The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Laurent Guyénot Archive
How LBJ Mooned America
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

From Vietnam to the Moon

If John Kennedy had not been assassinated, there would have been no Vietnam War for Americans. I think that question has been settled by recent investigators like James Douglass. Robert Kennedy Jr. summarizes the evidence in his book American Values:

[JFK] steadfastly refused to put combat troops in Vietnam, earning him the antipathy of both liberals and conservatives, who rebuked him for “throwing in the towel” against international communism. … When Johnson visited Vietnam in May 1961 at Jack’s request, he returned adamant that it was insufficient to send military advisers and equipment: victory required U.S. combat troops capable of independent action against guerrilla fighters. Virtually every one of Jack’s advisers concurred, yet the president steadfastly resisted, saying that we could support the South Vietnamese but we could not do their fighting for them. Thinking about it later, Taylor would observe, “I don’t recall anyone who was strongly against [sending combat troops to Vietnam] except one man, and that was the President. The President just didn’t want to be convinced that this was the right thing to do. It was really the President’s personal conviction that U.S. ground troops shouldn’t go in.” …

On October 11, 1963, five weeks before his death, JFK bypassed his own National Security Council and issued National Security Action Memorandum 263, making official the withdrawal from Vietnam of “1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963” and “the bulk of U.S. personnel by the end of 1965.” On November 20, 1963, two days before his trip to Dallas, Jack announced at a press conference a plan to assess “how we can bring Americans out of there. Now, that is our objective, to bring Americans home.” The following morning he reviewed a casualty list for Vietnam indicating that seventy-three Americans had died there to date. Shaken and angry, Jack told his assistant press secretary, Malcolm Kilduff, “After I come back from Texas, that’s going to change. There’s no reason for us to lose another man over there. Vietnam is not worth another American life.” On November 24, 1963, two days after Jack died, Lyndon Johnson met with the American ambassador to Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge, whom Jack had been on the verge of firing for insubordination. LBJ told Lodge, “I am not going to be the president who saw Southeast Asia go the way China went.” Eventually 500,000 Americans … entered the paddies of Vietnam, and 58,000 never returned.[1]Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family, HarperLuxe, 2018, pp. 226-229.

Between 1965 and 1968 alone, 643,000 tons of bombs were dropped—three times more than during the Second World War—on a mostly rural country. The Vietnam War considerably enlarged the already monstrous “military-industrial complex,” whose “potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power” Eisenhower had warned about in his Farewell Address. Interestingly, Eisenhower had actually written “the military-industrial-congressional complex,” but scraped “congressional” for fear of political backlash. No one better epitomized the congressional component than Johnson: he was implicated in three corruption scandals dating from his years as Senate Majority leader, including a fraud involving the Texan company General Dynamics in a \$7 billion contract for the construction of TFX military aircrafts. In the weeks preceding Kennedy’s assassination, Johnson had also invested in the Dallas aircraft manufacturer Ling-Temco-Vought, which was to become one of the Pentagon’s biggest arms suppliers for the Vietnam War.[2]Joan Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, Potomac Books, 2007. Johnson also owned stocks in Bell Helicopter, to which he transferred illegally a contract for 220 helicopters that had been signed in 1963 with its rival Kaman Aircraft.[3]Charles Kaman, “Politics had reared its ugly head in a very certain way,” on stonezone.com/article.php?id=633

Johnson’s Vietnam War led directly to the flood of drugs that drowned a large part of the American and European youth (as shown by Lukasz Kamienski in Shooting Up and Alfred McCoy in The Politics of Heroin). The drug explosion of the 70s and 80s produced the epidemic syndrome of immunodeficiency known as AIDS (as shown by Peter Duesberg in Inventing the AIDS Virus). AIDS became the pretext for expanding the web of financial entanglements between Pharma and the government health agencies. And, as RFK, Jr. has shown in The Real Anthony Fauci, this global “regulatory capture” made possible the pharmaceutical coup of 2020 by pandemic profiteers who are now plunging humankind into a iatrogenic nightmare.

If we look at it this way, the Johnson presidency may have been the greatest curse on the U.S. and the world. And that is not even considering what John Kennedy’s presidency, perhaps followed by Robert’s, could have offered the world. Instead of the Peace Corps, we got Vietnam and all the horrors that followed.

Yet there is one thing that the Kennedys would probably not have given us, and that is a walk on “the Moon”.

It is during Nixon’s tenure that men walked on Moon, collected moon rocks, and planted US flags (the last time was in December 1972, almost 50 years ago), but Apollo had really been Johnson’s project from the start. “Few people today realize or remember,” said Alan Wasser, “but a single man, Lyndon Baines Johnson, ‘LBJ’, is primarily responsible for both starting and ending ‘The Space Race’.” “Apollo 11 wouldn’t have happened without Lyndon Johnson,” concurs Michael Marks, quoting John Logsdon, professor at the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University and author of John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon (Macmillan, 2010).[4]Michael Marks, “Why Apollo 11 Wouldn’t Have Happened Without Lyndon Johnson” July 19, 2019, www.texasstandard.org/stories/why-apollo-11-wouldnt-have-happened-without-lyndon-johnson/. A shorter article by John Logsdon can be downloaded here. There seems to be a broad consensus on that point among historians of the NASA. It was Kennedy who very publicly launched the Moon race in 1961, but, unbeknown to the public, “In the weeks before he was assassinated, John F. Kennedy was getting cold feet about the race to the Moon,” according to Charles Fishman, author of a 2019 article titled “If President Kennedy hadn’t been killed, would we have landed on the Moon on July 20, 1969? It seems unlikely.”[5]Charles Fishman, “If President Kennedy hadn’t been killed, would we have landed on the Moon on July 20, 1969? It seems unlikely,” www.fastcompany.com/90376962/if-president-kennedy-hadnt-been-killed-would-we-have-landed-on-the-moon-on-july-20-1969-it-seems-unlikely David Baker writes in his commendable book The Apollo Missions: The Incredible Story of the Race to the Moon (2018):

Generally credited with having begun the expansion of the space programme from which it would never turn back, Kennedy had in fact attempted to reverse his decision on several occasions before his assassination on 22 November 1963. Having never wanted to select the Moon goal in the first place, he sought an alternative that would be a more lasting response to Soviet space achievements. … Within 18 months [of his moon speech to Congress, May 1961] he was desperately seeking ways to overturn that allegiance. His assassination prevented that, but galvanized NASA into an even deeper commitment.[6]David Baker, The Apollo Missions: The Incredible Story of the Race to the Moon, Arcturus, 2018, p. 55.

This is a little known story, and an interesting one, considering the enormous impression made by the U.S. moon walks—and moon buggy rides—on the world, and the imperial prestige drawn from it. As one skeptic wrote: travelling to the moon and back was “a feat of mythical proportions” that made “the NASA astronauts the equals of ancient supernatural heroes, immortal demi-gods,” a quality that still reflects on the USA as a whole.

Apollo 15 James Irwin starring on the Moon (Wikipedia
Apollo 15 James Irwin starring on the Moon (Wikipedia

How We Chose To Go To the Moon

In an article titled “Lyndon Johnson’s Unsung Role in Sending Americans to the Moon”, Jeff Shesol recalls how Johnson became instrumental in the founding of NASA in 1958:

On October 4, 1957, within hours of learning that the Soviet Union had put the first satellite, the Sputnik, into orbit, Johnson—then the Senate Majority Leader—seized on the issue of space exploration. Before the evening was out, he was working the phones, talking to aides, sketching out plans for an investigation of the anemic U.S. program. George Reedy, a member of Johnson’s staff, advised him that the issue could “blast the Republicans out of the water, unify the Democratic Party, and elect you President. … You should plan to plunge heavily into this one.” … President Dwight D. Eisenhower had resisted establishing what he called, mockingly, “a great Department of Space,” but Johnson, and circumstance, wore him down. NASA was their joint creation.[7]Jeff Shesol, “Lyndon Johnson’s Unsung Role in Sending Americans to the Moon”, July 20, 2019, https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/lyndon-john...e-moon

After winning the presidential election in November 1960, John Kennedy set up high-level “transition teams” to advise him on key issues. His team on space was chaired by MIT Professor Jerome Wiesner, who was already a member of Eisenhower’s Science Advisory Committee. On January 10, 1961, Wiesner submitted to Kennedy a “Report to the President-Elect of the Ad Hoc Committee on Space,” that reflected the widespread skepticism within the scientific community over the feasibility of human spaceflight.[8]Wiesner Committee, “Report to the President-Elect of the Ad Hoc Committee on Space,” January 10, 1961, www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/report61.html It mentioned, among a “wealth of new scientific results of great significance” recently gained with satellites and deep space probes, that “American scientists have discovered the great belt of radiation, trapped within the earth’s magnetic field.” Consequently, he wrote, “For the time being … space exploration must rely on unmanned vehicles.”

ORDER IT NOW

Kennedy named Wiesner chairman of his Science Advisory Committee. Wiesner remained a staunch opponent of the Apollo Moon program, as can be read on his Wikipedia page: “He was an outspoken critic of manned exploration of outer space, believing instead in automated space probes.” Wiesner was also a strong advocate of international cooperation rather than competition in space exploration, as he indicated in his January 1961 report:

space activities, particularly in the fields of communications and in the exploration of our solar system, offer exciting possibilities for international cooperation with all the nations of the world. The very ambitious and long-range space projects would prosper if they could be carried out in an atmosphere of cooperation as projects of all mankind instead of in the present atmosphere of national competition.

This was also Kennedy’s deep-seated conviction, as we shall see. But when Soviet astronaut Yuri Gagarin became the first person in space in April 12, 1961, Kennedy suddenly found himself under intense pressure. Johnson volunteered to conduct an urgent review to identify a “space program which promises dramatic results in which we could win.” He brought senior NASA officials to the White House, and on April 28 handed Kennedy a memorandum titled “Evaluation of Space Program”. The memo assured the president of the feasibility, “by 1966 or 1967,” of “a safe landing and return by a man to the moon,” if “a strong effort” is made. As the benefit of such feat, Johnson underlined:

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.

Kennedy went along and, on May 25, 1961, delivered before the Congress a special message on “urgent national needs”, asking for an additional \$7 billion to \$9 billion over the next five years for the space program. “With the advice of the Vice President, who is Chairman of the National Space Council,” President Kennedy declared, he had reached the following conclusion:

I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space.

As chairman of the National Aeronautics and Space Council, Johnson got free hands to enroll his own men into the Moon project. He had James E. Webb nominated as administrator of the NASA. He also found an efficient lobbyist for the program in the person of Senator Robert S. Kerr of Oklahoma, a close business accomplice of his. In his memoir Wheeling and Dealing: Confessions of a Capitol Hill Operator, Johnson’s personal aide Bobby Baker “recounts his efforts in collecting the half-million dollars in cash demanded by Kerr from the Savings and Loan industry in return for a favorable legislative adjustment” (Andrew Cockburn, “How the Bankers Bought Washington: Our Cheap Politicians,” CounterPunch).

Nearly a year and a half later, in September 1962, Kennedy visited a number of the space facilities around the country. He met with NASA chief engineer Wernher von Braun, who recalled later that, when looking at the Saturn V rocket under construction at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, Kennedy turned to him and said: “Do you think we have bitten off more than we can chew?”[9]Moonrise podcast, https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/moonrise/jfk...tapes/ Nevertheless, Kennedy gave the next day (September 12), his “We choose to go to the moon” speech at Rice University, Houston, Texas, near the site of what would become the Manned Spacecraft Center (renamed the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in 1973).

President John F. Kennedy is briefed on NASA’s plans in Cape Canaveral
President John F. Kennedy is briefed on NASA’s plans in Cape Canaveral

A month later came the Cuban Missile Crisis. It had a profound impact on Kennedy’s vision of the Cold War, and intensified his misgivings about the Moon race. On November 21, 1962, he met with nine senior NASA and administration officials in the White House, including James Webb and Jerome Wiesner (audio here, full transcript here, useful commentaries on this moonrise podcast). It transpires from this recorded conversation that Webb was less than confident that NASA could send men to the moon: “There are real unknowns as to whether man can live under the weightless condition and you’d ever even make the lunar landing.” Wiesner added: “We don’t know a damn thing about the surface of the moon and we’re making the wildest guesses about how we’re going to land on the moon.” Kennedy concluded:

Everything we do ought to really be tied in to getting onto the moon ahead of the Russians. … Otherwise we shouldn’t be spending this kind of money, because I’m not that interested in space. … We’re ready to spend reasonable amounts of money, but we’re talking about fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget and all these other domestic programs, and the only justification for it, in my opinion, to do it is because we hope to beat them.

As Lillian Cunningham comments on the moonrise podcast, “The tension between Kennedy and Webb kept bubbling up over the course of the following year. … Congress was starting to lose interest in spending all this money; the program schedule was falling behind; and Kennedy was now going into an election year with this albatross around his neck.” On top of that, former president Eisenhower was publicly criticizing the moon project. Kennedy continued to support it publicly, but with increasing misgivings.

On September 18, 1963, Kennedy summoned again James Webb in the Oval Office. In the recorded conversation, Kennedy complained: “I’m going into the campaign defending this program and we haven’t had anything for a year and a half.” He also anticipated that Congress would cut the budget. Kennedy asked Webb bluntly: “If I get reelected, we’re not going to go to the moon in my… in our, period, are we?” Webb answered: “No, no we’re not going. It’s just going to take longer than that. This is a tough job. A real tough job.”

ORDER IT NOW

A moment later Kennedy asked Webb, “Do you think the manned landing on the Moon’s a good idea?” He expressed his concerns that sending men to the moon would cost “a hell of a lot of money,” and suggested that enough scientific knowledge could be gained by simply sending probes. “Putting a man on the moon isn’t worth that many billions,” he said during that recorded conversation. Webb insisted that it was too late to change plans. But Kennedy drew his own conclusions.

Shall We Dance?

Two days after that conversation, September 20, 1963, Kennedy took Webb, the NASA and the world by surprise by proposing, in a speech at the United Nations’ General Assembly, that instead of racing the Soviet Union to the moon, the United States would gladly collaborate with the Soviet Union in space exploration:

in a field where the United States and the Soviet Union have a special capacity—in the field of space—there is room for new cooperation. … I include among these possibilities a joint expedition to the moon. … Why should man’s first flight to the moon be a matter of national competition? … Surely we should explore whether the scientists and astronauts of our two countries—indeed of all the world—cannot work together in the conquest of space, sending some day in this decade to the moon not the representatives of a single nation, but representatives of all our countries.

As Charles Fishman comments, “The president who had spent more than two years explaining why the race to the Moon had to be a matter of national skill and pre-eminence, a contest between democracy and totalitarianism, was now proposing exactly the opposite.” It was an understatement when the New York Times wrote on its front page the next day: “Washington Is Surprised by President’s Proposal.” Webb correctly interpreted Kennedy’s United Nations speech as reflecting a “feeling that this was just the beginning of a group around him [Kennedy] who wanted to withdraw support,” as he shared in an oral history interview in 1969.[10]Quoted in John Logsdon, John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon, Palgrave Macmillan, 2010, p. 213

In fact, Kennedy’s attitude was far from new, and only those who weren’t paying attention could be surprised. In his State of the Union address on January 30, 1961, Kennedy had declared:

This Administration intends to explore promptly all possible areas of cooperation with the Soviet Union and other nations “to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors.” Specifically, I now invite all nations—including the Soviet Union—to join with us in developing a weather prediction program, in a new communications satellite program and in preparation for probing the distant planets of Mars and Venus, probes which may someday unlock the deepest secrets of the universe. Today this country is ahead in the science and technology of space, while the Soviet Union is ahead in the capacity to lift large vehicles into orbit. Both nations would help themselves as well as other nations by removing these endeavors from the bitter and wasteful competition of the Cold War.”

Just ten days after his speech to Congress of May 25, 1961, during his only face-to-face meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna, Kennedy made the suggestion that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. should go to the moon together. Khrushchev initially responded favorably, but said “no” the next day, on the grounds that an agreement on disarmament must come first.[11]Logsdon, John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon, p. x.

However, one year later, on February 20, 1962, when John Glenn became the first American to orbit the Earth (three times), Khrushchev sent the White House a telegram of congratulations, suggesting:

if our countries pooled their efforts—scientific, technical and material—to master the universe, this would be very beneficial for the advance of science and would be joyfully acclaimed by all peoples who would like to see scientific achievements benefit man and not be used for “Cold War” purposes and the arms race.

Kennedy immediately informed Khrushchev that he was “instructing appropriate officers of this Government to prepare concrete proposals for immediate projects of common action in the exploration of space,” and less than a month later, he submitted a first proposal in the area of “an early operational weather satellite system.” In the following months and until Kennedy’s death, there were ongoing discussions between the NASA and the Soviet Academy of Sciences.[12]Logsdon, John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon, p. 168 and 160.

We see that on the public national scene, President Kennedy was talking about beating the Soviets to the moon, while behind the national scene and on the international scene, he was trying to shift from competition to cooperation. Khrushchev was in the same situation as Kennedy, having to maintain at home a cold-warrior’s attitude in order to stay in control of his own government.

But there was also one difference: Khrushchev was not interested in the moon. He knew better than to pull his country into such hazardous venture. And so he didn’t respond to Kennedy’s invitation for “a joint expedition to the moon” on September 20, 1963 at the UN, and later commented in the government newspaper Izvestia, tongue-in-cheek:

At the present time we do not plan flights of cosmonauts to the Moon. I have read a report that the Americans wish to land on the moon by 1970. Well, let’s wish them success. And we will see how they fly there, and how they will land there, or to be more correct, “moon” there. And most important—how they will get up and come back.[13]Izvestia, October 25, 1963 , quoted in John Logsdon, John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon, p. 187.

Far from being a setback for Kennedy, the Soviets’ official indifference for the moon may have been exactly what Kennedy needed to declare that, since the Russians weren’t even trying to go to the moon, there was no “moon race” after all. There is one very clear indication that, from then on, Kennedy was preparing to shift to other more reasonable and useful projects. On his fatal trip to Texas, he stopped in San Antonio to dedicate a center devoted to space medicine research. He said how pleased he was to see that the U.S. was catching up with the Soviets in space and would soon surpass them in some important areas. In the speech that he was on his way to deliver when he was killed, Kennedy had planned to say that because of his administration’s energetic space program, “There is no longer any doubt about the strength and skill of American science, American industry, American education, and the American free enterprise system.”[14]Charles Fishman, “If President Kennedy hadn’t been killed, would we have landed on the Moon on July 20, 1969? It seems unlikely,” www.fastcompany.com/90376962/if-president-kennedy-hadnt-been-killed-would-we-have-landed-on-the-moon-on-july-20-1969-it-seems-unlikely That would have sounded like saying: we don’t need to prove anything by going to the moon.

The Rocket Contest

ORDER IT NOW

In order to understand Kennedy’s dilemma, the pressure he was under, and his elaborate choreography with Khrushchev, it is essential to understand that the moon race was not about the moon. Kennedy said it himself in an October 31, 1963 press conference: “In my opinion the space program we have is essential to the security of the United States, because as I have said many times before it is not a question of going to the moon. It is a question of having the competence to master this environment.”[15]Logsdon, John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon, p. 198. That was a euphemistic way of saying that the race to the moon was a civilian cover for the research, development and deployment of satellite surveillance systems, as well as of intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. The fact that the NASA was employing German expatriate Wernher von Braun—Hitler’s foremost V-2 rockets engineer—to build their space rockets, made it almost transparent.

The NASA Act of 1958 made explicit provisions for close collaboration with the Department of Defense, and the Pentagon was involved in all decisions regarding the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. Erlend Kennan and Edmund Harvey documented this point as early as 1969 in Mission to the Moon: a critical examination of NASA and the space program, 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’.”[16]Quoted in Gerhard Wisnewski, One Small Step? The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth From Space, 2005, Clairview Books, p. 296. This cover was not aimed at deceiving the Soviets, but the Americans. The Soviet leaders knew what the rockets were for.

The Saturn V rocket supposedly carrying three men to the Moon
The Saturn V rocket supposedly carrying three men to the Moon

That is why Kennedy was under pressure to keep the U.S. reaching for the moon. Wiesner comes close to explaining Kennedy’s dilemma in a 1990 interview:

Kennedy was, and was not, for space. He said to me, “Why don’t you find something else we can do?” We couldn’t. Space was the only thing we could do that would show off our military power … These rockets were a surrogate for military power. He had no real options. We couldn’t quit the space race, and we couldn’t condemn ourselves to be second. We had to do something, but the decision was painful for him.

As early as 1967, Wiesner shared with John Logsdon that Kennedy had desperately searched for another great project “that would be more useful—say desalting the ocean—or something that is just as dramatic and convincing as space,” but “there were so many military overtones as well as other things to the space program that you couldn’t make another choice.”[17]Interviews of Wiesner quoted in John Logsdon, John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon, p. 83.

Wiesner shared Kennedy’s predicament. His MIT obituary describes him as “a key figure in the Kennedy administration in the establishment of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, in achieving the October 1963 Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and in the successful effort to restrict the deployment of antiballistic missile systems.”[18]Source : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Wiesner

In JFK and the Unspeakable, James Douglass has told with incomparable talent Kennedy’s determined effort to end the arms race and abolish nuclear weapons . In a historic speech at the United Nations’ General Assembly on September 25, 1961, Kennedy declared “his intention to challenge the Soviet Union, not to an arms race, but to a peace race—to advance together step by step, stage by stage, until general and complete disarmament has been achieved.” Khrushchev responded favorably to this speech. He also applauded Kennedy’s famous “Peace Speech” of June 10, 1963 at the American University of Washington, and had it translated and published in full in Pravda, as well as read on radio, calling it “the greatest speech by any American President since Roosevelt.”[19]Kennedy’s Peace Speech is quoted in James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Touchstone, 2008 , pp. 390-392.

By September 1963, Khrushchev and Kennedy had exchanged some 20 letters as part of a back-channel correspondence aimed at easing tensions and defeating the pressure of their respective military establishments. In his September 20, 1963 UN speech, Kennedy actually tied his proposal of a joint venture to the moon with the goal of ending the arm race: “The Soviet Union and the United States, together with their allies, can achieve further agreements—agreements which spring from our mutual interest in avoiding mutual destruction.”

Inviting Khrushchev into the moon project was pulling the rug out from under the Pentagon hawks’ feet, because it could only mean the end of the competition for ballistic rockets. It was a brilliant move: whether Khrushchev responded favorably or whether he proposed another area of cooperation instead—as he did—, that was the end of the moon race as a cover for the arms race. Considering Kennedy’s persistence from 1961 to 1963, and Khrushchev’s increasingly positive response, there is even a chance that, had Kennedy lived a second term, space research would have served as a template for disarmament.

That possibility was shattered when Johnson took over the White House. Jerome Wiesner was replaced with Donald Horning (he returned to MIT, of which he became president in 1971). A mere eight days after Kennedy’s assassination, Johnson asked Congress for more money for NASA’s moon race—which meant, incidentally, more money for his Texan business partners.[20]Fishman, “If President Kennedy hadn’t been killed, would we have landed on the Moon on July 20, 1969? It seems unlikely,” www.fastcompany.com/90376962/if-president-kennedy-hadnt-been-killed-would-we-have-landed-on-the-moon-on-july-20-1969-it-seems-unlikely Under Johnson, Texas became the economic heart of the NASA, which still contributes today more than \$4.7 billion to the state’s economy, and 90 percent of the Gulf Coast Region’s economy, according to official sources. We will never know how much kickback Johnson got in the process.

Johnson and Webb in the Oval Office July 1967
Johnson and Webb in the Oval Office July 1967

How NASA Mooned America

Americans went to the moon under Nixon, just five months after Johnson left the White House. Curiously, James Webb didn’t feel like staying on board until the achievement of this giant leap for mankind; he resigned when Johnson announced he wouldn’t run for reelection in 1968.

So Wiesner must have been wrong after all about the “radiation belts” that, according to him, precluded a manned trip to the moon. Or was he? On June 24, 2005, NASA made this remarkable statement:

NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there’s a potential showstopper: radiation. Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas. […] the most common way to deal with radiation is simply to physically block it, as the thick concrete around a nuclear reactor does. But making spaceships from concrete is not an option.

There are dozens of documents by NASA engineers explaining why travelling beyond lower earth orbit remains an obstacle for manned missions, for example this one:

Space radiation is quite different and more dangerous than radiation on Earth. Even though the International Space Station sits just within Earth’s protective magnetic field, astronauts receive over ten times the radiation than what’s naturally occurring on Earth. Outside the magnetic field there are galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), solar particle events (SPEs) and the Van Allen Belts, which contain trapped space radiation. / NASA is able to protect the crew from SPEs by advising them to shelter in an area with additional shielding materials. However, GCRs are much more challenging to protect against. These highly energetic particles come from all over the galaxy. They are so energetic they can tear right through metals, plastic, water and cellular material. And as the energetic particles break through, neutrons, protons, and other particles are generated in a cascade of reactions that occur throughout the shielding materials. This secondary radiation can sometimes cause a worse radiation environment for the crew.

NASA engineer Kelly Smith has explained in a short documentary on the ongoing Orion program (Orion Trial by Fire) that the Van Allen Belts pose such serious challenges that “We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space.”

How then did they do it in 1969? The crew suffered no injury. Hours after landing back on earth, Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin looked “rested, shaved and fresh faced, as though they had just returned from a day at the spa,” noted Dave McGowan in Wagging the Moondoggie.

Perhaps what looks like cardboard and tinfoil around the pressurized lunar module was in fact made of high-tech concrete. We will never know because, as Veteran NASA astronaut Donald Roy Pettit explained, “The problem is we don’t have the technology to do that anymore. We used to but we destroyed that technology and it’s a painful process to build it back again.” Listen to Pettit with your own ears, as well as to Kelly Smith and other NASA engineers, in this 10-minute film.

You heard it: the NASA can’t figure how they sent men to the moon. To make things worse, they lost the 700 cartons of magnetic video tapes of the original films. After years of requests under the Freedom of Information Acts, NASA spokesman Grey Hautaluoma explained: “We haven’t seen them for quite a while. We’ve been looking for over a year, and they haven’t turned up.”

Now, sending a robot to the moon is easy, so perhaps something could be learned about the lost Apollo technology if robots could be sent to inspect the materials left by the astronauts on the moon landing sites. But in 2011, when some private organizations were planning to do just that, NASA issued an unprecedented legislation forbidding any robot to approach any of the Apollo landing sites within a radius of 2 kilometers. NASA’s 93-page document justifies the decision by the need to (try not to laugh): “protect and preserve the historic and scientific value of U.S. Government Lunar Artifacts.”

Now, there are some skeptics who don’t buy NASA’s cheap excuses for not having sent any man to the moon for fifty years. Sending men to the moon, they claim, should be no more difficult for the NASA than sending Mary Poppins to the cartoon park. All you need is a movie studio and green screen technology. Italian photographer and filmmaker Massimo Mazzucco shows how to do it in his 2018 film American Moon.

This is, I believe, how Johnson mooned America, and in the process turned the U.S. into his own image: the master of deception.

Notes

[1] Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family, HarperLuxe, 2018, pp. 226-229.

[2] Joan Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, Potomac Books, 2007.

[3] Charles Kaman, “Politics had reared its ugly head in a very certain way,” on stonezone.com/article.php?id=633

[4] Michael Marks, “Why Apollo 11 Wouldn’t Have Happened Without Lyndon Johnson” July 19, 2019, www.texasstandard.org/stories/why-apollo-11-wouldnt-have-happened-without-lyndon-johnson/. A shorter article by John Logsdon can be downloaded here.

[5] Charles Fishman, “If President Kennedy hadn’t been killed, would we have landed on the Moon on July 20, 1969? It seems unlikely,” www.fastcompany.com/90376962/if-president-kennedy-hadnt-been-killed-would-we-have-landed-on-the-moon-on-july-20-1969-it-seems-unlikely

[6] David Baker, The Apollo Missions: The Incredible Story of the Race to the Moon, Arcturus, 2018, p. 55.

[7] Jeff Shesol, “Lyndon Johnson’s Unsung Role in Sending Americans to the Moon”, July 20, 2019, https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/lyndon-johnsons-unsung-role-in-sending-americans-to-the-moon

[8] Wiesner Committee, “Report to the President-Elect of the Ad Hoc Committee on Space,” January 10, 1961, www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/report61.html

[9] Moonrise podcast, https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/moonrise/jfk-and-the-secret-tapes/

[10] Quoted in John Logsdon, John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon, Palgrave Macmillan, 2010, p. 213

[11] Logsdon, John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon, p. x.

[12] Logsdon, John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon, p. 168 and 160.

[13] Izvestia, October 25, 1963 , quoted in John Logsdon, John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon, p. 187.

[14] Charles Fishman, “If President Kennedy hadn’t been killed, would we have landed on the Moon on July 20, 1969? It seems unlikely,” www.fastcompany.com/90376962/if-president-kennedy-hadnt-been-killed-would-we-have-landed-on-the-moon-on-july-20-1969-it-seems-unlikely

[15] Logsdon, John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon, p. 198.

[16] Quoted in Gerhard Wisnewski, One Small Step? The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth From Space, 2005, Clairview Books, p. 296.

[17] Interviews of Wiesner quoted in John Logsdon, John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon, p. 83.

[18] Source : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Wiesner

[19] Kennedy’s Peace Speech is quoted in James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Touchstone, 2008 , pp. 390-392.

[20] Fishman, “If President Kennedy hadn’t been killed, would we have landed on the Moon on July 20, 1969? It seems unlikely,” www.fastcompany.com/90376962/if-president-kennedy-hadnt-been-killed-would-we-have-landed-on-the-moon-on-july-20-1969-it-seems-unlikely

 
Hide 1126 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. In my opinion there is more evidence of the Americans faking landing on the moon than there is that they went to the moon

    However there is one key piece of evidence in favor of the real moon landing and that is that the Soviets confirmed the Americans did land on the moon. Why would they do that?

  2. bj0311 says:
    @anyone with a brain

    I am also convinced that this whole coronaflu thing is a hoax, yet Putin, who is so abused and vilified by the west goes along with the whole show. Why would he do that?

  3. @anyone with a brain

    The Soviets confirmed the trajectories of the rockets : their observation devices were by no means close enough to confirm that these rockets were manned rather than remote-controlled. Soviet science periodicals of smaller readership still asked the question until the demise of USSR, and all lesser Warsaw pact political leaders such as Honecker went on denying that the American moon landing actually took place. India and China were also among the deniers. Moreover USSR has just bought at discount prices incredible stocks of American grain so as to offset the most catastrophic harvest period of their whole history (probably due to superior American climate control technology), and it must be kept in mind that international propaganda operations were negotiated to be deployed or not together with nuclear armament in the various negotiation rounds that occurred.

  4. @anyone with a brain

    If it had been one and done with Neil Armstrong’s team, it would be easier to surmise that the moon landing could have been a hoax, with the great Stanley Kubrick directing. What hurts the hoax theory is that the US (allegedly) went to the moon 6 times from 69-72, with a total of 12 astronauts landing. However, it probably wouldn’t have been too hard to swear them all to secrecy in the name of “National Security.” Compartmentalization, as in the Manhattan Project, was doubtless used on the staff to protect access to Top Secret information. Every aspect was on a need-to-know basis. Just do your job and don’t ask questions if you know what’s good for you.

    As Hitler wrote in “Mein Kampf,” “in the primitive simplicity of their minds they (the people) more readily fall victims to the BIG LIE than the small lie.” We see this phenomenon daily, from Oswald being the lone gunman who killed JFK, to government fabrications to start wars, to the official 9/11 story, and now, to the Covid Con. Why would the Moon Landing be any different?

    • Agree: RedpilledAF, Alfred
    • Troll: Fr. John
  5. @anyone with a brain

    the Soviets confirmed the Americans did land on the moon. Why?

    Nixon bribed the Soviets with badly needed wheat.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1972/09/29/archives/soviet-grain-deal-is-called-a-coup-capitalistic-skill-surprised.html

    Key quote: “the Russians bought up about 25 per cent of the total American wheat crop for the year at bargain prices.”

    The best book on this topic (imho) is:

    The best website on this topic (imho):

    https://www.aulis.com/investigation.htm

    • Replies: @Grahamsno(G64)
  6. Rich says:

    The order that everyone believes meant that JFK was going to withdraw from Vietnam (NSA Memo 263) actually plainly states that he was only going to withdraw 1,000 troops, there were 16,000 troops in country at the time and McNamara was calling for 200,000. Most likely, JFK was angling to pretend he’d made some kind of withdrawal before the Nov 1964 election. JFK might have fought the war in a better fashion than LBJ, but they both loved McNamara so maybe not. I suspect Goldwater would’ve won the war and S Vietnam would have ended up as prosperous as S Korea in comparison with the North.

  7. Before 1969 L.B.J. was probably the worst, most cynical President the U.S ever had. The man seemed to have no principles but those that benefitted L.B.J. What this nation did to a tiny nation of poor people, who mainly subsisted on rice was abominable.

  8. Wokechoke says:

    Moon belongs to Whitey.

  9. @follyofwar

    What do the Apollo moan hoaxes and 911 hoaxes have in common?

    Hint: It makes it much easier to compartmentalize the magic tricks.

    Hint: Everybody just does their job.

    The magic word:

    Simulation.

    Practice, practice, practice, practice.

    If the simulation is good enough it looks like the real thing,

    • Agree: Daniel Rich
  10. Modern art depicting moon landing on one side and hollywood stage set on other side.

    Retro Moon Landing Mousepad | Zazzle.com in 2021 | Canvas prints, Retro, Stretch canvas

    See
    LINK

    https://www.pinterest.com/pin/828521662698254619/

  11. From ancient antiquity the birth of empires have been socially and symbolically constructed.

    The birth of the Roman Empire was politically signaled by a comet streaking through the sky after the death of Julius Caesar and the ascendence of Augustus to the throne. This also is how the demise of empires and cities are symbolized. Below is a LINK to art depicting the demise of the Roman Empire by yet another comet.

    Image for article titled Scientists Locate Impact Crater From Asteroid That Destroyed Roman Empire

    LINK https://www.theonion.com/scientists-locate-impact-crater-from-asteroid-that-dest-1844545503

    What depicted the birth of the American Empire? Laurent Guyenot might nominate the fake movie depictions done by American movie producers Billy Wilder and Alfred Hitchcock of the alleged Nazi death camps at the end of WWII. According to Guyenot and many others, the Hollywood-produced Nazi death camps and gas chambers were used to cover up American and Allied war crimes such as the bombing of railroads, firebombing of civilians in cities, fire bombing farms to wipe out food supplies, contamination of water supplies, all resulting in typhus and other diseases that ravaged both German civilians and concentration camp internees alike.

    This holocaust movie cover up for American war crimes was compounded when Americans first penetrated into the concentration camps and found hundreds of bodies stacked in piles and assumed the Nazi guards, not American-inflicted disease and starvation, had slaughtered the dead internees. Reportedly, they mistakenly lined the guards up against a wall and shot them all before inquiring about the causes of the dead bodies, most of which were Catholics. This mistake without any due process or investigation had to be covered up. So the myth of the gas chambers and death camps was hatched. In so doing, the holocaust ironically became the symbol of the birth of the American Empire of supposedly morally superior rulers.

    It is ironic that 75 years later America is facing internal threats from Communism and external threats from Oligarchic bankers, which were the same threats that Adolph Hitler was trying to fight in World War II. The German philosopher Hegel called this the “cunning of reason”. This means that the purpose of history fulfills its ulterior rational design in an indirect and sly manner. Theologians such as E. Michael Jones see in this the workings of God and that nations will reap what they sow.

