn’t necessarily mean it actually happened.

    I still think the Moon Hoax is just as totally ridiculous as it sounded to me back in 2017. And as I mentioned upthread, one reason I was very glad to run this long article is that henceforth we can now justifiably trash all the irritating and totally off-topic Moon Hoax comments that always show up on any article having any connection to the Space Program. Meanwhile, all of you can use this thread to argue about the Moon Hoax until you’re blue in the face.

  401. apollonian says: • Website
    @Corvinus

    “Corvy”: Outright Jewwy Lying Liar, Pure And Simple

    Corvinus: the Jewwy liar now cks-in, ho ho ho ho. Unz decided it’s time for a full-out, blatant Jew liar to enter the scene–and yes, we know, “corvy,” thou “debunked” that too, eh?–ho oho ho ho.

    But note that just simply contradicting some pt. being made, by means of assertion-without-substantiation is not true, real “debunking.” Such mere contradicting is more like “denial,” ho ho ho ho.

    So instead of saying it was “debunked,” thou should simply say it was denied, ho ho ho ho

    And Unz KNOWS “corvy” is just blatant, brute lying liar–but Unz has published no less than OVER a million words by this Jew liar.

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
    • LOL: Truth
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    , @Dannyboy
  402. @Ron Unz

    Hey Ron, here’s a newsflash:
    The government lies about EVERYTHING. Why would this be any different?

  403. Let’s for the sake of argument say the moon landings were not faked. I do not believe that they were faked, but let that pass for now. One argument against their reality is actually total bunkum: “Why, if America could send six missions to the moon between 1969-73, has it never sent any since then?”

    For simple reasons:

    1. The technology of the time did not permit bases or even extended stays on the moon. It’s pretty pointless going back and forth just to make the point that you can. Especially since by the 1970s each expedition was doing only what the previous one had done.

    2. The fact is that the entire moon programme was a Cold War political stunt to steal a march on the USSR. That point having been achieved, there was no point going on with it.

    3. To this day Americans are, unlike the Russians, extraordinarily inept at long term space habitation programmes. Compare Skylab and the American modules on the ISS to all the Soviet, Russian, and now even Chinese orbital stations.

    (I suspect that it is simply not in the American national character to plan for the long haul; spectacular short term attention grabbing stunts seem to take precedence over long term planning in all American endeavours, not excluding the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.)

    4. The withering away of American heavy lift launch vehicle ability in favour of the (again attention grabbing, and utterly unsafe and uneconomical) space shuttle programme, which was focussed on low earth orbits and military applications. America could not now send a manned moon mission of it wanted to; it cannot even send a manned mission to the ISS.

    5. And that point about military applications brings us again to the fact that in 1969-73 there *simply was no military utility in visiting the moon*. You couldn’t put missiles on it. You couldn’t put telescopes powerful enough to spy on China and the Warsaw Pact. You couldn’t mine it for resources. So what was the point?

    In any case, you know you’re grasping at straws to prove your point when you devote a good third of your article to analysing a Kubrick horror movie to “prove” the moon landing did not happen at all.

    • Agree: Ron Unz, turtle
    • Replies: @renfro
  404. turtle says:
    @Gus Flory

    Gus Flory –

    Are you related to Jack E.C. Flory?

    • Replies: @Gus Flory
  405. @Wizard of Oz

    I have no idea what you are talking about.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  406. a german says:
    @Truth

    That’s what he said about the length of the film/video for Apollo 11 with 10 fps. He said more about the other missions with 29.97 NTSC fps and much much more about illumination, perspective shade distribution and some boring and uninteresting things like laws of physic and storage capabilities in the time “before the decade is out”.

    The video is very dense. True believers of any kind are encouraged to ignore the arguments.

    • Replies: @Truth
  407. turtle says:
    @Ron Unz

    trash all the irritating and totally off-topic Moon Hoax comments that always show up on any article having any connection to the Space Program.

    Fair enough.
    Are all O.T. comments to be purged? Sounds respectable to me.
    Re-routed sounds even better, so no one can scream “censorship.”
    Create a catalog of “nut case conspiracy theory” rubber rooms for those who wish to indulge in such nonsense. You’ll need a classification system, analogous to Dewey Decimal, or Library of Congress.
    For a man of your talents this should be child’s play. You could go down in history as the man who invented the Unz Standard Classification for diseased on line “discussions” by ignoramuses.

    In which case, how about purging the numerous O.T. , foaming-at-the-mouth, “Jewish Conspiracy” rants which have turned up in (or should I say polluted, if that is even possible) this thread?

    Alternative B: Give us (real soon now!) a blockbuster article titled “Nazi Death Camps on Mars – Truth or Fiction?”

    Just sayin…

  408. Rear Screen Projection.

  409. @Ron Unz

    But here’s a slightly different Moon Hoax “conspiracy theory” that seems vastly more plausible to me. It’s well-known that U.S. government officials and intelligence agencies have grown quite concerned with the spread of popular “conspiracy theories” after the JFK assassination and the 9/11 attacks, with the published documents by the CIA and the statements of Cass Sunstein demonstrating this.

    Now people who come to believe in one or two unorthodox “conspiracy theories” are obviously much more likely to easily accept others as well. So it wouldn’t really surprise me if various “disinfo agents” began promoting the Moon Hoax as a sort of poisoned bait for conspiracy-activists, hoping lots of them would begin accepting it and making themselves look totally ridiculous. In fact, isn’t that *exactly* what Sunstein had personally suggested a decade or so ago? Perhaps it’s more than a pure coincidence that apparently the only book ever published endorsing a Moon Hoax theory came out in 2005, just as the 9/11 Truth movement was starting to really take off. Hasn’t there also been big wave of Flat Earth videos being promoted on YouTube?

    Yep. Sometimes trying to tie Flat Earth to a particular dissident narrative they’re trying to discredit. Chemtrails seems to be similar.

    There’s also a slightly different technique that involves promoting dubious theories specifically targeted at any alternative explanations/ skepticism directed at the establishment narrative for a particular event. See “holographic planes” and 9/11, for example.

    With respect to the “moon landing hoax” theory:

    1. No stars.

    Explanation for this seems fairly obvious:
    https://digital-photography-school.com/understanding-dynamic-range-photography/
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Dynamic_range

    2. The moon landers look funny.
    Largely because it’s obvious from a common sense perspective that they’re not at all aerodynamic — they have pieces sticking out everywhere. Parts would start falling off once they got up to 50 mph or so. Except — there’s no air. It’s a vacuum. “Common sense” is misleading here.

    3. A minority of “moon rocks” have been shown to be fake.
    Theft/ practical jokes/ etc. Unless this applies to most or all alleged “moon rocks,” it’s not really worth much.

    4. Soviets made no apparent attempt to debunk the story at the time.
    This is less convincing than it might at first appear. There was considerably more behind-the-scenes collaboration between US and USSR leadership than the standard “Cold War” narrative would suggest. See Joseph Finder’s “Red Carpet” for a brief treatment of this issue, and Antony Sutton’s “The Best Enemy Money Can Buy,” and “Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development” for considerably longer ones.

    Was Armand Hammer a “Communist” or a “capitalist?”

    Sutton was fired by the “conservative” Hoover Institute for writing “National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union.” Kerensky, the man who handed over Russia to the Bolsheviks, then waltzed off to the safety of the US, had a lifetime sinecure there.

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2013/11/joe-mccarthy-and-the-establishment-bolsheviks/
    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/red-carpet-by-joseph-finder/

    That said, it seems likely that any Russian knowledge of a putative moon landing hoax would have come out in the transition years in the early 90s, regardless of whether it was suppressed during the Soviet era. The Auschwitz death records were released, after all…

    5. Van Allen belt — don’t know that much about the issue, but it sounds like the author is claiming that the radiation is so intense as to make adequate shielding impossible. The Van Allen belts are almost entirely made up of electrons and protons, with a few alpha particles, right? It’s not as if they’re trying to block gamma rays. Shouldn’t be too hard. Here’s the NASA report on radiation dosages from the Apollo missions — mostly less than 1 rad per person to skin.

    https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/tnD7080RadProtect.pdf

    Interesting to note that the mission limit was set at 400 rads (!).

    6. Esoteric interpretations of “The Shining” — would seem to have considerably more entertainment than probative value…

    • Replies: @MarkU
  410. Paul C. says:
    @Ron Unz

    For those who believe we went to the moon, please explain the following:

    1) NASA claims to have “lost the technology” to go back to the moon. How is this possible? It’s like Ford saying in the 1960’s after introducing the automobile in 1914 that it lost the technology to manufacture cars.

    2) NASA claims to have lost ALL evidence from ALL moon missions. The telemetry data of the lunar module for the world’s greatest technological feat has been lost, but not just for one mission but every mission.

    NASA admits points 1 & 2 in this 2 minute video:

    3) NASA claims “they don’t have the technology yet to safely transport humans beyond the radiation of the dangerous Van Allen Belts”. Yet they had no problem with this 50 years ago in the 6 manned moon missions.

    NASA admits point 3 in this 1 minute video:

    If you’ve watched the news conference with Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins, it’s clear as day that these are conflicted and guilty individuals.

    When you think about this logically, it all falls apart. NASA brought a dune buggy to the moon! It was just that easy. Yet now they don’t have the technology and of course all evidence is “lost”. And of course no other country has gone.