    We can see the “cunning of reason” unfolding in the gradual exposure of the coronavirus epidemic as a socially constructed panic and desperate attempt at depopulation in the face of the imminent collapse of the Federal welfare system. The phoniness of the coronavirus is bringing the American public into questioning the credulity of other spectacles such as 9/11, JFK assassination, Watergate, RFK assassination, Pearl Harbor, and many other so-called epidemics such as AIDS.

  12. @Francis Miville

    The moon landing allegedly happened in 1969 and the wheat sales came later in 1972 so there is no direct connection there. But it is true that both the USSR and China were seeking in the late 1960s to tone down the demands of the Cold War to better salvage their economies. Nixon could have easily persuaded them that he first needed a prestigious success story of a moon-landing before he could start an era of detente. They very well may have agreed to look the other way while a fake moon-landing story was sold to the rubes, with the understanding that detente would follow.

    • Replies: @lloyd
    , @siberiancat
  13. That was a euphemistic way of saying that the race to the moon was a civilian cover for the research, development and deployment of satellite surveillance systems, as well as of intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

    You neglect to mention the key to understanding NASA and the current world situation. LBJ promised explicitly, repeatedly, that a space program would be focused on the weaponization of Earth’s weather. Space was seen as a platform from which to steer the climate toward geopolitical goals. Less than two decades after that giant leap for mankind, a NASA scientist introduced the concept of anthropogenic global warming to the U.S. Congress. Today, relying on data provided almost exclusively by NASA, scientific “consensus” insists that AGW causes extreme weather. Yet extreme weather is exactly what LBJ wanted NASA to manufacture.

  14. @follyofwar

    I followed both the Soviet & US space programs from the launch of the Sputnik back on October 4th 1957 up until the Challenger disaster in 1986. There was always talk that the first space walks in 1965 by both countries were in fact faked.

    However what really hurts the hoax theory is the one post moon landing mission that never made there and that was Apollo XIII back on April 11-17 , 1970. As you may remember, a malfunction in one of the oxygen tanks forced the crew to abort the mission. Besides that, who could ever forget the words “Houston, we have a problem.” If the moon landings were in fact fake, NASA & the US Government went to great extremes with this particular mission to make the whole Apollo project look real. As I recall, the media coverage of this went overboard, to say the least. Finally, look at the Apollo XVII mission with the first physical scientist to walk on the lunar surface, Harrison Schmitt, Ph.D in geology from Harvard. It’s highly unlikely that he would have gone in for a hoax. Besides that, Dr. Schmitt has been very critical of the environmental movement and climate change.

  15. @Rich

    I suspect Goldwater would’ve won the war and S Vietnam would have ended up as prosperous as S Korea in comparison with the North.

    The Vietnam War was already lost by 1964, unless Goldwater decided to back the legitimate government of Vietnam in Hanoi:

    • Thanks: Sarah, Maowasayali
    • Replies: @Rich
    , @Sam J.
  16. lloyd says: • Website
    @Rich

    The Korean war could not have been fought in the television age. In Korea, there are few relics of the pre 1948 age. Really the opposite in Vietnam. When I was in Vietnam, most of the environment showed no signs of the war at all.

  17. lloyd says: • Website
    @Patrick McNally

    Wouldn’t there be comments or hints on Nixon’s White House tapes? I don’t think Nixon knew. He was genuinely childishly enthused. I suspect Johnson knew. NASA’s base is in Texas as is the grass knoll.

  18. Bite Moi says:
    @anyone with a brain

    anyone with a brain—————-Spending the money to fake a landing on the moon was still better than spending it on negro uplift.

    • LOL: Maowasayali
  19. Rich says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    After Operation Linebacker, the N Vietnamese came crawling to the negotiating table, begging for peace. You are completely wrong. If there had been no coup to remove Nixon, the US would have provided the necessary and promised air support and military supplies and the South would never have had to suffer under the murderous communists after 1975.

  20. Franz says:

    The “official explanation” for the deadly Van Allen radiation belts was tasked to Arthur C. Clarke by NASA during the first moon landing week of July 21, 1969. He was a paid spokesman.

    According to Clarke the Van Allen radiation belts are real but above a certain altitude, sparse.

    If you stayed in the region of high radiation long enough, you’d fry (not to mention your equipment) but for the most part it would not be hazardous to pass through; it would take awhile to accumulate to dangerous levels.

    Now true, Sir Arthur was being paid by NASA. But it was clear to me he believed it himself. The radiation was discussed a lot during the Apollo years and that was the usual explanation.

    There was even an equation, something like Rads X PSI VS Duration etc etc…

    What I mean is they had a story. True or false, ? But they had one.

  21. @Johnny Paytoilet

    Discussion of Apollo 13 fakery:

    https://www.aulis.com/accident13.htm

    Apollo 17 fakery:

    https://www.aulis.com/accident13.htm

    https://www.aulis.com/rover_fenders.htm

    https://www.aulis.com/apollo_sky.htm

    https://www.aulis.com/apollo17_ascent.htm

    The pressure on the astronauts to conform and obey consisted of very strong carrots and sticks.

    Dead astronauts had a way of convincing living ones to follow the party line:

    I would encourage you to look through the Aulis web site starting here:

    https://www.aulis.com/investigation.htm

    These folks have done the heavy lifting–the “missions” were simulations–and the astronauts followed orders which included silence/secrecy/disinformation/lies.

    • Replies: @Johnny Paytoilet
  22. anonymous[402] • Disclaimer says:

    Here’s rare ‘original moon landing video’ with four-letter foul-language astronaut and Mission Control banter un-edited, 3 min., a hilarious gem

  23. @Francis Miville

    Oh. So they can control the climate. But they can’t go to the moon.

    I would think the former harder than the latter.

  24. @Franz

    No one, from any nation, has claimed to have travelled into, through and beyond the Van Allen Belts, into outer space, since that final Apollo mission, fifty years ago.

    Every subsequent space mission has taken place in low earth orbit, almost all occurring nowhere near the belts and their radiation.

    At some point, it becomes completely bloody obvious that the belts are unapproachable, let alone impassable, with current technology.

    One must then draw the necessary conclusions.

    • Agree: Justvisiting, Franz
  25. @Rich

    Military historians agree that the US-Vietnamese War was unwinnable. Unwinnable. No matter what was done.

    You know nothing. Probably an ignorant veteran or something, or some political troll trotting out lying talking points everybody knows are false so old they got whiskers.

    • Disagree: Rich
    • LOL: simple mind
    • Replies: @simple mind
  26. @Rich

    Medina and Calley agree—kill an unarmed under school age Gook for Jesus is the Christian way indeed !

    • Troll: Ace
  27. @Johnny Paytoilet

    Harrison Schmitt, Ph.D in geology from Harvard. It’s highly unlikely that he would have gone in for a hoax.

    I would have to know him intimately to make such a judgment.
    Here is Harrison Schmitt posing on the moon by the American flag, with Earth in the background, during Apollo 17’s first EVA (source: Wikipedia)

    And here is the blue marble taken by the same crew:

    Boy, if I ever go to the moon, I’ll take one of those Hasselblad!

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    , @Daniel Rich
  28. Disclaimer: I did not mean to suggest that Green Screen Projection was used in the Apollo footage. I just thought the comparison with Mary Poppins was both funny and interesting, since the Walt Disney film was made in 1964, with revolutionary technology. But of course, Front Screen Projection, famously perfected by Stanley Kubrick, is the technology that is most easily recognizable in the Apollo footages (whether Kubrick was involved or not is another matter, entirely incidental):

    • Agree: Daniel Rich
    • Thanks: Sarah
    • Replies: @Chet W
  29. @Laurent Guyénot

    There is so much hilarious fakery with the “moon missions” once you start paying attention.

    One of my favorites is the same oil leak from the left rear wheel of the rover in Apollo 15, 16 and 17.

    Yeah–they never would have never noticed that issue the first time and corrected it for later missions. 🙂

    The pictures are at the bottom of the page here:

    https://www.aulis.com/rover_fenders.htm

    The magic trick: They used the same rover over and over in the studio–no need to waste time fixing the oil leak!

    • Agree: Yukon Jack
    • Replies: @chris
    , @Yukon Jack
  30. @Justvisiting

    Thanks for the links. Over the past 20 years I’ve actually become a skeptic about a lot of things and not only the moon landings. I have basic knowledge of electronics and physics and I’m also an amateur radio operator. I just finished the Apollo VIII link and it is very convincing. Overall, I’m still undecided on the authenticity of both countries’ space programs. I never liked the close relationship NASA had with the DoD and even possible links with various intelligence organizations.

  31. @Stebbing Heuer

    How would they know if the dust on the moon was 2″ or 5′ deep?

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
    , @Franz
  32. @Johnny Paytoilet

    One reason I focus a lot on the Apollo missions is that they are a blatant “glitch in the matrix”.

    One of the folks who got me up to speed on this stuff was not a scientist, not an engineer but rather a magician.

    He explained that the Deep State follows the basic concepts of stage magic–if you can master those everything starts to make sense.

    • Agree: Maowasayali
    • Replies: @Chris Moore
    , @RestiveUs
  33. Chris Moore says: • Website
    @Wayne Lusvardi

    It is ironic that 75 years later America is facing internal threats from Communism and external threats from Oligarchic bankers, which were the same threats that Adolph Hitler was trying to fight in World War II. The German philosopher Hegel called this the “cunning of reason”. This means that the purpose of history fulfills its ulterior rational design in an indirect and sly manner. Theologians such as E. Michael Jones see in this the workings of God and that nations will reap what they sow.

    Anthony Sullivan says Marxist ((Jews)) like Trotsky and his brethren were working with Western money powers to destroy Germany.
    https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf

    According to this line of thinking, Zionists/((Jews)) have long been an Anglosphere bankster and propagandist fifth column working to destroy and enslave competitors with Marxism/Communism, and subordinate them to the Fed (and eventually Global fiat currency) Ponzi scheme. I believe this to be true.

    We can see the “cunning of reason” unfolding in the gradual exposure of the coronavirus epidemic as a socially constructed panic and desperate attempt at depopulation in the face of the imminent collapse of the Federal welfare system. The phoniness of the coronavirus is bringing the American public into questioning the credulity of other spectacles such as 9/11, JFK assassination, Watergate, RFK assassination, Pearl Harbor, and many other so-called epidemics such as AIDS.

    “Cunning of reason” or “hand of God,” the Internet has brought Anglosphere and ((Jewish)) official narratives into widespread disrepute.

    Is God giving them enough rope to hang themselves? Is their own greed, ruthlessness and control freak, totalitarian pathology? Or is technology rendering them obsolete? We may never know. What’s certain is that flawed human nature is at work, and a great way to get an understanding of its inevitability is to read passages from the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, and then read “anti-Semitic” alternative history on the Internet.

    For those too lazy or preoccupied to piece it all together, a shortcut equation is ((Jews))+Accomplices=Satan.

    • Replies: @Chet W
  34. Chris Moore says: • Website
    @Justvisiting

    He explained that the Deep State follows the basic concepts of stage magic–if you can master those everything starts to make sense.

    Stagecraft and method acting explains a lot of things, including the Anglo-Judeophile “religion.”

    • Replies: @Maowasayali
  35. @Patrick McNally

    Nixon could have easily persuaded them that he first needed a prestigious success story of a moon-landing before he could start an era of detente.

    But what prevented the Russians from blowing the cover later? There were more than a couple of occasions when it would have been useful. For example, right now.

  36. @Rich

    Ah, Linebacker 😀

    It worked, after all, on the Natzees and the treacherous Jap, so it has become a compulsion.
    They tried it five times on the North Vietnamese, about the same on the Norks,
    and three times on the Taliban (in which case the utter idiocy of inviting
    the opposition to negotiations then ratcheting up the bombing to achieve a
    “position of strength” was especially obvious; how do you expect guys who spent
    three generations in war and put honor above all else to react?).

    Notice a pattern already? Far from signalling “strength”, it is blood in the water.

    • Disagree: Rich, Ace
    • Replies: @animalogic
  37. @Johnny Paytoilet

    I heard Schmitt once in the Academy of Sciences but was disappointed –
    helium-3 and vote Republican, basically.
    Gene Shoemaker (NASA chief geologist and the only man buried on the moon)
    used to say he could have done it five years earlier at less than a tenth the cost
    but they insisted on turning it into a dick measuring contest (flag raising etc.).

    This is the first time I hear JFK was trying to backpedal 😀

  38. @siberiancat

    You are correct that the Russians could open the books on the crooked poker game any time they wanted to…

    But–in the days since the “Russia, Russia, Russia” screaming (2017+) the mass media would all whine about “Russian propaganda conspiracy theory” to minimize the impact, and most of the US sheeple would fall for it, so the impact would be a lot less than in the Nixon/Ford years.

    Data on Big Pharma bribes to US politicians would probably be more powerful information these days than exposing a decades old scam that has already been exposed to most folks around the world who seriously pay attention and/or care about these things.

  39. Mulegino1 says:

    …in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

    They even lie about the “Big Lie” as if Hitler had praised its use as a stratagem to fool the masses instead of condemning it!

    It is actually the default position of the current (((corporate oligarchy))) which has held sway over the United States for well over a century, e.g., the USS Maine, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the “Holocaust”,JFK assassination, Tonkin Gulf, 9/11, WMD’s, Kuwaiti incubator babies, inter alia.

    With such a record, why should anyone accept the least credible tale of all, i.e., landing men on the moon and safely bringing them back to earth without hard corroboration?

    • Agree: Katrinka, Iris, Adam Smith
  40. @siberiancat

    While I’m not really decided in any hard way about the moon-landing story, but if I was going to hypothesize about it then I would assume that once a cover-up is made it may not be worthwhile trying to pull the curtain. I see no reason to think that Brezhnev or Mao would have been given any special insider-information about whatever exactly may have been done to stage a moon-landing. More plausible is that they would have been told in general terms to not raise heckles while Nixon achieves a prestigious success story. If they didn’t raise qualms about it at the time, they might look silly arguing about it later if they didn’t have any precise insider-information to demonstrate a case.

  41. To confuse moon landing theories even more, a former NASA guy confirmed that some of the moon photos and film were from training on Earth. The video and film transmitted from the moon was very low quality, so NASA went Hollywood and added clips and photos from Earth. A very plausible explanation.

    • Thanks: Sarah
  42. @Carlton Meyer

    In addition, NASA has been “cleaning up” the record and “misplacing” original documents over the years.

    Fortunately for us “conspiracy theorists”, NASA is always “fighting the last war”, trying to cover their tracks once individual pieces of evidence are exposed.

    The new hires are just not as smart as the old ones were, and they keep bungling the job!

    It is hard work lying to cover up lies which covered up previous lies.

  43. SafeNow says:

    highly unlikely that he would have gone in for a hoax.

    He would have, if he heard those sobering magic words, “or worse.” The crew of USS Liberty were told that any disobedience regarding the “forever silent” order would result in loss of pension, “or worse.” I remember Proust wrote some passage to the effect that men are cavalier about following this or that rule, yeah yeah that’s the rule, “but pain, you obey.” I think a corollary is that when you hear the deep state say “or worse,” you obey.

  44. Mike Tre says:

    tl;dr: The moon landings were faked and the proof is in the sweatshirt Danny Torrence wore during The Shining.

  45. I recommend this factual documentary on this very topic:

  46. @Gidoutahere

    I don’t doubt that they have sent unmanned probes to the moon. Those probes might have taken useful measurements, including of the depth of the dust on the moon.

    But honestly I don’t know. I can’t know.

  47. Franz says:
    @Gidoutahere

    How would they know if the dust on the moon was 2″ or 5′ deep?

    That they would have known by about 1966.

    Both Russia and the USA had shot probes to the moon, including cameras, seismographs and other packages of instruments.

    As the news people said, they knew where they were going and close to everything they would find.

    They knew so much it’s basically the chief argument they faked it: After all the simulations and models and testing, actually going there was redundant by 1969.

  48. Franz says:
    @Stebbing Heuer

    One must then draw the necessary conclusions.

    But Clarke had some serious remodeling to do on his Sri Lanka mansion. No point in begrudging him the paycheck. And there’s no way he wouldn’t have known then what the world knows now.

    Makes you wonder about some of these brilliant writers and the governments who hire them.

  49. El Dato says:

    Bah.

    Anyone who still doesn’t understand “cosmic radiation” and “Van Allen Belts” and how they are not a problem to short trips and fast trips respectively, and this about 50 years after their discovery is unsure about Galilean reference frames too.

    But tit doesn’t matter. America is over and you will find Apollo 11 Eagle’s lower part in a Chinese museum in Beijing at some point.

    For those still looking for good reads and good presents:

    Both of the above also illustrate how these enormous social systems meant to actually built machines to put Men on the Moon actually work.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  50. Dumbo says:

    Yeah, the Moon landing was probably fake, and a bad fake at that.
    They learned to do better with 9/11 etc as technology improved.

    • Agree: Old and Grumpy
  51. It is truly amazing and amusing, on what flimsy basis some commentators conclude that six moon landings, involving a dozen astronauts walking on the lunar surface, purportedly never occurred.

    For instance, astronauts didn’t film stars amid bright sunlight, Stanley Kubrick filmed a simulation in a studio, protracted Van Allen Belt radiation is harmful to electronic equipment and humans; and this is supposed to already be “proof“?

    I’m wondering if these skeptics also deny that Apollo 8 circled the moon in 1968, or that the Apollo 10 mission also circled the moon and tested the lunar landing vehicle. Are they also denying that there is an International Space Station orbiting the earth?

    The lunar missions were surely very risky, and if Apollo 11, the first landing mission, had failed, a speech to mourn the loss of life had already been prepared for Nixon to read on television.

    Once one accepts that there have been multiple automated lunar landings of equipment from other countries, it is only an additional technical step for such landings and subsequent return maneuver to have been performed by trained astronauts with extensive prior flight pilot experience.

    In light of all the careful program preparation involving thousands of engineers, it seems that it would have been far more difficult to successfully fake six moon landings than to simply pull them off.

    The following link contains photo evidence of moon landings, including footprints, as seen from other spacecraft from above. Note the shadows on the lunar surface.

    Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

    Mission planners back then surely did not anticipate that half a century later some would try to claim that these endeavors were all faked.

    These poorly supported hoax claims – essentially based on innuendo – are like a seductive honey pot intended to weed out all those who lack a solid scientific education and sound reasoning skills.

  52. @nokangaroos

    Strategic bombing Nth Viet’ ?
    2 problems — lack of targets in a basically agrarian economy & Nth Viet’ adaption to that bombing.
    Of course, the US could have won the war — it just needed a full invasion of the Nth…. unfortunately that would have come with some real consequences…..

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    , @Fart Blossom
  53. The fake Apollo 11 Moon Landing and Nazi NASA, Wernher von Braun, the murder of JFK …
    https://www.whataboutthewhen.com/moon_landing_20_july_1969.html

    MG

  54. Jon Chance says: • Website

    I think NASA probably never succeeded at landing men on the Moon.

    And I’m eternally indebted to Peter Hyam’s excellent Capricorn One (1978) for provoking me to question everything about all the Big Lies we’re told to believe by the media monopoly, academic establishments, puppet governments, and the public diseducation system.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z9yNHIolnM&list=PLDVQ932i7NF3fGOBSZeQ6ogKroag9PQy8&index=110

  55. Jay Fink says:

    The worst thing LBJ did while President was not a hoax unfortunately…his Great Society programs. His war on poverty impacts us to this day and is the #1 reason out of wedlock children has become the norm in the lower and lower middle classes.

  56. @obwandiyag

    Controlling the climate (up to a certain point) is mostly a matter of spreading various chemicals from planes : it is a very gross though costly operation that is affordable when you possess the commercial fleets and the oil industry. It is 1920-30-level technology. Having satellites just gives you a better picture to manage the whole. Haarp can be put to use for fine-tuning. But sending any living being beyond low orbit is beyond our present-day knowledge of physics.

  57. Dumbo says:
    @Been_there_done_that

    The idea that the moon landing is a hoax is not more fantastic than the idea that 9/11 was in many ways a hoax. If you believe that it was all caused by 19 Arabs with box-cutters, then you’ll easily believe that the moon landing was real. Conversely, if you don’t buy that, then you will be a bit more skeptical. I am not sure. We’ve been lied to so many times, that I have no problem accepting that the moon landing was just a spectacle for the masses in the context of the Cold War.

    • Replies: @Mike Tre
  58. Anon[178] • Disclaimer says:

    My Father lead a rather large team (500 engineers ) building a important part of the Apollo starting in 1961/62. Dad always said JFK wanted the UN flag planted on the Moon to represent that the Moon Landing was a international effort. Hmmm…..

    • Disagree: Badger Down
  59. @Rich

    The US could have kept Saigon quite easily under a good Nixon leadership like they could have kept Phnom Penh very easily. The only thing that was stupid to wage was countering jungle guerilla. But they could have kept around both cities a radius of land of about 200 miles that was not jungle but open-field. Since Vietnam was in the Soviet zone it would have turned back to capitalism and to American Evangelism at the first hint of Soviet power receding due to corruption right when they had to leave Afghanistan. Nixon was the victim of a nastier Cabal than the one that killed JFK and MLK.

  60. ZR/Apollo says:

    Within 18 months [of his moon speech to Congress, May 1961] he was desperately seeking ways to overturn that allegiance.

    In a disappeared police interview, Zapruder said the guy he saw on the knoll looked like Neil Armstrong.

    • LOL: Mustapha Mond
  61. @Carlton Meyer

    To confuse moon landing theories even more, a former NASA guy confirmed that some of the moon photos and film were from training on Earth.

    Well, this world surely be almost an archetypal “limited hangout”.

    Some of the moon landing visuals were made on Earth.”

    Well, okay, actually all of them…

  62. Chet W says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    Can you imagine how much easier it would have been to shoot scenes of The Patty Duke Show had they used that technique? No more requisite Cathy’s back awkwardly faced to the camera when talking to Patty. No vertical wall detail required either. They could move away from that damned staircase for that look alike scene. A dollar short and a day late. Tsk.

  63. El Dato says:
    @Been_there_done_that

    A lot of people perceive reality only through TV and entertainment. They don’t know much at all, in particular they don’t know much about technology, its limits or possibilities. Maybe they have heard something in Star Trek about “lightspeed limit”, and will then go on to tell you it will one day be surpassed, same as the sound barrier.

    Also, there seems to be a tendency of the mind to be easily recruited to a conspiracy theory just by presenting a vaporous collections of facts tenuously strung together by innuendo and apparent “hidden knowledge” as long as basic or actual knowledge is absent. Hence you get bartenders and even people with engineering degrees droning on about how it is apparently not possible to pass the van Allen belts. Useful for survival if one wants to quickly learn about new predators in Olduvai gorge, but not so much if one wants to learn about moon landings in 2021.

  64. Don Unf says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    That someone named ‘Buzz Mohawk’ confirms is good enough for me. Unless someone with a cooler vaguely space-mission-sounding name can counter, this thread should be closed.

    • Replies: @Mike Tre
  65. @Been_there_done_that

    Ah, the gold frame around the comment. It’s as if somebody were holding forth, saying whatever nonsense, and suddenly the heavens open up and a heavenly choir can be heard… How can one argue with that?! LOL.

    Once one accepts that there have been multiple automated lunar landings of equipment from other countries,…

    Well, actually, I’m far from certain that I accept that… But even so, it doesn’t seem like a very good argument. If I do accept, for the sake of argument, that various other countries have sent equipment to the moon, but never a living person, is that not totally consistent with one of the principal arguments of the skeptics? A human cannot survive the passage through the Van Allen belts. Ergo, they only ever sent machinery or equipment, never people.

    it is only an additional technical step for such landings and subsequent return maneuver to have been performed by trained astronauts with extensive prior flight pilot experience.

    Well, I can dive down to the bottom of a swimming pool, have done it many times, so it’s only an “additional technical step” to dive down to the bottom of the ocean. And obviously it is possible since they’ve sent equipment to the bottom of the ocean…

    Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

    Well, okay, that settled then. If Wikipedia says so..

    • Agree: Sepp
    • Replies: @Mike Tre
  66. @Been_there_done_that

    The Chinese mapped the entire moon and put it online with 3 meter resolution.

  67. @animalogic

    I guess the lesson is that gratuitous wars (the “send a gunboat” number)
    can no longer be “won”, with Bandung the turning point;
    which is not altogether a bad thing 😉

  68. Chet W says:
    @Chris Moore

    Until relatively recently, the last 20 years or so, despite having doubts about the authenticity of the moon landing (the waving flag caught my attention), the 911 thing especially, and subequently, the “outing” that has occurred in that bunch in the Capitol Bldg – leaves me in much more doubt about these things. Totally crazed money-soaked politicians, obviously now comfortable with openly promoting completely 100% nutsy cuckoo programs, strangely silent once there is evidence people are “waking” up….(and, ironically, referring to the “believers” as “woke”) well, this coronahoax (immediately this was something obviously fabricated in my educated mind) is no surprise. I’ve been well aware of the superiority pharmaceutical companies (and the insurance companies (banks) that feed them) have acquired over the past 20 years. In my community, over the past 20- 30 years, hospital administrators live in way bigger houses than the brain surgeons or orthopedic surgeons live in. But, also, administrators demanding corona diagnoses for anything; and pharmacists now refusing to honor doctors’ prescriptions (formerly a doctors order – a pharmacist was required BY LAW to honor), and the cancellation of time honored patent deadlines (which would allow generic replacements) for drugs costing \$3000 a dose? Oh yeah. Dirty games. And lying through their teeth. They filled those medical schools with affirmative action matriculents knowing full well, they’ll not contest!

    Just to illustrate, I remember when there were 4 gas stations on a busy corner. Nowadays there are 2 or 3 pharmacies on those same corners. And an aging population. What could be more obvious?

    • Agree: Fart Blossom
    • Replies: @anonymous
  69. gotmituns says:

    The traitor, lbj should’ve been killed for his ordering our already scrambled, airborne planes back to the carrier to allow the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty to continue.

    • Agree: Bro43rd
    • Replies: @Anonymous
  70. jsigur says:
    @anyone with a brain

    for the same reason Russia doesn’t challenge the 911 hoax or the holocaust, The cold war was always a master deception and enabled both countries to move into other areas of the world to harness resources for communists or capitalists. It was an excuse for the top of the pyramid to further exploit problematic 3rd world countries and gave them the excuse to abuse Viet Namn, etc./

    The elites know that most folks are not capable of seeing through propaganda and are easily distracted from the big picture
    Germany never wanted to fight England. The 2nd World War removed England from its world throne. That war created a world where Russia replaced Germany as the great challenge to capitalism.
    Let’s see, from 1930 through to the beginning of the war, Russia killed 30 million of its own citizens in order to continue in power. The German Reich was voted into office and simply jailed some of the most radical enemies to its rule (which were usually Jews)
    Jews never complained about Russia back then and to this day, make Hollywood movies about Communist activists that shed them in a good light
    On the contrary, there is never the same sort of treatment in films that involve skinheads or wartime Nazis. Evil sounding music is in the background whenever a Nazi is on camera. They have evil sounding voices and are always revealed to have anti-humanitarian motives
    That all demonstrates why Jews in 1930’s Germany had to be removed from all media influence which then led to the super recovery of Germany in but a few years while the rest of the world languished in Jew monitored capitalism
    Do the ppl know? Do the ppl care? Luckily for Jewish elites, they clearly don’t or at the least have been removed from serious concern by brainwashing, never better demonstrated for all to see and hear post 911 and the rise of the internet where the elites have in but 15 years been able to put controls in that assure know contrary voices, disadvantageous to them, will ever be heard to the extent where real revolution could ever rear its beautiful [email protected]!

    • Agree: HdC
  71. D. K. says:

    “On October 11, 1963, five weeks before his death, JFK bypassed his own National Security Council and issued National Security Action Memorandum 263….”

    Never trust a man who cannot count to 42, divide by 7, and get an even 6.

    • Replies: @Badger Down
  72. @Dumbo

    Yeah, the Moon landing was probably fake, and a bad fake at that.
    They learned to do better with 9/11 etc as technology improved.

    I have it on good authority that the faked moon landings were filmed near a popular restaurant, and that the crew needed to eat every few hours. Outside catering firms were not allowed in to the secure filming set.

    One afternoon, the crew in the restaurant slipped up and told their waitress the entire story. She was then shot as a precaution to maintain secrecy.

    Unknown to the secret film crew, the waitress had written the story down on the back of a napkin and gave the napkin to an associate who was working the same waitress shift. That associate then passed the napkin to a local police officer. That police officer approached NASA with the napkin a few days later and was told that the waitress had been a Serviette spy.

    True story.

    • LOL: Spender_CGB
  73. If we are simply toys of the gods and their earthly agents, nothing surprising, the truth will always be the most convenient and do not forget that in politics, religion and money, the end has always justified using any means.

  74. Anon[159] • Disclaimer says:

    Is there no telescope on Earth powerful (magnification x) to see the “moon landing” locations, and look for the remained “moon buggy”, and other artifacts… if indeed they were ever there to begin with?

    Have there been any probes sent, since 1970’s, that flew over the site and photographed it?

    Lots more questions, but those two for now.

  75. Sepp says:
    @anyone with a brain

    “the Soviets confirmed the Americans did land on the moon. Why would they do that?”

    Ron Unz basically asked the same question is a an UR article by “Moon Landing Skeptic” from April 2019.

    The Moon Landings: A Giant Hoax for Mankind?

    There are dozens of replies.

    This comment from that thread gets into the involvement of Freemasonry in the faked landings. Nasa as originally formed was split off of the US Airforce, itself highly masonic. Nasa was put under the control of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite lodge. The Soviet Union was also a Masonic creation. Kerensky, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin were all Freemasons, and almost surely C-Jews as well.

    One interesting fact that ties Vietnam to Nasa and the faked moon landings has to do with the draft. Thousands of the brightest students coming out of US schools were offered deferments from military service if they joined the Freemasons and participated in the moon hoax. Although I doubt that the use of the threat of draft during the Vietnam war as a means to coerce the brightest and best students into Freemasonry, and Nasa, was a motivating factor behind the war, I sincerely doubt that it was considered a reason NOT to prolong the war.

    Freemasonry has been involved in, or even behind, most US and European wars for over 2 centuries. The French Revolution was entirely masonic. Freemasons have served as officers in all militaries on all sides throughout this period. I consider it a simple fact that bright and talented young people were coerced into volunteering to join the various militaries with the promise of being able to serve in the officer corps instead of as enlisted charnel. Masonic control of the officer corps of all militaries has been critical in keeping these wars far bloodier and going on far longer than they otherwise would have been. The same would apply to the police as well, as can be seen by all the Police proudly wearing Masonic checkerboards across the commonwealth.

    Precisely the same tactics would have been used in Nasa, stuffed to the gills with brother Freemasons, and if the Kabbalistic oaths, rituals and threats of vengeance were not enough to induce Nasa employees to keep quiet, the fear of being drafted to go fight in Vietnam might have tipped the balance.

  76. Perhaps the definitive work on the Moon Landings comes from Dave McGowan, he of Laurel Canyon fame.

    Wagging the Moondoggie: Part I

    From the foreword.

    “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

    https://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/

    • Thanks: Arthur MacBride
  77. @Been_there_done_that

    “…For instance, astronauts didn’t film stars amid bright sunlight, Stanley Kubrick filmed a simulation in a studio, protracted Van Allen Belt radiation is harmful to electronic equipment and humans; and this is supposed to already be “proof“?..”

    Yes, no living beings, be it animals or humans, can survive the deadly radiation of the Van Allen Belt. The International Space Station is typically orbiting below the Van Allen Belt.

    There are many more (secundary) arguments, but for starters ask yourself, why with the enormous technical progress since the so-called “moon landings” no more attempt has been undertaken since. It should be much easier (and cheaper) now.

    The Van Allen Belt is still there and still an unsurmountable obstacle.

    No Chinese (or Indians for that matter) will be able to solve this problem.

    • Agree: Getaclue
    • Replies: @Been_there_done_that
  78. @Been_there_done_that

    One first thing to understand is that the burden of proof is on those who claim we went on the moon. You cannot ask someone to prove that something didn’t happen : it is logically impossible. The only thing that the skeptics can prove at best is that, given our scientific knowlegde, it is deemed impossible for a man to go through the Van Hallen belts uninjured, or to stand in the sunlight+radiations on the moon without being cooked within minutes, or for Kodak photographic films to perform so perfectly in these conditions, etc. These kinds of proofs, I believe, have been provided and they are the most compelling arguments.
    But again, it is up to the NASA to provide proofs that they went on the moon, not the other way around. Where are the proofs. Moon rocks ? Even if the rocks are genuine, they could have gathered on earth : isn’t it curious that in 1967, the NASA set up an expedition (joined by Wernher Von Braun) to Antarctica, the region on earth with the biggest concentration of meteorites. It is alleged that lunar meteorites were brought back from this expedition, officially as reference to be later compared with Apollo samples. Besides, some Apollo moon rocks have been proven fake. What does NASA say about these very unfortunate “mistakes” ? “Well, you know we have such a big problem of storing space, so we must have inadvertantly mixed up some Apollo boxes with our fossile collection” :
    From USA Today:

    I checked with great interest the Wikipedia page on “third-party evidence for Apollo Moon Landings”. I admit these are serious arguments that need to be addressed. Yet, I found nothing definitely convincing. If the NASA faked the moon landings, then they surely would go to great length to make sure that no other space agency would prove them wrong, and possibly bargain even this kind of “third-party evidence” (what contracts did those space agencies sign with the NASA?). After all, as I wrote, when sending robots to the moon became a matter of public contest, they officially forbade any one to approach the lunar landing sites by less than 2 kilometers. What other reasons could there be than hiding the absence of the artefacts.
    1) the Selene photography: assuming the “3D Selene reconstructed photo” is genuine, it may confirm that NASA got the landscape right, which is not generally disputed, since they did send satellites to photograph the whole surface of the moon, and possibly more. But why does it show no trace of the rover?
    2) the Chandrayann photos look more like fake evidence than anything else. Far from compelling anyway.
    There seems to be a lot of irrelevant evidence on this page, such as: “According to the group, in December 1972 a member “picks up Apollo 17 on its way to the Moon”. No one disputes that the NASA sent rockets high up beyond the atmosphere.
    Also totally irrelevant are the items about Apollo 8 and Apollo 10, and other evidence from further NASA operations, which can in no way be considered “third-party”. This alone puts the (NASA) author of this Wikipedia to shame.
    Remember: what has to be proven is simply this: that men landed to the moon. So even assuming that there are “laser ranging radio-reflectors” (LRRR) and such things on the moon, that in no way proves that men went on the moon. Most moon landing skeptics do not doubt that NASA landed robots on the moon. In all of this Wikipedia page, I see nothing that even suggests that men landed on the moon. Or did I miss it? To claim that such NASA photos prove that men walked on the moon is delusional:

  79. Iris says:
    @anyone with a brain

    The reason why the USSR went on with the lie was explained in great detail by a Russian science academic, Pr Aleksander Popov, in a series of TV documentaries.

    The Soviets knew from the get-go that the Americans were faking the Moon mission, for it was at the time and it still remains a technologically impossible feat; they therefore decided to blackmail them instead.

    Timed with NASA’s rocket launch of Apollo 13, the Soviets calculated its ballistic trajectory and sent a submarine, which snatched the empty capsule that was supposedly on its way to the Moon but had in reality fell off the Azores Islands in the North Atlantic.

    They then made a secret deal to return the empty Apollo 13 capsule, with the Hungarians acting as guaranteeing party between the Americans and the Soviets.

    In September 1970, the Apollo 13 capsule was handed back to US Icebreaker “Southwind” in Murmansk, twenty-one weeks after it had supposedly departed for the Moon. The event was documented by this photo:

    From that point, the Soviets obtained tremendous economic advantages from the US: investments, food factories, truck factories, wheat and grain supply, financial loans and the like. Both countries went through an actual “political honeymoon” in the early 70’s, to the great surprise and incomprehension of the USSR’s allies.

    But once the benefits of the blackmail started to wane, the Soviet rulers found themselves trapped by the lie too, because they’d been covertly cosying up to their Cold War mortal enemy, while in the meantime demanding war-like commitment and sacrifices from the Russian people.
    https://www.aulis.com/april_november.htm

    This story, depicted in details by Pr Popov in his 4-part documentary, was broadcast on state-owned Russian TV channel in Arabic language. It was watched by millions of Arabs before being de-platformed by YouTube. So the Moon landing is hardly a conspiracy theory anymore; we in the West are just lagging behind due.

    https://arabic.rt.com/prg/program/10616-%D8%B1%D8%AD%D9%84%D8%A9_%D9%81%D9%8A_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B0%D8%A7%D9%83%D8%B1%D8%A9/

    • Agree: Getaclue, Olivier1973
    • Thanks: Nancy, ariadna
    • Replies: @mike99588
  80. These poorly supported hoax claims – essentially based on innuendo – are like a seductive honey pot intended to weed out all those who lack a solid scientific education and sound reasoning skills.

    Even a person without solid scientific education and sound reasoning skills knows that honeypots are not intended to do any such weeding; they are used for other reasons. 😉

  81. @animalogic

    2 problems — lack of targets in a basically agrarian economy & Nth Viet’

    Targets? Who needs targets when wants to dump old ordnance, practice bombing runs with live munitions while destabilizing a country so the bankers could waltz in and provide “solutions” that just happened to involve debt and who knows what else?

    As a kid I was in the north of S Vietnam in a valley full of rice paddies that had been severely pockmarked with “duck ponds” due to B-52 carpet bombing. There was not an industrial or military center in the province and the largest population center, if it could be called that, was a small one 25 km away.

    To say “we” were fighting Communism was just another lie.and a hideous farce. I’m agnostic on the moon landing stuff, but to entertain the idea that we’d be told the truth about it one would have to be pretty gullible.

    • Thanks: Sarah, animalogic
  82. @anyone with a brain

    Soviets used the same banker as the US.

    • Agree: Fart Blossom
  83. @Been_there_done_that

    Agreed! I clicked on this one on a whim and because I wanted to see Mr. Guyenot’s take on the Socialist scumbag Lyndon Johnson. The politics he discussed here are indeed interesting, However, I came to a WTF moment when seeing the caption under the photo of the Saturn V during state separation.

    You just made yourself into a laughingstock, Mr. Guyenot. I remember replying to your article on the JFK Jr. plane crash. Again, you had a lot of good points about the politics (the Hildabeast’s quest for the NY Senate, etc.), but you didn’t know squat about technical issues. I happen to know about the aviation world, and I even discussed the how’s and why’s of Mr. Kennedy’s auguring into the Atlantic with people the next day. I noticed you had no replies to comments I spent over an hour writing.

    You should think about just sticking to the politics next article.

    • Agree: Buzz Mohawk
    • LOL: CelestiaQuesta
    • Replies: @Adam Smith
    , @ariadna
  84. @Dumbo

    Didn’t need to be good psyop given the size of the analog TV screens back in the day. For many of us those TVs were still in black and white.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  85. @bj0311

    Someone’s got him by the balls, they’ve probably threatened to freeze his and other Russian politician’s assets in various western banks. He seemed for years to be doing his own thing until corona, then he starts going along with the west. Too bad, he should’ve decoupled from the west years ago and put his own assets into something easily converted but safe from the greedy hands of the US and Western Europe.

    • Thanks: Fart Blossom
    • Replies: @Seraphim
  86. LBJ is still mooning the US population today; mooning as in ass in face. His NASA keeps wasting billions on projects that are only going to cause the astronomers, cosmologists and astrophysicists to invent new unicorns as they image new things with the James Webb Space Telescope just recently rocketed into space.

    We have black holes, neutron stars, pulsars spinning as fast as a dentists drill, dark matter, dark energy, multidimensional space and numerous other unicorns that haven’t a shred of evidence for their existence and more money is spent on boondoggles like the JWST. This thing will consume billions in salaries and other expenses over the years.

    Wouldn’t it be money better spent on improving the US’s infrastructure, education, and other things more pressing that taking pictures of more useless shit in space?

  87. Mike Tre says:
    @Dumbo

    “If you believe that it was all caused by 19 Arabs with box-cutters, ”

    Is it that hard to believe? A weaselly looking 4 eyed twerp managed to scare 300 million people into wearing masks for the last 21 months. Americans have been so passively compliant the last 60 years don’t be surprised if they soon convince us to all form a line, walk up to a desk, pick up a loaded handgun, and blow our own brains out.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  88. @Been_there_done_that

    I’m an agnostic on whether the moon landings happened or were faked. The special-effects technology that Stanley Kubric had was excellent and he could’ve produced faked moon landing footage easily had the government wanted it. The number one thing that I wonder about which I’ve heard plausible arguments either way is that once past the Van Allen Belts, humans need about 13 inches of lead to make themselves safe from cosmic rays. I once asked a Phd. in physics that question and he said that all you need to stop cosmic rays is a double walled hull of thin sheet steel. The first wall doesn’t slow the particles down much but when they hit the inside of the double wall, they change trajectory, and lose most of their energy and then can’t penetrate the second wall. I’m not an expert in this area, but I’ve tried my own experiments with a radioactive source of gamma rays (radium paint) and a radiation detector. I put the radiation source in various steel metal boxes and the radiation strength wasn’t attenuated at all. Having done this experiment myself and seen the results, I would be very hesitant to go beyond the Van Allen Belts without being surrounded by that 13 inches of lead.

    • Replies: @Badger Down
  89. ross23 says:

    Didn’t Elon Musk promise to take us back to the moon by 2024, wonder how they`ll get out of that one?

    Not long now time is ticking….

    • Replies: @Diminushoner
  90. Folks, check this out.

    We now have the technology to fake even video of people speaking to us. I suppose, some artist could manufacture just about any “evidence” anyone could possibly want using software. I can just see this coming up in court cases where the defendant claims the video of him is a deep fake.

    Maybe someone can “discover” video of Abe Lincoln next to a Saturn V rocket shaking LBJ’s hand.

  91. There are fewer things in life less useful than arguing that the moon landings were hoaxes.

    I’m sure Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chafee were all ‘faking’ it:

    (https://www.wired.com/2011/01/0127apollo-1-fire-kills-3-astronauts/)

    Quit pissing on true American heroes. The waste of energy and time is obnoxiously ludicrous…….

  92. WJ says:
    @Rich

    Modern Danang looks like a new and improved version of Tampa or some other American city. Very nice.

    The war was a colossal waste. It’s painful to think of what was squandered. Iraq was the jr. version of VN.

    • Disagree: Rich
  93. Mike Tre says:
    @Don Unf

    When someone with 13 comments questions the authenticity of another commenter with almost 9000 comments over the last 8 years, it tells me the guy with 13 comments either found the Unz Review while googling symptoms of gonorreah, prefers to remain in a narcotic induced stupor, or should perhaps learn the ropes before making himself look like a complete ignoramus right out of the gate.

    You should spend a few minutes looking through comment histories before making your own, especially if you’re going to question the character of someone. It would save you some embarrassment.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  94. Mike Tre says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    You yourself have upwards of 80 comments where you refer to wikipedia as a source. Pot, meet kettle:

    https://www.unz.com/?s=wikipedia&Action=Search&ptype=all&commentsearch=only&commenter=Jonathan+Revusky

    • Replies: @Jonathan Revusky
  95. @Laurent Guyénot

    Let’s see, what’s more likely: the moon rocks and all the landings were ‘faked’, or some greedy, thieving schmuck at NASA ‘copped and swapped’ one of the rocks for his private ‘collection’……..

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @D. K.
  96. @anyone with a brain

    It’s simple really.

    Rival governments have no choice but go along with scams like the US moon landings since they never know when the need will arise to deceive their own population by staging a similar event.

    JFK’s assassination, 9/11, Covid 19 (including the anthrax portion) and numerous other state sponsored crimes and scams fit into the same category.

    • Replies: @Maddaugh
  97. … other nations, regardless of their appreciation of our idealistic values …

    A memorable, even historic quote from Johnson. (lol)

    And yes, Eisenhower (instigator of Rhine Meadows Camps) did warn about America’s MIC, albeit he waited until the very last day of his presidency then chickened out of including America’s cheaply bought super corrupt politicians …
    Better than nothing from a mass-murdering war criminal perhaps.

    Just posting a salute of Respect for President John F Kennedy.
    How different things might have been for USA and the world in general.

    • Agree: Bro43rd
    • Thanks: HdC
  98. MLK says:
    @bj0311

    Keeping the secrets of foreign sovereigns is currency.

    As we’ve seen with every grand conspiracy, the moving and interested parties quickly seed threats encouraging collaboration in return for carrots rather than the clearly telegraphed sticks.

    This was in their faces obvious for the Soviets when Oswald was identified as the assassin and LBJ quickly took the oath. The struggle for power was over before it began. The Soviet leadership had a clear interest in signaling it wouldn’t strenuously quarrel with the official narrative as long as it wasn’t implicated.

    This is an analogue to what we’re in the middle of with the China Virus. Indeed, the “Biden” administration has deflected liability from China more than China itself has.

    Grand conspiracies aren’t puzzles that can be solved. They’re phenomena in motion and the objective is always not to end up as the one chosen to lose his chair when the music is stopped — like Gaddafi for the US and Iran’s Vincennes/Lockerbie contretemps.

  99. @Mike Tre

    Right, and for the last 20 years, people traveling on airliners have been told they must only bring 3 oz containers of liquids or gels, and only 3 of them. That’s to KEEP US SAFE!, Mike, cause, it’s not like 10 guys couldn’t board with a few ounces a piece and mix ’em, you know. At this point, nobody even knows what that’s even about, along with the other stupidity at the unConstitutional TSA checkpoints designed to KEEP US SAFE!

    In the meantime, half the ramp crews (with complete access to the aircraft) at Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport are Somalians who may or may not occasionally be on a jihad, but, see, they HAVE BEEN VETTED, thoroughly VETTED, back through their times in pre-K back in Somalia, I’m telling you, Mike!

    This Kung Flu PanicFest, shows that most Americans are as gullible as you say and can be fooled again, 20 years later.

    • Replies: @Fart Blossom
  100. saggy says: • Website

    As an engineer I worked for, among others, Honeywell aerospace, and I worked with many of the people who had worked on Apollo … (I did work on the unpowered stabilization system for the first phase of Space Station Freedom, and the nav system for the Mars Observer). Honeywell’s role …

    16,000 Honeywell parts – Went into the 14 separate electronic devices that made up the Stabilization and Control Systems (SCS) on the Apollo 11 mission. In the photo above a flight director attitude indicator underwent final assembly at Honeywell’s Aerospace Division in Minneapolis. Photo courtesy of Minnesota Historical Society.

    And I must say –

    This is, I believe, how Johnson mooned America, and in the process turned the U.S. into his own image: the master of deception.

    is just pure idiocy, and, coming from Guyenot, who is one of my favorite authors, odd to say the least.

    • Agree: Vinnyvette, Theodora
    • Replies: @Sepp
    , @chris
  101. @ross23

    Elon promised to fly tourists around the moon a la Apollo 8, in 2018. Crickets!

  102. @Mike Tre

    You yourself have upwards of 80 comments where you refer to wikipedia as a source.

    Well, I suppose I have, but you’re missing the point. Wikipedia can be used as a source for certain kinds of objective facts. If you want to use it to check what the capital of Mongolia is, you’ll get the answer, the correct one, quite quickly. Wikipedia is pretty reliable for that sort of thing.

    On the other hand, if you want to know who killed JFK or what happened on 9/11, then Wikipedia is equally reliable. Reliably wrong.

    Basically, in terms of those sorts of deep events, Wikipedia always gives you the official story, a.k.a. the establishment narrative, or whatever you want to call it… the official fable. And that is pretty much always not truthful.

    Basically, when it comes to these “deep events”, citing Wikipedia as your source is akin to arguing that some bible story really happened by…. saying: “Hey, it’s in the bible!”

    • Agree: Getaclue, HdC, EuroNat
    • Replies: @Badger Down
    , @Mike Tre
  103. @Franklin Ryckaert

    “…deadly radiation of the Van Allen Belt.

    The Van Allen Belt is still there and still an unsurmountable obstacle.”

    The following article from more than two years ago explains that issue in detail. Having studied the phenomenon for years, NASA chose a minimum exposure trajectory to pass through.

    Further, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being ~600 km (well above the LEO) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts.

    Apollo 11 bypassed the inner belt and only passed through the weaker part of the outer belt…

    How NASA Worked Around Earth’s Radiation Belts to Land Apollo 11 on the Moon

    https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences/apollo-11-van-allen-radiation-belts-translunar-injection/

    The article focused on Apollo 11 because of the 50th anniversary of that mission. It should go without saying that the space suits had radiation shielding. Here is a a piece from the Smithsonian Institution describing the elements of the space suit, which confirms this point.

    Apollo 11 Spacecraft Spacesuit

    https://airandspace.si.edu/amp-stories/spacesuit/

    • Agree: Theodora
    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    , @Badger Down
  104. Iris says:
    @Been_there_done_that

    These poorly supported hoax claims – essentially based on innuendo – are like a seductive honey pot intended to weed out all those who lack a solid scientific education and sound reasoning skills.

    Actually, in 2021, it is arguments like yours and that of the Moon Hoax believers in general which sound like unsupported claims.

    Your comment is just semantics. Why don’t you and the other “believers” address the technological and physical impossibilities of the Moon Landing instead?

    In 1969, these 3 fundamental engineering problems were not resolved, and in 2021, they still are not:

    -1) Humans cannot safely cross back and forth the Van Allen radiation belts, or they’d have to wear inconceivably-crippling outwear.

    – 2) A rocket-engine powerful enough to deliver the payload required to travel to the Moon and come back in one journey does not exist to the day. NASA has mysteriously abandoned her “miraculous” Saturn V engine and now uses, for all its mission without exception, Soviet engine technology.

    – 3) NASA still does not have a reliable thermal shield to protect a command module (with people inside) and allow it returning from deep space without burning.

    Since none of this 3 core prohibitive technological problems is resolved yet today in 2021, despite China joining the increased space effort, then why would anybody believe that they were resolved by NASA in 1969 but that NASA since mysteriously lost the technology?

    Virtually all technical aspects of the Apollo record cannot withstand the scrutiny of pragmatic engineering reviews. Ergo, the Moon Landing narrative fails basic dialectics.

    Nobody rational can believe that NASA, an institution that existed uninterrupted, has for no reason lost “miraculous” technologies that nobody can replicate 5 decades on. Nobody except utter fools, obviously.

    • Agree: Mulegino1, Robjil
    • Replies: @Been_there_done_that
  105. R2b says:

    One great psy-op, creating demi-gods, who of course couldn’t relieve themselves out there in cold/ hot vacuum.
    Height of fake technocracy hybris, that now in these days show it’s capability: fear, death and control.

  106. Maddaugh says:
    @Carroll price

    It’s simple really.

    Rival governments have no choice but go along with scams like the US moon landings since they never know when the need will arise to deceive their own population by staging a similar event.

    JFK’s assassination, 9/11, Covid 19 (including the anthrax portion) and numerous other state sponsored crimes and scams fit into the same category.

    You have that right. I am always amazed that confirmed liars always have an audience and people who have been lied to before scream for more lies. Oh well, that seems to be human nature.

    As for the moon landings whether real or fake, we are slowly ruining this here planet and we want to go to another ?

  107. @Laurent Guyénot

    “...what has to be proven is simply this: that men landed to the moon.

    What in your opinion would then constitute sufficient and conclusive proof to satisfy your doubts in light of earth telescopes not having been powerful enough to verify this?

    Even if NASA had built and launched a second spacecraft – with reasonable temporal offset – manned with Soviet cosmonauts for the explicit purpose of accompanying the Apollo crew and serving as eyewitnesses to the event, lest it be challenged, there would still be some people who would now claim that it was a scam. The Soviets would have simply been accused of lying, having been bought off and colluding with the Americans.

  108. Walker says:

    What’s a more obvious (and trivial) observation at this point?

    1. There is no covid

    2. There was no moon landing

  109. @Dr. Charles Fhandrich

    You mean what this nation did to poor commie people. Too bad we didn’t use the same on some “poor” commie americans.

    • Replies: @Dingo bay rum
  110. I thought that Allan Shepard in his flight to the moon installed mirrors on the surface that NASA could use to do laser tested by targeting the mirrors for rebound in measuring the speed of light among other tests.

    If we faked all these Apollo missions then how did those mirrors get on the surface of the moon?

    My understanding is they are still used to this day.

  111. If we look at it this way

    Ah yes. If we look at it this way we can see whatever we want.

    Never mind any connection with reality. After all, you really can fool some of the people all the time.

    Reality is, after all, not all that complex. Not that entertaining.

    So, lets speculate. It’s so much more fun that way.

  112. Bookish1 says:

    Not true about our not being in Vietnam if Kennedy wasn’t assassinated. We were already in Vietnam under Kennedy and it was too late to pull out without it being a loss. But Kennedy could have got us out but it was an election year and he may have lost the election if he pulled us out.

  113. For a detailed look at how the kabal not only assassinated JFK , but how they engineered the Vietnam war, read the book JFK, the CIA and Vietnam by the late Col. L. Fletcher Prouty and for a look at how LBJ and the deep state engineered the attack on the USS Liberty in conjunction with Israel, read the book Blood in the Water by Joan Mellon.

  114. @Dr. Charles Fhandrich

    LDJ was compromised by Israel. Both the assaination of Kennedy and the coverup of the attack on USS Liberty by Israel have his bloody fingerprints.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  115. Walker says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    One concept that moon landing believers don’t seem to grasp is the sheer enormity of the distance to the moon, which is supposedly 230k miles away. This makes a one-way trip approximately equivalent to 10 trips around the earth. Maybe you say that’s not so bad because they are in a rocket in a vacuum.

    Nevermind that it is so easy that no one has gone 1/10th this distance in space since the early 70s!

    Consider then that there are not only no stops, fueling stations or food supplies on the way and That you are in a tiny pod with two others peeing, shitting, farting, burping, eating sweating, etc but that a TRIVIAL problem literally means your death. One faulty seal, one mis-wiring, one human mistake of the slightest consequence is death.

    And this is just one way! Imagine landing, playing a little golf, taking some nice photos, chatting with the president and then lifting off to fly back home on a precise route of which is miscalculated then you die.

    Its not just preposterous that this actually occured multiple times but it would be insane for a human to actually attempt this.

    It was 100% staged. Obviously.

    Sorry to burst your space bubble but the entire industry is just another way to fuck with your mind and steal your money.

    • Thanks: simple mind
    • Replies: @Been_there_done_that
  116. profnasty says:
    @Franz

    Neil Armstrong’s press conference after his ‘moon walk’ told US everything we need to know.
    FAILURE!

    • Agree: Sepp
  117. LBJ either was behind JFK’s murder or a willing participant. The man was a narcissistic sociopath.

    Compared to LBJ, the gay muslim kenyan and peyronie hillbilly are midget clowns.

  118. profnasty says:
    @obwandiyag

    Now, they’ve found a cure for the common cold. What’s next, male pattern baldness?
    Not in my lifetime.

  119. Walker says:
    @Been_there_done_that

    It’s not really up to a moon landing skeptic to declare what constitutes acceptable proof.

    That said, if they went back one measly time using decades of advances in technology and documenting it with modern livestreaming techniques then that would be a good start.

    • Replies: @Anon
  120. @Been_there_done_that

    NASA says they made it past the Van Allen belts but there is a lot of evidence they did not:

    https://www.aulis.com/orion_vanallens.htm

    The space suits were a joke:

    https://www.aulis.com/suits.htm

    https://qz.com/2046840/a-1-billion-space-suit-is-holding-up-nasas-2024-moon-landing/

    Don’t fall for NASA’s scam.

  121. @Been_there_done_that

    I can be convinced that NASA actually made it to the moon–after independent confirmation by someone else (China would be good) that the Apollo moon rovers are on the moon.

    By proof I mean “kick the tires” proof–not fuzzy photographs.

  122. @Iris

    “…3 fundamental engineering problems…”

    What is the basis for your claim that they were not resolved back in 1969?

    The Allen Belt topic was addressed in the post #107, appearing prior to your message.

    Your two other objections are not pertinent because they refer to specially customized systems.

    NASA no longer has a sufficiently powerful rocket propulsion engine because the ones that were used decades ago were designed and built for the specific purpose of transporting sufficient equipment to the moon and returning with three astronauts. After funding for additional missions was abandoned by Congress the Apollo program was wound down.

    It is very simple: Why design or enhance, then produce and test something at great expense if there is no need for it? For the same reason NASA now does not have the necessary kind of ablative thermal shield system used for lunar missions that no longer exist.

    • Thanks: Theodora
    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  123. Sepp says:
    @saggy

    So you worked for Honeywell on the “space station” and that constitutes proof that the moon landings were real?

    Are you a Freemason? If you are not one, then you are a profane and not privy to the innerworkings of the organization running Nasa. If you are one and lying to us, how could we trust what you say about the moon landings.

    • Replies: @Dingo bay rum
  124. @siberiancat

    But what prevented the Russians from blowing the cover later? There were more than a couple of occasions when it would have been useful.

    Perhaps you’ve noticed but failed to put 2 and 2 together… it’s for the same reason that incoming administrations, who plan on committing the exact same crimes and swindles committed by out-going administrations, never get around to prosecuting crimes and swindles committed by former administrations.

  125. chris says:
    @Justvisiting

    Also hilarious the story about “moon rocks” donated to museums (definitely know about one such case in Germany) that turned out, (upon further, chemical analysis) to be of the stinkin’ ol’ earthin kind.

  126. Iris says:
    @Been_there_done_that

    The Soviets would have simply been accused of lying, having been bought off and colluding with the Americans.

    No need to use the conditional tense; the Soviets/Russians have indeed already publicly accused NASA of lying.

    In 2018, RT television channel in Arabic language, which is owned by the Russian state and hence is an official media, has broadcast a 4-parts documentary featuring Pr Alexander Popov, a PhD in Physics and Mathematics, who explained and discussed at length the scientific and political details of the Moon Landing Hoax.

    Broadcasting such information on an official state media is a clear enough position; the only reason it is not broadcast on the English, French, Spanish and German sister channels is probably because the respective NATO puppet states would suspend the broadcasting licences.

    Professor Popov is a foremost scientist which arguments the “believers” carefully avoid to address.
    Helped by more than forty volunteers, most of which with scientific degrees, he wrote the book “Americans on the Moon” in 2009. In it, Popov debunked all the so-called Moon landing “evidence” and placed the burden on NASA to prove that they accomplished 50 years ago a technological “miracle” that neither Americans, nor anybody else can replicate to the day.

    The only rational reason why one would still pretend to believe in the Moon Landing Hoax is professional self-preservation or outright stupidity.

    https://manonmoon-ru.translate.goog/book/0.htm?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB

    • Replies: @Been_there_done_that
  127. Johnson, Wilson and Roosevelt along with the scumbag Bush all vie for the top of the list of the greatest traitors to our country.

    • Agree: gotmituns
    • Replies: @Von Rho
  128. The faked moon landings hoax was ‘simply’ a massive cover for the more important world-balance-of-power-changing Project Azorian – which led to the demise of the USSR in 1991.

  129. Pancho says:

    For a quite different view of the Kennedy assassination, read this book: Partners in Crime: The Rockefeller, CFR, CIA and Castro Connection to the Kennedy Assassination.

  130. @Dingo bay rum

    You mean what this nation did to poor commie people. Too bad we didn’t use the same on some “poor” commie americans.

  131. chris says:
    @Francis Miville

    They might well have sent rockets there. I’m not sure that that aspect of the plan needs to come under question.

    But the Chinese will soon be in a position to verify the evidence when they won’t have any incentive to go along with the scam; if it turns out to be one.

    I’ve personally gone from ridiculing the skeptics to believing it with, maybe 80% certainty. Missing 20% only for lack of time I want to dedicate to the topic. From my perspective, the more interesting part will be the people’s reaction to realizing they’ve been fooled. … even though that might turn out to be a dud, like a great majority of people agreeing that the story of the JFK assassination is false without actually knowing what really happened.

  132. Iris says:
    @Critical Thinking

    My understanding is they are still used to this day.

    Your understanding is very correct. Such mirrors were present on the Moon as early as 1970, as they were fitted on the series of “Lunokhod” un-manned lunar rovers sent by the Soviet space programme.

    These rovers, powered by solar power, would have survived a long time. Their presence was independently detected, using lunar laser ranging experiment, by French and American observation labs in 2010.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_programme#Locations_and_ownership

  133. chris says:
    @saggy

    You realize that you personally polishing and screwing together any old space parts doesn’t at all prove that the manned moon mission actually occurred, right?

  134. @Sepp

    Sepp, whats your last name .It wouldn’t be Dietrich Your praying that your SS would get there first.

    • Replies: @Sepp
  135. @Critical Thinking

    You can transport mirrors to the moon by unmanned missions. Unmanned missions to Mars have landed there robotic jeeps. See picture:

  136. @Been_there_done_that

    “…Why design or enhance, then produce and test something at great expense if there is no need for it?..”

    But why was there a “need” for manned missions to the moon in the 1960s and 1970s?
    As I said, the advance of technology since would make such missions presently much easier and cheaper.

  137. Dumbo says:
    @Old and Grumpy

    Yeah, the thing is, for most people, and back then even more, reality is “what’s shown on TV”.

    In the case of the moon landings, there’s no other way that you can verify it short of going to the moon yourself. All you have is what’s shown on TV, and that could arguably have been filmed anywhere.

    Now, perhaps it could have happened for real. But the timing is weird. Also, there are many strange coincidences, like the original tapes having been “deleted by NASA”, apparently “to save space” (?!??), among many other strange or suspicious things. I watched a lot of the footage, and a lot of it is so bad, I am not sure if it’s evidence of a hoax, or just the crappy equipment they had.

  138. @Walker

    One concept that moon landing believers don’t seem to grasp is the sheer enormity of the distance to the moon, which is supposedly 230k miles away. This makes a one-way trip approximately equivalent to 10 trips around the earth.

    This is very easy to understand. It just means more time spent waiting to get there and back. Not much additional fuel is needed once the spacecraft has been pointed in the right direction.

    • Replies: @fredtard
  139. Anonymous[136] • Disclaimer says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    Good points. The main problem is that those Moon golfers had absolutely ZERO protection from radiation. There’s a reason why we didn’t send people in cotton/aluminium foil suits to scrub Fukushima. The official excuse is that those radiation belts and the space itself are not that dangerous but that contradicts the also-official scientific data about them. As a matter of fact, some years back a manned team was sent to a higher Earth’s orbit than before and they “saw” tiny streaks of light burning through their retinas with their eyes closed.

    It’s also important to note that the faction which killed JFK also put Johnson in the Oval Office. An innocent successor would have done a full investigation of the assassination as a matter of priority (and self-preservation) instead of a cover-up.

  140. Corrupt says:

    “That was a euphemistic way of saying that the race to the moon was a civilian cover for the research, development and deployment of satellite surveillance systems, as well as of intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.”

    ICBM/SLBM were already operational by 1961, so at least that part of the statement is wrong.

  141. @littlewing

    Yes, that comparison has been made before:

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  142. @Iris

    …a technological “miracle” that neither Americans, nor anybody else can replicate to the day.

    Replicating this feat would be another huge endeavor requiring massive funding.

    I doubt anybody is preventing a group of doubters to pool their financial resources to fund a robotic lunar program to revisit any of the six Apollo landing sites and broadcast the video live. It would be nice if Russia and China jointly decided to do this.

  143. Where do they think those 700 cartons of NASA tapes went?
    Did they by any chance have a NASA logo with rocket label on them?
    I’m axing fo a friend.

  144. @Laurent Guyénot

    The sociologist Max Weber once pointed out that bureaucracies are formed around a secret that they jealously guard against disclosure for it would threaten the legitimization of their existence. Imagine the 400,000 engineers and scientists fooled into believing the moon landings as they watched in TV monitors in control rooms. Where oh where did those rockets and rocket men actually go to? How did they return to earth? Is this much different than modern medicine that spends billions in cancer treatments that result in greater deaths and shorter extensions of life than no treatment at all. It has recently been discovered that a dog dewormer pill can put most humans cancers into full remission, but that secret is once again buried and marginalized. What is modernity but a “matrix”? I like the definitions of matrix from the Urban Dictionary:

    A term describing a controlled environment or situation in which people act or behave in ways that conform to roles pre-determined by a powerful person(s) who decides how the world is supposed to function.

    A computer-generated dream world built to keep us under control in order to change a human being into a battery.

    To spend a significant portion of a day or even a week watching without pause back to back episodes from multiple seasons of a single television series, replacing the experience of one’s own reality and resulting in lingering effects on one’s consciousness, once the final episode has been watched. 2. To re-set one’s own immediate depressive state by immersing oneself in a mediated one (television, film, online social forum, amusement park, etc.) for an extended, but ultimately temporary, period of time.

  145. @Critical Thinking

    I don’t see any hoax in the first moon landing. What I see is a coverup for something sinister that took place while public eyes were not looking. Hence the missing 700 cartons of tapes.
    Btw, what was broadcast were grainy low quality footage for public viewing. The actual high quality footage was marked for top secret eyes only.
    What were they hiding?

  146. @Been_there_done_that

    The NASA fraudsters do not want anyone looking behind the curtain:

    https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/617743main_NASA-USG_LUNAR_HISTORIC_SITES_RevA-508.pdf

    The Chinese should tell NASA to take their “exclusion zone” on the moon and shove it.

  147. @Been_there_done_that

    Cue that pos song by the worst singer in pop music…

    Man on the Moon – REM

    • Replies: @Iris
  148. WHY is the “agree, disagree, thanks…” box not working for me?

  149. @El Dato

    I checked the book Marketing the Moon with the “look inside” function on Amazon, and it looks quite interesting. Here are two excerpts:
    p. xii:

    Companies that were major contractors for the Apollo program, such as Boeing and Raytheon, happily talked up their lunar credentials in advertisements placed in publications read by DoD officials, such as Aviation Week & Space Technology. The underlying message: “If we can get America to the Moon before the Soviets, you can trust us to build your next military system.” … Also, the fact that many, if not most, of these contractors were benefitting from the escalation of the Vietnam War, the space program provided the opportunity to present themselves as fostering exploration and American pride, rather than war profiteering.

    On page 1 it is told that the lunar command module of Apollo 11 was named Columbia after the name of a spaceship in Jules Verne’s novel. “In his last message to the world from space, Neil Armstrong framed their recent achievement and its pledge of peace by alluding to its literary predecessor.” He referred to their module as “a modern-day Columbia”. The authors comment:

    From a public-relations perspective, this was a masterful message coming at the moment when public interest in manned space exploration was at its apex. By linking the flight of Apollo 11 with its famous literary predecessor, Armstrong paid tribute to the power of the human imagination—reminding the world that a seemingly impossible dream can spark curiosity and motivate others to make it a reality.

    A lot of info on the space pop culture in the 50s and 60s creating a strong expectation to reach the moon. I learned that Wernher von Braun was also a prolific science-fiction writer and a TV star appearing in Disney TV programs.
    A lot of great pictures in the book. I specially like this one, which makes you wonder how much is the moon a department of Disneyland.

    • Replies: @ivan
  150. @Mike Tre

    Thank you.

    When I read Laurent Guyénot’s article here, I was so disappointed that I considered giving up the Unz Review forever and suggesting to Steve Sailer that he move to Substack. (I mostly hang out at Sailer’s blog. He doesn’t really need to be here — but Ron Unz himself once wrote here that he pays Steve “a handsome salary,” so I guess this is the place — which leads me to wonder why Mr. Sailer asks three times a year for donations. I have been very generous, but I wonder…)

    Guyénot fills most of his article from the beginning with an accurate outline of what LBJ did. I already knew this, but I understand that there are many, younger people who do not. Those same, younger people are prime candidates for believing in the inane, frankly evil, claims that nobody ever got to the moon. All of those people, including Mr. Guyénot himself, are painfully ignorant or just anti-American propagandists.

    The large number of commenters who landed on this, in support of this article — like flies on shit — only confirmed my disappointment. Here we are, 50 years after I followed the Apollo program myself, and there are scientifically illiterate people who actually believe it didn’t happen.

    Those people are suckers for anti-American propaganda who only believe this nonsense because they find voyages to the Moon so amazing and out of their world that they cannnot comprehend them or believe anybody made them.

    Ignorance.

    Rationalization from inferiority too.

    Credit Mr. Unz for putting a gold outline around been_there_done_that’s comment, because it is very appropriate. All I could do was agree. His and your comment, plus Unz’s gold box of recognition, are enough to convince me not to leave this place forever.

  151. @Laurent Guyénot

    In all of this Wikipedia page, I see nothing that even suggests that men landed on the moon.

    Here is a better satellite image featuring the remnants of the final (Apollo 17) expedition.

    Note the distinctive parallel wheel tracks from the lunar vehicle and the flat electrical wiring, which is seen close up in the photo below:

    If all this equipment and vehicle placement on the lunar surface had been performed by a robot then that would surely be a spectacular feat, surely much easier to have been done by a pair of men.

    • Replies: @Francis Miville
  152. @Been_there_done_that

    I doubt anybody is preventing a group of doubters to pool their financial resources to fund a robotic lunar program to revisit any of the six Apollo landing sites and broadcast the video live. It would be nice if Russia and China jointly decided to do this.

    You seem to have not read the article until the end. The NASA itself forbids anyone to send a robot and check. I repeat:

    Now, sending a robot to the moon is easy, so perhaps something could be learned about the lost Apollo technology if robots could be sent to inspect the materials left by the astronauts on the moon landing sites. But in 2011, when some private organizations were planning to do just that, NASA issued an unprecedented legislation forbidding any robot to approach any of the Apollo landing sites within a radius of 2 kilometers. NASA’s 93-page document justifies the decision by the need to (try not to laugh): “protect and preserve the historic and scientific value of U.S. Government Lunar Artifacts.”

    • Thanks: Iris
    • Replies: @Fart Blossom
  153. Iris says:
    @Been_there_done_that

    Replicating this feat would be another huge endeavor requiring massive funding.

    This is an extremely weak argument in support of the Moon Landing hoax.

    Straight from the horse’s mouth:
    NASA has formally required “only” US\$ 28 billions to allegedly “go back ” to the Moon in 2024.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54246485

    That’s less than a fifth of Bezos and Musk’s personal wealth (US\$ 175 and 150 billions). Or only about 1% of President Biden’s US\$ 2,200 billions “Build Back Better” initiative. I won’t even bother comparing this amount to the Federal Reserve’s stratospheric increase of balance sheet (US\$ 4,300 trillions) just during the Covid pandemic.