    When Bart Siebel tried to get any of the astronauts to swear on the Bible that they went, not one would. NASA is a masonic organization, thus secret society. This is just the tip of the iceberg, we’re (humanity) lied to about everything (science, history, news, medicine). The parasites who control the central banks control everything as money buys people and influence, and everything is compartmentalized so only those at the top know the ruse.

    I look forward to how points 1, 2 & 3 can be explained away.

    Lastly, here’s a good documentary outlining the moon deception.

    A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon (46 minutes)

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  411. Thinker says:

    Not sure what to think. A few odd things have yet to be fully explained:

    1) The missing original tapes. Why would NASA tape over something so significant?

    2) The lighting of the photos: how could Buzz Aldrin be so bright when the sun is behind the lunar module?

    3) The lunar module looks too flimsy to travel through space

    4) The waving flag when planted on the moon, if there’s no atmosphere, how could the flag be waving?

    5) Where are the stars?

    I watched this original CBS coverage of the moon landing, it looks pretty hokey. How did they film the lunar module’s landing? From where? By whom? There seems to be lots of different camera angles. Did they have technology back then to transmit sound back to earth? The video footage is really blurry, how could the photos come out so crystal clear?

  412. Corvinus says:
    @apollonian

    Clearly you have a Jew fetish. Anyone who opposes your line of thinking automatically is a Jew or Jew lover. It is really a sickness on your part.

    Now, are you able to offer a cogent rebuttal to the source I provided, one that specifically addresses the issue, or are you going to be like your gal pal Beefcake and chime in without even thinking?

    • LOL: apollonian
    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  413. turtle says:
    @Alfred

    in my reckless youth

    One of my “youthful indiscretions” was a Mostly Garaged, MGA 1600 Mk I to be specific. Definition of “money pit.”

    Had the engine out for the nth time in 1/2 of 2-car garage rented from landlady, noticed a severely smashed BSA in the adjacent bay. Six months later, chap shows up with gf or wife in a Fiat 124 , she driving, he with one leg in cast up to hip. Solved the mystery of “who owns the BSA?”

    Every time I have gotten an attack of “bike fever,” I have managed to meet someone with a permanent disability of some sort, cause of which was always motorcycle accident. Cures the disease, at least temporarily, at least for me.

    Truly, there are two kinds of bikers – those who have been down, and those who will go down. Happy to hear you escaped with only minor injuries.

    Cheers,

    • Replies: @Alfred
  414. Mike P says:
    @a german

    Apollo 11 Astronauts gets an total Dose of 6mSv during the whole flight.

    My “over the pole” is incorrect (thank you for correction), but “around the belts” is what they did.
    Time to find 5 minutes.

    Further up the thread, I posted a table with the radiation dosages myself. The dosages received by the astronauts on most Apollo missions were similar to those seen on regular low Earth orbit missions. This does not prove that they managed to bypass the van Allen belt; instead, it simply proves that they didn’t leave Earth orbit. That graphics on the page you link to is nice and colourful, but misleading. Here is what the distribution of radiation intensity in the van Allen belt really looks like (from van Allen’s original 1959 paper):

    You will see that, coming from an orbit with only 30 degrees inclination relative to the equator, they would have gone through some pretty heavy radiation. Whether lethal or not, this should have at least elevated their dosimeter readings well beyond those seen on low Earth orbit missions – but it did not.

    If you don’t believe me that they never left Earth orbit, maybe you will believe your own lying eyes – here:

    Making a fool out of yourself in denying this don’t change.

    This sentence is ungrammatical – is that on purpose, like “nachts ist es kaelter als draussen?”

    • Replies: @Amon
  415. At least one German team used a 20-meter parabolic dish to record Apollo 16 video straight from the moon:

    “Bochum Observatory tracked the astronauts and intercepted the television signals from Apollo 16. The image was re-recorded in black and white in the 625 lines, 25 frames/s television standard onto 2-inch videotape using their sole quad machine. The transmissions are only of the astronauts and do not contain any voice from Houston, as the signal received came from the Moon only. The videotapes are held in storage at the observatory.[24]”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

    Check the diagrams and pictures (German) from Rohde & Schwartz.

    I knew a guy who worked with an RF engineer named Ulrich Rohde.

    http://www.classicbroadcast.de/stories/stories_sternwarte_bochum.pdf

  416. @Corvinus

    I have thought about it. You’re definitely a cuck.

  417. Ron, if you want to clean this site up, just go ahead and delete the accounts of everyone supporting the “theory” that the moon landings were a hoax on this thread. Instant improvement. There is zero to be gained from the participation of these kooks on your site.

  418. @Paul C.

    I’d be careful about using that NASA video re. the Van Allen Belt. He seems to be talking about the difficulties faced by modern craft like Orion, not the original Apollo mission. NASA is 100% a PR/propaganda front (and likely a cover for weapons research), but my guess is they haven’t left a smoking gun here.

    • Replies: @Paul C.
    , @Redking
  419. renfro says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    “Why, if America could send six missions to the moon between 1969-73, has it never sent any since then?”

    To make it simpler…what would be the point of going to the moon again.

  420. turtle says:
    @utu

    Ahh, pig launchers are old news..
    Three James Bond movies, y’know?

    • Replies: @utu
  421. @silviosilver

    I’m sure he gives a shit about your opinion.

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  422. I suspect the technology for a manned moon mission exists, although likely the filming was sexed up since NASA is primarily a PR outfit. And yeah, given the state of the US economy after the early 70’s it’s probably not surprising the whole thing was discarded. However, given how angry the concern trolls and Outer Party members get over this issue, it’s hilarious watching them get overworked and provoked. Keep it up!

  423. I think its beyond doubt man made objects landed on the moon and from the evidence of the moon rocks, which are also found in the antarctic, they returned.. The main issue is how many times have man actually touched down on the moon and made it back. Seems man has trouble even going into space to 200km up let alone 350,000 km up 40 years later..

  424. Greg S. says:

    I believe we landed on the moon.

    The Van Allen Belts radiation thing is easily debunked because they didn’t fly right into the greatest intensity of radiation but flew around, and moved through the belts quickly. Many, many good educational videos on that topic out there.

    But the real elephant in the room of moon lander conspiracy theorists is the landing sites. This fails all basic logic tests.

    If we did not go to the moon, then there would be no landing sites on the moon.

    And if there were no landing sites on the moon, for the conspiracy to remain successfully hidden to this date, almost all the astronomers on earth, in every country, would need to be “in” on the conspiracy because any high powered telescope on the earth with the capability of viewing the moon in detail would be able to verify if the sites were there (spoiler: they have verified it, and the images can be found online).

    Also all the various missions to send probes to the moon (China just sent one last year) would have to “in” on it as well. With modern technology, the ability to fly a probe over the moon landing sites to see if they were there would be simple, and all of the space faring nations on earth would be capable of it.

    The REAL conspiracy people should be talking about is why we once had but NO LONGER have the ability to go to moon. There is a real and tangible drop in the functioning of society, social cohesion, and IQ that are behind this. Think about who put men on the moon: it was an entire society of almost exclusively white men, who’s wives were at home taking care of the children, in an age where there was no endless hand-wringing and red tape, and things simply got done. I will let you ponder how we have “progressed” since then.

    • Agree: M. Hartley
  425. utu says:
    @turtle

    James Bond movies were forbidden in the USSR.

  426. FB says: • Website

    The issue is not the van Allen belts…the issue is cosmic radiation after you pass through the van Allen belts…every scientist working at NASA knows this and you can even find some talking about it on YouTube…start by looking up cosmic radiation in Wikipedia and you’ll find it’s considered a major challenge to manned, interplanetary spaceflight…

    The van Allen belts contain radiation that has been trapped by the earth’s magnetic field, so it is somewhat more concentrated…but a manned craft passing through that is not going to spend enough time to be a problem…however, a week long exposure to cosmic radiation in interplanetary space is something else altogether…this is a problem that is right now considered as something yet to be solved, since it involves a robust shielding solution for the very fragile instrument called the human body…

    The lunar ascent engine is a non issue, other than the somewhat good luck that they all fired without a hitch…however, there are indeed some serious technical issues that real scientists and aerospace engineers do find interesting…one of the most interesting I have come across has to do with the cooling capacity of the Rocketdyne F1 main engines…any large liquid fuel rocket engine circulates the fuel [RP1 kerosene in the case of F1] through the large, bell shaped thrust nozzle in order to prevent it from becoming a puddle…

    In the F1 engine the entire nozzle is constructed of over 300 inconel tubes that have been formed into the bell shape and brazed together, through which the cooling fuel flows…now knowing the size and wall thickness of the tubes, the thermal properties of the tubing material, and the mass flow rate of the fuel, it is a straightforward heat transfer analysis to come up with a figure for the maximum amount of cooling, and just how much engine power that amount of cooling could support…

    So here’s the interesting thing…I have in front of me a superbly rigorous such analysis [50 plus pages] by an honest to goodness top notch rocket engine designer…his numbers point to an engine of 1 million lbs thrust, not 1.5…having the thermal engineering background to fully check his analysis, I have to agree there’s a big problem there…the fact that NASA has ‘lost’ the engineering data, and hence a direct cross check on their numbers is therefore impossible, does not instill confidence…

    This incredibly interesting analysis came as a huge shock to me personally…recalling the happy days I spent at NASA Ames in the 1990s…unfortunately, there may in fact be a ‘there’ there…although it’s not what most of these amateur ‘debunkers’ fixate on…including this absolutely ridiculous article…others have already recommended Dave McGowan’s ‘Wagging the Moondoggie’ and it’s a pretty good piece of journalism that mostly avoids the ridiculous blunders we see elsewhere in this genre…

    The bottom line for me as an aerospace engineer with a background in thermodynamics is the engines…the Apollo was a generation before my time, so it was just accepted as a given…but now I’m not so sure…the Russian engine technology was light years ahead of the US at the time and still is…so for me if I’m going to put anything under a microscope, it’s going to be those F1 engines…right now I’m fairly persuaded they weren’t nearly as powerful as claimed…it doesn’t mean the moon shot didn’t happen…they could have had another rocket stage in there to give the needed thrust…

    The electronics is not a big deal…you only really need communications gear which you can even do with vacuum tubes…mechanical gyroscopes of the era were good enough for navigation and control…the Russians were able to send unmanned return probes to the moon and even to Venus…

    Aside from the engines, the really striking one for me is the demeanor of Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins in that post flight interview…something seriously wrong with that body language and just the overall demeanor…compare this to any mission coming back from the ISS…

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  427. Paul C. says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    There are others videos from NASA explaining that the technology is not yet in place to transport humans safely beyond the Van Allen belts.