    It is so little money under the rule of the Banksters’ money-printing scheme that the only reason it hasn’t been swindled yet by space industry’s vested interests is because they well know they cannot push through another Moon Hoax.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
  154. @Been_there_done_that

    What in your opinion would then constitute sufficient and conclusive proof to satisfy your doubts in light of earth telescopes not having been powerful enough to verify this?

    Well, if some non-NASA robot could be sent there and photograph the Apollo artefact, that would be convincing. Conversely, the fact that NASA specifically forbids such a project is highly suspicious. You may argue that NASA has no power to enforce their ban. I think they do, and obviously, the contestants in the Google Lunar X Prize felt compelled to obey: read “Rocketeers obey NASA moon rules”:
    https://www.nbcnews.com/science/cosmic-log/rocketeers-obey-nasa-moon-rules-flna801852 

    • Replies: @Been_there_done_that
  155. Iris says:
    @CelestiaQuesta

    Dua Lipa went to the Moon, too, according to the visual “evidence” so heartily and easily accepted by the Moon Landing believers.

    She only needed a lift to go there, didn’t even bother with a space module, LOL:

    • Replies: @CelestiaQuesta
  156. Anonymous[417] • Disclaimer says:
    @anyone with a brain

    In an obviously set up question to Putin at a small press conference, Putin was asked if the Americans really went to the Moon. He answered “yes, they went to the Moon.” In another press conference Putin explained to the public that the reason why Russia did not send a man to Mars was because of the insurmountability of the Van Allen Belt radiation. In the first case, he was showing his “partners” in the West that he “is a team player.” Now that the partners want to find out what will happen if they put a gun to Russia’s head, a different Putin may emerge. You just can’t trust the guy.

    • Replies: @Olivier1973
  157. @Laurent Guyénot

    Regarding the USA Today story you attached to your comment, it is you, Mr Guyenot, that has fallen for a hoax. Doubly so as the USA Today story can’t get the fake story straight. The object in the photo was never gifted to the government of The Netherlands, nor to former prime minister Willem Drees. The object’s only provenance is two Dutch artists claimed they found it in a storage box in the Rijksmuseum in 2006. They state it was sitting, unmounted, on a card that does not even state it is a moon rock. The two artists, Liesbeth Bik and Jos van der Pol, made the rock and card part of a tongue-in-cheek art exhibition they staged at the Rijksmuseum. It appears Bik and van der Pol fabricated the card and purchased the rock themselves. The goofy cracked USA Today story, you, Mr Guyenot, taking it at face value and reposting it, the Bik/van der Pol art show, all together are like a satirical skit by The Firesign Theatre….”Everything You Know Is Wrong”.

    • Agree: Theodora
    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
    , @Adrian
  158. The Jabberwokies

  159. Sepp says:
    @Dingo bay rum

    Sepp is just a Spitzname for “Josef”, the same way “Joe” is a nickname for “Joseph”. Your slurs against the SS because of the famous and honorable Sepp Dietrich just go to show the degree of mind games the Jews played on their American puppets in order to get them to despise Germans so much that they would commit repeated genocidal war crimes against Germans. Of course we can just observe what American doctors are doing to the American populace today to get an idea of how gullible and manipulable Americans are.

    Here are a couple of other famous Sepp’s:

    https://luftwaffe.cz/wurmheller.html

    https://ww2gravestone.com/josef-sepp-allerberger-sniper-east-front/

    • Thanks: Fart Blossom
    • Replies: @HdC
    , @Dingo bay rum
  160. anonymous[214] • Disclaimer says:
    @Chet W

    LBJ gifted USA with Medicare.
    iow, Jew medicine.
    before that, medical care was a human service, not a market.

    thought occurred to me reading Jonathan Cook’s latest

    “…imagine what our world might look like had the principle of “bodily autonomy” not been established through centuries of struggle, just as were the right to vote and the right to health care.”

    health care a “right”??
    (to be paid for by someone else, someone with deep pockets that can be picked for the benefit of an oligarchic capitalistic few)

    used to enjoy watching “Cadfael,” the monk who kept the community well using herbs etc.
    The monastic model might have been a precursor for European-style communities; medical care was rendered out of compassion + pragmatism, but not as a market commodity.
    Later, and not that long ago, religious orders, Catholic, Protestant and some Jewish, ran medical centers, esp. hospitals. One went to the medical practitioners that matched one’s own ethnic and religious background. One tendered ‘money’ for services, and insurance existed, but medical care was not a major driver of a national economy.

    Jerry Muller explains that “Jews invented capitalism” as an alternative to conflicting religious bases of society: Jews viewed 30 years war, a battle between ways of salvation, and concluded that gaining wealth is the superior form of obtaining salvation. And so gaining wealth is the Jewish religion of this era.

    Sector by sector, Jews displaced “Cadfael”-monastic-Jesus-gospel forms of societal organization and installed market-models.

    • Replies: @Chet W
  161. Fascinating, but given the patterns of the US imperium and war machine over the last couple decades, why would we believe anything they say? And who gives a rip besides the legions of sad enablers still invested in the exceptionalist mythology?

    Meanwhile, here on Earth we all are watching billionaires and Captain Kirk diddle themselves with expensive toys and space tourism, while living in a dysfunctional, delusional, toxified Nation that is firmly inside the “Emperor Appoints Horse to Senate” phase of collapse.

    Plus, the only verifiably real and lasting cultural artifact that ever came out of NASA culture was the I Dream of Jeannie tv series with Barbara Eden in all those smokin’ hot outfits – at least we know those babies were real!

  162. @Achmed E. Newman

    Greetings, Mr. Newman,

    They just don’t make POTS lines like they used to…

    Here’s another, much longer, video, for your viewing enjoyment…

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
  163. D. K. says:
    @Mustapha Mond

    “Let’s see, what’s more likely: the moon rocks and all the landings were ‘faked’, or some greedy, thieving schmuck at NASA ‘copped and swapped’ one of the rocks for his private ‘collection’……..”

    What is even more likely still is that some rich asshole paid a gang of criminals to steal a moon rock from a museum, for permanent display at his own home, and that the theft was covered up, for as long as possible, by the thieves’ replacing of the actual moon rock, in the museum exhibit, with a (merely visual) substitute, carved out of wood.

    • Replies: @ariadna
    , @Iris
  164. ariadna says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Don’t leave. You bring comic relief. Precious

    • Agree: Iris
  165. @Bombercommand

    Thanks. I stand corrected on this one. Could you please check that other one for me?

    Even if the rocks are genuine, they could have gathered on earth : isn’t it curious that in 1967, the NASA set up an expedition (joined by Wernher Von Braun) to Antarctica, the region on earth with the biggest concentration of meteorites. It is alleged that lunar meteorites were brought back from this expedition, officially as reference to be later compared with Apollo samples.

    The point is that moon rocks prove nothing. Some may have been picked up on the moon … by robots. from The Russians did it in 1970.

  166. Nancy says:
    @obwandiyag

    Well Catherine Austin Fitts seems to accept that weather control is one of the many ‘black box’ technologies that have been developed since WW II… absolutely no accountability and endless funding. Hmmm…. “would they if they could?”… question seems to answer itself.

    • Replies: @InnerCynic
  167. beau says:

    the best thing that Texas jackass, lbj (small letters intended), ever did was die.

    • LOL: Mustapha Mond
    • Replies: @Mustapha Mond
  168. ariadna says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    “I noticed you had no replies to comments I spent over an hour writing.”
    Ouch! How insensitive!

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  169. ariadna says:
    @D. K.

    There is an element of beauty (sui generis), like a delicate tatting work or macramé, in a little conspiracy theory lovingly woven to patch up a hole in a huge conspiracy to create a hoax.

  170. When they’re not belching out “plausible deniability” for crimes against humanity, they’re blowing smoke up our ass by telling us the FrankenClotShots are good for our health, and without them we die.

    I personally would rather die naturally than be injected with gay gene therapy vaccines.

    They have created ‘Homo2SLGBTQQIAPWXYZ’, a mutant gender species to play Squid game with while depopulation plays out in the background.

  171. @Laurent Guyénot

    … NASA specifically forbids such a project…

    You must be referring to the 93-page document, dated July 20, 2011, which I had saved because of the photos and elaborate inventory list it contained. They did not “forbid” but merely recommended and suggested.

    They just do not want another spacecraft to land immediately next to the remnants, which they rationalized by pointing out that loose particles could be ejected to high velocity from the effects of the exhaust plumes of such a spacecraft.

    The published recommendation would not relate to a spacecraft landing nearby and sending out a surveillance drone (without propellers of course) or electric vehicle to take photos from the scene closer up.

    Perhaps the photo in my message #155, which did not appear inside the window, but is represented by an icon to click on, will convince you that a spacecraft platform, vehicle, and equipment were left on the moon. The solar illumination is oblique, so the shadows enhance the contours.

  172. @Buzz Mohawk

    When I read Laurent Guyénot’s article here, I was so disappointed that I considered giving up the Unz Review forever

    Dear reader, I am genuinely sorry that my article has such an effect on you. It shouldn’t. But I can understand. I remember just a few years ago, this kind of things really made me angry too. How we change! I advise you to wait until the angers fades away, then take the moon hoax theory as just a possibility, then try to see if it makes any sense in the world as you see it. How does it fit with everything else you know about the US since Johnson. The point of my article was to emphasize that the Apollo missions were Johnson’s brain child (a well accepted thesis) as a way to lead believers like you to doubt. Now, if I remember my own experience, perhaps your anger is caused by the fact that it made you doubt. Why not work on that doubt and do some homework? And why not start with this simple question: why in the world would the NASA make it if they could fake it? Surely you agree that the whole point was the TV pictures. Did the moonlandings produce anything else, like some new knowledge? Why would the NASA take such enormous risk just for some pictures and a few rocks? And here is another question you could ask yourself: Do you trust the NASA to tell the truth? Check these links for some help on this one:
    https://aplanetruth.info/theyre-alive-challenger-crew-found-alive-and-well-30-years-since-the-disaster/

    Stay tuned to the Unz Review and don’t give up on Guyénot. No one is perfect anyway.

    • Agree: Von Rho
    • Thanks: chris
    • Replies: @grettir
    , @JWalters
    , @Theodora
  173. @Chris Moore

    They should have chosen real “method actors” because none of them are believable.

  174. @anyone with a brain

    However there is one key piece of evidence in favor of the real moon landing and that is that the Soviets confirmed the Americans did land on the moon. Why would they do that?

    The same reason why “the Russians” and everyone else is playing along with the virus hoax. If you believe the so called moon landings (data) can be LOST then you are seriously missing some nutrition to feed the brain.

  175. Cogitosus says:
    @Been_there_done_that

    Look at any official NASA photo of the lunar lander sitting on the surface of the moon.

    Can you explain why there is no blast crater in the moon dust directly beneath the rocket engine of the descent stage?

    How could the landing pads be so spotlessly clean?

    The crew made a perfect landing!

    It almost looks like the module was set in place with a crane.

    • Replies: @Been_there_done_that
  176. @Been_there_done_that

    Perhaps the photo in my message #155, which did not appear inside the window, but is represented by an icon to click on, will convince you that a spacecraft platform, vehicle, and equipment were left on the moon.

    How can any such photo provided by the NASA convince me? And I’m surprised they can’t do better than that (pictures with higher definition) with today’s technology. I would definitely need something better, like, as I said, pictures from a non-NASA robot, which is exactly what the NASA don’t want: BTW, you say they don’t “forbid”, but you agree that no one dared go against their “recommendation”, don’t you?

  177. @Iris

    Naw imma get real…an go gangsta on yo iris bhind.
    Nigga Pleez, naw haw do y’all justify a dumbass music video wif twerk’n hoes ride’n on a niggaz rocket wif uh actual moon land’in?
    I mean, seriously????

    • LOL: Iris
  178. Anonymous[417] • Disclaimer says:
    @gotmituns

    Dear, dear. You seem to have no idea what a false flag is. And you cannot believe that LBJ had signed off on it himself. It would have worked if a Soviet Trawler had not shown up and put an end to the joint attempt to the dismay of both allies.

  179. @Been_there_done_that

    They just do not want another spacecraft to land immediately next to the remnants,

    https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/617743main_NASA-USG_LUNAR_HISTORIC_SITES_RevA-508.pdf

    The exclusion zone discussion is in this document.

    It is a lot more than “immediately next to the remnants”.

    They are hiding the ball.

    You are falling for the magic trick.

    We demand proof–kick the tires proof from an independent third party.

    No excuses.

    No “exclusion zones”.

    The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

    It is always interesting when the “scientists” start whining when real evidence is demanded.

  180. RestiveUs says:
    @Justvisiting

    I’ve often thought the same thing about 9-11. Control the situation and distract the audience from the real mechanics behind the ruse.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  181. The general public was well aware that radiation made space travel impossible.

    In 1963, contemporaneous with JFK and the “moon race,” Bill Rebane’s Monster A Go-Go explored exactly that scenario. A secret NASA space project involved massive injections of something or other (science stuff) to protect the astronaut from radiation. Unfortunately, the lead scientist decides to double the amount in the last injection, despite disastrous results when done to animals. When the astronaut returns, he’s a radiation scarred, seven foot tall monster. Or is he? Don’t reveal the shock ending!

    Reputed to be “the worst film we ever sat through” (MST3k no less), is its reputation part of a cover up? If official govt announcements are lies, would they leak the truth through “bad” movies?

    • Replies: @Franz
  182. Iris says:
    @D. K.

    What is even more likely still is that some rich asshole paid a gang of criminals to steal a moon rock from a museum, for permanent display at his own home

    No. It is just that NASA shot herself in the foot and her rock collection is, on the contrary, scientific evidence that the Moon Landing never happened.

    During the first Apollo missions, it was wrongly assumed, due to its visual appearance, that the Moon surface was completely immovable and covered in hard rocks.

    When the Lunokhod-1 unmanned Soviet rover arrived on the Moon in 1970, after earlier Apollo missions had allegedly landed there, space scientists discovered that what looked as hard rocks was actually soft, agglomerated clumps of particles that were very easily crushed by the light unmanned rover.

    These findings were published in a 1971 scientific study published by the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, but by then, it was too late for NASA to correct its outrageously implausible collect of “lunar rocks”.

    On the basis of the Lunokhod findings, scientists realised that contrary to their assumptions, the Moon was submitted to a constant and very powerful erosion. The soft “rocks” found everywhere by Lukhonod-1 resulted from continuous impact events that created the Moon craters. These craters and type of rocks were, luckily, classified in the Soviet publication.

    The upshot is that, following real observation of real Moon soil, and unlike what NASA believed when it started its hoax, hard rocks constitute only an unexpectedly meagre less-than-5% of the Moon’s surface. Yet, NASA allegedly managed to collect an astonishing 382 kg of hard stones from its missions.
    https://www.aulis.com/softrocks.htm

    Either NASA superhuman astronauts have been running marathons like crazy around the Moon to achieve such a miraculous collection. Or NAS just sent a mission to the Antarctic to collect hard meteorites and pass them on for Lunar stones.

    https://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/antmet/index.cfm

  183. @Been_there_done_that

    The picture above is taken from satellite (though with slight modifications : raw images are unviewable with the naked eye). The picture below is from the Apollo film series, that is to say from stage. In the age of Photoshop no image is a proof. The descent stage left practically no mark into the regolith (the gasses emitted by the retrorockets should have dusted everything around when entering in contact with the regolith and left a small crater right in the middle) while the astronauts’ boots left very neat footprints of the kind you can approach only with wet materials on earth.

  184. All you have to do is watch the so-called “press conference” that was held with the supposed moon walkers after their “return”. A more dour and long faced bunch you’ve never seen in your life. Downcast eyes. You’d have thought someone had died or killed the cat.

    • Agree: Olivier1973
  185. From the McGowan link above:

    “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

    It occurs to me that that is exactly what happens in 2001: Heywood Floyd takes some kind of Pan Am space shuttle to a gigantic space station, and only then heads to the moon. Seems like Kubrick was kind of in the know.

  186. @Nancy

    Of course they would. These lunatics, like DARPA, seem to take pleasure in cooking up all manner of evil inventions.

  187. @D. K.

    What’s 2634276?

    • Replies: @D. K.
  188. @Achmed E. Newman

    This Kung Flu PanicFest, shows that most Americans are as gullible as you say and can be fooled again, 20 years later.

    So true it’s shocking.

    Besides the probability of the moon landings being a hoax, the corona scam and the “vaccines are safe and effective” hoaxes, the same general scam has gone on repeatedly over the past 2 centuries yet people just assume that everything has been and is legitimate. What we’ve been told and is now generally accepted as true are the exact opposite and a complete perversion of reality. Even doctors, out of sheer ignorance largely due to brainwashing, have nary a clue about the real situation regarding pandemics, epidemics, and vaccines.

    We in the US have been lied to about every war we’ve been involved in as well, yet most believe the garbage and sneer at the truth.

    Given those examples, why would anyone believe that the official story about the moon landings contains even a grain of truth? Gullibility certainly explains a lot of it.

  189. @RestiveUs

    In my working life I spent a lot of time doing forensic accounting.

    The moment anybody “lost” documents or wanted to “exclude” certain information–that was all I needed to hear.

    They were frauds and I was gonna nail them.

  190. This image, represented by an icon in message #155, has a NASA domain and a shorter URL:

    It does not look like the remnants of a robotic mission.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  191. @RoatanBill

    It’s fucking stupid! Can’t read the news without busting out laughing.

  192. @Joe Paluka

    Doctors, dentists, and hospitals use lead shielding to protect against X-rays. Ali-foil doesn’t work and neither does “a double-walled hull of thin sheet steel”.

  193. loren says:

    If we look at it this way, the Johnson presidency may have been the greatest curse on the U.S. and the world

    1965 IMMIGRATION ACT

    CELLER
    HART
    JAVITS

    • Thanks: Katrinka
  194. @Maowasayali

    Yes, they obviously felt extremely embarrassed to fake it. Keep in mind these people were not professional actors, so they felt highly insecure. Honestly ask yourself, if you just had achieved the greatest feat of human history, would you behave in this way?

    • Agree: Maowasayali
  195. @Been_there_done_that

    If the moonlandings were fake, would faking such photographs really be improbable?

    • Replies: @Been_there_done_that
  196. @Jonathan Revusky

    I say! Bravo! Exactly correct! Your comment should be edged in burnished gold.

  197. The lunar module was another joke:

    https://www.aulis.com/lm_problem.htm

    So was the command module:

    https://www.aulis.com/csm-lm_orbit.htm

    These missions were a house of cards from day one.

  198. @Been_there_done_that

    I think you’ll find that the Van Allen belt is not a danger zone that you pass through to get from the safety of Earth’s atmosphere to the safety of deep space.

  199. Sparkon says:
    @Rich

    The order that everyone believes meant that JFK was going to withdraw from Vietnam (NSA Memo 263) actually plainly states that he was only going to withdraw 1,000 troops, there were 16,000 troops in country at the time and McNamara was calling for 200,000.

    No, and no again. There was no “only” to it. National Security Action Memorandum No. 263 and its attachment Section 1B (1-3) [q.v. below] called for the withdrawal of “the bulk” of U.S. forces from Vietnam by the end of 1965, with the first 1,000 pulling out by the end of 1963, and that was the plan recommended by Sec. Def. McNamara and Chm. JCS Gen. Taylor after their fact-finding missions to Vietnam.

    From U.S. Government archives, here is Section I B (1-3) of the Report of McNamara-Taylor Mission to South Vietnam

    B. Recommendations:

    1. General Harkins review with Diem the military changes necessary to complete the military campaign … by the end of 1965…

    2. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965.

    3. In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action should be explained in low key as an initial step I a long-term program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort.

    https://catalog.archives.gov/id/193326

    Robert McNamara’s version from his 1995 best-seller In Retrospect:

    McNamara then reproduces the precise wording of the military recommendations from Section I(B) of the report:

    We recommend that: [1] General Harkins review with Diem the military changes necessary to complete the military campaign in the Northern and Central areas by the end of 1964, and in the Delta by the end of 1965. [2] A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time. [3] In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.

    https://bostonreview.net/articles/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam/

    We had no damn business in Vietnam. It was up to the Vietnamese to decide the fate and politics of their own country, and that indeed was the conclusion reached by Pres. Kennedy well before he issued NSAM 263.

    Just as JFK had cooled on Vietnam to the point of ordering full withdrawal, so too had he cooled on the space program in general and the Moon project specifically, as author Laurent Guyénot notes, suggesting to Wernher von Braun that we’d bitten off more than we could chew.

    Meanwhile, the nifty trick of maneuvering safely through the Van Allen belts has been lost at NASA.

    The recent Chinese lunar lander Chang’e 4 found radiation levels in the von Karman crater on the Moon’s far side are 200x – 1000x higher than they are on Earth, and if that doesn’t burn your cookies, it might just fog your film.

    • Disagree: Rich, Dingo bay rum
  200. @RoatanBill

    You’re right. Most Americans wouldn’t know the difference between a black hole and their asshole.

  201. Katrinka says:
    @Maowasayali

    They all look guilty as hell.

  202. @Laurent Guyénot

    …NASA issued an unprecedented legislation forbidding any robot to approach any of the Apollo landing sites within a radius of 2 kilometers.

    Reminds me of this.:

    FDA Says It Needs Until Year 2076 To Reveal Data Pertaining To Pfizer Vaccine Approval

    Kira Mautone – Nov 18,2021

    The cover ups and lies are so laughable that no sane person could invent such things. Yet the gulls keep swallowing the garbage whole.

  203. Franz says:
    @James J O'Meara

    Reputed to be “the worst film we ever sat through… would they leak the truth through “bad” movies?

    Maybe but the “good” ones were damning enough.

    2001 basically said the human race couldn’t tie its shoe laces without help in the form of a giant slab (computer chip?) from space. Marooned had it that a tiny amount of pressure would push the astronauts to mutiny, or at least clinical depression.

    That bad one you posted is a great reminder of the days when regular people got their hands on a Bolex camera and enough cheap B&W film stock to make a garage movie. The glory days of Ed Wood were mostly over, but there were still some contenders. Bless ’em and let’s hope their time comes again. Cy Roth’s Fire Maidens From Outer Space even got a nod from the dean of movie catalogues, the late and sorely-missed Leslie Halliwell.

  204. Dube says:

    Special unit director: stage the engineers at their screens in the great hall jumping up and applauding.

  205. @Laurent Guyénot

    If you search “1967 NASA expedition Antarctica” the first search result is a link to a PDF of the 499 page official report on the expedition. It downloaded quickly to my smartphone. Perhaps I will wade through it. I am under the impression you suggested that meteorites of lunar origin gathered on this expedition were passed off as moon rock samples collected by Apollo. I have seen both meteorite samples and moon rocks(as a kid growing up in Houston Texas). There is simply no resemblance betwixt the two. Meteorites are smooth from reentry, moon rocks look like a piece of concrete(same color and texture) crossed with a burnt charcoal briquette. You seem to be moving the goal posts. First the Dutch fake moon rock was proof the moon landings were a hoax, now, in your latest comment, it seems your position is even if the moon rocks are genuine, it doesn’t prove Apollo landed men on the moon(and of course a reference to the Russians actually doing it because we all know Americans are stupid and Russians are mindbogglingly competent, hyper-sonic wizards). It would be simple to show that the Apollo moon landings are fake, the coordinates are known, just make a low fly pass and show “nothing there”. The idiotic Chinese would be more than willing and have the capability, the arrogant Brits don’t have the capability but would be overjoyed to humiliate “the bloody Yanks”. In my opinion this “moon landing hoax” narrative is part of the current tsunami of anti-American propaganda that emanates from (((the usual suspects))).

  206. Noble47 says:
    @Rich

    No, Kennedy intended to pull out all 16,000 advisors.
    Here’s Robert McNamara discussing that very subject (from the documentary “Fog of War”):

    October 2nd. I had returned from Vietnam. At that time, we had 16,000 military advisors. I recommended to President Kennedy and the Security Council that we establish a plan and an objective of removing all of them within two years:

    October 2nd, 1963

    Kennedy: The advantage to taking them out is?

    McNamara: We can say to the Congress and people that we do have a plan for reducing the exposure of U.S. combat personnel.

    Kennedy: My only reservation about it is if the war doesn’t continue to go well, it will look like we were overly optimistic.

    McNamara: We need a way to get out of Vietnam, and this is a way of doing it.

    Kennedy announced we were going to pull out all of our military advisors by the end of ’65 and we were going to take 1000 out by the end of ’63 and we did. But, there was a coup in South Vietnam. Diem was overthrown and he and his brother were killed.

    • Replies: @Rich
    , @Patrick McNally
  207. D. K. says:
    @Badger Down

    “What’s 2634276?”

    Your childhood phone number? Your student number at the University of Wisconsin?

    The 26th of March in A.D. 4276 will be a Sunday.

    The 27th of June in A.D. 2634 will be a Friday.

  208. Olivier1973 says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    In an obviously set up question to Putin at a small press conference, Putin was asked if the Americans really went to the Moon. He answered “yes, they went to the Moon.”

    Source please?!

    Otherwise I will not believe your word.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  209. AReply says:

    For USA conservatives, the NASA moon shots will forever be Mankind’s crowning achievement and the a total hoax, at the same time! …Without cognitive dissonance.

    As Laurent Guyénot says, “Dear reader, I am genuinely sorry that my article has such an effect on you. It shouldn’t. But I can understand. I remember just a few years ago, this kind of things really made me angry too. How we change! I advise you to wait until the angers fades away…”

    The President’s Analyst, drugged and V.I. Kydor Kropotkin’s captive after hijacking a Canadian Secret Service ship:

    “I suggest a leisurely cruise to the Great Lakes, up the St. Lawrence Seaway, and then out to the Newfoundland Coast to meet one of our trawlers. Of course, if you prefer… I can arrange for a submarine… But I’ve always found submarine… travel… tedium… teedium… teeedium… …”

  210. I’d like to know what was gained by going to the moon? Nothing really besides National pride. Big Deal! Was it also a diversion from the insane quagmire of VN or was it for other reasons also? Probably both. And while thousands of American men, Vietnamese and wildlife were getting killed or maimed LBJ was skinny dipping in the White House pool with his pal Billy Graham. To me it’s just hard to believe they could send rockets to the moon and back when at the time American automobiles had so many problems and became clunkers after about 6-7 years.

  211. @Bombercommand

    The “moon landing hoax” has a long history which included whistleblowers.

    If you want to honor a true American hero, meet one of them–Bill Kaysing:

    https://www.aulis.com/kaysing.htm

    • Replies: @Bombercommand
  212. Chet W says:
    @anonymous

    Looking at it from another angle, medical care WAS a market – a service, yes; but not a civil right. Medicare was initially developed to promote stashing away part of your income over many years, to defray medical care costs in your retirement days – presumably the government responsibly managing that money so years later you could afford medical care when old, when it was more likely to be expensive. A lot like social security. But as we’ve all seen, the government dropped the ball. Social security is way behind inflation and you have to buy supplemental medicare insurance just to keep it somewhat affordable. That caveat was never mentioned when Medicare was first instituted. And remember – insurance companies are banks and operate at that level, feeding their buddies on Wall St in the process – importantly, that’s their first priority.

    As you mentioned, years ago, charities voluntarily donated money to hospitals (hospitals with “Mercy” in their name – that’s where that comes from.) It was a major part of defraying the costs of healthcare. But that has disappeared because money hungry 2 bit MBA’s (who didn’t rate a bank or Wall St job) replaced those nuns, so you’re now on your own – unless people (worker bees) are in some way forced to pay for others health care – a liberal (probably LBJ) installation, just like welfare for illegitimate bastards, never inclined to work a day in their life – and, of course, your misfortune ultimately funds those MBAs’ golden balloons, the thing in which they spend 98% of their time calculating .

  213. JWalters says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    I have a question for each side in this debate.

    1. Why did all the unmanned space probes go through these cosmic dangers without being melted or otherwise destroyed?

    2. Any modest sized engineering project has design documents, including but not limited to diagrams. A large project will have documents analyzing various design choices, and explaining why certain choices are made. So even if the physical technology is “destroyed”, it could be duplicated from the design documents. Certainly the large mass of design documents for such an expensive project would be saved. Where are they?

  214. @JWalters

    Why did all the unmanned space probes go through these cosmic dangers without being melted or otherwise destroyed?

    “Why” is really the wrong question. We know that unmanned spacecraft have visiting the Moon, other planets, etc. so we know the equipment does just fine.

    Humans (and animals for that matter) do not handle radiation (like that in and beyond the Van Allen belts) very well. That is why they will need the billion dollar space suits for man to visit the Moon and elsewhere outside low Earth orbit:

    https://qz.com/2046840/a-1-billion-space-suit-is-holding-up-nasas-2024-moon-landing/

    Imho we will need nanotechnology in space suits to make this stuff doable:

    https://www.engineering.com/story/how-nanotech-will-help-us-explore-other-planets

  215. HdC says:
    @Sepp

    Well put… Thanks. HdC

  216. @Maowasayali

    Obviously, you know nothing about these men.

    Armstrong was painfully shy when confronted with public speaking. He was a superb pilot by all accounts, not a superb public orator. As a former civil litigation attorney, I’ve seen many incredibly intelligent and talented people wilt before public speaking. It’s not for everyone.

    And have all of you moon hoaxers forgotten how Neil Armstrong totally flubbed the most critical, most important, most historic words he would ever utter, knowing well in advance of the momentousness of the occasion? It was supposed to be “One small step for A man…..”. Why even Omni magazine ripped Armstrong for it, coming up with their famous, “Small Steps” contest. And you wonder why he was obviously nervous addressing MILLIONS OF PEOPLE after that painfully obvious flub????

    If it was supposed to be this great hoax, why the hell flub the most important words any astronaut would likely ever utter in history?

    If life is an IQ test, moon hoaxers are hopelessly double-digiters, at best……….

    • Agree: Wielgus
    • Thanks: ivan
    • LOL: Theodora
    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  217. Rich says:
    @Noble47

    Sure, after his “guaranteed” win in Nov 64, he would’ve pulled them out? I’ve read NSA Memo 263, it says “1,000 troops”. No mention of removing everyone. Of course, I’m of the opinion that if JFK hadn’t been assassinated, Goldwater would have been president and we’d be living in a much better world today.

    • Replies: @Noble47
    , @Francis Miville
  218. Anon[416] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    JFK made a speech before Congress as a senator telling the French they were being imperialists, being in Viet Nam. They had been there a hundred years already and he told them they should leave. As soon as they did, he sent in the Americans. He wanted to show up the French[IMO]. They can’t defeat the Commies, but the Americans can. He was a staunch anti commie cold warrior and also had it in for the French who did not want US military bases in their homeland. So I don’t believe he had any intentions of not fighting the commies in Viet Nam. That’s revisionist history.

    • Agree: Dingo bay rum, Rich
  219. @Laurent Guyénot

    J’espère que ce message vous trouve en bonne santé et esprit. On ne peut que s’émerveiller du temps et de l’énergie que vous investissez dans la rédaction d’articles et de livres. Bien documentés et bien pensés, les uns après les autres. Tout le meilleur pour 2022.

    Note latérale : vus de la lune [ou ailleurs dans l’espace], les océans de la Terre sont noir, pas bleu.

    *******

    I hope this message finds you in good health and spirit. One cannot but marvel at all the time and energy you invest in writing articles and books. Well-documented and well thought out, one after another. All the best for 2022.

    Side note: seen from the moon [or elsewhere in space], the Earth’s oceans are black, not blue.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  220. Erebus says:
    @Been_there_done_that

    Yours is a straw man argument.

    The reasons for doubting the moon landing are exactly the same as for doubting the Holohoax.

    These are:

    1. An event for which there ought to be vast quantities of physical and documentary evidence available lacks both. We don’t know any more about how the Lander worked (apparently without a fuel tank on the buggy missions(!)), or how the astronauts avoided being fried beyond the Van Allen Belts (should they have made it through them) than we know about how the “Nazi gas chambers” worked. We apparently “lost” both those technologies.

    We know nobody “lost” the Holohoax’s engineering and logistics documents because they never existed, but we’re to believe that the entirety of the mountains of literally priceless, world-historical engineering documents that were generated in building and piloting the Lander, the Dune Buggy, the Saturn V, the moon suits, etc etc, etc were tossed with the old coffee cups and pizza boxes when the program ended. No, we know NASA “lost” them “sometime in the ’70s” because they knew damn well that anyone reviewing them would conclude what was obvious to many at the time.

    2. The claims are not supported by such evidence as we do have. Walk around Birkenau for a few days and come up with a logistics plan that comes within hailing distance of being able to move the people and materiel required to achieve what the Hoaxers claim to have been achieved. You’ll fail, and so will the best logistics man you can find. Likewise, those that have studied the F1 rocket engine have concluded that it was incapable of lifting its load to the orbit required for the onward journey to the Moon. In fact, even the lowest of LEOs was its absolute limit. Had they left Earth orbit, all that shielded the astronauts from deep space radiation was a few mms of aluminium and not even that as they gallivanted about on the moon like carefree puppies. A single solar flare in their general direction and they were goners. That the moon landings took place at a time of high Sunspot activity throws the whole meme into a cocked hat.

    A block diagram of the moon missions would be so choked with black boxes labelled “SOMETHING MAGIC HAPPENS HERE” that no critically minded person could accept it, or even entertain its possibility.

    The technology to kill 4M at Birkenau without leaving a trace wasn’t available in the ’40s, and the technology to go to the moon wasn’t available in 60s-70s. Neither are available even now. For the moon, it may never be available other than virtually, where you and the similarly minded can walk around the moon as George Jetson. The Metaverse, I suspect is where man will first experience the moon.

    Those are the simple facts that undermine the truth of the landings, just as they undermine the truth of the Holohoax. There is nothing but well orchestrated smoke ‘n mirrors supporting both. If all one can find is evidence of fakery, thereof one must conclude it was faked.

    We’re watching such fakery working itself out right now…

    In light of all the careful program preparation involving hundreds of thousands of doctors and medical experts, it seems that it would have been far more difficult to successfully fake a pandemic than to simply pull one off.

    You obviously have no idea how the real world works.

    Fakes are almost always easier than the real thing. When the real thing is impossible they’re literally infinitely easier. A real pandemic is immune to control. A fake one does as well as the Fakers are able to manage the narrative. When they manage well, about 30% of the population believes it with a passion, 40% are ambivalent, 30% deny it. That held for the moon landings at the time, it holds for the pandemic now. Twas ever thus, and will ever be.

    It’s all tribal lore. Moses didn’t part the sea, and America didn’t go to the moon. Neither Moses, nor the Holohoaxers, nor NASA, nor today’s “pandemic” Fakers needed the real thing to achieve the results they wanted. Whether they see big, noisy rockets lifting off, or “case numbers” skyrocketing, a sufficient number of rubes internalize the entirety of the narrative to drive the perpetrators closer to their goals.

  221. @Noble47

    Everything stated in the documents you cite is conditioned on the idea that taking 2 more years will allow the Vietnamization of the war, the same way that Nixon tried. There is nothing there which suggests “well, the Saigon elite is hopelessly corrupt, so we should pull out and let them sink.” In practice this would not have led to any faster withdrawal.

    • Replies: @Noble47
  222. @Justvisiting

    Bill Kaysing was not an engineer. He had a BS in English. He worked for a corporation involved with rocket technology, I can’t remember it’s name, but quit in 1963 before the Apollo program started. What point do you imagine you are making??? Be specific.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  223. @beau

    You might appreciate this…..