    Min 4- 4:45:

    Here we have NASA Astronaut Alan Bean who was “the 4th person to walk the moon”, he has no clue whether he even went through the Van Allen Belts.!?! This is how ridiculous the whole thing is. They can’t even get their story straight. Just watch the first 2 minutes.

    NASA is complete fakery and theft. If there was such a thing as the ISS, you would be certain they would film their trips to and from. But they never do :). Because they can’t. All they’d need to do is hold up an iPhone to the window and press record. But you’ll never see this because it’s not real.

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  428. @apollonian

    Jewwy Shill Can’t Face Truth, Reality

    Yo deranged nut job what the fuck does affirming that men walked on moon have anything to do with being a ‘Jewy Shill’? Your anti-semitism has fried whatever little brains you possessed. Do the Jooos control Earthquakes and Hurricanes also retard.

    • LOL: Dannyboy
    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  429. @Buzz Mohawk

    Buzz,

    I’ve always said that the internet brings out your inner nut. The few of us here are simply not be going to handle the crackpot swarm, their position is unfalsifiable since they say all direct evidence is a hoax and indirect evidence like the retroreflectors were put in place without humans. It’s like arguing with a Solipsist who is convinced that the external world doesn’t exist and any proof you offer him is just a Hallucination of his. I am out of this thread.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  430. utu says:
    @Known Fact

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capricorn_One
    Peter Hyams began thinking about a film of a space hoax while working on broadcasts of the Apollo missions for CBS. He later reflected regarding the Apollo 11 moon landing, “There was one event of really enormous importance that had almost no witnesses. And the only verification we have . . . came from a TV camera.”[1]

    He later elaborated:

    Whenever there was something on the news about a space shuttle, they would cut to a studio in St. Louis where there was a simulation of what was going on. I grew up in the generation where my parents basically believed if it was in the newspaper it was true. That turned out to be bullshit. My generation was brought up to believe television was true, and that was bullshit too. So I was watching these simulations and I wondered what would happen if someone faked a whole story.[2]

    Hyams wrote the script in 1972 but no one wanted to make it. He says interest in the script was re-activated by the Watergate Scandal. He attached producer Paul Lazarus. Hyams and Lazarus had a meeting with Lew Grade, head of production company ITC Entertainment who had recently moved into film production with The Return of the Pink Panther. Grade agreed to make the film after only five minutes.[3] The budget was $4.8 million.[

    Hyams later joked, “O. J. Simpson was in it, and Robert Blake was in (Hyams’ first feature) Busting. I’ve said many times: some people have AFI Lifetime Achievement awards; some people have multiple Oscars; my bit of trivia is that I’ve made films with two leading men who were subsequently tried for the first degree murder of their wives.

    • Replies: @Moon Landing Skeptic
  431. Paul C. says:
    @Thinker

    Good point. Who’s filming the walk on the moon? I’m sure NASA will say there’s a camera attached on the outside of the lunar module. Keep in mind the moon is supposedly 238k miles away (another lie) yet they can transmit video footage to the MSM (in 1969). How?

    Another time President Nixon called the astronauts from the White House while they were on the moon. You can’t make this stuff up and yet so many intelligent people believe it!

    The video looks like an episode of “Lost in Space”.

  432. Truth says:
    @a german

    My friend what these kikemasons do is they clarify a very simple non-argument (because it is so obvious there is no argument necessary).

    In these type of situations I find it best to ask yourself simple questions, keeping this in mind. For instance:

    “The automobile has been around for over 100 years, there are millions of them, in addition to all of the other uses for fuel, as well as the uses for petroleum. Now, do I believe that there were enough dinosaurs that died to power all of this machinery, everywhere, for over 100 years?”

    Another one:

    “If I am hurdling through the universe at 66.6 (wink) million miles per hour, while simultaneously rotating at 1,200 miles per hour, how come I can go to a still, placid lake? Why do I not feel like I’m moving?”

    And finally:

    “Which do I think is more impossible, that we could utilize 1969 technology to fly to the moon, or to improve the film camera.”

  433. Half-Jap says:
    @Reactionary Utopian

    The turtles keep the flat earth surface firmly in place.
    “They” also have this device that keeps us all walled in by collosal ice, and we are prevented from going to the ‘edge’ of the world.
    Flights are secretly regulated to slowing down or speeding up, depending on the distance you’re headed over a flat surface, so that flight times are consistent with the time it takes travelling over a fake globe.

    Also, did you know that our Creator ensured that only Earth is flat? The Holy Church was right to grill Galileo over what he saw: Do you believe us or your lying eyes? 😀

  434. @Thinker

    Your points, one by one:

    1. NASA was stupid for deleting the tapes, but I doubt they imagined that fifty years after the event there would be people demanding proof that they went to the moon.

    2. The angle of shadows shows that Aldrin was being photographed with the sun to his left, with the lander behind him. Therefore, the shadow of the lander is not on him. Therefore this is not a valid point.

    3. This point would only seem valid to someone who is unaware that space has no air and therefore no friction. And to someone who is also unaware that until rising above the atmosphere and its frictional heat, the lander and orbiter were covered by a heat shield, just like every single satellite, space probe, and orbital manned mission ever bar the space shuttle.

    4. This is one of the simplest “doubts” to, literally, blow away. The flag was not cloth. It was flexible metal to make sure it didn’t, you know, hang limply in the airless lunar conditions. The action of jamming and twisting the flagpole into the lunar surface set it to moving by simple inertia. Newton’s First Law.

    5. The lunar landings all happened during the lunar day. In daylight, you don’t see the stars even on earth. And the light of the sun is *completely* reflected off the moon since there is no atmosphere for scattering, unlike earth. So the combination of sunlight, reflection glare, and photographic equipment that was fairly basic by modern standards = no stars visible.

    Are you answer’d? What, are you answer’d yet?

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  435. @Moon Landing Skeptic

    What Wernher von Braun’s 1954 book apparently does is to (a) argue for the use of a space platform from which the moon bound vehicl would leave (b) pour doubt on the use of a single stage (i.e. “direct”) rocket from Earth to moon. His V2 was single stage: the Apollo missions rockrts weren’t.

    See ‘ https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-wernher-von-braun-confirmed-that-rockets-cant-leave-earth.t9796

  436. @Thinker

    Don’t know what to think? Let me help you. It’s a total joke. With all of the obvious clues and inconsistencies, why would you think it might be real? Would the government lie about this? Of course, they lie about everything.

    This is my theory: First the cabal kills Kennedy and gets away with it. Next they launch the moon hoax and steal billions of dollars in the process and get away with it. This emboldens them to do 911 which will give them absolute and permanent control.

    Welcome to the Jew World Order. http://www.911nwo.com

    • Agree: apollonian
  437. anon[144] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    “There is no such thing as society”.

    No one sticks up for an institute – certainly no one murders for it – without individuals feeling there is something to lose.

  438. @Gus Flory

    But the Russian reflectors were remote controlled, NASA’s weren’t and the Russians take credit for putting the first remote controlled objects on another world. And what about the timing of these reflections – i.e NASA launches mission to Moon and independent tracking stations confirm them within a day of their installation. It’s not direct proof but pretty good secondary proof. But does it matter you guys assuming that you’re one of them don’t accept any proof.

    Apollo 11
    Main article: Apollo 11
    The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies.[14]
    A compilation of sightings appeared in “Observations of Apollo 11” by Sky and Telescope magazine, November 1969, pp. 358–59.
    At Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, the telescope was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik.[15] At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the unmanned Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to land on the Moon.[16] In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings they made.[17]
    Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between the Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and the Lunar Module.[18] Recordings made by Baysinger share certain characteristics with recordings made at Bochum Observatory by Kaminski, in that both Kaminski’s and Baysinger’s recordings do not include the Capsule Communicator (CAPCOM) in Houston, Texas, and the associated Quindar tones heard in NASA audio and seen on NASA Apollo 11 transcripts. Kaminski and Baysinger could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from the Earth.[14][19]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings#Apollo_missions_tracked_by_non-NASA_personnel

    • Replies: @Gus Flory
  439. Precious says:
    @Wild Man

    He has recently weighed in on that by misrepresenting (in the most embarrassing and ham-handed way) the mathematics that support TENS concepts such as a species rate of mutation fixing, and when this has been courteously pointed out to him, …. he refuses to acknowledge his basic math errors and instead goes ad hominem upon any commenter that won’t play along with his surprisingly juvenile subterfuge, and deletes these comments from his threads.

    ^False, except that he does delete comments…from people who don’t understand him.

  440. Lurker says:
    @Thomm

    any probe that leaves the Hill Sphere of the Earth has a far greater engineering challenge ahead of it – staying out of the Sun’s gravity well.

    How many probes launched in the last 60 years have succumbed to the Sun’s gravity well?

    • Replies: @Thomm
  441. @Ron Unz

    We went to the moon. Just not how it was shown. What was shown was a complete fake. We did with anti gravity craft reverse engineered from alien spacecraft.

  442. Alfred says:
    @Ron Unz

    Tell me of a single professor in structural/civil engineering who pointed out that the official version of 9/11 could not be true because Newton’s Laws of Motion would have been violated.

    1- Every object in a state of uniform motion will remain in that state of motion unless an external force acts on it.

    2- Force equals mass times acceleration

    3- For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

    So where did the energy (energy = work = force * distance) come to expel huge girders and chunks of concrete hundreds of feet up into the air?

  443. @Jonathan Revusky

    I just looked at these and you can’t make out anything!

    So what are those tracks that just happen to be visible at exactly the spots where Apollo 12, 14, 15 & 16 ostensibly landed? Worm signs?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  444. Concerning stars and ozone.
    All we have to do is ask astronauts.
    Do astronauts see stars? Or the Hubel telescope does it sees stars?

  445. Timocrat says:

    The general outlook we must consider is limited to our own scope, as most cannot master the science and math as to whether the belt has astronauts only able to keep within its limited orbit.

    Does the US government lie? If yes, how often? Why were ex-Nazis (Operation Paperclip) brought over to the US after the war in secret to be involved in the space program to begin with, if they are all above board? Will such men be in a position to come forth and say the truth? Or will they be outed as former Nazis, as is the purpose of blackmail of any kind.

    Whether you believe one side or the other you must accept that lies come from governments, like the US, like breathing and so you deserve this if the landings were real , and if not you should not be so self-righteous to believe that this could not be done.

    Weapons of mass destruction, Gulf of Tonkin and more means you have people rightfully questioning your TV agenda. All tech is kept and used years in advance before coming out to the public due to its profitability , so back dating what they can do now puts such things at hand in the 60s. Star Trek cell phones in the 60s means someone was in the know.

    The pro side is for believing all important lies are true, and only white lies are to be accepted. Unlikely. The bigger the lie the more to be gained. It is for the teachers pets out there ( or sock puppets) to answer for the big lies of the teacher! You may give your apple to the teacher and get your A, but I prefer not to take the bite of the apple from such a forked tongue as you seem to do.

  446. @Alohajim

    Only an idiot could look at the so called Lunar Lander and conclude that it protected humans from the moon’s atmosphere while sustaining them for days with power, food, waste facilities, heat, and oxygen.

    The Lunar lander had two stages the Descent and Ascent one, the lack of an atmosphere and the significantly lesser gravity of the Moon meant that they required much lesser fuel to undertake the operation. The descent module was abandoned and the Astronauts used the ascent module to join the command module orbiting the Moon. They were on the Moon for 21.5 hrs and not days.

    I think that the next Satellites sent to study the Moon should photograph the abandoned Descent Modules to put an end to this Idiotic conspiracy theory but I suspect the deniers will call the photographs and videos Hoaxes made by Stanley Kubrik’s ghost.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11

  447. @Ron Unz

    Ron, I think your government “cognitive infiltration” argument works for the “flat earth” videos that have become common on YouTube. I do not think it works on the moon landing. After I woke up to 9/11 in 2009, and spent a few years further studyimg that subject, I eventually found myself studying the Apollo missions. The more I studied them, the more I realized how completely absurd and impossible the official history is. As a divorced “empty nester” living alone, I had a great deal of free time on my hands, and spent literally hundreds of hours watching the elaborately detailed moon hoax videos produced by a young Australian named Jarrah White. While initially skeptical, I ultimately found them entirely convincing. I don’t think you have that kind of time, but you should at least review the materials mentioned in this piece. The documentary recently released by Massimo Mazzuco (who also created on of the best documentaries on 9/11) is also a must watch.
    Finally, the single best easily digestible source on the moon landing hoax was written by the late Dave McGowan – it is a multi-part essay illustrated with photos called “Wagging the Moondoggie” and it can easily be found on the internet at a site maintained by his daughter. It has the advantage of being written in an extremely entertaining and humorous style; but McGowan is deadly serious — as hard as it is to believe at firat, we have indeed been lied to on this subject as on so many others.

    • Agree: Twodees Partain
    • Replies: @Moon Landing Skeptic
  448. Redking says:
    @Beefcake the Mighty

    Then the “modern craft” is inferior to the 1960s version. Really?

  449. Anon[411] • Disclaimer says:

    The Moon landings of objects with 1970s technologies may not be a hoax. What is hoax: manned moon landings with safe return of humans and loads of cargo back to Earth. No casualties, no blasts, no major faults. Everything always goes fine, even TV and phoning the ‘leader of a free world’. With 2 Space Shutlle catastrophes decade later, such a complex programme goes smoothly, like a jackpot many times in a row (finally, everyone is safe even in Apollo 13). And the moon landers spend 3 days on the Moon, with enough oxygen, food and other light support. They even report allergy on ‘moon dust’ and try to clean it out of their nails.

    • Agree: Ralph B. Seymour
  450. Alfred says:
    @Wizard of Oz

    Some time ago, I searched all over the internet for the details of the lunar lander – gross weight, fuel weight, engine thrust and so on. This data seems to be totally absent. I wonder why?

    Frankly, it is a lot easier to get such details for the top-secret F-35

    BTW, all the details of the structures of 9/11 are also missing on the internet. Again, I wonder why?

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  451. liamjq says:

    I’m just worried that none of the oh so serious commenters have noticed the story’s byline is dated April 1st..rather elaborate but hey if you’ve nothing better to do!

  452. Cowboy says:
    @Ron Unz

    After the jews crucified Jesus and were cast out of Palestine, God also revoked their power of discernment. This is why it is jews who suffer most from jewish sadism and greed, yet they cannot figure it out. It is this same lack of discernment that causes multi-generational satanic child abuse, where the evil suffering gets inflicted on generation after generation of jews, father and mother on son, then that son on his son, over and over for centuries. One example would be circumcision.

    I would bet that most of the devout moon-beamers in this comments section are carrying jewish DNA that inhibits their discernment. I say this because there are hundreds if not thousands of ways to debunk the “moon landing”, just as debunking the holohoax is so easy. Some people are incapable of recognizing the truth, even when the liars admit to their faces that they have been lying. One example would be Auschwitz revising the number of deaths from 4 million to 1.5m, yet these discernment-voided jews and their brain dead puppets keep spewing da 6 gorrilion.

    Building 7 is the knock-out punch for 9/11 and the “report” from the 9/11 commission. Anyone bitterly clinging to OBL and Arabs bringing down the towers is just as obtuse as the holohoaxers claiming 6 million.

    For the moon landing the point when they jumped the shark was the “Lunar Rover”. Just one glance and you know that they did not transport 3 of these things to the moon.

    Wiki claims it weighed 460 pounds, yet by my calculations the batteries alone weighed at least 150lbs. That leaves 300lbs for 4 motors, wheels, tools and the entire dune buggy and cameras and antennas. But the real joke is how they made space for this 460 lbs by removing the oxidizer tank. Hmmm. Then, with the push of a button, voila, your dune buggy is ready, sire.

    “Astronaut deployment of the LRV from the LM’s open Quadrant 1 bay was achieved with a system of pulleys and braked reels using ropes and cloth tapes. The rover was folded and stored in the bay with the underside of the chassis facing out. One astronaut would climb the egress ladder on the LM and release the rover, which would then be slowly tilted out by the second astronaut on the ground through the use of reels and tapes. As the rover was let down from the bay, most of the deployment was automatic. The rear wheels folded out and locked in place. When they touched the ground, the front of the rover could be unfolded, the wheels deployed, and the entire frame let down to the surface by pulleys.

    The rover components locked into place upon opening. Cabling, pins, and tripods would then be removed and the seats and footrests raised. After switching on all the electronics, the vehicle was ready to back away from the LM”

    If you can believe all that, then likely you can believe that you are one of god’s chosen people too.

    • Agree: Carroll Price
    • Replies: @MacNucc11
    , @Rurik
  453. @Mr McKenna

    Because it’s “fun”?! Flippant nonsense. There’s nothing fun about it. Waking up to this stuff is disturbing and causes all kinds of difficulties –personal, social and familial.

  454. @TG

    “Only a matter of time before other probes get close enough….” We have high mountain observatories with unbelievably powerful telescopes that are able to see into the far reaches of the universe. Ditto the telescope on the space station. And yet we have no clear photos unmistakably showing the “landing sites” on the moon. Think about this, folks. If the landing sites were real, and there was equipment still there left by the Apollo missions, they would show us photographic evidence. They haven’t and they weren’t.

  455. Comments made so far: 439

    Minds changed: Zero.

  456. What a bunch of moronic horseshit! In the same goddamn article the author points out that the camera film was too sensitive for the high luminosity expected on the Moon and then expresses surprise that neither the astronauts nor the camera could see any stars because of high luminosity. Well, which one is it, you stupid cretin? btw. Consider that any city at night is less lit than the moon’s bright side yet no one even expects to see any stars.

    Honestly, believing Moon landing conspiracy theory evidence can very well function as a litmus test for one’s common sense and ability to reason. I remember seeing one of those documentaries when I was 12 and laughing my ass off at all their “arguments”.