    When I was young and radio was still a wild, untamed expanse of free speech, I was listening to a conservative broadcast out of Texas. I have never forgotten the following story that parallels your comment nicely:

    A man walked into a bar in Southern Texas, ordered a drink, raised his glass and said, “LBJ is a horse’s ass!” Instantly every man and woman in that bar descended on the gentleman and beat the shit out him, throwing him out the door thereafter.

    Undeterred, the man picked himself up, brushed himself off and went into the next saloon and did the same, with the same result.

    At the third bar he entered, the man once again ordered his drink, raised his glass and made the same pronouncement. After the other patrons and the owner finished wiping the floor with the hapless man, before they could throw him out the door, he yelled, “Wait! Wait! This is southern Texas, the heart of conservatism. I didn’t know you were all LBJ lovers.”

    To which the bar owner replied, “We’re not, you asshole. We’re horse lovers……. ”

    • LOL: The Anti-Gnostic
    • Replies: @beau
  224. @Bombercommand

    My point is that the early whistleblowers (like Kaysing) spoke out when they saw fraud early on and were viciously attacked for their trouble.

    History will prove that they are the real heros.

    We will know there was no “there there” soon enough–NASA’s wall of lies will be exposed when we homo sapiens do visit and explore the moon using technology that actually works.

    The Apollo moon landings will be laughed at as another “Piltdown Man” fraud pretending to be science.

    • Agree: Olivier1973
    • LOL: Von Rho
    • Replies: @Olivier1973
  225. ivan says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    Do also check:

    The Secret of Apollo, the outstanding work on the systems engineering that enabled NASA
    to master the enormous complexity of the preparations for the Moon Landings.
    https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/secret-apollo

    The archives of https://www.righto.com/search?q=apollo , for learned reviews on the
    electronics used in the Apollo program

    The archives of NASA are literally bursting with thousands of articles on every aspect of
    the Apollo program including translations of Russian articles on engineering and space.
    They knew all about hypersonics and way back in the 60s.

    And do take a read of Tom Wolfe’s
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Right_Stuff_(book)
    or Norman Mailer’s
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_a_Fire_on_the_Moon
    and ask yourself if these are the type of writers who would engage in a cover-up.

    I’ve always thought ever since I saw the Moon Landing on TV in 1969, that this was
    the greatest single technical and organizational feat in the history of mankind, and
    nothing since has approached it.

    • Replies: @chris
  226. Adrian says:

    I saw the moon landing “with my own eyes” on television and for about forty years afterwards I kept believing in what I thought I had seen.

    It was not until checking out Alexander “Ace” Baker’s “The Great American Psy-Op” on 9/11 that I also encountered a reasonably articulate “moon-landing skeptic” representing a view that I had heard vaguely about and had thought to be utterly ridiculous (Ron Unz’s position today).

    Shortly afterward a chance reading of Dave McGowan’s “Wagging the moon doggie” (I was attracted by its whacky title) made me wonder why I had been so thoughtless to accept the 1969 story without further ado.

    I was pleased to see McGowan’s series of articles mentioned in Laurent Guénot’s valuable essay (once again kudos to Ron Unz’ for publishing a point of view he himself finds ridiculous).

    McGowan comes with plain common sense arguments. That is why he is utterly convincing (at any case for me) “at first sight”. He had that effect also on the American/New Zealand psychiatrist Emanuel Garcia. Garcia has written various articles on the moon hoax in one of which he explains how psychological manipulation triumphed over common sense:

    Yet despite however many times I view the Apollo photographs and TV recordings, my earthly associations of the conjunction of a dark sky with a soft white terrain convince me that the astronauts were having one grand old time fulfilling the wonderful dream of a moonlit white Christmas Eve – even though I know better. Even though I know that setting the Lunar Module in the middle of the Sahara Desert at eternal noontime would still have been far less sweltering than the lunar surface.

    The perpetrators of the Apollo hoax no doubt knew a great deal about human psychology, our wishes to accomplish the impossible, and our fantasies about winter wonderlands. Their propaganda was magnificent and contrived in such a way that thoughtful and rational considerations would be swept aside. The Moon they represented to us, so long aspired to by lovers, poets, by young and old – itself a serene and benign presence in our earthly sky – was welcoming, nurturing and benevolent, psychologically speaking, perfectly in consonance with our desires.

    In fact the lunar surface is an extraordinarily hazardous environment. Temperatures fluctuate widely from above boiling point to far below freezing. Radiation abounds. Micrometeorites pummel the terrain ubiquitously. The vacuum of space would suck the life out of an insufficiently insulated liquid – or human being.

    https://www.aulis.com/moon_landings.htm

    After his first encounter with McGowan Garcia explored the topic further, as did I. He singled out the writings of the New Zealander Dt. Phil Couts as some of the best informed writing on the matter based entirely on NASA-documentation. Here is a part of Phil Couts’ stuff:
    https://www.aulis.com/moonbase2019.htm

    • Disagree: Dingo bay rum
    • Replies: @Anon
  227. Noble47 says:
    @Rich

    JFK knew that announcing a total withdrawal from Vietnam before the ’64 election could hurt his chances at winning. The smarter, though more devious, course was to be silent about the total withdrawal until after the election – which he was confident he would win if he avoided controversial moves. As quoted in my previous reply, Secretary of Defense McNamara was very clear that this was exactly JFK’s intent – pull them all out, but start with 1000 in ’63 (which was done) and the balance by the end of ’65.

    There’s a recording of a phone call by LBJ to RFK shortly after the assassination. In it, LBJ tells RFK that he strongly disagreed with JFK pulling out the 1000 advisors, but that he held his tongue at the time. Now that he was President, LBJ told RFK he was going to put back the 1000 advisors, and tell the press that this was just a continuation of the JFK’s policy (a cover story). The only reason for LBJ to make that call was because the policy was actually changing.

    • Disagree: Dingo bay rum
    • Replies: @Noble47
  228. R.C. says:
    @Wayne Lusvardi

    Mea culpa. I didn’t mean to hit disagree.
    R.C.

  229. Noble47 says:
    @Noble47

    CORRECTION:
    The phone call LBJ made was to McNamara who was still the Secretary of Defense at that time. The rest of the information is as stated.

  230. Biff says:
    @Erebus

    Where’s your gold box?

    • Agree: Mehen
  231. Ike’s warning came after a lifetime of servitude to the Owners of the MICC as he was retiring. Where was Ike’s warning in 1953? 1954’s Operation Ajax? Saved it for when he was going to hit the golf course full time.

    Declaring JFK as a saint is a fantasy. We have no idea what JFK would actually have done when push came to shove.

    All US Presidents come from and serve the same group of elites. Party affiliation is a gimmick to engage the People in thinking that they are part of the process. Go Red Team! Yay Blue Team!

  232. @Sepp

    Listen sourkraut, I’m not disputing the SS; I’m disputing you on the moon landing.

  233. @Franklin Ryckaert

    …faking such photographs…

    The last gasp grasp, if all else fails; simply suggest any and all video and photographic evidence was somehow “faked“, with no further consideration, so here are some counter-questions.

    Have you bothered to blow up the image and spotted any suspicious anomalies that would indicate a possible “fake“? How many hundreds of thousands of images do suppose were “faked“, especially so proficiently that there would be no discrepancies with any other images? How many hundreds or thousands of professional photographic “fakers” might have been secretly employed to do this using the technology available at the time? From where would people willing to do such work be hired? Might any of them have become disgruntled and been fired, maybe “spilled the beans” to get even?

    Regarding genuinely and verifiable faked evidence: Do you recall how quickly Obama’s alleged Hawaiian birth certificate, released by the White House, was exposed as a sloppy fake, within roughly 24 hours, even though modern technology was used? (This was so embarrassing for Obama’s handlers that they immediately pulled the Bin-Laden assassination story out of the reserve drawer as a successful distraction.)

    Does the image embedded in message #194 of Apollo 17 look like it might have been taken anywhere on earth, or do you agree that it accurately depicts the lunar surface?

    If this was just a robotic mission, how do you explain the apparent use of a vehicle leaving offset parallel tracks that correspond with a vehicle of sufficient width that could accompany two astronauts sitting beside each other? Wouldn’t that have been extravagant over-kill?

    What kind of rocket might have been powerful enough in the early 1970s to have transported such a wide vehicle to the moon from earth? How would such a vehicle have been assembled, if not by humans?

    Might it have just been Martians that visited the moon centuries earlier?

    If any of the monitoring equipment that was placed on the surface is still operational today, would it make sense to recommend that no spacecraft attempt to land next to it to avoid kicking up particles that could disrupt its functionality?

    The image below purportedly shows the vehicle being driven during the Apollo 17 mission:

    Do you suppose the delicate wire mesh wheels clearly visible on the right side of the vehicle would have been strong enough to support the astronaut under earth gravity conditions?

    Does it look like the astronaut was sufficiently protected against radiation? Would he have been able to see any stars amid the intense sunlight and heavily tinted glass helmet?

    Are you already convinced that this image was “faked“, presumably as you would about everything else involving the Apollo program, including Apollo 8 in 1968?

    Even if an independent mission to revisit the area confirmed the moon landing with ample evidence, there would likely still be implacable people, like yourself, who would claim the evidence was “faked“. Such people would be widely regarded as “fake“.

    • LOL: Erebus, Sepp
    • Replies: @Erebus
  234. Noble47 says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Corruption in the Saigon government wasn’t exactly unknown, just as it wasn’t unknown recently in the Afghan government. However, things like that aren’t mentioned in all policy papers or discussed during press briefings. (The grim situation in Vietnam was hidden from the American people. McNamara in particular would give rosy predictions in public, but a grim assessment privately – especially as Johnson’s SecDef.)

    No one knows how long it would have taken the US to get out of Vietnam if JFK had lived & been re-elected. However, 2 years was the plan, according to Secretary of Defense McNamara. I think it’s fair to say that it would have ended sooner than 1975.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  235. @Erebus

    You obviously have no idea how the real world works.

    Your point seems to be that virtually anything important is really a contrived deception. Though I agree that many narratives are built upon lies and faked evidence, you are making a simplistic logical leap to then casually apply this analogy (Birkenau, Covid) to the moon landing project, even though the circumstances are quite different, so this is a misleading proposition. A historical or epidemiological narrative is definitely not the same thing as a huge engineering project with volumes of video and photographic evidence to support it.

    • Replies: @Erebus
    , @Badger Down
  236. Ron Unz says:

    Well, I suppose I might as well put in my own two cents on this silly nonsense…

    As far as I can tell, there’s absolutely zero, zero, ZERO solid evidence that the Moon landings were faked. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not ZERO evidence.

    And here’s a simple argument on the other side. I’d guess that something like tens of thousands of engineers, scientists, and technicians were broadly involved in the NASA project, and if the whole thing were fake, surely a substantial fraction of them must have known. Yet not a single one ever came forward during the immediate decades that followed to claim wealth and fame, especially since the 1970s were filled with all sorts of other “shocking” revelations of government plots and conspiracies.

    A faked lunar landing isn’t like the JFK assassination or 9/11 involving dangerous life-or-death issues for possible whistle-blowers, just a national embarrassment. Yet although huge numbers of JFK-related people came forward and thousands of architects and engineers have publicly questioned the 9/11 story, as far as I can tell, not a single reputable scientist let alone direct NASA participant has ever challenged the lunar landings.

    The problem with “conspiracy people” is that they tend to be very, very gullible and lack all common sense. Therefore, they believe that everything is a conspiracy on the basis of ZERO evidence. If some photograph looks a little odd, that outweighs the evidence from silence of 10,000 NASA workers.

    A few years ago, these same sort of nutjobs were going around claiming that all terrorist attacks were faked with “crisis actors” because some crime scene looked peculiar or some witness spoke strangely before the camera. An obvious point they missed was that it’s easier, cheaper, and safer to hire a couple of gunmen to shoot people than to hire 100 “crisis actors” to fake a crime scene.

    Maybe Cass Sunstein and his friends pay or recruit all these fools and crackpots in order to make all conspiracy-researchers look totally ridiculous.

  237. @Cogitosus

    “Can you explain why there is no blast crater in the moon dust directly beneath the rocket engine of the descent stage?

    Why do you have to ask me, as if the answer to your question could not be readily found?

    Here is a basic explanation at Quora:

    https://www.quora.com/Why-didn’t-the-Apollo-11-spaceship-make-a-big-crater-when-it-landed

    Here is a partial quote:

    C Stuart Hardwick
    Has a lunar adventure in the March 2019 Analog Scifi.
    Answered 5 years ago · Author has 11.6K answers and 116.7M answer views

    I assume you are asking why the Apollo landers didn’t excavate a large crater when they landed on the moon? Several reasons:

    1. Landing rockets seldom make a crater under any circumstances. To do so, they would have push the soil upwards. To do THAT, they would have to blast a concentrated jet of material down through the soil and have it push the soil up from underneath. That’s a pressure washer, not a rocket. Rockets don’t do that.

    2. In a vacuum, rocket exhaust expands perpendicular to thrust much faster then in an atmosphere. That’s why engine bells have to be wider for use in space to get the same efficiency, and means that even less of the exhaust is blasting directly down than would be true on earth.
    The LEM descent engine only had 10,000 pounds of thrust at full power and was only running at abut 20% of that during the last moments of descent.

    3. The LEM was equipped with six foot long contact probes. The engine was cut off early to minimize soil disturbance and prevent debris from bouncing up and causing damage, and the LEM fell the last few feet (You can see one of the probes, bent flat and buried by soil in the image below).

    4. In spite of all this, the LEMs did “kick up” a good deal of dust, but dust cannot form a dust cloud in vacuum. There is no air for it to hit and swirl around in. Each grain of dust, thrown outward and pushed downward by the exhaust, simply shot out of frame, then bounced along the surface until it came to rest.

    The answer then continues with visual evidence and additional commentary.

  238. @Justvisiting

    Thank you a million times for that brilliant website I was up all night reading it. That’s why I keep coming to UNZ. Their’s some serious scholarship there these are all highly educated professionals asking very tough questions and NASA can do is give deer in the headlights answers.

    https://www.aulis.com/orion_vanallens.htm

    About Orion’s brief exploration of the lowest ring of the Van Allen Belt.

    Just why such monitoring should then be considered an unmentionable item for the Orion flight objectives is rather a mystery. As is the fact that when the technical reports for Orion EFT-1 were published on NASA’s Technical Report Server, it included an incorrectly titled PDF document on the engineering undertaken for the protection against radiation for the Guidance Navigation & Control (GN&C) components of the spacecraft[12], but the radiation data acquired by Orion relative to the interior of the craft and its future human occupants was not immediately apparent.

    As it turned out, for that data to be available a FOIA (US Freedom of Information Act) request was required. That was a saga in itself and best told by the participant[13] who kindly sent us a copy in September 2015.

    Hmmm FOIA for radiation information from VAB why.

    At first glance this may sound alright. Less is good. But in fact this sentence was written backwards: the Orion detectors were registering three orders of magnitude higher than the ISS.

    That’s right VAB radiation was a 1000 times higher than the International Space Station whose radiation profile matched the Apollo Program’s Dosimeter readings

    Apollo never left LEO

    Game over

    • Agree: Erebus
    • Thanks: Truth Vigilante
  239. @Johnny Paytoilet

    The rule of thumb is that; as a result of physical and technological restraints, “if it couldn’t have happened, then it didn’t happen”.

    As to the Moon landings, in 1969, the United States did not have the physical or technical ability to land a Volkswagen on the Moon, much less take sightseeing tours of the Moon’s surface.

    Likewise, since it requires about 90 minutes to dispose of a single human body by cremation, Germans did not, in 1944 or since have the physical or technical ability to dispose of several thousand “gassed” Jews on a daily basis- as reported by numerous eyewitnesses, who somehow survived numerous “death camps”.

    • Replies: @Grahamsno(G64)
  240. Seraphim says:
    @Joe Paluka

    No, it’s that they won’t be able to shop perfumes on the Champs-Élysées. Russians being notorious alcoholics used to drink cologne, cheaper than vodka.

  241. Erebus says:
    @Been_there_done_that

    How many hundreds of thousands of images do suppose were “faked“, …

    None.

    All of them were done in a real studio, using real humans, real photographers, real cameras, real lighting arrangements, and real props on a real stage with real front projection screens. The film used was real too.

    That’s as “real” as it could get in the ’60s. Parenthetically it can’t get any “realer” now, and I suspect it won’t until the Metaverse includes the moon and we can all “go there” at will. With or without our Playtex moon suits.

  242. Erebus says:
    @Been_there_done_that

    Your point seems to be that virtually anything important is really a contrived deception.

    If that’s what you think my point was, you misunderstand my post as wildly as you misunderstood the validity of your own.

  243. Imagine Dragons – On Top Of The World (Official Music Video)
    301,510,158 views Nov 13, 2013

    Your going to the moon in a historic mission, your goal is to demonstrate that you can do this, national prestige and such, and you are to get some moon rocks then come back and have a big parade.

    So what is the purpose of taking a big bulky moon rover that weighs 450 lbs and takes up a huge amount of space? It cost a pretty penny to put 1 pound into orbit, let alone to the moon, the shipping costs are huge. It makes no sense they sent a 450 lb moon jeep just so the astronuts could go for a joy ride. And it’s not like you are going to go very far on 1950’s battery power. And if the rover got stuck in the moon dust, how would the astronaut explorer get back to the LEM?

    The moon rover makes no sense, but it makes good TV. There are supposedly 3 moon rovers collecting dust on the moon, and as soon as a third party can send back photos of left behind buggies I would become a believer, but believe me they ain’t there because it is all fake.

    Rammstein – Amerika (Official Video)
    150,090,312 views Jul 31, 2015

    With so much fakery being exposed now, is it so hard to believe they lied to us back then?

    And if it was real then why is all the NASA moon historical tapes gone from the archives? The most important step for mankind scrubbed like those redacted JFK files. Uh huh. Sure.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  244. @Maowasayali

    Imagine you went to Patagonia. When you get back to Small Town, USA, everyone from schoolkids to the local newpaper to your buddies wants to know: “What did you see?”

    I’m betting you wouldn’t answer like Neil Armstrong did:
    https://www.richplanet.net/astronauts.php

    • Agree: Laurent Guyénot
  245. Biff says:
    @Ron Unz

    that outweighs the evidence from silence of 10,000 NASA workers.

    Not all engineers(NASA workers) are the same. Some of their tasks or specialties get very specific – some work only on the seats for astronauts, some work only on door hinges, others may only work on power supplies, communications, propulsion, food, and at NASA, you only get security clearance for your own dept. Not everyone is ‘in’ on the big picture.

    Disclaimer: not picking sides, just holes.

  246. @JWalters

    3. Why can my Huawei wristwatch survive for a whole stinking week underwater, when I’d expire after a few minutes?

    • Agree: nokangaroos
  247. @Been_there_done_that

    a huge engineering project with volumes of video and photographic evidence to support it.

    You’re talking about the pulverisation of the WTC! Too bad the concrete evidence was Gone With The Wind. Both planes: vaporized! Even the Black Boxes: Gone, like Lucky Larry Silverstein!

    Lucky they had all that photographic evidence that a plane disappeared into the Pentagon, or not.

  248. @Franklin Ryckaert

    Well noted Franklin.

    Golda Meir and LBJ were separated at birth twin brothers.
    Yes – BROTHERS.

    There’s no way anyone’s going to convince me that Golda was a woman
    Golda was evidently a botched genital mutilation pagan ritual (some people still mistakenly refer to it as a circumcision) gone wrong.

    As is often the case after infection sets in, said male genitalia is surgically removed and the poor little fellow has to live his life as a woman.

  249. @Noble47

    There is nothing in the documents which suggests that JFK was willing to simply withdraw with the understanding that the Saigon government would be toppled by the Viet Minh. That’s the crux of the issue. LBJ was simply being realistic when he acknowledged that any US withdrawal in the near future would have meant the overthrow of Saigon. JFK didn’t really have an alternative to this.

    • Replies: @Noble47
  250. Franz says:
    @Ron Unz

    The problem with “conspiracy people” is that they tend to be very, very gullible and lack all common sense. Therefore, they believe that everything is a conspiracy on the basis of ZERO evidence.

    This construction is problematic.

    The Fake-Moon crowd are not “believ[ing] that everything is a conspiracy on the basis of ZERO evidence” we’re the ones unimpressed with the moon evidence. Some of us quite seriously WANT to believe but the problems are not small.

    The thousands of people who could have “come forward” with the truth is a replay of the Manhattan Project Fallacy — somebody would have talked. Actually some did. But only a few at the top knew enough to piece the whole of it together. So it don’t matter what a project specialist in Kansas knew, or what an engineer in Seattle knew. They were not in the loop. They knew tons about their little part in the game. The whole game? They were worse off than layman, because they probably had no clue what their little bit was doing for the mission.

    The Van Allen Radiation. The miles of conveniently lost magnetic tape. The slew of astronauts, some of whom were quite talkative, suddenly gone mute then quitting the service. As Jerry Pournelle put it long ago, people thought The Space Age was just beginning. So why did they bail and all but refuse to discuss it afterwards?

    Little by little it adds up to at least enough to empanel a high-level group of engineers for investigation. Like the assassination committee that investigated the JFK case long after it was cold.

    I was in the US Naval squadron in December 1968 that brought the Apollo 8 crew back from carrier to shore, on one of the old Grumman C-1A aircraft.

    We had very little time with them, but Frank Borman was a riot, and full of energy from the long flight. In the short time they were among us regular Navy types, it stood out that these were the LEAST LIKELY men in human history to fake a spaceflight or anything else.

    That was a long time ago in what seems like another country. There are too many things in the present era that’s throwing an unpleasant shadow on all the earlier eras. Hope I’m wrong.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Iris
  251. Adrian says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron Unz’ American Pravda articles are all written in a moderate, reasonable style even though he has dealt there with topics likely to raise the blood pressure of all participants in the debate.
    In his latest comment, by contrast, he becomes positively abusive:

    silly nonsense…there’s absolutely zero, zero, ZERO solid evidence that the Moon landings were faked. The problem with “conspiracy people” is that they tend to be very, very gullible and lack all common sense. … nutjobs…fools and crackpots …totally ridiculous.

    Why is that? Why this descent into mere abuse? I can only think of one explanation: Ron Unz grew up with this myth (he was not yet eight at the time of the first moon landing) and has a considerable emotional investment in it. I bet he has never seriously looked at arguments from the other side. Someone who seems to believe that these amount to nothing more than that “ some photograph looks a little odd” definitely doesn’t know what he is talking about.

    This is not uncommon.

    Here is McGowan:

    It has been my experience that the vast majority of the people who truly believe in the Moon landings know virtually nothing about the alleged missions. And when confronted with some of the more implausible aspects of those alleged missions, the most frequently offered argument is the one that every ‘conspiracy theorist’ has heard at least a thousand times: “That can’t possibly be true because there is no way that a lie that big could have been covered up all this time … too many people would have known about it … yadda, yadda, yadda.

    Also on this last point Ron performed to type with his “simple” counter argument (which, by the way, I find quite unconvincing.- the core job, basically the making of a film, might have involved far less than the “ten thousand” of Ron’s imagination).

    In return for Ron’s”simple argument” I offer one from McGowan:

    If the first trans-Atlantic flight had not been followed up with another one for over forty yeas (now over fifty and counting A.), would anyone have found that unusual? If during the early days of the automobile, when folks were happily cruising along in their Model T’s at a top speed of 40 MPH, someone had suddenly developed a car that could be driven safely at 500 MPH, and then after a few years that car disappeared and for many decades thereafter, despite tremendous advances in automotive technology, no one ever again came close to building a car that could perform like that, would that seem at all odd?

    It is the argument about the “ lost technology”. How credible is that? Yes, it seems even have to do with the very space suits. McGowan again:

    …we find Michael Wargo, identified as the “chief lunar scientist for Exploration Systems at NASA Headquarters,” contemplating a return trip to the Moon: “’None of our spacesuits that we currently have would be appropriate for that extreme an environment,’ [says Wargo]. Any materials built for Earth-like temperatures won’t work on the moon. ‘They don’t bend anymore, they fracture, and they fracture brittle-y, and so everything gets extremely brittle at those temperatures.’” (“Water Discovery Fuels Hope to Colonize the Moon,” November 13, 2009)

    And so we discover that there is yet another piece of 1960s technology that has now fallen into an all-consuming black hole: non-brittle materials from which to fashion spacesuits suitable for lunar exploration. Back in the day, it will be recalled, Playtex’s bra seamstresses knew a thing or two about stitching together a non-brittle spacesuit.

    But there is hope for us skeptics yet. A while ago , when Ron was obviously quite unaware of some major arguments against this particular vaccination he spoke quite unkindly about those “anti vaxxers”. Now he is more familiar with the debate a gentler note has crept in.

    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
  252. @Been_there_done_that

    Been_Bullshitting_there_done_that, you were being disingenuous from your very first comment and with each subsequent deceitful remark you’ve made, you’ve just dug that hole even deeper.

    I recall reading an article which said that the now obsolete Apple iPhone 4 had more computing power than the entirety of Reagan’s U.S government, military and Intel agencies combined in the mid 80’s (which in itself was a quantum leap technologically far advanced to the U.S of 1969).

    Not long ago I also remember reading the response of a leading entity in China’s Space Programme who, when asked what the likelihood was that China would land a manned mission on the moon, he replied with words equivalent to:

    ‘Hopefully we will have the technology to accomplish this in about 20 years time. ie: around 2040, give or take.

    This was a back-handed way of mocking (and exposing as being fraudulent), the alleged manned U.S space missions to the moon from 1969-74.

    As has been noted by other commenters here, the U.S need only produce the telemetry for the Apollo 11 mission and hand it to independent entities for analysis to confirm their story.

    That these ‘tapes’ have gone astray is all the proof you need that this was a colossal hoax.

  253. @Buzz Mohawk

    You wrote:

    Credit Mr. Unz for putting a gold outline around been_there_done_that’s comment, because it is very appropriate.

    The gold border around that garbage comment has discredited the ‘gold border’ concept once and for all.
    Ron Unz, I suggest you abandon these Gold borders henceforth rather than risk further damaging the credibility of this webzine.

    As for you Buzz Mohawk and your pal ‘Been_there_dung_that’, the two of you are well on your way to membership status to the much coveted (in your mind) Axis of Disinformation (AoD).

  254. @Carroll price

    And now the 6 missions have joined the 6 million.

  255. @Laurent Guyénot

    – In the course of the International Geophysical Year 1957/58 it was found
    that meteorites fell on the ice shield and accumulated on the surface in areas
    where the katabathic winds evaporated the glaciers (“blue-ice fields”),
    better preserved and better visible than anywhere else (actually fewer fall there),
    and since then NASA has sent a campaign almost every year, overtaking the
    collection of the Vienna Natural History Museum (that took the Habsburgs
    centuries to assemble) some time in the 1960s.

    – A few hundred of these are from the Moon (secondary-projectile achondrites)
    i.e. not only are they unbelievably rare, you don´t look a second time at an achondrite
    unless you know it´s a meteorite (unlike, say, an iron) i.e. they weren´t
    recognized as such before reference material was available
    (for the Mars there still is no reference but reasonably certain meteorites are)
    IOW they would have been useless as “proof” of the landings (circular).
    Once you know what to look for (for the Moon, olivine basalt (maria)
    and White Anorthosite (highlands), depleted in Fe, Na, K and enriched in
    REE (by ~ an order of magnitude)) they are comparatively easy to distinguish.

    Oh, and no middle school science teacher, let alone a museum curator,
    would mistake the pictured piece for a moon rock 😀

  256. @Ron Unz

    Maybe Cass Sunstein and his friends pay or recruit all these fools and crackpots in order to make all conspiracy-researchers look totally ridiculous.

    I think Cass Sustein & Co are rather busy spreading the flat-earth theory. It is quite obvious that the flat-earth nonsense is specifically crafted for the “cognitive infiltration” of the doubters of NASA credibility. Why would they spend so much energy polluting the Internet with this this flat-earth crackpottery, if not to try to ward off people from the serious work of Apollo doubters? If the moonhoax theory was so ridiculous, they wouldn’t need to create a ridiculous theory to try to taint it by association. Thanks, by the way, for not bringing up this flat-earth in your comment.
    And, above all, thank you so much Ron for allowing this debate on the Unz Review.

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
    , @Theodora
  257. From the incomparable Dave Mc Gowan’s wagging the Moon Dog. He’s so bitingly funny.

    There is no shortage of Moon hoax ‘debunking’ sites out there on the wild and wooly World Wide Web. The majority of them are not particularly well written or argued and yet they tend to be rather smug and selfcongratulatory. Most of them tend to stick to ‘debunking’ the same facts and they use the same arguments to do so. One thing they like to talk a lot about is the Van Allen radiation belts. The Moon hoax sites talk a lot about them as well. The hoaxers will tell you that man cannot pass through the belts without a considerable amount of radiation protection – protection that could not have been provided in the 1960s through any known technology. And the ‘debunkers’ claim that the Apollo astronauts would have passed through the belts quickly enough that, given the levels of radiation, no harm would have come to them. The hoaxers, say the ‘debunkers,’ are just being girlie men. As it turns out, both sides are wrong: the ‘debunkers,’ shockingly enough, are completely full of shit, and the hoaxers have actually understated the problem by focusing exclusively on the belts.

    We know this because NASA itself – whom the ‘debunkers’ like to treat as a virtually unimpeachable source on all things Apollo, except, apparently, when the agency posts an article that implicitly acknowledges that we haven’t actually been to the Moon – has told us that it is so.

    They have told us that in order to leave low-Earth orbit on any future space flights, our astronauts would need to be protected throughout the entirety of the flight, as well as – and once again, this comes directly from NASA – while working on the surface of the Moon. On June 24, 2005, NASA made this rather remarkable admission: “NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there’s a potential showstopper: radiation. Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas …

    Finding a good shield is important.”(http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/24jun_electrostatics.htm ) You’re damn right finding a good shield is important!! Back in the 1960s, of course, we didn’t let a little thing like space radiation get in the way of us beating the Ruskies to the Moon. But now, I guess, being that we are more cultured and sophisticated, we want to do it the right way so we have to come up with some way of shielding our spaceships. And our temporary Moon bases. And figuring out how to do that, according to NASA, could be a real “showstopper.”

    As NASA notes, “the most common way to deal with radiation is simply to physically block it, as the thick concrete around a nuclear reactor does. But making spaceships from concrete is not an option.”

    Lead, which is considerably denser than concrete, is actually the preferred material to use for radiation shielding, but lead also isn’t very popular with spaceship designers. In fact, word on the street is that one of the main reasons the Soviets never made it to the Moon was because their scientists calculated that four feet of lead shielding would be required to protect their astronauts, and those same scientists apparently felt that spaceships wouldn’t fly all that well when clad in four feet of lead.

    • Disagree: Dingo bay rum
  258. Franz says:

    How many hundreds of thousands of images do suppose were “faked“, …

    None.

    All of them were done in a real studio, using real humans, real photographers, real cameras, real lighting arrangements, and real props on a real stage with real front projection screens.

    Correct.

    Greek philosophers knew this as the Ship of Theseus.

    The mind experiment goes thus: if every sail, line, plank and so forth are replaced and not one “original” part remains, it still is The Ship because it’s a perfect copy.

    We just have to see that a perfect simulation of anything, like a perfect copy, is to us the real thing. Real men risk their lives and sometimes died in test aircraft and in a capsule during training. They were working on a plan that, overall, succeeded.

    Theseus’ ship floats and Apollo reached the moon if you look at it that way.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  259. @Mustapha Mond

    Armstrong was shy, perhaps, but he seems to have also had a bad conscience. Being shy would not have precluded him from writing books. Where is the book authored by this great hero? He also had a sense of irony. Although of course no argument can be drawn for it, it is interesting that, when he made a last quick appearance on July 20th, 1994, in the presence of President Clinton, it was 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 “undiscovered breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers.” Then he returned to his seclusion and refused to participate (or was asked not to) in the 40th anniversary celebrations of his legendary moonwalk.

  260. @Bombercommand

    Thanks again. I appreciate your effort and I am aware that I don’t master all the details. Note that I didn’t mention the moon rocks as an argument in my article: the comment section is a good place to discuss, and sharpen our arguments.
    You say:

    In my opinion this “moon landing hoax” narrative is part of the current tsunami of anti-American propaganda that emanates from (((the usual suspects))).

    I see no evidence of this. Can you name any Jewish moon landing skeptic? I’m sure there might be some, but most investigators on this are not. On the other hand, I suspect many flat-earthers, who are specifically tasked with bringing ridicule on the critics of the NASA and on all “conspiracy theories”, do belong to this group.

  261. @Ron Unz

    You wrote:

    A faked lunar landing isn’t like the JFK assassination or 9/11 involving dangerous life-or-death issues for possible whistle-blowers, just a national embarrassment.

    You’re wrong there Ron.

    The manned moon landing hoax was a scores of billions of dollars (in 1969 dollars) scam and there was much riding on it not being exposed.
    That’s why it was highly compartmentalised. ie: people knew only what they needed to know and no more.

    I once heard that, in relation to 9/11, perhaps only 100 or so individuals were in on the entirety of the operation. So too would that have been the case for the Apollo hoax.

    To the extent that some individuals could not be bought off and may have threatened to tell all, threats and intimidation directed at their families would have been more than enough to silence most of them.
    Of course, there was the occasional exception.

    One such individual with unimpeachable integrity was Gus Grissom, Commander of Apollo 1 (and quite likely his fellow crew members Ed White and Roger Chaffee).

    So, they had to be silenced (5 min video):

    Ron, I know you have an aversion to watching videos, but at least listen to the audio from 3:40 – 3:55 representing the last moments of the crew before they met their gruesome end.

    For the crew of Apollo 1, a threatened leak about the hoax was a genuine life and death issue.

    Of all the astronauts earmarked as most likely to be the first to walk on the moon, Gus Grissom was head and shoulders the Golden Boy, with an outstanding pedigree (WWII/Korean War vet – he flew 100 combat missions in his F-86 Sabre).

    But his family believe that his demise was no accident:

    https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/83397-apollo-astronaut-was-murdered-son-charges/

    From that article:

    Even before Apollo I, Grissom had received death threats which his family believed emanated from within the space program.

    Ron, as with the Covid psyop so it is with the manned moon landing hoax.

    We’ve all noticed how, once you have seized on a particular narrative and made up your mind, you have an unshakeable resolve to stick with your original reasoning.

    You have much to learn on the Apollo missions and you’d do well to keep an open mind on the matter until you really have done some exhaustive research – lest you end up with egg on your face.

    • Agree: Iris, Mehen
    • Thanks: Maowasayali
  262. It gets even more hilarious

    The 2005 report was not the first time that NASA had openly discussed the high levels of radiation that exist beyond the Van Allen belts. In February 2001, the space agency posted a ‘debunking’ article that argued that the rocks allegedly brought back from the Moon were so distinctive in nature that they proved definitively that man had gone to the Moon.

    The problem though with maintaining a lie of the magnitude of the Moon landing lie is that there is always the danger that in defending one part of the lie, another part will be exposed.

    Such was the case with NASA’s ill-conceived The Great Moon Hoax post, in which it was acknowledged that what are referred to as “cosmic rays” have a tendency to “constantly bombard the Moon and they leave their fingerprints on Moon rocks.”

    NASA scientist David McKay explained that “There are isotopes in Moon rocks, isotopes we don’t normally find on Earth, that were created by nuclear reactions with the highest-energy cosmic rays.”

    The article went on to explain how “Earth is spared from such radiation by our protective atmosphere and magnetosphere.