    • LOL: Grahamsno(G64)
  457. @silviosilver

    I wholeheartedly second this!

  458. Redking says:
    @Greg S.

    The Van Allen Belts radiation thing is easily debunked because they didn’t fly right into the greatest intensity of radiation but flew around, and moved through the belts quickly. Many, many good educational videos on that topic out there.

    OK. Where are the geiger counter readings for the Van Allen Belts?

    • Replies: @Greg S.
  459. Herald says:
    @Mike P

    The lack of stars nonsense was perhaps the most ‘glaring’ early anomaly and was a problem for the Apollo 11 crew from the very start. It was always going to be impossible to explain away using real science and the crew knew that from the start. They

    More generally the Apollo 11 crew and in particular Armstrong, were always extremely uncomfortable during the early press conferences. After watching their stilted and unconvincing performances, it is amazing that anyone of a sound mind could still believe that these people actually went to the moon.

    • Agree: Mike P
    • Replies: @silviosilver
  460. @Wizard of Oz

    I cannot see how the Wikipedia entry is relevant to this discussion, let alone why uniquely valuable telemetry records, including medical data, etc., would not be mined for generations: they were, after all, the scientific dividend of the entire program.

  461. Amon says:
    @Mike P

    Its almost like they shielded the module against radiation, huh.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  462. @Moon Landing Skeptic

    Let me know if it’s not. It would be a good to ask an engineer to verify von Braun’s figures.

  463. @Johnny Walker Read

    My field is contemporary China and I can promise you that 99% of what Americans know about that vast, easily-visited country is flat out wrong.

    That’s why I’ve found so many of these hoax debunkers interesting: I see the same tricks being performed every day in our media, being believed and being righteously defended by people with no direct knowledge at all.

    • Replies: @Grahamsno(G64)
  464. @Robert Whatever

    You can watch Neil Armstrong not telling the truth here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmE62ru817w&feature=youtu.be

    It would be interesting to see similar Q&A’s from other ‘astronauts’..

  465. @Andre Citroen

    Nobody knows what the Wiz is on about, he gets paid by the word even if it’s gibberish, which it is so it’s all good.

  466. @silviosilver

    Is it the word “free” or the word “speech” that you find confusing?

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  467. @Mike P

    That’s partly true, of course. But what would have been the point? From anywhere in earth orbit, they could photograph the stars. And what would they have? Just another photograph of the stars. And in fact any photograph of the stars from the moon’s surface with a hand held Hasselblad would not have anywhere near the detail of the many photographs made via telescopes on earth using long time exposures.

    • Replies: @Mike P
    , @NoseytheDuke
  468. This is a very good introduction to the subject. I confess to being a neophyte to it. I found Ron Unz’s comment very, how should I put it, peculiar. I am grateful anyway that he published the article, even though I couldn’t make head or tail of his alleged rationale for doing it, let alone his critique.

    Anyway, people who say that a certain secret would be impossible to keep generally say it without any backing of facts or theory. Ironically, they always say it in a very peremptorious and dismissive tone.

    Skepticism is alway a healthy attitude. When it goes against a power structure, it is at its healthiest. We must change the prevailing culture that tries to make skepticism be perceived as gullibility and vice-versa.

    Even if we stick only to the consequences of our attitude, we have only to gain from keeping a very skeptic position in cases like the present one. I think we should establish some minimal grounds for believing the government. For example, I think we should believe the government in areas in which there is no reasonable doubt about his intentions. Vaccination, for example, is one. Why would governments would want to kill or make sick the entire world population, aided and abetted by the entire scientific community? It just makes no sense. The moon landings are different. There is nothing to gain in believing them unconditionally.

    • Replies: @fredtard
    , @Peredur
    , @Mishko
  469. @NoseytheDuke

    You people are incapable of arguing in good faith. It’s Ron’s site, he can ban whom he pleases. I recommend he ban you lot.

    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
  470. @Beefcake the Mighty

    He agrees with me that you people are thoroughly bonkers, so that’s one point in my favor.

    • Replies: @Beefcake the Mighty
  471. Mike P says:
    @Ethelred the Unready

    What I said is not “partly true” but entirely true. And I’m pretty sure that astronomers would have valued photographs of the stars taken without an intervening atmosphere.

  472. “the moon hoax is the ideal starting point for reflecting on the hypnotic control that television and the news media have gained over our mind. It is not just a political issue. It is a battle for our souls.”

    This illustrates perfectly how so many people are totally convinced that “The 911 Attacks” happened exactly as described in the TV news presentation of the government’s official story. What these benighted people see as gospel truth comes from TV broadcasts.

    What a TV addict believes because he saw it on TV becomes an unshakable article of faith and any disagreement is viewed by him as heresy.

  473. Mike P says:
    @Amon

    Its almost like they shielded the module against radiation, huh.

    Almost, but not quite. The Apollo capsule was not even strong enough to contain one atmosphere of pressure – there was no spare carrying capacity for serious shielding.

    Also note that the radiation dosages on Apollo 13 were not any higher than on the other missions – even though the 3 stooges were said to have travelled through space in the Lunar Module for much of the time. Was that also “shielded from radiation?” By what – the tin foil wrap?

    • Replies: @j2
    , @Amon
  474. @utu

    Au contraire, they were compulsory viewing for KGB members.

    • LOL: utu
  475. @Herald

    Most people with no experience in public speaking are intimidated by the idea. Being “stilted” and “uncomfortable” before an audience of millions seems entirely natural to me.

    • Replies: @Herald
  476. @Godfree Roberts

    My field is contemporary China

    Can you read and write Chinese what level of access do you have to their vast archives.

  477. 141 references to Jews in 496 comments in a thread about the moon landing hoax. Crackpot swarm indeed.

  478. @follyofwar

    I never used the word “hoax” – I clearly stated that I had questions about the event that the mainstream media had not asked, let alone answered. I never claimed I had answers, only that I had questions.

    You, on the other hand, in your failure to comprehend a short comment composed of simple sentences, have demonstrated your inability to read carefully and critically.

    Good luck in life, pal. With your brain, you’re going to need it.

  479. Saggy says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Well, I’ll admit I’ve only skimmed over the more than 30,000 words of angry comments on both sides of the issue, but I think my argument from silence is still very strong.

    The article is complete nonsense and should never have been published anywhere but The Onion.

    To save face you should say it was an April fools prank. You’d be in good company, Andrew Anglin published ‘Making the Case for Trump 2020’ on April 1.

    The argument from silence is reactive and lame. Here is a better one … a photo of the Apollo 11 command module ….

    And if the imbeciles on this site want to claim it’s photoshopped, you can see the actual module at

    The Apollo 11 Command Module Columbia is on display in the Boeing Milestones of Flight Hall at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC..

    and all the others at various museums around the country –
    https://airandspace.si.edu/explore-and-learn/topics/apollo/apollo-program/spacecraft/location/cm.cfm

    • Replies: @utu
  480. Amon says:

    The Moon Hoax, flat Earth conspiracy and Intelligent design agenda all stand as the biggest signs of how far the US/UK nations have fallen intelligence wise.

    • Agree: Dannyboy
  481. Sparkon says:
    @Fiendly Neighbourhood Terrorist

    5. The lunar landings all happened during the lunar day. In daylight, you don’t see the stars even on earth. And the light of the sun is *completely* reflected off the moon since there is no atmosphere for scattering, unlike earth. So the combination of sunlight, reflection glare, and photographic equipment that was fairly basic by modern standards = no stars visible.

    Even with those idotic asterisks around “completely,” your statement is completely wrong. According to Cornell Univ., only about 11% of sunlight is reflected by the Moon.

    http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/145-why-is-the-moon-so-bright-beginner

    It is possible to see stars from Earth during the day, other than the Sun of course, if one knows exactly where to look with binoculars or a telescope. The difficulty seeing stars from Earth during the day is a result of Earth’s atmosphere glowing blue from sunlight, which overwhelms most starlight.

    The difficulty seeing stars at night in a city is a result of light from the city being bounced back by Earth’s atmosphere, which reduces contrast to the point where only the brightest stars can be seen at night in most major cities on Earth.

    Thus, all difficulty seeing stars from Earth can be attributed to Earth’s atmosphere reducing contrast either from sunlight or from city lights at night.

    Need I mention that the Moon has no atmosphere?

    Since I’ve never been to the Moon, I cannot say for certain whether or not stars should be apparent on the photographic images allegedly taken there, but I do know some of the arguments being made here about photography are not valid.

    The Hasselblad cameras used on the surface of the moon could be described in many ways, but “fairly basic” would not be one of them.

    a Hasselblad 500EL Data Camera…to be used on the moon’s surface.

    The Data Camera, like the other two 500ELs, was a modified standard 500EL camera but differed from the others in several ways:

    (1) The Data Camera was fitted with a so-called Reseau plate. The Reseau plate was made of glass and was fitted to the back of the camera body, extremely close to the film plane. The plate was engraved with a number of crosses to form a grid…

    (2) The Data Camera was fitted with a new Zeiss lens, a Biogon f-5.6/60 mm, specially designed for NASA, which later became available commercially…

    (3) The Data Camera was given a silver finish to make it more resistant to thermal variations that ranged from full Sun to full shadow helping maintain a more uniform internal temperature. The two magazines carried along with the Data Camera also had silver finishes. Each was fitted with a tether ring so that a cord could be attached when the Lunar Module Pilot lowered the mated magazine and camera from the lunar module to the Commander standing on the lunar surface. The exposed magazines were hoisted the same way.

    https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html

    But was Apollo hoist by its own petard, I mean camera?

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  482. Everyone is stuck in “this OR that” on this issue. It’s really a “this AND that”.

    It’s entirely likely that we *did* go to the moon, and *yes, the footage is fake*.

    https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/01/05/dr-steven-greer-we-did-go-to-the-moon-but-the-footage-was-fake-video/

    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    • Replies: @Truth
    , @Truth
  483. Dannyboy says:
    @apollonian

    I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.

    • Replies: @apollonian
  484. utu says:
    @Saggy

    And this is command module of Apollo 7

    And this is command module of Apollo 8

    and his is command module of Apollo 10

    What are you trying to prove with your picture?

  485. Dannyboy says:
    @Ron Unz

    I’d say a good deal of the Moon Hoax stuff is motivated by “rage against the Boomers”/Daddy issues.

    “They lied to us about every goddamn thing” etc…

  486. @farang

    “a laser-reflecting mirror seems to indicate otherwise.”

    Actually, a laser beam can be bounced off the moon without any “reflecting mirror”. Ask yourself how the purported reflectors are located as targets from such a distance away and from such a wide variety of locations here as starting points.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  487. Mr. Anon says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Hey, you finally answered my question. So you are a moon-hoaxer.

    I am unsurprised.

    Do you also – like your fellow traveller “Truth” – believe that there are no satellites, and that the Earth is flat?

    • Replies: @Truth
  488. utu says:

    I reintroduce my hypothesis again: There was Moon Mission but no human landing on the Moon

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing-a-giant-hoax-for-mankind/#comment-3128542
    My working compromise theory is as follows: There was no landing on the Moon with humans. The Apollo crew stayed on the Moon orbit and returned the same way as Apollo 9 and 10. It is possible some lander was placed on the Moon but doing it with humans was just too complicated and too risky. The US could not afford a failure though otoh a spectacular and heroic death of American astronauts on the Moon would give America the greatest sympathy boost all over the world for the open democratic society just as they did get it after the tragedy of Apollo 1. The tragedy of Apollo 1 demonstrated to the world that Americans are open and do not cheat unlike the Soviets who would report only the successful missions after their completion. From the point of view of competition with the USSR Americans knew that if they do not cheat the Soviets would, so it was decided to out-cheat the Soviets. And they succeeded.

    • Replies: @MacNucc11
    , @j2
  489. @Chris Bridges

    “Uh, sory. My Dad worked directly on the moon shot ”

    How convincing. Why not also claim that your sister’s cat’s grandmother was one of the astronauts as well?

  490. Mr. Anon says:
    @Alfred

    Some time ago, I searched all over the internet for the details of the lunar lander – gross weight, fuel weight, engine thrust and so on. This data seems to be totally absent. I wonder why?

    Because you didn’t actually look?

    https://www.dfj.com/ApolloConstruction/Apollo_11_LM-5_Construction_Log.pdf

    https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM10HandbookVol1.pdf

    There’s lots more.

  491. MacNucc11 says:

    I think the author makes a pretty good argument that at least the things that are supposed to prove that the moon landing happened do not. I remember watching the moon launches as a child and it was big news. It was aired live but I remember after the rocket launched and the various stages were shown dropping off from the rocket itself that it went to animation. Then we did see footage of astronauts on the moon. I question what was the need to create a fake moonscape here on earth just for practice purposes and of course not having been yet how would we know what it would look like?

  492. MacNucc11 says:
    @utu

    This theory makes a lot of sense to me and would explain a lot. It basically means that only a small part of it had to be faked and limited to very few people who would actually be in on it. I think what needs to be looked at is what were the implications of the space race with the soviets? I think it was serious enough that you may try to fool them. If their people think we got to the moon maybe they lose some faith in communism. We knew that their hold on their people was tenuous and hoped by showing our technical superiority we could cause them to lose faith in their system. We also were in competition for other countries. Cuba was already communist as was Eastern Europe and we were very afraid of being encircled so it was a war for minds, loyalties, and people.

    • Replies: @utu
  493. Half-Jap says:

    On the one hand, cognitive dissonance, affecting even the best of us (such as our esteemed Unz), but on the other hand, baseless allegations. Sadly, no amount of solid research will resolve the former and relegate said research to the latter.

  494. Mr. Anon says:
    @FB

    So here’s the interesting thing…I have in front of me a superbly rigorous such analysis [50 plus pages] by an honest to goodness top notch rocket engine designer…his numbers point to an engine of 1 million lbs thrust, not 1.5…having the thermal engineering background to fully check his analysis, I have to agree there’s a big problem there…the fact that NASA has ‘lost’ the engineering data, and hence a direct cross check on their numbers is therefore impossible, does not instill confidence…

    How do you know he is an “honest to goodness top notch rocket designer”? What is his name? What has designed?

    How do you know that NASA has “lost” the F-1 data? Have you looked for it?

    This incredibly interesting analysis came as a huge shock to me personally…recalling the happy days I spent at NASA Ames in the 1990s…unfortunately, there may in fact be a ‘there’ there…although it’s not what most of these amateur ‘debunkers’ fixate on…including this absolutely ridiculous article…others have already recommended Dave McGowan’s ‘Wagging the Moondoggie’ and it’s a pretty good piece of journalism that mostly avoids the ridiculous blunders we see elsewhere in this genre…

    McGowan’s ridiculously flippant work is full of nothing but blunders. McGowan was a blithering idiot.

    The bottom line for me as an aerospace engineer with a background in thermodynamics is the engines…the Apollo was a generation before my time, so it was just accepted as a given…but now I’m not so sure…the Russian engine technology was light years ahead of the US at the time and still is…so for me if I’m going to put anything under a microscope, it’s going to be those F1 engines…right now I’m fairly persuaded they weren’t nearly as powerful as claimed…it doesn’t mean the moon shot didn’t happen…they could have had another rocket stage in there to give the needed thrust…

    You think “lightyear” is a unit of time?

    • Replies: @FB
    , @NoseytheDuke
  495. Mr. Anon says:
    @Twodees Partain

    Ask yourself how the purported reflectors are located as targets from such a distance away and from such a wide variety of locations here as starting points.

    Also called corner-cubes:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector

  496. I haven’t read all the comments, but one thing has become clear: regardless of the merits or demerits of the original article, its publication is an excellent way of understanding what drives people to accept horrible lies (and, again, I am not saying the moon landing was one of them).

    The compulsion to accept everything the government tells us is a measure of the immense power that they have, simply because they are the government.

    I will repeat here my caveat about things that should be believed because doing otherwise could endanger our lives: vaccination, for instance. There is no persuasive evidence that they are lying about that, so it is better to act as if we believe them.

    As for everything else, there is no merit in believing anything the government, or “science”, or any other institutions tell us. Even when they are probably true, and there is no apparent reason for disbelieving them, the normal attitude should be one of permanent skepticism. (As long as that will not risk our lives or health — it is never too much to emphasize.)

    The basic tenet we should keep in mind is: Power is primarily concerned with Power, and therefore one should defend oneself from power, always. Of course, because of their being so powerful, our well-being sometimes depends upon accepting the directives of Power (again, vaccination, etc.); we should be sensible enough to identify those situations.

  497. @MikeatMikedotMike

    That’s funny. And true. It is astounding that people believe this outrageous canard. Once the PTB got away with this they knew they could get away with anything. And now look what we have.

  498. @a german

    “He died on a heart attack, how did he now that?”

    I hate when they die on a heart attack. After that, they don’t now much of anything anymore.

  499. Truth says:
    @Thinker

    1) The missing original tapes. Why would NASA tape over something so significant?

    One of the engineers was going to be at his son’s baseball game and he didn’t want to miss Get Smart. They were they only ones in America with a VCR at that time.

  500. @Ron Unz

    So you’ve just discovered the Apollo Hoax a couple years ago. How much have you read in that time? Your objections are taken straight from CIA Document 1035-960 and can be applied to any conspiracy theory you find threatening. Not sure why you’re so close-minded about a subject you’re completely new to. Do you think it’s possible you’ve been duped by the very same Judeo-Satanic groups that convinced the world of the Holocaust, JFK, and 9/11? Is it possible you are the one who is unintentionally poisoning the well?

  501. @apollonian

    Yup, and people have a tendency to overlook NASA Satanic roots.

  502. Mulegino1 says:

    I have no moondog in this fight. But the existence of a record of government/establishment media mendacity- for well over a hundred years- is undeniable. The idea that government, and its sycophantic press courtiers does not lie copiously and constantly to its citizenry- and has not done so throughout history is absurd in the extreme.

    From “Remember the Maine, to hell with Spain!” through the “War to end all Wars”, all the way to the weeping Kuwaiti nurse and the Iraqi soldiers who ripped the babies out of their incubators, 9/11, Bin Laden’s “burial at sea”, etc., government/media mendacity has been much more the rule than the exception. So, questioning the manned moon landing narrative is not only not irrational, but evinces, at the very least, a modicum of intellectual curiosity and independent thinking- provided it is done from the proper epistemological perspective. (Intellectual curiosity and independent thinking are not exactly in abundant supply among our so called “elites.”)

    On the other hand, when someone uses the CIA inspired stock phrase “conspiracy theory” they are demonstrating complete intellectual laziness. And when the so called “debunkers” resort to obscene ad hominems, this indicates that their arguments are totally bereft of factual evidence. Those advancing such childish and ill founded arguments make the proles in 1984 look virtually Socratic by comparison.