    Even if scientists wanted to make something like a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei, they couldn’t. Earth’s most powerful particle accelerators can’t energize particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are themselves accelerated in supernova blastwaves and in the violent cores of galaxies.”

    So one of the reasons that we know the Moon rocks are real, you see, is because they were blasted with ridiculously high levels of radiation while sitting on the surface of the Moon. And our astronauts, one would assume, would have been blasted with the very same ridiculously high levels of radiation, but since this was NASA’s attempt at a ‘debunking’ article, they apparently would prefer that you don’t spend too much time analyzing what they have to say.

    How exactly are we to reconcile NASA’s current position on space radiation with the same agency’s simultaneous claim that we have already sent men to the Moon?

    There are a few different possibilities that come to mind, the first of which is that, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, we simply threw caution to the wind and sent our boys off to the Moon with no protection whatsoever from space radiation. If that were true, however, then the question that would naturally be raised is: why not just do it again? After all, all of our Moonwalkers made it home safe and sound and most all have lived long, healthy, cancer-free lives. So why all the fuss over space radiation?

  263. @Ron Unz

    As far as I can tell, there’s absolutely zero, zero, ZERO solid evidence that the Moon landings were faked.

    Yeah, you do make a valid point. Consider, for example, the well known (at least in certain circles) fact that I have had sex with Julia Roberts a number of times. Some people even express doubt about this but I simply point out that there is ZERO solid evidence that I have not had sex with Julia Roberts.

    But, you see, that’s the problem with these “deniers”. They don’t master elementary logic. Obviously, the onus is on them to prove that I did not have sex with Julia Roberts.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not ZERO evidence.

    Exactly! This is just like the extraordinary claim that I never climbed Everest. There is just ZERO evidence for that.

    I’d guess that something like tens of thousands of engineers, scientists, and technicians were broadly involved in the NASA project… (snip)… not a single one ever came forward during the immediate decades that followed to claim wealth and fame,

    Exactly. If any of those thousands of people had any doubts about the reality of the moon landings, we would know about it. It would be a big story and we have a free, honest, and independent media that could be relied upon to cover this.

    An obvious point they missed was that it’s easier, cheaper, and safer to hire a couple of gunmen to shoot people than to hire 100 “crisis actors” to fake a crime scene.

    Well, yeah man, these people are so disconnected from reality, it’s so sad. Somebody once told me that there are these people in Hollywood called “stuntmen” but we know that’s nonsense. Obviously, when you watch a Hollywood movie and you see somebody being thrown off a tall building to his death, this is real. After all, when it’s so easy to hire a heavy or two to grab somebody and throw them off a tall building for real, why would you ever have these “stuntmen” faking the scene?

    It obviously makes no sense. Or, for example, it’s so easy to run over some poor schmuck with a truck for real. Why would you ever fake the scene? Obviously the “stuntmen” and the “crisis actors” are just a figment of these people’s overactive imagination.

    So there you go…

    • Replies: @mike99588
  264. Erebus says:
    @Franz

    Theseus’ ship floats and Apollo reached the moon if you look at it that way.

    Yes, and 6M died in the gas ovens, if not (yet) in the “pandemic”.

  265. Anonymous[136] • Disclaimer says:
    @Yukon Jack

    as soon as a third party can send back photos of left behind buggies I would become a believer

    Not in my case. They had decades to drop that junk in the right spot. No-one is disputing that we can send stuff to the moon.

    That said, it would be tricky to create the whole scene in a forensic-proof manner. If I had to guess, that location will experience a sudden bout of “natural” bombardment at some point in the future. Why not? People who believe that the NASA’s dog had eaten the footage depicting one of the most celebrated achievements in history will buy it in a second.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  266. @Bombercommand

    The moon hoaxers have always had an anti-American and I think anti-White vibe. Thousands of White men cooperating to achieve such a magnificent feat rubs them the wrong way. Something about it is personally humiliating to them (yes many are White).

    Thus all the silly talk about how “obvious” it is that it’s fake. It’s small people sneering at something they could never do.

    I knew a guy in real life that held these views. He was intelligent (not a genius) but had a lot of grudges. He was oddly uneducated about big parts of the world. He was paranoid about flying because he was certain “they” were hiding a bunch of air crashes from us.

    In the end, it’s always some guy who wants to be a big man by attempting to destroy the reputation of actual achievers.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Iris
  267. Anonymous[136] • Disclaimer says:
    @Franz

    people thought The Space Age was just beginning

    Very, very true. It’s actually a huge understatement. I was born much later but it’s obvious from the cultural output of that whole era (many decades before and after those astonishing golfing trips) that people’s imaginations were on fire.

    When we look at how cars or planes advanced during the initial, say, 50 years, and compare it to this decline, a giant plot-hole starts forming in the script. They say that the Moon is simply not commercially attractive but just the military advantage of having a manned base on the Moon would be staggering.

    • Replies: @Franz
  268. Mr Anatta says:

    NASA.

    (N)ever(A)(S)traight(A)nswer.

  269. @Laurent Guyénot

    Yes definite case of a stricken conscience

    it was to compare himself to a parrot, “the only bird that could talk” but “didn’t fly very well,”

    Telling remark.

    Don’t forget James T Webb who Nasa has posthumously honored with their latest telescope, he was dead set against this magic Apollo missions and who resigned just before what would have been the most glorious moment of his career why he knew that it was impossible and they were going to hoax it and he didn’t want any part of it.

    Incidentally the next administrator Thomas Paine doesn’t get the same honors the man who presided over Apollo. Strange isn’t it.

  270. @Grahamsno(G64)

    So one of the reasons that we know the Moon rocks are real, you see, is because they were blasted with ridiculously high levels of radiation while sitting on the surface of the Moon. And our astronauts, one would assume, would have been blasted with the very same ridiculously high levels of radiation

    Well, the moon is over 4 billion years old. The astronauts were there for 3 days or less.

    but since this was NASA’s attempt at a ‘debunking’ article, they apparently would prefer that you don’t spend too much time analyzing what they have to say.

    They’re really just a bunch of dumb guys who exposed their own fraud? Gotcha.

    in the late 1960s and early 1970s, we simply threw caution to the wind and sent our boys off to the Moon with no protection whatsoever from space radiation

    Did you notice those suits they were wearing?

    Here’s the thing. Physicists are pretty smart guys. And there are tens of thousands of them worldwide. If these crackpot musings had any validity, they would have said something long ago.

  271. @Ron Unz

    You wrote:

    And here’s a simple argument on the other side. I’d guess that something like tens of thousands of engineers, scientists, and technicians were broadly involved in the NASA project, and if the whole thing were fake, surely a substantial fraction of them must have known. Yet not a single one ever came forward during the immediate decades that followed to claim wealth and fame

    Ron, I’ll respond to that with these wise words from a very knowledgeable someone that you and I both, have a lot of respect for:

    Virtually all of the world’s scientists have let the gas chambers [Holohoax] story go unchallenged for more than 60 years.
    If Kollerstrom, Butz, Rudolf, etc. are correct in their assertion that the official story is absurd, we must doubt scientists’ ability to challenge society’s sacred narratives even when those narratives are scientifically preposterous.
    The same could be said for scientists’ reluctance to challenge the official magic bullet theories of the Kennedy assassinations and the office-fires-triggered “collapses” of the World Trade Center skyscrapers.

    Ron, With all due humility, I was 45 years ahead of you on JFK, 15 years ahead of you on 9/11, and maybe five years ahead of you on the Holocaust.
    So since it takes you on the average about 25 years to catch up with me on these issues, I predict that you will start to doubt the moon landings story in 2034.

    …. Dr Kevin Barrett (written in 2019).

  272. The Soviets achieved the first fly-by of the Moon, launched the first craft to impact the Moon, were the first to make a soft landing on the Moon, put the first object into lunar orbit, and
    remain, to this day, the only nation to land and operate a robotic vehicle on the Moon. It should
    now make perfect sense to everyone then why the Soviets, who were ahead of us in virtually all
    aspects of space exploration, in some cases by decades, never landed a man on the Moon. Or
    even sent a man to orbit the Moon. Come to think of it, they never even sent a dog to the Moon.

    It would be difficult to argue that the Russians didn’t have adequate funding for their space
    program, or that they didn’t have some of the finest scientific minds on the planet working for
    that space program, or that they didn’t have the will and desire to succeed. What they were
    lacking, I’m thinking, is access to Hollywood production facilities. Returning then to our prior
    topic of discussion …

    Apollonian magic vs the real Soviet record.

    • Agree: Truth Vigilante, Iris
    • Replies: @nokangaroos
  273. Erebus says:
    @Ron Unz

    As far as I can tell, there’s absolutely zero, zero, ZERO solid evidence that the Moon landings were faked.

    Ron, it seems you’re largely unfamiliar with the physical world, but surely you know software.

    Citing Moon Machines, McGowan tells of how MIT was assigned the task of building a guidance system and writing the software that would guide the mission. One of the software engineers, Alex Kosmala was quoted as saying:

    “There were no specs. We made it up. Uhmm … and it’s always [been] amazing to me – why was I allowed to program something that hadn’t even been specified [but] that would be critical in assuring the success of the whole Apollo Program? I couldn’t believe it, but that’s the way it was. We made it up as we went along!”

    As if that could be believed, the next part is absolutely unbelievable of an actual moon mission. To whit, the software that would guide the Lunar Module to the surface of the moon (and presumably return to rendezvous with the orbiting capsule) was…

    “… written almost as an afterthought by a junior engineer.” … (22 yr old) “… Don Isles who had just recently started his very first job.”

    No, that ain’t the 100% “solid evidence” you’re apparently demanding on your misguided mission to debunk the Truthers, but it’s prima facie evidence that the project managers weren’t concerned about the quality of what has to be the highest profile, most mission critical component of the program. The component most critical to the signature landing itself.

    What mission critical software was ever assigned to a junior engineer? What mission critical software was ever assigned and executed without detailed specification as to what was to be achieved? I’m no software engineer , but I’ve worked on projects where mission critical software was involved, and am familiar with the sort of detail a spec must include so that other engineers can count on the software’s behaviour in designing their own components that depend on it behaving a certain way. None of those projects come close to the complexity of a moon mission, so the notion that the code warriors at MIT were allowed free rein to “make it up as they went along” is preposterous on its face.

    This vignette also illustrates why and how those 1,000s of engineers didn’t speak out. They all got assigned a task and executed it to the best of their ability. Whether they were working for Grumman or for Playtex, they were assigned a design-build task, executed it, and when it was accepted on delivery they patted themselves on the back and collected their bonus. When their little piece of the puzzle went to the moon, they basked in the adoring accolades of their families and friends. 99% of them had no idea of what was actually required to go to the moon, but they became legends, however small in their own mind. The notion that they would allow doubt to creep into their life story and destroy it is to misunderstand humans. If that alone didn’t keep them quiet, the NDAs would.

  274. Pascendi says:
    @Ron Unz

    “Yet not a single one ever came forward during the immediate decades that followed…”

    Doesn’t the same logic hold for the Holocaust narrative? How many people who were in the camps came forward to deny the existence of the gas chambers? Yet Mr Unz was prepared to cast extreme doubt on that narrative in his brilliant American Pravda article. His intransigence on this issue, as well on the vaccine passport roll-out, appears odd to me.

  275. @Anonymous

    it would be tricky to create the whole scene in a forensic-proof manner.

    I am laughing at that–because replicating the fake “dune buggies on the moon” of Apollo 15, 16 and 17 creates an amusing dilemna.

    Do you place three different dune buggies with the identical oil leak at the three different locations?
    That would be proof of fraud.

    If you place three different dune buggies with no oil leaks that would be proof of fraud.

    In addition, any possible combinations of leak and no leak would be proof of fraud.

    Sometimes the lies are so bad they just can’t get fixed!

  276. @Daniel Rich

    Merci

    seen from the moon [or elsewhere in space], the Earth’s oceans are black, not blue.

    I suppose that is right. I see no reason why the ocean should be blue.

    • Replies: @Mustapha Mond
  277. When we look at how cars or planes advanced during the initial, say, 50 years, and compare it to this decline, a giant plot-hole starts forming in the script.

    However, cars are a lot better than they were 50 years ago. Planes are much safer and more efficient. Still, everyone expected energy exploitation to keep growing at the same exponential rate it had from the 1800s to the mid 1950s. We went from horses to trains to cars to planes to nukes to jets. So it seemed Star Trek was right around the corner.

    However, what actually happened was the exponential growth took off in the computer/information field instead. This doesn’t mean progress is over. It’s just taking place at different rates in different areas.

    just the military advantage of having a manned base on the Moon would be staggering.

    But unnecessary for the USA which is already a continental superpower. And I’m not sure a moon base would do much from a military viewpoint. It’s quicker and easier to get a nuke to a city from the earth than from the moon.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  278. Pascendi says:
    @Ron Unz

    “A few years ago, these same sort of nutjobs were going around claiming that all terrorist attacks were faked with “crisis actors…”

    If you have never seen “The Boston Unbombing” documentary, I strongly recommend it. Three hours of painstaking analysis showing beyond any reasonable doubt how crisis actors were used in that particular fake terror incident.
    An indicator of its truthfulness is that nowhere online will you find any efforts to debunk it.
    It is simply undebunkable.

    • Agree: Sepp
    • Thanks: Arthur MacBride
  279. @Erebus

    they were assigned a design-build task, executed it, and when it was accepted on delivery they patted themselves on the back and collected their bonus.

    Why those greedy little narcissists! Typical engineer.

    When their little piece of the puzzle went to the moon, they basked in the adoring accolades of their families and friends.

    Why those self-satisfied dullards. Just a bunch of creeps who liked to play the Big Man! Not like those who uncovered this vast conspiracy.

    99% of them had no idea of what was actually required to go to the moon, but they became legends, however small in their own mind.

    Glad you aren’t motivated by any kind of personal animus. Yeah, those fellas strutting around acting so important. Don’t it just gall you?

    If that alone didn’t keep them quiet, the NDAs would.

    Oh yeah, nobody would violate an NDA for the biggest story of the century. Especially not those greedy little narcissists you just described.

    Yeah, there is definitely the problem of small little men desperately wanting to feel important. But it’s not Neil Armstrong or those thousands of engineers who suffered from it. You can find them on this comment thread.

    • Replies: @Peter Rabbit
  280. mike99588 says:
    @Iris

    Well, the soviets had a long history of doctored photography and mock films.
    Long before Apollo.

  281. Anonymous[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @Olivier1973

    It’s on YouTube clips. Have a look if you are interested.

  282. mike99588 says:
    @Erebus

    No spec may mean “impress me” and contracts done before details ready.

    A 1950s-60s star warrior, a physicist long before Reagan, that I knew in the 1980s pointed out to his company’s president (e.g. an ATT or IBM or …) that a ranging spec their company made on an ABM system contract specified a tolerance well beyond the then current precision for the speed of light.

    He’s on a long ago cover of Time for adding the decimals of light speed improvement.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  283. @Grahamsno(G64)

    When the N1 (their answer to the Saturn V) went, erm, ballistic
    it killed most of their top staff (plus there have always been rumors Gagarin
    wasn´t the first in space, only the first they got back alive).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)

    – No one ever went [back! 😛 ] to the moon because it always was idiotic –
    there is precious little a robot probe cannot do better and cheaper
    (and I say that as a geologist).

  284. mike99588 says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    Given the abrupt late Apollo and post Apollo layoffs, I think some grudges would have surfaced hoax scandals sooner than later.

    Honestly, I think a lot of historical stuff got lost post Apollo with staff changes and even early deaths. Expectations of continuity and later cleanup died suddenly at (possibly premature) contract termination.

    Useless boss or politician sez “clean/throw it out” and dedicated engineer/staffer knowing its potential importance may try to save it back then (pre IP pandemic). But then the years roll by and the widow or kids junk it if he didn’t wend around the govt security/property dangers and make substantial efforts to archive it.

  285. Anonymous[292] • Disclaimer says:
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Do you realize that you are assuming what has to be proved???!!!

  286. @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Good luck from my heart for Project Artemis a radically new Idea. Musk is a revolution

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

  287. @Erebus

    Great post on the mindset of the engineers.

    Those who have carefully studied the details of the fraud have concluded that there were in fact those who knew their piece was fake and created intentional “glitches in the matrix”.

    They either designed intentional flaws or quietly refused to properly maintain items which had operating issues “on stage”.

    These include flaws in the gloves of the spacesuits, the oil leak and bumper failure in the dune buggies, a variety of photograph “glitches”.

    The contractors and subcontractors supported their families with this fraud, and speaking out (if they saw something) meant (at a minimum) career ending economic suicide.

    The closest an astronaut came to whistleblowing is the Gus Grissom “lemon” incident where he took a lemon and hung it on a spacecraft:

    https://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/zorn/grissom.htm

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @gsjackson
  288. @Laurent Guyénot

    Hi LG.

    Thanks for the reply.

    First, I’ve really enjoyed your other works here on Unz. Thank you for your fine efforts.

    “Being shy would not have precluded him from writing books. Where is the book authored by this great hero?”

    Quite the opposite. Literary success would have shown an even greater public light on him, something he steadfastly avoided for the remainder of his days following splashdown. The reason was simple: he was an absolute perfectionist, and blowing the most important moment he would ever have as an astronaut, nay, any astronaut for that matter, was simply something he couldn’t live with. He was embarrassed, so much so that he actively eschewed limelight for the shadows and comforts of privacy. Completely understandable for a perfectionist of that level.

    As for the ‘parrot’ remark, well, you yourself note his sense of irony, and I suspect the parrot remark encapsulates just that: self-effacing ironic humor, wherein he is like a parrot only inverted, as he flew beautifully (probably the best pilot in the corps, actually) but he simply couldn’t ‘talk’, i.e., speak publicly. Just not his gig, especially after the flub of a lifetime.

    Regarding the quote about truth’s protective layers, well, as we all know, many scientific ‘truths’ are ultimately found to be false in the light of new ideas and concepts that challenge the old order, an order which is usually steadfastly defended by those invested in the old ways and find the new ways threatening. In short, keep an open and skeptical mind. Which is something you most certainly possess, LG!

    In sum, on whether the moon landings were hoaxed, we can agree to disagree. Regardless, I very much look forward to your next offering here on Unz, where we are exposed to so many treats and treasures, even if we all can’t agree on every single thing.

    Stay healthy, and a happy new year to you and yours. And dear old Ron, too!

    Best wishes,

    MM

    • Thanks: Laurent Guyénot
  289. Erebus says:
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    However, cars are a lot better than they were 50 years ago.

    That depends on what you mean by “better”. One of my cars turned 50 last year. I’d drive it over anything I can buy today. Runs like a top. I doubt any of the current crop will be on the road 50 yrs from now, but it wouldn’t surprise if this one was.

    However, what actually happened was the exponential growth took off in the computer/information field instead. This doesn’t mean progress is over. It’s just taking place at different rates in different areas.

    That’s very true, and at the rate it’s progressing in space exploration we’re not unlikely to witness a man on the moon within a couple of decades. Much of the groundwork is being laid for that now because we’ve now got the computer advancements that will make it possible.

  290. Sepp says:
    @Erebus

    Wonderful comment, Erebus, it ties all these hoaxes together going all the way back to the “old testament”, which is really just a book of Jewish gas lighting.

    I want to apologize for my accusation from the Whitney covid thread where I called you a Chinese Hasbara agent. I will add that I have been to Tibet and I stand behind everything I wrote about it.

    One thing that sticks in my mind about that trip was all the Buddhist temples, and Lhasa in particular. The Tibetans were and are very poor, yet they built these elaborate temples loaded with gold and jewels everywhere, even at altitudes that make your head spin. It reminded me very much of St. Peters in the Vatican, with all its gold and jewels. And just like all the Buddhist temples in Tibet, Europe is dotted with outrageous monuments to the degree to which the stupid people were stripped of their wealth in order to support a narrative that was primarily focused on the continuing enslavement of the populace. But this also is a form of “mass formation”, and the degree to which people virtue signal by sacrificing to these incredibly pointless monuments reinforces the hypnosis and keeps everyone locked in.

    Lately I have been pondering Mattias Desmet’s thesis, who has been all over the interwebs discussing his theories concerning “Mass Formation”. You mention the distribution of believers in your comment:

    “about 30% of the population believes it with a passion, 40% are ambivalent, 30% deny it.”

    Although his theories seem to apply to the Covid narrative, they fall apart when applied to all these other historical hoaxes. Desmet’s “Mass Formation” is based on these 4 “neccesary” conditions:

    1) There needs to a lot of socially isolated people or people who experience a lack of social bond
    2) People who experience a lack of ‘sense making’. Unable to come to sensible conclusions.
    3) There is a lot of Free-Floating Anxiety (FFA). Free-Floating because there’s nothing to connect their anxiety to. No focal point. Unable to identify what’s causing and so no way to deal with it.
    4) There’s also a lot of Free-Floating Psychological-Discontent. People may experience their daily lives as lacking any purpose or meaning

    These conditions fit the Covid hoax but don’t apply at all to the moon hoax, 9/11, Pearl Harbor or even the Gulf of Tonkin. Of course the narrative about a Bat and an Panguine creating a new virus just doesn’t have the visual impact of 2 jets taking down 3 massive sky scrapers or headline photographs of Zeroes torpedoing the Pacific Fleet. This is why they needed the Chinese narrative about cyclotine storms, welded Apt. buildings and trucks spraying clouds of disinfectant to support the Covid hysteria.

    Desmet constantly claims that the Third Reich was an example of a people hypnotized under mass formation. Of course none of his 4 conditions apply to NSDAP Germany, but all apply to Weimar Germany when the Hebrew was calling the shots, just like in the US and Europe today. Desmet also claims that Hitler was a “Tyrant” not a “Dictator”, and therefore did not have to try to do good for Germany. This is of course hog wash.

    So when I look at the moon hoax, the holohoax, Lusitania or 9/11 what I see is a specific historical event that is used as a masonic cornerstone in the construction of a narrative that is later used as a kind of hypnotic marker. As we can see, the vast majority of these hypnotic markers are hoaxes, but they have been skillfully twisted and distorted by the centuries old Hebrew media for the purpose of Judaic mind control. Of course the Freemasons, who are essentially Kabbalistic Zionists, are always involved as well. It is also important that these events always involve some kind of mass trauma, excepting perhaps the “Moon Landing”.

    So what we have is mass formations within mass formations within mass formations, like different levels in a pyramid. Mulga Milibrain is a great example of someone who can see one mass formation, but who is soooo locked into another that he cannot even recognize that they are virtually the same.

    Ron Unz in his comment about the Moon Hoax states:

    “The problem with “conspiracy people” is that they tend to be very, very gullible and lack all common sense. Therefore, they believe that everything is a conspiracy on the basis of ZERO evidence. If some photograph looks a little odd, that outweighs the evidence from silence of 10,000 NASA workers.”

    This perfectly illustrates how the mass formation has set up walls within the minds of its victims, but it is the masonic cornerstones that really anchor those walls and define the extent of allowed thought. No amount of proof contradicting the entire narrative will be able to break through the walls of the Moon Landing or the “Covid Vaccines are Safe and Effective” mass formation within Ron Unz’s brain. No amount of cognitive dissonance arising out of blatant facts bitch slapping him across the face will break through either. Soccer players and Marathon Runners dropping like flies will not shatter the “safe” part of the mass formation. No amount of 100% vaccinated countries continually suffering from new waves of covid, or 100% vaccinated navy or cruise ships suffering mass outbreaks will cause him to stop and reconsider whether the “vaccines” are “effective”. Similarly, no radiation levels in the Van Allen Belt, or excess weight in the “Lunar Lander” will cause him to reconsider whether the moon landing was even possible.

    So what we have left is that todays “modern” and “scientific” culture, including even those with the highest IQ’s, are still no less vulnerable to mass formation mind control than the superstitious peoples of the middle ages. The power of Judaic mind control and the media that they own and misuse is overwhelming, and has been for centuries. Of course the Knights Templar figured this out after taking control of Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem. They are the real founders of todays Freemasonry, and they and their spin offs have been using the same techniques in support of Zionism for centuries.

    • Thanks: Maowasayali
  291. @Adrian

    The statement that “there is zero evidence for . . .” is just wrong. There are pros and cons here. It is a fact that some conspiracy topics (I nominate: 1. flat earth; 2. we are in a computer simulation; 3. aliens have subterranean bases on earth and our deep state has bases on the moon and mars (the list is a very long one)) are ridiculous. So it is easy to lose patience with topics and people you think belong on that list.

    We never went to the moon ain’t one of these in my opinion. HIV has little to do with AIDS is another. Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t kill JFK by himself. Everybody can make their own probability table.

    JFK .98
    HIV .55
    Neil Armstrong Fraud .05

    are my estimates. Ron Unz is claiming the Neil Armstrong Fraud is 0 which is not a probability. Let’s be generous and substitute .000000001.

    In my opinion he is way way off by like five orders of magnitude or something. If I was out of patience I might say the man is being ridiculous here. : )

    Operational definition of ridiculous–believed true when a good probability estimate is .0000001. Believing something is true and there is a 20-1 shot against it is just kind of crazy going for it. What are the odds of the Patriots winning the super bowl this year?

    OK I looked it up. It’s 14 to 16 – 1 against depending on the bookie.

    • Replies: @Ron Unz
  292. Anon[128] • Disclaimer says:
    @anyone with a brain

    Putin also has repeatedly affirmed the official 9/11 coverup. Russians are masters at assenting to American deceptions.

  293. Anon[128] • Disclaimer says:
    @Erebus

    Well stated. America is the country of Hollywood special effects, Madison Avenue glossy deceptions, all built on the backs of a gullible and naive population badgered into mental submission by their religious overseers especially of the Fakevangelical variety.

    The true patron saint of Americant is PT Barnum who said there’s a sucker born every minute. Hollywood Religion and Madison Avenue are all there to ensure a never-ending supply of willing suckers begging to be mentally molested.

  294. Noble47 says:
    @Patrick McNally

    The transcript I quoted above (from “Fog of War”) shows McNamara stating that, at his suggestion, JFK ordered the first 1000 advisors out at the end of ’63 on the understanding that the rest would be withdrawn by the end of ’65, after JFK had been re-elected. McNamara does not qualify that statement by referring to possible conditions that would stop the withdrawal. In fact, McNamara immediately publicly announced the withdrawal of the first 1000 to stop anyone from dragging their feet on the issue. JFK didn’t want to stay in Vietnam, hence his agreement to McNamara’s suggestion. Why are you assuming he wouldn’t withdraw if he knew the Saigon regime would fall? He must have known that was a likely outcome. As a member of Congress, JFK had already been to Vietnam while the French were still there and he came away convinced that that French couldn’t win. He had already refused to get the US militarily involved in Laos, insisting instead on a negotiated settlement.

    LBJ changed JFK’s policy after the assassination by putting back in the 1000 advisors and by not withdrawing any others. He specifically tells McNamara on a phone call that he thought the original decision to withdraw them was a mistake.

    Here is a snippet from a transcript of the phone call between LBJ and McNamara, part of which refers to the withdrawal of the 1000 advisors (From “Fog of War”). If you view the documentary, you’ll hear the actual conversation:

    Johnson : I always thought it was foolish for you to make any statements about withdrawing. I thought it was bad psychologically. But you and the President thought otherwise, and I just sat silent.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  295. @Sepp

    these events always involve some kind of mass trauma, excepting perhaps the “Moon Landing”

    Interesting post–I share your interest in these “mind control” topics.

    The space program has had plenty of trauma, of course–Apollo 1 for that program, then two space shuttle disasters in later years.

    As I grew older I shook off the last of “culture” brainwashing which was US nationalism/exceptionalism.

    That was the hardest piece of brainwashing to break, and the “moon landing” was a critical part of that brainwashing.

    It appealed to our arrogance and vanity and desire for unity.

    The controllers do not play fair!

  296. mike99588 says:

    Analysis of flight times, cost and military operations realized that orbital was better than lunar in the 1950s, and military moonbases idea died then.

  297. Iris says:
    @Franz

    I was in the US Naval squadron in December 1968 that brought the Apollo 8 crew back from carrier to shore, on one of the old Grumman C-1A aircraft.

    We had very little time with them, but Frank Borman was a riot, and full of energy from the long flight.

    You and I are two random long-time commenters, and I believe we never interacted before, so can’t be suspected of conniving.

    Your sentence above shows the utter foolishness of those who still believe the Moon Landing Hoax.

    Astronauts who spend time in space lose control over their muscles. Prior to the Soviet space missions, the effects of weightlessness on the human body were not correctly apprehended.

    But after the (real) Soviet mission, scientists realised the deleterious and powerful effect of zero or micro-gravity on a spacecraft’s personnel, resulting in hypodynamia, which is the abnormally diminished strength or power, as a result of an astronaut’s inactive lifestyle while in orbit.

    As a result of weightlessness and hypodynamia, the cosmonaut’s body rapidly becomes weak and its health is destroyed.

    This aspect was not made public by the Soviets for simple reason of propaganda. Hence it became another trap for NASA to shoot themselves in the foot.

    When landing, the Soviet cosmonauts were unable to walk, were carried on strectechers, injected with toning agents and kept for days in hospital before they could stand up and be presented to the public.

    After just 5 days in the Soyuz 7 craft in 1969, cosmonaut V. Gorbatko could not walk on his own.

    Below is a 1975 confidential photo of Soyuz 19’s cosmonauts A. Leonov and V. Kubasov, who landed after just 6 days in orbit; they are the two bodies lying on stretchers.

    Today, things haven’t much change, astronauts have just more space for fitness exercises, and are carried on wheelchairs upon landing.

    Yet, you are recalling that the 1968 astronauts you met, just fresh from travelling and orbiting around the Moon for 8 days (over 1,5 times longer than Leonov and Kubasov), were fresh, jumping and full of energy.

    So in addition to possessing many miraculous and secret technlogies, NASA also employs superhumans impervious to the laws of biology? What next? Did Marvel superheros participate in the Moon “Landing” ?

  298. Ron Unz says:
    @Emil Nikola Richard

    The statement that “there is zero evidence for . . .” is just wrong…

    Neil Armstrong Fraud .05

    are my estimates. Ron Unz is claiming the Neil Armstrong Fraud is 0 which is not a probability. Let’s be generous and substitute .000000001.

    Sure, I was just speaking expansively rather than literally. Given all the other “surprises” I’ve encountered over the years, I’d probably agree with you that there’s maybe a 5% chance that Neil Armstrong never walked on the Moon.

    But here’s another way of explaining why I consider it so unlikely, and regard the Moon Hoax proponents as being ridiculous.

    I’m not a space scientist or aeronautics engineer and I haven’t bothered looking at the various videos or websites promoted by the Moon Hoaxers. But from the debate on the original article a couple of years ago, I know that most of them claim Armstrong didn’t land on the Moon because they say “it was scientifically impossible” based on the technology. Okay.

    But there are probably tens or even hundreds of thousands of qualified space scientists and aeronautics engineers around the world, and I asked them for the names of those who agreed with them, they couldn’t provide a single one.

    If you claim that something is “scientifically impossible” but you can’t find any scientists who actually agree with you, you sound like a bunch of total crackpots. Once you can find five or ten qualified experts who support your position, I’ll then be willing to consider it.

    So, Moon Hoaxers, instead of clogging up this thread with your nonsense, you should go out and start convincing trained professionals to publicly support your position.

  299. @Mustapha Mond

    You goys have been hired in that shady business for your brawn, and your aptitude to sacrifice your life in the name of honour, not for your brains (even though these Whites were PhDs they were not there to decide but to act), exactly like those who conquered Imo Jima or fought on the beaches of Normandy. You should not be proud of having enthused about the Apollo project which used names and kabbalistic symbols made of the same bagel crumbs as the 9-11. Why Apollo 11? Why Apollo? You had been warned to beware of the Military Industrial Complex first and foremost, if you had been really free and brave you who have demonstrated against the fake Moon project with even far greater force than against Vietnam War. The American dream ceased to come true for the Whites workers, real standards of living ceased to progress as they had done right from the moment the Moon landing operation was performed on stage and accepted as a reality, because right from that moment you lost grip on reality. The correlation between productivity and real wages departed right from that moment on. The day the US Whites realize they all have been mooned and react in consequence their economic decline will stop as abruptly as their economic progress did during the Apollo saga. But that would imply throwing away many TVs and gaming computers to get back to sports, hiking, canoeing, shooting…

    • Thanks: Iris
    • Replies: @Mustapha Mond
  300. Iris says:
    @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    The moon hoaxers have always had an anti-American and I think anti-White vibe.

    The countries with the largest majority of Moon Hoaxers are Nr1 Russia, Nr2 the United Kingdom, which are White European countries as far as I know.

  301. @Sepp

    You misjudge Ron Unz.

    • Replies: @Sepp
  302. They could fake the Moon landings. But they could not fake the “Astronaut’s” news conferences. (Of course, now they can.)

  303. Pascendi says:
    @Ron Unz

    That’s a very good challenge, Mr Unz. I would just note, though, that not many scientists appear to have publicly questioned the 9/11 narrative, either. They seem to be a somewhat reserved bunch.

  304. @Ron Unz

    The “trained professionals” who support the “moan hoax” argument can be found here:

    https://www.aulis.com/investigation.htm

    There are scientists and engineers from all over the world.

    The one thing they have in common–their salaries do not depend on the US .gov, directly or indirectly.

    Upton Sinclair explained it best:

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

    • Thanks: Arthur MacBride, Sepp, Mehen
    • Replies: @Sepp
    , @nokangaroos
  305. @Been_there_done_that

    Well, this Orion project seems to be having significant technical difficulties in replicating in what was once a fairly routine task. What, the launch date has now been pushed to 2025. The first mission is to go far beyond the moon and is UNMANNED. Well shit NASA, how is that gonna put our little little argument to rest? The technical problems for an unmanned mission are significantly less than a manned mission but NASA is still struggling. For those of you in the “yeah we did it camp” NASA is accepting private/corporate participation in this Buck Rodgers boondoggle. So for you, beentheredonethat, I suspect you have anted up a significant amount? I have better uses for my money.

  306. Iris says:
    @Justvisiting

    The contractors and subcontractors supported their families with this fraud, and speaking out (if they saw something) meant (at a minimum) career ending economic suicide.

    Hi JV. The Moon Hoax secrecy was even more simple to maintain.

    The empty Apollo capsules were really launched with experimental rocket engines, and disappeared in the sky. Nobody watcching in good faith could have suspected that they later fell over in the ocean.

    Second, the Saturn V rocket engine was understnadably a top-secret Von Braun technology; file-and-rank engineers would not have dared enquiring about its precise operating details and supposed edge, and could not therefore have understood its prohibitive flaws.

    The only people necessary to stagethe Apollo Hoax would therefore have been the handful of Control Room operators who communicated with the astronauts, the astronauts themselves, the film and audio technicians who timely displayed the footages made by Stanley Kubrick , and the recovery teams who picked up the astronauts after they supposedly landed.

    I reckon that makes it 50 people tops to be actively complicit in the Hoax. All the rest of the 400,000 NASA staff would have had only sincere enthousisam, or personal and intimate suspicions at best. Not enough to speak up agaisnt a national myth.

    • Replies: @Olivier1973
  307. saggy says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    So, Moon Hoaxers, instead of clogging up this thread with your nonsense, you should go out and start convincing trained professionals to publicly support your position.

    What utter and complete nonsense. Do you not realize that the documentation for the Apollo missions is endless. Every firm that worked on the project has documented every aspect of the project. Every freaking bolt is documented. I have thick volumes which I helped write on projects that I worked on 40 years ago. The physical evidence is everywhere. You could go to any of the firms that worked on the project and find physical prototypes today. You can visit the launch sites, see the command modules, visit the control rooms, etc. Debating this seriously is beyond stupid.

    This entire thread is preposterous but also distressing – as we see intelligent people who know absolutely nothing about the subject ‘debating’ it and presenting preposterous arguments that they apparently believe are relevant. I’m often impressed by the comments on Unz because the writers have knowledge of arcane subjects with which I’m unfamiliar, but this thread and others like it call everything into question.

    I’m a big fan of Guyenot, but …. enough of this absolute idiocy. Here is the reality – there is one hoax that matters and that is consigning the world to hell right now …. that is the holohoax … and Guyenot won’t touch that with a ten-foot pole. Instead he promotes this endless idiocy that makes all ‘conspiracy theorists’ look like complete idiots.

    • Thanks: nokangaroos, Theodora
    • Replies: @Sepp
    , @Adrian
    , @Erebus
    , @Theodora
  308. Anon[336] • Disclaimer says:
    @Walker

    That said, if they went back one measly time using decades of advances in technology and documenting it with modern livestreaming techniques then that would be a good start.

    Good luck with the livestream, as it is, they can’t even be bothered to tape a GoPro to the nose cone of one of their flying dicks, to show us raw uninterrupted footage of a launch & dock operation to the ISS.

    Of course, there’s also the issue that not one vid has been released actually showing the building of the ISS at the bottom of its top secret swimming pool – such a supposedly monumental achievement and not even a clip.

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  309. Sepp says:
    @Justvisiting

    Ron Unz is one of the hypnotized 30% mass formation who are addicted to the moon landing narrative. He is unreachable. He behaves precisely the same way with the covid hoax. No amount of evidence or proof will change his mind, in fact any prolonged or overpowering attempt to show him the truth will merely strengthen his resistance. If you have been following his reactions to the overwhelming proof of massive adverse reaction to the clot-shot coming from VAERS and EUDRA, you would realize that he is unreachable. That is how deep he is mired in the mass formation. He is basically on the same level of the useful idiot communists writing letters from the Gulag to Joe Stalin frantically telling Stalin that there must be some kind of mistake…

    • Agree: Yukon Jack
  310. @Laurent Guyénot

    Jews tend to be purveyors, rather than producers. With that in mind I would offer as an example the USA TODAY news story in your comment #80. I can’t say with certainty USA TODAY is Jewish owned, because I can’t find any information regarding the owners, but media outlets in general are dominated by Jewish owners. The USA TODAY article in your comment #80 is a good example of soft propaganda, meant to be read in a casual way. It leaves the reader with a vague general impression, and so is far more effective. Despite being factually incorrect on every point, a casual reader of that article would assume all moon rocks are fake, and therefore get the vague feeling the Apollo program was fake, and thus become far more receptive to the ravings of Moon Landing Hoaxers.

  311. Sepp says:
    @Peter Rabbit

    No, I think it is YOU who is misjudging Ron Unz.

    There have been thousands of comments written by hundreds of highly intelligent commenters directly to Ron Unz concerning the overwhelming data about adverse reactions coming from the CDS managed VAERS. In fact, the CDS is required by law to keep VAERS up to date and accurate, yet they claim that their own database in unreliable. Just try to get Ron Unz to look at the data, let alone compose a coherent response.

    At this point in terms of being aware of what effects the experimental mRNA gene therapy is having on Americans, and the entire planet, I would put Ron Unz on about the same level of awareness as Donald Trump…

    No amount of overwhelming proof will penetrate the mass formation that has been created in the brain of Ron Unz. As a simple example, I present the following visual proof that this is all just one gigantic scam. Just don’t expect the image to penetrate the wall Ron Unz has built in his own brain.

  312. @Iris

    Iris, you really impress me! Where do you get all this knowledge from? I’m saving your comments 81, 186 and this one. Always a great pleasure to read you. Thanks.

    • Thanks: Iris
    • Replies: @Emil Nikola Richard
  313. Mike Tre says:
    @Jonathan Revusky

    “Well, I suppose I have, but you’re missing the point. Wikipedia can be used as a source for certain kinds of objective facts”

    No, the point is most people use wikipedia as a quick reference to “facts” that they believe to be factual, but then condemn wikipedia when facts are presented from there that they don’t believe to be factual. This is known as hypocrisy.

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

    You don’t believe the moon landings to be factual, so you don’t include the moon landings or any data that supports their existence in your definition of “objective facts”. So your statement about what is factual is in reality better defined as what you believe to be the truth. Truth and facts are not always the same thing.

    I agree that wikipedia is compromised by the globohomo, but whether or not the moon landings are real or fake is of no concern to the globohomo agenda, meaning they gain no advantage in promoting a moon landing narrative that is contrary to what actually happened*. In fact, since globohomo works to gaslight the West and more specifically the US about their own exceptionalism, promoting the idea that the moon landings were fake would actually fit better with that narrative that wikipedia promotes; the narrative that you yourself point out.

    *This is what makes the moon landing issue so different from 9/11, Sandy Hook, JFK, etc. There is no immediate or long term political advantage to anyone to continue to promote the hoax of moon landings and I don’t believe the moon landing hoax idea really got going until the 80’s at the very earliest. Whereas the other events, “conspiracy” theories surfaced immediately.

  314. Anon[336] • Disclaimer says:
    @Adrian

    McGowan comes with plain common sense arguments. That is why he is utterly convincing (at any case for me) “at first sight”.

    Partly that, and partly because in his writings & podcasts, that his delivery was in the voice of a lovable Southern California surfer/stoner from the 70’s.

    He always reminded me of an older, more reflective version of the Jeff Spicoli character from Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

    Here are his Wagging the Moon Doggie essays, as flawlessly read by a fan, if nothing else, very entertaining:

    Here’s a two hour interview with Dave on the moon landing from shortly before he died of cancer ~2016:

  315. Sepp says:
    @saggy

    You have said nothing that matters with either of your comments. All you have accomplished is throwing two massive hissy fits. You are behaving precisely as Desmet says you would. I have read many great comments of yours on other threads. But here you are acting like just another victim of the mass formation.

    Why don’t you argue something useful. Explain why there is no Van Allen belt. Provide us with your calculations how they could possibly replace the lunar lander fuel tank with a suitcase sized battery powered dune buggy, in 1969, and still have enough fuel to take off from the moon.

    • Agree: Olivier1973
  316. @Francis Miville

    “You goys”?

    I’m part jewish, through my mother. And damned proud of it!

    Speak for yourself, as your answer is so thoroughly idiotic, you couldn’t possibly have any jewish genetics within you…..

    • Troll: Jonathan Revusky
  317. Iris says:
    @JWalters

    1. Why did all the unmanned space probes go through these cosmic dangers without being melted or otherwise destroyed?

    Regarding radiations, you can draw a parallel with Chernobyl for instance.
    Radiations, from the Van Allen belt or from space in general, are lethal to living creatures, but not to objects, which mostly continue existing and just become radioactive themselves.

    A little caveat: radiations would likely disturb modern electronic devices, but since these devices are very small in size, they can be adequately protected by equally small anti-radiation shields, with no prohibitive weight involved.

    Regarding heat, the space probes made to bear million degrees can resist such temperatures principally because their overall surface is proportionally very large compared to their volume. They are covered by heat shielding material and also cooled down with pressurised cooler, but this set up is only possible because the probes are small and light. Same reason why fingers and nose get frozen before the rest of the human body.

    2. Certainly the large mass of design documents for such an expensive project would be saved. Where are they?

    Don’t laugh. Allegedly, NASA “lost” the design of its Apollo Saturn V miraculous rocket engine.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2015/12/11/how-we-lost-the-ability-to-travel-to-the-moon/?sh=821f5731f48e

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Olivier1973
  318. Mulegino1 says:

    The burden of proof is on those who make extraordinary claims, not on those who question them.

    Is it unreasonable to disbelieve that there were numerous manned missions to the moon only during the late 1960’s to the early 1970’s and ever since, no manned mission has ventured out of inner earth orbit, despite the fact that the technology facilitating successful manned space travel has increased by orders of magnitude since then?

    Likewise, is it unreasonable to disbelieve that the supposedly “lost” telemetry data cannot be replicated and vastly improved upon given the aforementioned enormous advances in technology since the early 1970’s?

    Is it unreasonable to disbelieve that NASA in 2004 did not have a fail safe manner of getting humans through the Van Allen belts if it so effortlessly did so during the Apollo missions?

    No, no, and no.

    Besides, we know with a fair amount of certainty that the photos of the astronauts on the “lunar surface” were taken using a source of light which was not the sun- thus made in a studio.

    Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

    I recall watching the Apollo 11 landings “live” when I was 8 years old, and even then, the ghostly images were hardly convincing.

  319. @Mike Tre

    There is no immediate or long term political advantage to anyone to continue to promote the hoax of moon landings

    Interesting topic–it is worth a thought experiment to imagine what would happen if NASA announced that the manned moon landings were fakery.

    Would Congress cut NASA funding?

    Would any remaining elderly astronauts be sent to Gitmo for interrogation?

    Would the big defense contractors who participated in the hoax be permanently banned from future contracts with the US government?

    Are there intangible factors of US influence around the world that could be affected in a strongly negative way?

    I do not know the answers to these hypothetical questions–and I don’t think anyone else does either.

    The normal homo sapiens reaction when faced with such unknowns is the simplest solution:

    “Why take a chance?”

  320. Anonymous[349] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rev. Spooner

    Had JFK lived and Israel attacked the USS Liberty – the attacking planes and boats of the IDF would have been wiped off the planet. He was an American first. Johnson did not defend the USS Liberty for fear of upsetting Israel and American Jews.

    • Replies: @Francis Miville
  321. @Laurent Guyénot

    Damn, LG, why do you agree with this crap without first verifying it?

    “The Earth only appears blue if you are looking at it from outer space on the side that is being lit by the sun. When you are orbiting the Earth, it will appear black when you orbit around a part of the Earth that is experiencing night”. https://sciencing.com/diurnal-tides-8282670.html

    It’s simple physics.

    Okay, I’m done. No more time for this.

    Be well, LG.

    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  322. fredtard says:
    @Been_there_done_that

    “Not much additional fuel is needed once the spacecraft has been pointed in the right direction”.

    The moon hasn’t slingshotted off into space; it remains in earth orbit because of gravity. The earth’s mass is 81x that of the moon. Your implication that propulsion requirements are inconsequential for a trip to the moon is not reality-based.

  323. Olivier1973 says: • Website
    @Justvisiting

    Two others heroes:

    Gus Grissom and Thomas Baron. Both assassinated.

    • Replies: @Sepp
  324. Olivier1973 says: • Website
    @Bombercommand

    moon rocks look like a piece of concrete

    Too bad, that is not the case:

    https://www.aulis.com/softrocks.htm

  325. @Noble47

    https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/nsam-jfk/nsam-263.htm

    “It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam to assist the people and the Government of that country to win their contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy.”

    These are not the words someone who intends to simply withdraw regardless of whether or not it means the collapse of the Saigon government.

    • Replies: @Noble47
  326. Anon[336] • Disclaimer says:
    @Iris

    Radiations, from the Van Allen belt or from space in general, are lethal to living creatures, but not to objects, which mostly continue existing and just become radioactive themselves.

    I’m going to assume the conditions in the Van Allen Belt, as well as in deep space, are that the hostility of the environment is even more extreme than inside of the collapsed reactor buildings at Fukushima.

    The conditions at Fukushima had no trouble whatsoever KILLING every robot they sent-in to analyze and mitigate the reactor damage. I would expect that ‘Deep Space’ wrecking the shielded electronics on a space probe to be child’s play.

  327. Olivier1973 says: • Website
    @Laurent Guyénot

    In my opinion this “moon landing hoax” narrative is part of the current tsunami of anti-American propaganda that emanates from (((the usual suspects))).

    Repeat after me:

    Yankees never tell lies, yankees never tell lies, yankees never tell lies.

    Yankees always keep their word, yankees always keep their word, yankees always keep their word.

    Only ask the Native Americans.

    When Pompeo said we lied, we cheated, we stole, do not believe him. Right?!

    After all there were WMD in Iraq, No? There were none? Sure, anti-yankee propaganda.

  328. @Ron Unz

    …because they say “it was scientifically impossible” based on the technology.

    What the propagators of this cliché, which I have also heard numerous times, usually mean, is that today’s microcircuit technology and computing power did not exist back then. For instance, in the late 1960s engineers were still using slide rules rather than pocket calculators. Therefore the doubters incorrectly conclude from this premise that the necessary navigational calculations to pilot the spacecraft, for instance, would not have been possible back then.

    There are two major flaws in this reasoning. For the Apollo program important calculations that take up significant computing resources were performed ahead of time and results were tabulated in numerical charts, just like many math or physics books used to contain logarithmic tables as an appendix. Additionally, astronauts were in contact with the space flight operations center in Houston, which was able to compile and process telemetry data in real time and would convey instructions on attitude adjustments to the spacecraft’s micro-thrust systems to maintain the proper course.

    The lack of current computing technology was easily overcome back then by doing things somewhat differently than would be the case now. Another technical point is the fact that nowadays it is common for missiles and rockets to use electronic inertial guidance systems with laser technology. Yet this does not mean that older technology was not able to perform the job. An entry in Wikipedia on the topic “Inertial navigation system” contains the following quote:

    Early German World War II V2 guidance systems combined two gyroscopes and a lateral accelerometer with a simple analog computer to adjust the azimuth for the rocket in flight. Analog computer signals were used to drive four graphite rudders in the rocket exhaust for flight control. The GN&C (Guidance, Navigation, and Control) system for the V2 provided many innovations as an integrated platform with closed loop guidance. At the end of the war von Braun engineered the surrender of 500 of his top rocket scientists, along with plans and test vehicles, to the Americans.

    As was the case with the Van Allen Belt argument, there exist work-around solutions to technical challenges, which is what the discipline of hard science and engineering is all about.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  329. Franz says:
    @Iris

    Yet, you are recalling that the 1968 astronauts you met, just fresh from travelling and orbiting around the Moon for 8 days (over 1,5 times longer than Leonov and Kubasov), were fresh, jumping and full of energy.

    It was better than that.

    The plane’s pilot told us he had to keep Borman away from the controls. “The guy was stir crazy and was insisting on taking the controls and doing some acrobatic flying.”

    How could you forget that, even after more than five decades?

    1. Borman was a massive exception, and was drawing on strength the way a burned-out junkie does when, near death, the cops come to pick him up.

    2. Or, Borman was low on power but insisted on putting on the dog — before you laugh, how much experience do you have with combat pilots? It was a long selection process just to be a jet pilot in the 1950s-60s.

    3. Or — yes — you’re right. And Borman and his two mates had been in some isolation facility for over a week and were just bursting with energy.

    So was it possible they were kept in some MK-ULTRA place and given drug induced hypnotic suggestions that they were in space? This isn’t a joke. George Estabrooks and others had formulated a technique called “psychic driving” where a person was kept drugged and had suggestions implanted for days to alter his memory. This might explain the confusion the Apollo 11 crew showed at their first public press conference (“Did we see stars? I don’t remember”). The post-hypnotic suggestions would have been wearing off by then.

    I am aware this subject will offend people not aware of how advanced CIA mind operations were by even the early space days. Still, some of the astronauts had two doctorates and plenty of experience by the time they went up and came back. It’s far easier to believe they were brainwashed than that they all agreed to a story and stuck to it.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Peter Rabbit
  330. @Rich

    JFK would have won through election stealing as he had done in 1960 : namely he was the first to deal with hostile Republican white vote in the very same way the Dems had traditionally dealt with hostile Republican Negro vote in the Old South : through mafia violence, intimidation and right of vote denial. The general atmosphere was that menial workers really ought not to vote in too strong numbers about questions way beyond their mental capabilities, and being opposed to the MIC, preferring that the US industry remain civilian rather than turn military was considered a proof you were lowbrow. JFK himself was constantly complaining that low IQ trades in the US were way too well paid in comparison with highly qualified specialists, the best and brightest as he called them. 1960 was probably the most fraudulent election of the history of the US, and even then, he won a majority of electoral votes with the lowest minority of actual voters in US history.

    In comparison Trump was sure to lose in terms of popular votes by about twice a margin than in 2016 (when his helpers had convinced ordinary democrats it wasn’t even worth going to the poll station so sure and pre-arranged was Hillary’s victory) and that showed in his body language : what he was defrauded of by the adverse party was only about 0,2 million critical votes in the swing states. JFK’s fraud was by several millions, obtained through mafia violence and mass intimidation. Traditionally Blacks in the Old South were often asked a quite hard test of literacy (I am not against it at all provided it is objective and given to all so as for all old Sleepy Joes to fail it together with a huge number of feral Black delinquents caring only for ebonics) but this time many White workers were subject to one, the problem being that is was demanded only from prospective Nixon voters. JFK was not a saint of the American political scene, he was not even a Gracchus, the system has always been well geared since Ben Franklin to let only oligarchs of old initiation rise above a certain level, though he was turned into a saint after his death like MLK also was despite a life as un-Christian and Nero-like as JFK’s.

    But JFK was already mortally sick from several diseases and wouldn’t have survived much beyond 1964, his victory would have been LBJ’s. LBJ had absolutely no chance to win any election by himself given the sheer ugliness of his person. He needed to present himself as the designated successor of a supposed perfect hero having died in function to pass through and Indian astrologers were already nearly all convinced that LBJ had premeditated JFK’s sudden death or assassination right from 1960, as most of the 1960 campaign strategic effort was organized by LBJ and by the Bronfman clan.

    • Replies: @Rich
  331. @Sepp

    Good post and LOL . Boris is such a clown.

    Regarding Trump, he knows more than Unz. Trump is a self-confessed Mason and even better Zionist agent/stooge than LBJ.

    Fauci knew and is on record about the “surprise outbreak” as early as 2017, Trump knew and conspired to create the fire (Unz is fond of using the arsonist’s precognition analogy) months before it happened.

    On September 19, 2019–they love their “19s”–President Trump signed Executive Order 13887 to establish a “National Influenza Vaccine Task Force.”

    The word “pandemic” is used 666 times in the Order aka Modernizing Influenza Vaccines in the United States to Promote National Security and Public Health

    Just kidding about the 666, but the word “pandemic” is used at least (((SIX))) times, for sure.

  332. @Sepp

    You apparently have not bought into Clif High’s narrative that Trump is playing 4D chess and is in the process of outsmarting Gates and Fauci with his politico-linguistical-genius.

    Listen very carefully.

    Ha ha I ain’t buyin’ either.

  333. @Laurent Guyénot

    Yeah that is a great point I don’t recall seeing elsewhere.

  334. @Been_there_done_that

    there exist work-around solutions to technical challenges

    That is exactly the “can do” philosophy that motivated the fraudsters when presented the challenge on “how do we fake this?”

    https://www.aulis.com/apollo_kubrick2.htm

    https://www.aulis.com/apollo_kubrick3.htm

    The man mooned missions were not difficult, they were insanely impossible.

    Faking them was merely very difficult.

    • Agree: Truth Vigilante
  335. Franz says:
    @Iris

    Yet, you are recalling that the 1968 astronauts you met, just fresh from travelling and orbiting around the Moon for 8 days (over 1,5 times longer than Leonov and Kubasov), were fresh, jumping and full of energy.

    This is a quick re-cap of a long answer that seems to have disappeared.

    There were a lot of us who saw the Apollo 8 three, and yes, they were stir crazy and the squadron pilot specifically mentioned he really worried about Borman taking the controls of the plane so full of energy was he, a point others noted. Borman seemed reckless. not tired.

    I am non-judgemental and tend to believe fundamentally serious men, so the question is what techniques existed in 1968 to get such men to believe they did something they didn’t actually do?

    We’re all bored and annoyed with the mind control stories, but agencies spent a fortune on this sort of thing and the astronauts would have been perfect “captive subjects” for the agencies. Keep in mind NASA is only the CIA with rockets.

    The problem of the astronauts is not small. Some had two doctorates, all were test pilots and some had much combat experience. Saying a large batch of your finest citizens are liars is a problem all by itself; if it’s true it would explain a lot of what’s happened since 1968.

  336. @Bombercommand

    No : the (((usual suspects))) are the very group where you have got the hardest time finding one single Moon Landing denier : they actually have more tolerance towards run of the mill neo-Nazi preaching Holocaust denial or approval, than with official mainstream science denial as taught by the universities they have graduated from, unless you are also a Jew, and even then you will be rebuked as a goyishe kopf or as a Lev Tahor member. With them you cannot deny that most romantic states of mind are now explained as brain chemical imbalances to be treated as such. The (((usual suspects))) attack Moon landing denial and DSM-5 denial more fiercely than Holocaust denial, which they understand as long as it strictly stays within the confines of clienteles held as antisemitic by their nature rather than by personal choice (like the Palestinian Arabs or the Iranians). When you engage in Moon Landing denial you attack their private property which is the official science the goys are supposed to believe blindly. But you can engage in flat Earth theory and other various New Age or Afro-centrist obscurantist creeds without incurring their wrath : they then understand you are most probably doing it either for the money either for the hell of it. They consider that thanks to them alone rational science exists and that goy discoverers or inventors at best just copied large swaths of kabbalah with or without their permission. They are the Book people as the Arab says and that means everything fit to print.

  337. Sepp says:
    @Olivier1973

    They both violated their masonic oaths. They knew the consequences, and they suffered them as an example for the others. They were eliminated in masonic sacrifices that served as a warnings to other freemasons that might have been contemplating going public.

    http://www.moonhoaxdebunked.com/2017/07/910-was-nasa-whistleblower-thomas-baron.html

    “One week after testifying, Baron and his family were killed when their car was struck by a train at a level crossing. His full-length report was never made public and has since vanished.”

    The Freemason initiate is blindfolded and wears a hang mans noose around his neck when he swears his oaths of secrecy in order to join the brotherhood. Within the lodge, the repercussions for failing to obey the oaths are well known. This is a far greater motivation than any NDA, which in many cases is just one small facet of the Masonic oath since many judiciary are controlled by Freemasons anyway.

  338. Olivier1973 says: • Website
    @Iris

    Radiations, from the Van Allen belt or from space in general, are lethal to living creatures, but not to objects

    Except Ektachrom films. And what a surprise, they came unadulterated.

    Ron is really funny, he cannot made his mind by himself, by educating himself. He relies on ad autoritatem or ad populum fallacies. He forgets about conflicts of interest. Clearly we are in front of a cognitive dissonance case.

    Yes, the technology to go to the moon and back did not exist then and IT STILL DOES NOT EXIST. No rocket is powerful enough to do it. The only way is to build a spatial station in LEO and to bring there the fuel which will be necessary for the journey.

    Even more ludicrous is the trip to Mars.

    For the puppeteers the only way to make “successful” Apollo missions, that is to risk nothing, was to keep the teams on the soil of earth. Apollo 13 capsule was empty when the Soviets found it soon after the fake launch.

    • Replies: @Iris
  339. @Stebbing Heuer

    Conclusion: we no longer have the civilizational capacity for extra-orbital travel.

    Even now, fifty years on, people look at that triumphant moment of human technology and ambition and tell themselves, at great length and with cross-references: this did not, could not happen. The notion of humans achieving extra-orbital travel is a fantastical tale. Okay, Boomer!

    A few more generations, and people will laugh at the elderly sitting on benches, insisting that back in the day, humans had managed to extract energy from the atoms of heavy elements. Silly old people!

    A few more generations after that, and people will take their children to gawk and speak to each other in guttural, non-written language about the demon-gods who built those giant buildings and concrete pads on the central Florida coast before turning to the more urgent task of catching the rabbits and other small rodents who roam the place. Tonight, we feast!

    We’ve hit the Great Filter.

    • Replies: @Francis Miville
  340. @bj0311

    SARS CoV2 is real enough, but everything surrounding ‘the response’ is an abomination.

    • Agree: Olivier1973
  341. Olivier1973 says: • Website
    @Iris

    Yet, you are recalling that the 1968 astronauts you met, just fresh from travelling and orbiting around the Moon for 8 days (over 1,5 times longer than Leonov and Kubasov), were fresh, jumping and full of energy.

    I don’t know for Apollo 8, but the team of Apollo 11, so freshly shaven while still in quarantine!

    LOL.

  342. Franz says:
    @Anonymous

    When we look at how cars or planes advanced during the initial, say, 50 years, and compare it to this decline

    In transportation, housing, aviation… we either struck some sort of plateau or we’re falling backward. And the “futurists” of that era were very frustrated.

    I can see why the space advocates were furious. G. Harry Stine wrote a paperback called The Third Industrial Revolution. It was about the promise of space in the economic sphere. None of it happened, and all of it should have. Although Harry emphasized humans in space, most of his innovations could be done with automated space stations.

    It’s still possible. Political will has to happen.

  343. @Francis Miville

    ‘Climate control technology’-cloud cuckoo land. ANYTHING to deny the REALITY of anthropogenic climate destabilisation. What a cult!

  344. Iris says:
    @Franz

    Thanks for sharing your personal experience; it is a great privilege reading you.

    Did you meet the astronauts immediately (within hours) after they had supposedly landed?

    The Soviet cosmonauts would be in such a weakened state upon landing that they would be delivered by medical teams, and treated for days, sometimes in intensive care before they could even stand up. Here is the process, described by N.V Lebedev, a veteran member of Soviet recovery teams:

    Pilots delivered recovery and medical personnel to the landing area. The task of the recovery team was to place the landed capsule into a secure position and to open the hatches. Then doctors took the cosmonauts from the capsule and put them onto stretchers, since they could not move about on their own. Some of them were given injections of toning agents. The cosmonauts were then taken by helicopter from the landing site to site Number 1 and put into the intensive care unit of the local hospital. There experts from the center of space medicine, located in Star City, would be waiting for them. After the cosmonauts’ initial examination, a decision on the urgency of their dispatch to Star City was made. As a rule, this happened approximately three days after the cosmonauts’ landing, but in urgent cases cosmonauts could be sent to Star City almost the same day.

    https://www-manonmoon-ru.translate.goog/articles/st50.htm?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB

    The effect of hypodynamia is so important that in the 1970 Soyuz 9 mission, which lasted 18 days, all Soviet cosmonauts returned in pre-myocardial infarction state, with decreased blood supply to the cardiac muscle. Thereafter, the Soviet space agency change the rules and limited any flight to a maximum of 8 days.

    So the display by American astronauts, often shown as fresh and energetic just upon landing, is just irreconcilable with any space travel.

    Regarding the American astronauts’ motivation to take part in the Hoax, I sincerely think that they were probably honourable, driven by Cold War patriotic feelings, traumatised by the Cuba Missile Crisis, and sincerely believing that the US needed to scare off the “Big Bad nuclear USSR” , no?
    People may tell lies for their own ethical reasons.

    • Replies: @Franz
    , @Peter Rabbit
  345. @Dr. Charles Fhandrich

    NOTHING to what they are doing, and have done for nearly FIFTY years, to the Afghans. The deliberate starving to death of millions of Afghans under US-led sanctions is YET ANOTHER crime against humanity by the greatest force for Evil in ALL history. I just had to listen to two feminazi propaganda Gorgons, discussing how sanctions are being imposed on the Afghans, because of the Taliban’s ‘attitude’ to women and girls!!! The ‘attitude’ of these women to seeing their children starve to death does not compute to these propaganda ghouls. And, would you believe it, one Taliban Minister is wanted for his ‘links to al-Qaeda’! You know- that al-Qaeda that the US and its stooges created, and support to today!!

    • Replies: @Dr. Charles Fhandrich
  346. Olivier1973 says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    on this silly nonsense…

    “conspiracy people” is that they tend to be very, very gullible and lack all common sense.

    these same sort of nutjobs

    all these fools and crackpots

    A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are going to come off worst. It consists in passing from the subject of dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself, and in some way attacking his person. It may be called the argumentum ad personam, to distinguish it from the argumentum ad hominem, which passes from the objective discussion of the subject pure and simple to the statements or admissions which your opponent has made in regard to it. But in becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack to his person, by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. It is an appeal from the virtues of the intellect to the virtues of the body, or to mere animalism. This is a very popular trick, because every one is able to carry it into effect; and so it is of frequent application.

    The art of being right, Schopenhauer.

    You have zero evidence that someone went to the moon and came back. You are not even able to make the difference between actors and cinema and reality.

    And you are wrong, someone spoke. But you are unable to listen. You are only able to insult people who do not think like you on this subject.

    Parrots can talk, but do not fly well. Do you understand the meaning?

    And what about finally removing “one of truth’s protective layers.”

    Notice: LAYERS, plural.

    Yankees are stalemate because they cannot even try to go to the moon without showing that the Apollo missions were faked.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  347. @Mike Tre

    You are absolutely right. Believe everything or believe nothing. No shilly shallying.

  348. Adrian says:
    @Ron Unz

    If you claim that something is “scientifically impossible” but you can’t find any scientists who actually agree with you, you sound like a bunch of total crackpots. Once you can find five or ten qualified experts who support your position, I’ll then be willing to consider it.
    So, Moon Hoaxers, instead of clogging up this thread with your nonsense, you should go out and start convincing trained professionals to publicly support your position.

    At first Ron was bemoaning the skeptics’ lack of common sense now he wants them to be “space scientists” or “aeronautics engineers” as well.

    His first implicit suggestion that common sense might be enough was right on the mark. McGowan and others have shown that you can get quite far with that.

    But now he has upped the ante and wants space scientists and aeronautics engineers to provide authorized criticism. Well, what about looking at NASA itself? Over time people employed there have made various remarks about the unsurpassable difficulties in trying to have a manned flight to the moon. Laurent Guénot has quoted some of them. If he wants to hear the actual person saying these things he should look at Mazzucco’s three-and-a-half hour long film “American Moon”.

    He can also look at Werner von Braun’s statement about the virtual impossibility of man flying “directly to the moon”. McGowan quoted it at the beginning of his essay. It is true this statement dates from 1953. Technology must have made gigantic strides forward in the period after, seeing that barely fifteen years later the impossible became possible. Pity it apparently reversed course in the years after.

    Finally, I don’t understand Ron’s complaint about the “hoaxers” “clogging up” this thread. Isn’t this the very topic of this thread, the hoax?

  349. Olivier1973 says: • Website
    @Iris

    and the recovery teams who picked up the astronauts after they supposedly landed.

    Not even the recovery team would be in the know if the capsule was dropped from a plane with a parachute at a high altitude.

    • Thanks: Iris
  350. Walker says:
    @Ron Unz

    You mean all those experts whose reputations and/or salaries that would be tarnished by coming out in favor of the moon landing hoax? I’m sure a VP of engineering at Lockheed is dying to go on the record as a conspiracy theorist to risk his huge salary, bonuses and respect from his friends, family, mistress and colleagues. Sure he is!

    I bet I will then get a bunch of NIH-funded experts to come out against the vaccines.

    After that I’ll have the news experts at the New York times republish some material from Unz.

    Point being that the reason this country is such a mess is largely due to so-called experts being totally bought-and-paid-for and otherwise corrupted by a system and culture DESIGNED to keep them obedient to the “proper” narrative.

    JFC, how much more obvious could the moon landing hoax be??

    • Agree: Maowasayali
    • Thanks: Sepp
  351. gsjackson says:
    @Sepp

    Trump has completely lost me with this latest round of jab puffery. Has there ever been a statement more ridiculous than the claim he is making that he has saved “tens of millions of lives?” Maybe the controllers are getting ready to put him back in the presidency. At this point, Slappy Joe has probably recruited all the jabees he’s going to get, and maybe Orange Clown can round up a few more.

    • Agree: Sepp
  352. Franz says:
    @Iris

    Did you meet the astronauts immediately (within hours) after they had supposedly landed?

    Days. They were recovered on December 27, officially, by the USS Yorktown’s helicopters, I believe, and weren’t flown back till almost the New Year. I didn’t keep my old logs, but I’m fairly certain it was still 1968.

    Till you jogged my memory I really hadn’t considered that. They could have spent a few days on the Yorktown for all I know, I only recall that when it was time to leave we took them off. Since Borman wasn’t a navy man he could have just hated being out there. Either way he was fun to be with and showed respect for the old salts and us new guys equally. I’m not shocked that they considered him a good ambassador when he visited Russia sometime after.

    • Thanks: Iris
  353. @Anonymous

    No. JFK, when it came to matters regarding the Jewish Question, would have phoned first to Edgar Bronfman, a near family member by alliance, to whom the whole Kennedy clan owed its billions, and then to Henry Kissinger, who would have had the last say. HK is known to be an arch-globalist but not very Israel firster, he is one of those Zionists of a much older generation who would have rather liked to develop their Jewish Empire from Paris rather than from Jerusalem. JFK was not an American firster but an Irish firster, of the dark Celtic side of course, and American firster only in as much as his Irish clan will benefits (not the Irish people) : though conditionally an American firster, JFK hated the classical Anglo-Saxons (for an understandable reason given his ethnic history) together with most other like Whites (French, German…) with a passion, the only other Whites he appreciated would be respected by him in as much as they resembled his clan, like the Sicilian and Greek mafias. JFK hated the talented Whites first and foremost : he wanted personnel to be selected according to ethnic representativity through affirmative action rather than for ability in their domain, though he was quite opposed to de-segregation as it was to be promoted under LBJ : he rather wanted to build more segregation barriers between various classes of American Whites, of Blacks, of Hispanics and others before bringing down the great wall between blacks and Whites as an obsolete construction. He admired India in that regard.

    JFK would have listened to HK’s advices (orders?) : two Israeli planes would have been gunned down (after letting the pilots eject) and two boats sunk (while rescuing every single mariner) and the incident would have been explained away as a lack of expertise on Israeli side in identifying the American ship. Both planes and boats would have been replaced for free. Another solution would have been for the US airforce to finish sinking down the Liberty by themselves with a small nuclear torpedo (so as to suppress all witnesses) together with one small Israeli boat drawing near (rescuing only the latter’s crew) and tell the news that they too mistook the Liberty for a Russian vessel due to wrong electronic signalling, which would have also served as a clear signal to the Soviets that in case of conflict the US was ready to sacrifice its own population.

    • Replies: @Peter Rabbit
    , @Anonymous
  354. gsjackson says:
    @Justvisiting

    If I’m remembering the book correctly, it’s interesting that Grissom was depicted by Tom Wolfe as the one of the seven original astronauts who lacked the “right stuff” — a bit of a bumpkin, incompetent, in over his head, “screwed the pooch.” Wolfe was marrying into the Tribe as he wrote the book. Could he somehow have divined that he was now a keeper of official narratives?

  355. Anonymous[163] • Disclaimer says:
    @Olivier1973

    We have oceans of evidence that men went to the moon. Americans went to the Moon in 1969 and several times sense.

    We also have evidence that men who failed in life like to make up stories that other men couldn’t possibly have succeeded in their ventures. Moon hoaxers are usually failed fellas. Imagine a loser in high school off in the corner, muttering the whole system sucks. That’s what we have here.

    They imagine all world leadership (business, politics, academia, engineers, scientists, media, etc) is involved in a “conspiracy”. And that they’ve managed to “compartmentalize “or buy off all the regular people who would know better. Some of this is schizophrenic thinking.

  356. There are some things a person needs to know before he can make a judgment as to what is true or not about anything. Some of those things are only learned by hands-on experiences. Some facts can only be gained through living and breathing the work experience; they can’t be gained from books alone.

    It is said that the building of the first A-bomb was an exercise in the Laws of Probabilities.

    That is, Oppenheimer would call together a bunch of scientists, engineers and techies in the movie theater at Los Alamos and ask for progress reports on various aspects of the components and functions of the device. One might say, “we’re at 64% probability of successful function and we think we can increase that over a bit more time”; another might say, “we’re at 44% probability on our aspect and going down”. Oppenheimer would then make a judgment call and say something like “YOU can proceed as long as you’re increasing in progress”; YOU (over there) have one week to make a determination or we’ll have to cut the project and proceed with another approach”. Or words to that effect.

    The point is that when the first nuclear explosive device was detonated almost NONE of the myriad of aspects of its design and construction were considered to have a 100% probability of functional success. The device was tested with many aspects having probability of success of LESS than 100%. As we know, they were “close enough” in enough areas that the thing worked the first time.

    With regard to the so-called Manned Moon Landings, if one were to apply the same discipline to the quest for answers regarding the probability of the Manned Moon Landings being real or not, one could do no worse than to pick apart the myriad of details of components and operations required for the missions to be a success and then apply reasonable estimates of probabilities for operational success.

    There seems to be enough information available even now to suggest strongly that there were enough aspects of the critical details involved in those missions that the probability of them happening as announced by the official government narrative is so low as to be probably false and impossible. [a key one being the statements attributed to von Braun about “the rockets then available not having sufficient lift to perform the task of accomplishing the mission”] Enough event and component probabilities below 50% would strongly suggest the missions as officially described, did not happen.

    If one has never held the nation’s highest security clearances, nor worked with classified operations and activities as a matter of every day work activity, one will never know the threatening atmosphere and operational protocols, means and methods available by the government to keep hundreds of thousands of folks who depend on their jobs for sustenance, silent. If you’ve not been there you have no clue!!

    The LAST thing a worker is going to do is talk about what he has experienced on the classified job; he knows full well, the consequence of doing so. Black Prisons in Bulgaria are REAL!! Pickup teams really DO rendition folks off into the hinterland never to be seen again. One hinted occurrence is usually sufficient deterrent to keep hundreds of thousands of others meek, docile, obedient and silent.

    Most secret conspiracies can be run with no more than 3 to 5 individuals in the top loop; the rest are just paid to look the other way. Even high school girl’s cliques know all this.

    The Bell Curve could enter in here too:

    As regards the Manned Moon Landings, on one end you have the believers, on the other the disbelievers and in the broad middle, all the rest who have “opinions”.

    The question to be asked however is: who has a right, or a justification to have an “opinion”? The only sensible answer of course is: those who know enough about the subject to be sufficiently skilled in the art to be able to observe, understand, digest, ruminate, analyze and draw valid conclusions based upon valid premises.

    Only those few at the left end of the Curve are in a position to do this. [And this does not involve IQ!] The rest are just babbling about things about which they have no clue.

    I would add: it might help some if they worked in a machine shop for a while; or carried hod on a construction crew; or humped glue-lams on a roofing crew; or swept floors and carried out trash in a big corporation; work underground for a while – mucking hard-rock all day. Folks who have not done any of that may have missed out on some priceless opportunities to learn things that the WSJ and NYT will not teach them. And it is an aggregate of all those precise things that will give one a position to be able to judge sensibly, whether the Manned Moon Landings were a fake or not.

    Do some homework and gain some relevant life-experience first – then bloviate.

    (None of what I write here is meant to throw doubt on a probable, on-going “Secret Space Program” totally separate and different from the so-called “Manned Moon Landings Hoax of the late 60’s and early 70’s”.)

    • Agree: simple mind
    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  357. @orchardist

    Great post–those of us who have seen large scale scams in our work lives bring a totally different perspective on this stuff.

    I have been “in the room” many times in my life–and the rich and powerful lie–routinely–like breathing.

    Most consider it just stupid to share information with those who have no “need to know”, even if there is no classification requirement.

    • Replies: @orchardist
    , @Anonymous
  358. @Franz

    “Did we see stars? I don’t remember.” Those astronauts were under no delusion or special “mind operations.” They realized that the questioner was on to them. Collins simply did not know what to say and looked to Armstrong—the brains, such as they were— to figure out what to do. Their body language says: “I am lying.” Aldrin was combatively defensive. Over the years, he became more animated as his confidence grew over what seemed to be a successful deception. Duper’s delight. You don’t have to fool everybody. You only have to fool enough. And America stood behind them and they had a ticker tape parade.

    • Replies: @Franz
  359. Sam J. says:

    This whole thread is filled with mindless stupidity. Stuff like,

    “…NASA “lost” the design of its Apollo Saturn V miraculous rocket engine…”

    Not true. A Huntville company actually recreated F-1 engines with 3-D printing to control cost. They even tested a built turbo pump and gas generator on a test stand.

    https://www.madeinalabama.com/2015/06/dynetics-rocket-breakthroughs/

    “…There’s a reason why we didn’t send people in cotton/aluminium foil suits to scrub Fukushima…”

    Why are these people even commenting at all. They’re so mindlessly stupid they have no idea about radiation at all.

    There’s different kinds of radiation. Why do you not know this? A simple one or two minute read will tell you about this. There’s neutron which is hard to stop and electron and proton which are not so hard to stop. TV’s used to shoot high energy electrons at us but everyone did not die. So if these were in our homes how could we not protect astronauts? All these van allen radiation belt bugaboos heave been answered over and over yet they persist.

    “…Perhaps what looks like cardboard and tinfoil around the pressurized lunar module was in fact made of high-tech concrete…”

    The foil around the lunar module was to protect from heat and hold heat out and had nothing to do with radiation. They were the same as “space” blankets which you buy most anywhere to see how they reflect heat.The module “under” the foil was thick aluminum.

    If you can’t even get the basic idea. I mean even the beginnings of the idea of what is going on then…it’s no use telling these people anything.

    There leads us to the answer. They know that all of these things they bring up over and over and over and that have been answered over and over and over. The truth is this is just another attack on Whites. Saying the moon landing is fake is just one big anti-White attack because the moon landing was the Whitest thing ever. Without Whites it could never have been done.

  360. Adrian says:
    @saggy

    What utter and complete nonsense. Do you not realize that the documentation for the Apollo missions is endless. Every firm that worked on the project has documented every aspect of the project. Every freaking bolt is documented. I have thick volumes which I helped write on projects that I worked on 40 years ago.

    Is the documentation concerning Apollo 1 that NASA removed “because of lack of space” among your “thick volumes” by any chance?

  361. @Sam J.

    So–do the dune buggies have oil leaks or not?

    😉

  362. Erebus says:
    @Sepp

    I watched an interview with Desmet, and I came away unimpressed. It may be that I missed his primary point as the interviewer failed to ask penetrating questions, but as you point out, there’s too many counter examples of mass delusions that don’t fit his framework.

    At any rate, I didn’t hear anything that gainsaid Charles Mackay who came much closer to the mark when he said:

    Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

    This is fundamental. Humans are a herd animal. The lone wolf is a rare beast and for those who’s goals include mastering and directing the herd he’s nothing more than an outlier, like some faulty measurement that can be ignored. He merits attention only if/when a potentially competing herd forms around him.

    Closer to the subject at hand, Mackay also said:

    Every age has its peculiar folly: Some scheme, project, or fantasy into which it plunges, spurred on by the love of gain, the necessity of excitement, or the force of imitation.

    Therein lies the secret used by those who would seek power. Create the “scheme, project, or fantasy” that excites and focuses the herd and it will plunge into it full bore while the powerful consolidate and complete their control.

    The outlier’s noise is buried by the signal, marginalized into insignificance. It may appear paradoxical that the better educated, more successful, higher IQ members of the herd become the most fervent believers, but it’s actually quite organic. They gained their status in the herd by reading the signal more acutely, and had the tools to gain from their acuity. Naturally, they protect and even reinvest the profits in status and lifestyle they gained. They have no choice. In for a dime, in for a dollar. Rare is the man who would repudiate everything he’s “accomplished” and go Che Guevara, giving up one form of madness for what amounts to another.

    As for Tibet, may I ask when you visited?

    • Replies: @Sepp
  363. @Francis Miville

    There was the 1967 “six day war” war between Israel and the United Arab Republic (Egypt and Syria). The idea was, obviously by agreement with LBJ, to sink the USS Liberty without survivors, and then blame it on the Egyptians, so that the US could take over the fighting—and dying—for Israel. There were two snafus: the attack was designed to take out the transmitting antenna of the Liberty as the first priority. But the Liberty sailors rigged a replacement and managed to send out distress signals heard in the US ships in the Mediterranean, which then sent out assistance. It required LBJ, who was obviously standing by, to come out of the shadows to recall—twice— the planes sent to defend the Liberty to prevent the already compromised false flag operation from failing completely. But there was another snafu: an interloper.

    The USS Liberty was a spy ship monitoring the course of the war. The Soviets were doing the same thing. They also heard the distress call, and a Soviet “fishing trawler” went to the scene. The appearance of this unexpected witness—which the Israelis could not attack and sink— forced the false flag operation to stop which saved the lives of the surviving US sailors. It was LBJ who had betrayed them.

    To their credit, one, or several, Israeli pilots refused to attack the Liberty when they saw the US flag. A US spy plane high overhead recorded the conversations of the Israeli pilots about “the American ship” proving that the Liberty had not been mistaken, as was claimed, for an Egyptian ship. The information about the spy plane recording was concealed until the early `90s, and then revealed by mavericks to trip up the Israeli denials.

    • Thanks: Iris
    • Replies: @Francis Miville
  364. Reading through the comments I’d say most people are pretty skeptical of man on the moon, but what about the rover on Mars? Well some astute researchers have discovered that NASA has a camera crew up in northern Canada faking that mission also, and here is some photographic evidence of a rodent the rover took a picture of. Of course there are no rodents on Mars, but this exact animal specie lives exactly where NASA has a mission base on Devon Island. Lemmings are mouselike rodents that live in treeless areas of northern Canada.

    https://steverotter.com/mars-rover-landing-hoax-by-nasa/

    Now I am not saying NASA didn’t make it to Mars and I can give you a plausible reason for the fakery, they are on Mars and those photos are all classified. For one thing, they don’t want our rivals to get all this free data that we paid for, and another reason is that Mars may be littered with ancient alien artifacts. The moon and Mars are perfect places for long term preservation of whatever got there before us. But who knows what the hell is going on when we are ruled by a government that lies about everything. But I am pretty sure there ain’t no lemmings on Mars.

    • LOL: Sepp
    • Replies: @Von Rho
  365. Franz says:
    @Peter Rabbit

    Collins simply did not know what to say and looked to Armstrong—the brains, such as they were— to figure out what to do.

    Collins was the one who wrote the first book by an Apollo moon astronaut, Carrying the Fire. It was first published in 1974 and has never been out of print since. The newsmen dubbed him “the loneliest man since Adam” because he stayed in the command module while the other two went to the moon.

    If the moon landings are ever completely debunked, Collins will have a lot of pissed off readers. He will not know. He died in April of this year.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  366. NASA Mars Mission Exposed as Devon Island Research

    Mars on Earth: A Visit to Devon Island

    https://alien-ufo-sightings.com/2017/08/nasa-mars-hoax-rover-is-on-devon-island-canada-you-decide/

    • Thanks: Laurent Guyénot
  367. Noble47 says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Complete withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam is still consistent with supporting the South Vietnamese government by supplying equipment, supplies, and advice. Every point in NASM 263 is still fulfilled even when 1000 US advisors are withdrawing per the White House statement of Oct 2, 1963 (as mentioned in point 2 of NASM 263).

    He wasn’t hopeful that the Saigon government would win the war. See his interview with Walter Cronkite on Sept 2, 1963.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  368. Anonymous[163] • Disclaimer says:
    @Justvisiting

    I have been “in the room” many times in my life–and the rich and powerful lie–routinely–like breathing.

    Uh huh. Give some examples.

    “Sitting in the room“ when a used car sales dealership decides to deceive the public is not exactly highpowered or shocking. And if it’s just routine crap like a CFO hiding how bad a company‘s debt situation is, that’s no big deal.

    We’re talking about the claim of a multi generational super conspiracy involving thousands of people and human lives. I don’t believe you’ve ever been anywhere near that.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  369. Erebus says:
    @saggy

    Do you not realize that the documentation for the Apollo missions is endless. Every firm that worked on the project has documented every aspect of the project. Every freaking bolt is documented.

    You are absolutely correct. Endless documentation is endemic in any large engineering project, however…

    … what you failed to point out is that ALL of the various contractors’ documentation was contractually NASA’s property and had to be handed over in its entirety when their portion of the project was completed. That requirement was, of course supplemented by NDAs.

    Any contractor who wanted to participate in the next aerospace-military boondoggle wouldn’t even dream of violating either. As it is, I suspect very few contractors learned anything significant, simply because delivering what they had to in the timeframe they were given didn’t allow for much pure research and development of new concepts and techniques. Those that did learn something useful were allowed to use what they learned when they participated in future boondoggles.

    At any rate, NASA claims to have lost the whole lot. My guess is that Pettit put it right :
    “We destroyed that technology and it’s a painful process to build it back again”. Painful indeed, and fruitless.

  370. @Franz

    The command module itself could not have achieved its claimed mission–here is a detailed discussion:

    https://www.aulis.com/command_module.htm

    https://www.aulis.com/apollo_fake_reentry.htm

    Collins obviously knew this…..

    One more Aulis “big picture” link–from the Russian perspective back in 2010:

    https://www.aulis.com/illusion.htm

    The guy’s credentials (at the bottom of the link) are very impressive.

    He cannot be dismissed lightly.

    • Thanks: Franz
  371. @Anonymous

    One conspiracy I did not witness–but which was kept secret for decades and involved “thousand of people and human lives”:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/confirmed-the-us-census-b/

    One “conspiracy” of many I did witness was the publication of false data by .gov. It supported a narrative at the time (many years ago), and was never recanted. I spoke up in a meeting and told them it was false and why it was false, and was told in no uncertain terms to shut up and not speak of it again….

  372. Anonymous[939] • Disclaimer says:

    Personally, I don’t mind Ron Unz’s attitude. I believe that he’s wrong in this instance but the fact that he allows us “loonies” to express our arguments on the website is priceless. Furthermore, if you read his “Pravda” series, many times he admits to seeing the “conspiracy theory” proponents as fringe lunatics before realising that they might be (substantially) right.

    Bottom line is that he’s not our daddy so it’s not that important to convince him of anything – as long as he allows us to convince others. Yes, he’s kind of insulting and dismissive sometimes but that’s what should be expected in a (semi) free-speech environment. I can be prickly myself and people should grow a thicker skin if they really believe in free speech.

    That said, he seems to be relying too much on the “official & authoritative” sources before applying his own reason and knowledge. Just for starters:

    – These Moon golfers didn’t have any protection against radiation – period. How did they survive those missions or at least didn’t get a severe case of radiation poisoning? We still don’t have a lightweight material that can protect an astronaut from these environments.

    – The Moon Buggy footage looks exactly like a slow-motion version (double frames – half FPS – if I remember correctly) of an Earth Buggy kicking the dust in a random Earth’s location. This should be well within Ron’s expertise – to say the least. Surely: the Moon’s gravity would result in a vastly different dust trajectory.

  373. @ariadna

    Well, Ariadna, I gave lots of good info. in correction of parts of the story that Mr. Guyenot didn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground about. Had I written a long article here, I’d have read all the comments. I imagine he saw them and ignored them as damaging to his storyline. Yes, ouch! (Haha!)

  374. @Justvisiting

    You do realize your expert on radiation, lunar geology an sheet is a
    Transsylvanian philologist with a PhD in Tibeto-Mongolian occultism?

    – But I won´t be accused of closed-mindedness; and, what doeth God?
    The drivel is almost exactly as expected: No whiff of cosmic radiation,
    attenuation, radiobiology, Yellow Disease or Schmitt´s (actual) allergic reaction to
    moon dust. The non-deranged passages are easily identifiable as
    (incompletely understood) excerpts from Science.

    You are giving us tinfoil hatters a bad name (but then, that´s prolly the point).

  375. Ron Unz says:
    @Sam J.

    Upthread a few hours ago someone noted that last year the Chinese lunar mission had published photographs supposedly showing the landing modules of the various Apollo lunar landing missions:

    https://www.hutmobile.com/first-published-chinese-pictures-of-the-apollo-landing-sites-on-the-moon/

    I’m no expert on interpreting photos, but I tend to doubt that the Chinese would have made that claim unless they were pretty sure it was correct. After all, future missions would surely provide much better photos.

    I’m curious how Moon Hoaxers explain this: (1) The Chinese are lying and faked the photos; (2) The Americans secretly landed on the Moon long after Apollo and faked the evidence in order to irritate Moon Hoaxers; (3) Something else.

  376. @Iris

    The effect of hypodynamia means that the “Space Station” is also a hoax.

  377. @Mike Tre

    You write:

    No, the point is most people use wikipedia as a quick reference to “facts” that they believe to be factual, but then condemn wikipedia when facts are presented from there that they don’t believe to be factual. This is known as hypocrisy.

    Well no, it’s not hypocrisy. It’s actually common sense.

    According to your logic, if Wikipedia is right on the inconsequential minutiae and we accept it to be correct on that stuff, then we’re hypocrites for not trusting in the entirety of what they publish.

    That sort of logic is juvenile in the extreme.

    Anyone with half a brain can see that Wikipedia has nothing to gain by posting factually incorrect content for the bulk of its output.
    On the contrary, as with all good propaganda, it will suck in the masses by posting the facts for in excess of 95% of items. However, it’s on the remaining few percent, the CRUCIALLY important stuff, where they’ll lead you astray.

    The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia is controlled by the same corrupt cabal that owns/controls the western MSM and the western financial system.

    On ALL matters of geopolitical and financial significance, all matters of medical/health/alleged genocides of a chosen peoples/alleged environmental impact etc, this cabal is LYING to us because they have a VESTED INTEREST in perpetuating this lie as said lies facilitate the transfer of wealth from the brainwashed goyim to the select few that represent this Vampire Squid.

    You also write:

    *This is what makes the moon landing issue so different from 9/11, Sandy Hook, JFK, etc. There is no immediate or long term political advantage to anyone to continue to promote the hoax of moon landings and I don’t believe the moon landing hoax idea really got going until the 80’s at the very earliest.

    Quite the contrary. The manned moon mission hoax is VERY MUCH like 9/11, JFK etc.

    That’s because it’s an elaborate psyop concocted for the VERY SAME reason as the others.
    ie: to serve the agenda of the Zionist Usury Cartel of Bankers who stood to gain immensely from it.

    At the end of the day, the U.S Space programme was never about the allocation of money in the pursuit of knowledge through space exploration.

    It was, like securing massive appropriations for the Defence contractors on the pretext that it protected Americans from the communists, all about coming up with a pretext to secure untold billions in funding for yet ANOTHER POINTLESS BOONDOGGLE that would enrich the Zio-owned Aerospace contractors, just as it enriched the Zio-owned Defence contractors and other favoured cronies before it.

    It was always all about taxpayers funds being diverted to pay for overpriced (and in many cases non-existent or non-operational) technology that could be showed to be ‘functional’ to the American public by way of Stanley Kubrick’s cinematographic special effects.

    In other words, it was all about PERCEPTION.

    If the American public perceived that it had won the Space Race over the Soviets and had gotten value for money for the hundreds of billions (in today’s dollars) that had been squandered, then it was mission accomplished.

    Bottom Line: There was EVERY POSSIBLE short and long term political advantage to keep perpetuating the Manned Moon Mission hoax because if the American public ever found out, there would be a monumental backlash which would lead them to asking:

    WHAT ELSE HAVE THEY LIED TO US ABOUT ?

    It will inevitably lead to investigation and establishing who (or what cabal) was the chief financial beneficiary of the Moon hoax and that will open up a Pandora’s Box that leads to 9/11, the demise of JFK, RFK, JFK Jr, James Forrestal and all the rest, where it is proven that the very same cabal, the Zio cabal, were also the major beneficiaries.

    That’s why the Manned Moon Landing hoax (like the official narratives on 9/11 and JFK), must FOREVER be perpetuated.

    The very existence of the Zio cabal depends on the truth of these major False Flags and psyops NEVER being exposed.
    That’s why they use their limitless financial wherewithal to hire their trolls to clog up the various comments forums as they do here in the UR.

    Mike Tre, you may not be a hired troll working on behalf of said cabal (like ‘Been_there_dung_that’ and a few other notables), but acting in the capacity of Useful Idiot, you’re till serving their sinister agenda.

    As for your claim that the Manned Moon Mission hoax idea never got legs until the 1980’s at the very earliest, take a look at this film released in 1978:

    Capricorn One is a 1978 American thriller film in which a reporter discovers that a supposed Mars landing by a crewed mission to the planet has been faked via a conspiracy [ie: whereby scenes supposedly of astronauts walking on Mars are made in a film studio] involving the government and—under duress—the crew themselves.

  378. Absolutely beautiful starless sky above the Moon. Well worth the trip.

    • Replies: @Yukon Jack
  379. @Peter Rabbit

    I do not know all the technical details of the operation. The point I wanted to make is that JFK’s presence would have resulted in a change of style in relation to our timeline, not so much of reality. JFK was not that enthused about Israel but completely betrothed to an older version of the Zionist world control scheme which doesn’t consist in the project of a world take-over by a secret society but rather in the pursuit of the time-old process of the management of the world as it has always been through the agency of the Hofjuden who rather work as a discreet but official, not secretive network. What some Jews see as the culmination of a revolutionary process others see as a return to feudal and obscurantist normal from an aberrant revolutionary situation and the mere resuming of an heritage that has been theirs to take and enjoy since the creation of the world : the only real promised land is the whole Earth. Kissinger is rather typical of the second tendency that seems more moderate and less messianic but rather considers the Messiah to be the Jewish people itself (like the Church authority is in Christian systems which, as the Jesus Christ whose manifestation is concrete to you : the end of Holy History which limited the Holy People’s action to a specific land and time opens up to a promised land that is the whole world and a promised history that is eternity repeating itself) making himself obeyed by the deployment of the special magical talents it is endowed with. The first tendency used to manifest more in the Ashkenazi community, the second in the Sephardic. The first revolutionary tendency gave the neo-con take-over of the US to turn that country into their instrument, the second tendency rather gives Putin together with his Chabad Lubavitch counselors.

    • Thanks: Peter Rabbit
  380. Erebus says:
    @mike99588

    No spec may mean “impress me” and contracts done before details ready.

    “Impress me” is all well and good on non-critical aspects of less critical missions.

    You don’t toss a Do or Die, mission critical component of a Do or Die critical mission on a 22 yr old, jr engineer’s desk and say “Impress me” unless you don’t care what he produces. What if he doesn’t impress you? America doesn’t go to the moon, or the Lunar Module does a crash & burn on live TV because you played cowboy? Ridiculous.

    No, “no spec” means they didn’t care what the software did as long as it generated a steady flow of numbers and symbols on screens for the rubes to gawk at in awe.

    • Replies: @mike99588
    , @Daniel Rich
  381. @Ron Unz

    These photographs show only rolling material, rovers and the like : that is perfectly compatible with the performance by NASA of an unmanned mission involving articulated turtles and low-level robots (at building which General Dynamics was very good : they didn’t look much human-like like those of now, they were rather like big clumsy Meccano-like insects but they could do their job of taking measurement and collecting samples) and chariots. On the other hand China clearly voiced her concern that they saw no trace of exploration, human or otherwise, at the sites alleged by NASA.

  382. @Rich

    Goldwater would’ve won the war..

    The only way to have ‘won’ other then using nuclear weapons and/or destroying all the dykes on the Red river which would have flooded most of North Vietnam (Hanoi itself would be under about fourteen feet of water) would have been to have vastly expanded the war. A large force would have to go into Laos and Cambodia to cut the Ho Chi Minh trail and stayed there. All of the coastline of north Vietnam would have to be blockaded. An unrestricted bombing campaign of North Vietnam followed by an invasion from the south. Meanwhile a large campaign would have to be launched in South Vietnam against the Viet Cong. Probably twice the number of troops that were sent would have been needed and tens of thousands would have to stay there for many years.

    It simply was not worth it. What disaster befell America after the north took over the south in 1975? All the USA gained was a ten year respite.

    • Replies: @Francis Miville
  383. @Ron Unz

    The China question is a good one.

    https://www.aulis.com/j_white_col2.htm

    While this article focuses on earlier 2009 photos (in particular Indian ones) it shows the technical analysis that needs to be done to validate these kinds of photos.

    Until that analysis is done I would not feel comfortable drawing any conclusions from the latest China data.

    • Thanks: Mehen
  384. @Iris

    It’s a photo of two guys lying on a stretcher. So what? They took a lot of precautions. They also wanted to take readings as soon as possible and before they had become acclimated back to earth.

    That photo doesn’t prove anything. It’s interesting that the only place the photo can be found on a few no-name Russian sites that all say the same thing. It’s as if you copied and pasted their text almost verbatim.

    The photo and the “explanation” are from some single source with a Moon Hoax agenda.

    • LOL: Iris
  385. @Ron Unz

    You wrote this earlier on:

    If you claim that something is “scientifically impossible” but you can’t find any scientists who actually agree with you, you sound like a bunch of total crackpots. Once you can find five or ten qualified experts who support your position, I’ll then be willing to consider it.

    Ron, I know you have this aversion to watching videos but this is only ONE (1) minute long so please make an effort (sorry, I could not find any written transcripts but an audio/visual representation conveys the message more satisfactorily):

    No, that’s not some public relations know-nothing spokesperson [like a Jen Psaki for Biden] doing the narration in that video, but an ACTUAL NASA Engineer – Kelly Smith.

    First, a bit of background information in relation to that video above.

    Orion is a class of partially reusable crewed spacecraft to be used in NASA’s Artemis program.

    The Artemis program is a United States-led international human spaceflight program. Its primary goal is to return humans to the Moon, specifically the lunar south pole, by 2025.
    If successful, it will include the first crewed lunar landing mission since Apollo 17 in 1972, the last lunar flight of the Apollo program.

    As of 2020, three flight-worthy Orion spacecraft are under construction, with an additional one ordered, for use in NASA’s Artemis program; the first of these is due to be launched in 2022 on Artemis 1.

    Bottom Line: Orion is attempting to send a Manned Mission into space that will traverse through the Van Allen Radiation Belts. (These Belts begin about 1000 miles above the Earth’s surface and would be encountered on the way to the moon and on the return journey).

    HOWEVER, before embarking on said journey, NASA must FIRST overcome the technical difficulties involving shielding the human occupants of the Orion from the deadly Van Allen Belt radiation.

    CONCLUSION: There will be NO manned Orion mission in 2022 as NASA have tentatively forecast, nor will there be ANY attempt in the coming decades at the very minimum. (NASA will find some excuse to delay the project before cancelling some years down the track – but not before they’ve siphoned off tens of billions more on the pretext that they’re so close to overcoming these technical issues and that a few billion more for R & D will do the trick).

    That’s because scientists in the present day and age have NO TECHNOLOGY that they can employ that will shield said astronauts from the radiation (without adding copious tons of payload in the way of concrete or lead shielding that would make the spacecraft so heavy that it would make the whole project unworkable).

    Yet, somehow, they were able to overcome this ‘technical impediment’ in 1969.

    C’mon Ron, it’s time. Have you had that sorely overdue epiphany yet ?

  386. @Johnny Paytoilet

    That Aulis site is dedicated to Moon Hoax stuff. The authors are/were an interesting group. Stan Gooch wrote about the “paranormal”.

    Mary Bennett and David Percy wrote a book about “sacred geometry” and intelligent designs on Mars. This all connects to crop circles and the Golden Ratio somehow.

    This is from one of their books:

    • Details how exploratory probes sent to Mars in the 1970s triggered a plethora of anomalous events, particularly crop circles (glyphs), and how these events are messages from ET intelligence to help us send a human mission to Mars

    • Reveals how the anomalous Cydonia region of Mars fits the Golden Ratio Spiral and looks at links between Martian formations and Earth’s ancient sites

    That’s who you’re getting your inside info from. LOL

  387. @Noble47

    He explicitly rejects withdrawal from Vietnam in that interview.

    • Replies: @Noble47
  388. @Sam J.

    Saying the moon landing is fake is just one big anti-White attack because the moon landing was the Whitest thing ever.

    This general anti-White demoralization campaign has been going on for a while and is rapidly intensifying. Note, for instance, the madness surrounding the public statues of Christopher Columbus and Robert E Lee, or the preaching of so-called “critical race theory” in government, schools, and corporations, and the campaigns to rename streets, buildings, schools, and university lecture halls.

    More specifically, one can better understand the essence of this disinformation campaign – the alleged moon landing hoaxes – by substituting “German” for “White” in your quote above. A specific manifestation of this vilification effort was the legal persecution of Arthur Rudolf, chief developer of the Saturn V rocket, by US Government lawyer Eli Rosenbaum a few decades ago. (This story was featured at Unz Review a few years ago.) It is claimed that the original design documentation for this rocket was “lost”, but more likely it was stolen. And “Erebus”, in comment #225 above, appears to tacitly equate Wernher Von Braun, the visionary scientist, with professional con artists like Elie Wiesel and Anthony Fauci.

    Those who appreciate technical engineering achievement on a smaller scale will note one of the most German things recently, featuring the Porsche racing team that worked to set the fastest track record for a racing car. Judging from the image it seems to be exclusively men who made it happen.

    Image – Porsche 919 Hybrid Evo Race Car team after world record performance, June 2018

    The irony is that the early success of technology coming from Silicon Valley was built upon the demands of the Apollo rocketry program, and many of the workers in the super-woke political milieu that now prevails there would still prefer to drive a Porsche.

  389. @Ron Unz

    Ron, in relation to the preposterous proposition of a Manned Moon Mission in 1969, I suggest you consider the following.

    In all of recorded history (with one* alleged solitary exception), beginning with the Industrial Revolution, there has NEVER been a technological breakthrough that wasn’t immediately followed by rapid strides, whereby said technology was not improved, made more reliable, made more robust and manufactured more cheaply as more efficient methods were applied.

    Look at the following timeline:

    1) 1903: First powered flight by the Wright Brothers
    2) WWI (a dozen or so years later), and we have the highly acrobatic and manoeuvrable biplanes and such utilised in combat.
    3) Early 1940’s: German rocket and jet powered Me163 and Me262 interceptor and fighter aircraft are operational.
    Shortly thereafter the German V2 rocket, operationally tested to altitudes beyond the stratosphere and into the mesosphere (and hence being the first man made projectile of substance to engage in ‘space travel’).

    All these [unimaginable at the turn of the century] advances occurred over a 40 year time frame.

    However, somehow we’re supposed to believe that men walked on the moon in 1969, and yet we have made NO PROGRESS in the 52 years that have elapsed, only managing missions into low Earth orbit.

    This outcome strains the limits of credulity.

    The feasibility of Space travel revolves around the concepts of Power and Weight.

    To escape Earth’s orbit, sufficient tonnage of fuel that generates said power is needed for a given payload (weight) of Command Module/lunar module/Lunar Roving Vehicle, that will be utilised in the mission.

    In the 52 years since the alleged moon walk, there have been enormous strides in metallurgy.
    In other words, far lighter/stronger/more heat resistant materials have been discovered that could be employed in any present Moon Mission.
    Whatever bulky and primitive electronics that were employed in the Command and Lunar modules in 1969 could have been replaced by more modern, infinitely lighter/compact/more powerful substitutes.

    Coupled to that, there have been quantum strides in rocket technology, whereby increased power can be achieved utilising a far lower tonnage of rocket propellant.

    And, most importantly, all of this could be achieved for FAR LOWER COST (for a given level of technology) than could’ve been employed in 1969, as more efficient manufacturing techniques have come to the fore.

    (*Referring back to my introductory paragraph, that one solitary exception I speak of is the alleged Apollo Manned Moon Missions.
    Of course I speak in jest – seeing as there are NO EXCEPTIONS to the rule of rapid technological progress in the aftermath of a particular process/invention/technology).

    That’s because there were NO MANNED MOON MISSIONS in the Apollo programme and mankind is YET to make that breakthrough.

    Even Blind Freddie can see that.

    • Agree: Arthur MacBride, Robjil
    • Replies: @Been_there_done_that
  390. Sepp says:
    @Erebus

    “the secret used by those who would seek power. Create the “scheme, project, or fantasy” that excites and focuses the herd and it will plunge into it full bore while the powerful consolidate and complete their control.”

    I would make an analogy to a cattle drive from Abilene to Dodge City in 1880. You have to keep the goyim (cattle) moving. If you stop and let them spread out, then you will have go on a round up again before you can continue the drive.

    That is why they are always pushing. It is the Gladio strategy of tension. When WWII ended, it became “the cold war”. After Vietnam and the Moon Hoax, they nearly lost control of the narrative. This is why they used 9/11 to round the goyim back up and start the drive again with the war on “Terror” and the ensuing invasions all across the middle east.

    Now we see that the war on “Terror” has lost its traction, so now we have the war on Covid and the old perennial, the war on climate.

    In 2016 me and the boys (boomers) went on a motorcycle tour on a Royal Enfield Bullet from Kathmandu to Lhasa via the Everest base camp at 5400m. We needed gasoline for the RE’s. We had a Han guide who had already had a few run ins with the CCP and was very sympathetic to the Tibetans. He was very guarded about what he would say, but he did tell some interesting stories.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  391. @Truth Vigilante

    You are deliberately taking his statement out of context. Quit being silly.

    A YouTube comment actually explains it best:

    Kelly Smith never said that they “need to find a way to send people through the van allen belts safely” (as has been claimed).

    In such cases the precise quotation is important, as is the context in which it is made. Here’s the actual quote, in context (NASA Engineer Kelly Smith, talking about the Van Allen Belts):

    “Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers or other electronics on Orion. Naturally, we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up, once back.But Orion has protection. Shielding will be put to the test as the vehicle cuts through the waves of radiation. Sensors onboard will record radiation levels for scientists to study.We must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space”.

    Note that Smith makes reference to radiation causing harm to the spacecraft’s onboard systems, not to the crew directly. Of course if the ship were to be crippled because of this, the crew would THEN be in danger.

    Orion is an all new ship, made from newer materials and new manufacturing processes, with new onboard systems, and a new mission profile. This new design must be qualified as safe for humans to fly in it.

    Modern electronics are actually more vulnerable to damage from particle radiation than their Apollo-era counterparts because their components are so much smaller. Ever noticed how people who make modifications to the innards of their computers are advised to wear an earth-strap on their wrists to prevent tiny static discharges from their fingers from damaging the electronics? Energetic particle radiation can cause havoc to modern electronic systems in a similar way.

    Apollo was subjected to a test flight before a crew was put aboard. However proof that the Apollo design solution was adequate is not proof for Orion because Orion is an all new design (much as flight-test qualification of the Boeing 707 in the 1960s could not be used to argue that there was no need to qualify the new Boeing 787).

    Kelly Smith made the above statement in the context of a similar upcoming test flight of Orion. Orion had been designed to be able to withstand passages through the VAB, as well as long duration flights in deep space. Furthermore, the old trajectories that Apollo followed avoiding the densest parts of the belts may not be suitable for Orion missions. Part of the flight qualification was to show that Orion would perform as per the design intent. So Orion was tested with an unmanned flight through the densest parts of the VAB (where Apollo never went).

    Orion was designed to protect both the crew and the onboard systems. The challenge that Smith was referring to was to complete the design process by proving it with a flight test. Orion flew that test in 2014, shortly after that video was made. It passed the test. The design worked as intended, and AS EXPECTED. The challenges were solved for Orion, just as they were for