    • Agree: Twodees Partain
    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  503. Milton says:

    They were not faked. As the old proverb goes: “JFK put men on the Moon; Team Neocon put Neo-Nazis in Kiev. This is Progress!!”

    Men were men back then and The President was not a warmongering traitor to foreign interests; that’s why we went to the Moon and is also why we won’t be going back.

    Russia or China will be the next to visit the Moon. Godspeed!!

    • Replies: @Johnny Walker Read
  504. @Mike P

    I don’t happen to know any astronomers, so I won’t debate that point. But I am a photographer with 52 years of experience. You might want to discuss this with the photographer of your choosing. If you can find one professional photographer who thinks there’s anything suspicious about the moon photos, please let us know.

    And I’ll ask again; why no uproar in August 1969 from the tens of thousands of working professional photographers who would have spent quite a bit of their spare time looking at the photos just released by NASA? Doesn’t their silence tell you all you need to know about whether the photos show evidence of a hoax? How do you explain this elephant in the living room?

    It’s one thing for people who’s experience with photography consists of taking pictures of their kids in the back yard splashing in the rubber pool to be fooled by the ridiculous claims about the photos being fake because you can’t see the stars. We shouldn’t expect the average picture taker to understand exposure when all they’ve ever used are cameras that set the exposure automatically. But people who make their living making photographs have to understand exposure. All you have to do is ask one.

    • Replies: @Mike P
  505. Truth says:
    @Greg S.

    And if there were no landing sites on the moon, for the conspiracy to remain successfully hidden to this date, almost all the astronomers on earth, in every country, would need to be “in” on the conspiracy

    OK, we’re FINALLY getting somewhere.

    The REAL conspiracy people should be talking about is why we once had but NO LONGER have the ability to go to moon. There is a real and tangible drop in the functioning of society, social cohesion, and IQ that are behind this. Think about who put men on the moon: it was an entire society of almost exclusively white men,who’s wives were at home taking care of the children

    So let me see if I understand this:

    We cannot recreate 50-year old technology, in an era where your average iPhone has more computing power than a room-sized NASA computer, because we don’t have white men going home at lunchtime for homemade soup?

    Am I getting this correct?

    • Replies: @Greg S.
  506. Truth says:
    @Ash Williams

    LOL.

    This thread is devoloving by the minute. In another hour most of you will be monkeys again.

    • Replies: @Ash Williams
  507. Mike P says:
    @Alfred

    One glance at the lunar landing module at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington was enough to convince this engineer that there was nowhere near enough fuel to take this thing back into orbit around the moon.

    Here you can see it in action

    Apparently, they didn’t need any fuel, just some coloured confetti – there is only a slight rustling sound as that powerful engine fires up, and a bunch of rainbow colours spraying in all directions (but no moon dust swirling up, of course). After that, the module just levitates homeward. Terrific.

    • Replies: @Erebus
    , @Stebbing Heuer
  508. Truth says:
    @Mr. Anon

    Do you also – like your fellow traveller “Truth” – believe that there are no satellites

    I’ve seen your picture, Grasshopper, your head is wide, flat, and not connected to anything.

  509. FB says: • Website
    @Mr. Anon

    Tell you what…why don’t you go and find an actual rocket scientist who will give you the time of day and then get back to me…I don’t happen to have the time of day for you…

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  510. Anne Lid says:
    @MikeatMikedotMike

    Don’t be so sure. I have never doubted and heard only one person in my whole life who did. Took my son to the Science Museum in London, watched there a 4D moon landing film many times, bought him oodles of books about space. I am rather sad now that it may not have been the wonderful true tale I thought it was.

  511. utu says:
    @MacNucc11

    The objective number one was the propaganda war with the Evil Empire for the hearts and minds of humanity. And it was believed (for good reason) that the Evil Empire did not play fair so….

  512. Rags says:

    Well, statistically Mr. Unz, your going the way the way of the flat Earthers.

  513. @Truth

    It’s pretty obvious you won’t discuss those arguments on their merits. Instead you engage in ridicule.

    So, you aren’t interested in dialog and discussing facts.

    So, it begs the question: What are you doing here?

    The obvious answer is you are attempting to distract those arguing here from a line of thinking.

    You would do a better job by posting tranny porn, or perhaps bringing up how Hitler was a crypto-Jew, or…

    • Replies: @Truth
  514. Anonymous[211] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thinker

    All the initial part shown here is just an animation simulation (it even says so in the video), only the blurry last part in black and white with Neil Armstrong descending is (supposedly) real.

    Now, that makes us question something. They had prepared animated simulations for the whole process, not to mention all the fake photographs and footage previously created in a studio that are very similar to the “real” landing, that means that the whole thing was really prepared before as a spectacle for the masses. So even if they did it for real, they had the ability all the elements to create a “fake” version of it as well, for entertainment purposes.

    But what would happen if the very likely possibility that the landing had FAILED? Would they keep showing the fake images? Or would we watch the disaster? Or would there be just silence? I don’t know, but it seems that a lot was invested in the promotion part of it, and if they had the ability to fake it, then why risk making it “for real”?

  515. @Ron Unz

    Your conclusion sounds like the part of the Sherlock Holmes story in which the detective came to a conclusion based on his observation of a dog that didn’t bark. It’s an extrapolation from an observation. Thanks for the explanation.

  516. Mike P says:
    @Ethelred the Unready

    If you can find one professional photographer who thinks there’s anything suspicious about the moon photos, please let us know.

    The article mentions David Percy; there is also Marcus Allen, another Brit. You will find more if you simply look at Percy’s work.

    … tens of thousands of working professional photographers … Doesn’t their silence tell you all you need to know about whether the photos show evidence of a hoax?

    No. You are simply appealing to herd instinct – which is the underlying cause of Schopenhauer’s famous observation:

    All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

    • Replies: @Ethelred the Unready
  517. @Alfred

    “The fact remains that they needed a colossal amount of fuel to get to the moon and an almost invisible amount to return to orbit around the moon.”

    No, see….once the spaceship breaks free of the Earth’s gravity, it will just fall all the way to the moon real fast. Then when it gets there, the gravity of the Earth will make it fall all the way back real fast. Don’t you even get it?

    • Agree: Alfred
    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
  518. Gus Flory says:
    @Grahamsno(G64)

    I’m not saying we did or didn’t go to the moon, but the reflectors are not proof that we did.

    If the Russians could put reflectors on the moon without cosmonauts, then it’s entirely possible that we could put them on the moon without astronauts.

    The Russians also landed a rover on the moon and there are pictures of its tracks on the surface that look similar to the pictures of the Apollo sites. Grainy pictures of tracks on the surface can’t serve as proof that NASA landed men on the moon if the Russians left similar tracks without landing men on the moon.

    To paraphrase what I wrote in another post, one of the main principles of the scientific method is reproducibility. In science, if you can’t replicate it, then it’s not proven. No one has replicated the Apollo missions in 50 years. In fact, the Apollo missions are the only time humans have allegedly left Low Earth Orbit.

    What’s going to prove the moon landing to me is if the Chinese or Russians can get someone out of Low Earth Orbit. Right now they can’t, despite having advanced space programs, large budgets and better technology than we had in the 1960s and 1970s. NASA doesn’t have the ability to get a human out of Low Earth Orbit either, and has even lost the capability to get humans into space and must rely on the Russians to do so. The Constellation program was in the works back in 2005, followed by the Orion program in 2011, but neither of these programs put a human into space. Orion is a second attempt to replicate Apollo, but like Constellation, the project is facing all kinds of obstacles and setbacks.

    Orion was scheduled to take astronauts on a lunar flyby in 2021, but they pushed the date back to 2023. Trump is saying he wants to land Americans on the moon again. Apparently, he’s pushing for Orion to land on the moon in his second term if he’s re-elected. NASA is playing along. My money says NASA is going to keep pushing the date back, play for time.

    If no one gets out of Low Earth Orbit in the 2020s, no rational person is going to believe Apollo was real. Only fools will believe it. Pay attention to the Orion spacecraft. If Orion can get astronauts out of Low Earth Orbit and pull off a lunar fly by, that will be proof enough for me that Apollo was real. But I’m skeptical they can do it. And skepticism is the foundation science is built upon.

    • Replies: @Ethelred the Unready
  519. j2 says:
    @utu

    I made some cigarette pack calculations of if the landing module could get to the orbit and it should not be a problem, the whole return trip should require only 2000-3000 kg of kerosene, so that is not a limiting factor. The reason for the big rocket on the earth is the atmosphere, not gravitation. So, your compromise many not be needed. If the astronauts got to a moon orbit, they could have landed and taken off. There is still the Van Allen belt and the question why Russians and Chinese have not gone there and the USA not after 1970s. I know the arguments that the Van Allen belt is mainly charged particles and not so terrible, but nowadays one cannot trust anything coming from some countries.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Mike P
    , @RI
  520. @Mike P

    OK. In my first post on this topic I described how anybody with a camera having manual exposure controls can test the claim that stars ought to be visible in the moon photos. If you want to know the truth, you can do the test yourself.

    Good luck.

  521. Even if all the arguments put forth by the article’s author are wrong, i.e. there are absolutely no inconsistencies, or implausibilities, in the official version about the moon landing, it is absolutely possible that is all a hoax, and it is more probable that it is a hoax than not.

    The problem is that power is an incognoscible entity. Of course the press sells the opposite notion, because thus it will sell also the notion that it is a useful — in fact, an essential — tool in achieving the knowledge of those in power. But, however useful the press might be, it will never really know the entrails of power. If it does, it will be at the cost of its independence, which means that it will know but will never reveal.

    Power being this incognoscible entity, the best we, as powerless beings, can do is to throw suspicion at it. The burden of proof will never lay on us. We are merely defending ourselves.

  522. @Gus Flory

    How will you know that Orion gets astronauts out of low earth orbit? Will you simply believe what the USG says? What will you say to all the folks who are likely to insist that Orion is a hoax as well?

    • Replies: @Gus Flory
  523. @Harbinger

    And worse, happily being subjugated by a tribal elite, of genocidal Jews, whom they happily allow to be nationalistic, but attack any whites who wish the same.

    …(T)he underlying problem within the west today, NOT there in the past, especially with the Spanish. That is, of course, white race, hating whites, utterly ignorant morons, who happily do the bidding of the genocidal Jews, to exterminate their own race. Nowhere in history, were there ever any western (or world) people, who worked hand in hand with the enemy, to destroy themselves. That was the whole purpose of treason and anyone caught trying to do so met a gruesome, torture execution in public. There was no crime greater than the compromise of one’s people and civilization.

    This is the problem that whites face. Never in any time have there been so many treasonous bastards, selling their race to be slaughtered by the Jews. And when you tell people this, they laugh, utterly ignorant to reality, courtesy of being indoctrinated and brainwashed by the Jewish controlled msm and academia.

    The good news is, at least we’ll get the last laugh, because the ‘sellouts’ will eventually wake up, while queuing up for execution, by the immigrant rulers of their land, while the Jew laughs at their stupidity, but good service to them. They will, at that moment realize that we were right all along and had they listened to us and simply removed the Jews, they wouldn’t be about to be butchered.

    You identify the most basic problem – not the proactively hateful enemy who seeks our genocide because we are the out group they most fear in their secret but well-founded guilt – but the traitors within our own group, the shabbot goyim.

    And you are correct. We are confronted with a very simple binomial reality: #DestroyShabbotGoy or perish.

  524. @Milton

    Kennedy was not a traitor! You are sadly mistaken my friend.
    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/un/do.htm

  525. Peredur says:
    @George Taylor

    Occam’s razor doesn’t apply when the supposedly simpler hypothesis is essentially impossible. It would have been far easier to fake the six manned landings than to actually carry them out with late 60s technology with no loss of human life in space.

  526. Truth says:
    @Ash Williams

    Let me see if I understand the brilliant NASA genius’s argument:

    “You conspiracy theorists were right! All that crap we showed you in 1969 was completely fake… But we did really go to the moon, we just didn’t show you, and well, have no evidence…”

    Is this what I missed here? Admittedly I didn’t watch it when I read the description. Some of this shit, even on this site, is just to stupid for me to indulge.

    • Replies: @Ash Williams
  527. @Felix Krull

    So what are those tracks that just happen to be visible at exactly the spots where…

    Gee, I dunno… Let me guess… Is that the tracks made by the people when they were marched into the gas chambers?

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
  528. @Greg S.

    “I believe we landed on the moon.”

    Ah, finally we have an actual astronaut weighing in on the subject. I’ve been wanting to ask you boys something for a long time: How did y’all manage to shit while you were in those suits?

    I have other questions, but I’d rather not take up too much bandwidth asking them.

  529. @silviosilver

    … just go ahead and delete the accounts of everyone supporting the “theory” that the moon landings were a hoax…

    Yeah, man. I think you guys have the right to a “safe space” just the same as any other group!

    • LOL: FB
  530. Peredur says:
    @ChuckOrloski

    There are suspicious aspects to the official versions of the deaths of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “a suspected or known Israeli fanatic.” Possible/likely deep state connections can be seen behind every political website with a moderate or greater level of visibility. This includes the alt-right. We have to ask ourselves what the risk is. How risky is it to anonymously state your opinion on a website? Probably not as risky as showing up at an in-person event like Charlottesville. Someone may be collecting information from cookies, IP addresses, etc., but there is safety in numbers.

  531. Truth says:
    @Ash Williams

    OK Bro, you wore me down. Beyond my better instincts, I decided to go back and actually watch your video…

    AND I’M PRETTY F-N GLAD I DID!

    OK, so this asshole contends that the moon landing was faked because the real story was the Neil Armstrong and the boys went up there and ran into The Man in the Moon. Some alien race that threatened them and told them to leave, did I get this right?

    Homie, you made me spit water on my keyboard! that was the funniest thing I have seen in 5 days!

    And the best part of it was, the Fuqquer in the video, he looks like he’s already halfway devolved back to an Orangatang.

    You guys are going to kill me.

    • Replies: @Ash Williams
  532. Ron Unz says:
    @silviosilver

    Ron, if you want to clean this site up, just go ahead and delete the accounts of everyone supporting the “theory” that the moon landings were a hoax on this thread. Instant improvement. There is zero to be gained from the participation of these kooks on your site.

    Well, as I’ve repeatedly emphasized, I think the whole Moon Hoax theory is totally wrong and even ridiculous. As a consequence, those who endorse it have certainly lost quite a bit of credibility, which may have possibly been the intent of “disinfo agents” if they were the ones who originally promoted it.

    But I’m not sure about banning Moon Hoax supporters. My strong impression is that in the past you have personally advocated lots of theories that I also regard as totally wrong and even ridiculous. So are you suggesting that I ban you as well?

    • Replies: @silviosilver
  533. utu says:
    @j2

    What gave you an idea I was concerned about the weigh of fuel? I was concerned about four probabilities: (1) Safe landing on Moon, (2) Survival on Moon, (3) Safe lift-off from Moon and (4) Safe rendezvous on Moon orbit. But indeed NASA was concerned about the fuel so after Apollo 11 they used CSM to help decelerate the LM before landing to use less fuel of LM for landing, iirc.

    Perhaps. you should redo you calculations on the box of cigars. I do not believe that atmosphere resistance account for the difference that much. Escape velocities of Moon and Earth are like factor of 4.

    • Replies: @j2
    , @j2
  534. Cowboy says:

    ‘A terrible, terrible thing’: NASA said India’s satellite destruction created so much space junk it now threatens the safety of the International Space Station

    “India’s anti-satellite missile test may have created 6,500 pieces of space junk larger than a pencil eraser, according to a new simulation

    He said the risk of the ISS colliding with debris had increased by 44% in 10 days as a result of the Indian missile. “

    Be afraid, mooners, be very afraid. Mother Nasa will simply have to take your guns away to make sure that space stays safe.

  535. @David Bauer

    Ron, I think your government “cognitive infiltration” argument works for the “flat earth” videos that have become common on YouTube. I do not think it works on the moon landing. After I woke up to 9/11 in 2009, and spent a few years further studyimg that subject, I eventually found myself studying the Apollo missions. The more I studied them, the more I realized how completely absurd and impossible the official history is.

    That is exactly my feeling, my experience, and my message to Ron.
    This thread has been very enriching for me. One thing I noticed is that the believers are generally much more aggressive than the skeptics. That is easy to explain: all skeptics were at one time believers, so we sympathize with believers. We’ve been there, we understand their anger. I myself, about 10 years ago, insulted someone who tried to talk to me into the moon hoax theory. It takes some time to start to consider it as a possibility.
    I notice that Ron’s and many others’ counter-arguments are not technical but socio-political: they question the very possibility of such a massive lie: “someone would have talked”, “the Russians would have protested”, etc. This is a normal reaction provoked by cognitive dissonance. But this is not the way to analyse the problem. These objections are legitimate, but they break down once you get acquainted with the accumulation of technical impossibilities and start to see the moon landings as, literally, a miracle, that is, an impossibility. When I started researching for this article, I still felt unsure, but the more I researched, the more I became convinced. I am very happy to have had the chance and the honor to open up the issue here, and also grateful for what I learned (for example, McGowan’s work). I am confident that, among the most angry and unkind commentators, some will soon start to dig into the issue, at the beginning in the hope of finding where the hoax theories fails, until at some point, they will start to wonder. I wish everyone a wonderful journey.
    Nations, and perhaps civilizations, are like a family: just like family lies and secrets poison the spiritual and psychological atmophere that children breath and make them neurotic or even psychotic, State lies of the moon hoax, JFK or 9/11 magnitude are very deep poisons in the American psyche. The world will be a very different place, I hope, when these lies will be exposed publically. It is painful, but liberating.

  536. Herald says:
    @John Random

    His ‘rebuttal’ is meant to address anything technical or anyone, for that matter, other than true looney tunes believers, the poor things. It is clear that Ron really does have a wicked sense of humour.

  537. Herald says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron really does have a wicked sense of humour.

  538. Herald says:
    @Johnny Walker Read

    Only Apollo believers were meant to take Ron seriously.

  539. @utu

    Funny thing is Hyams went on the make the sequel to 2001 a Space Odyssey, with Kubrick’s permission.

  540. Mike P says:
    @j2

    I made some cigarette pack calculations of if the landing module could get to the orbit and it should not be a problem, the whole return trip should require only 2000-3000 kg of kerosene, so that is not a limiting factor.

    Keep in mind that they would also have to carry the oxidizer, which would actually weigh more than the kerosene.

    • Replies: @j2
  541. Thomm says:
    @Lurker

    How many probes launched in the last 60 years have succumbed to the Sun’s gravity well?

    Exactly the same number as the number of men who failed to get off the surface of the Moon once setting foot there.

    Your point?

  542. Thomm says: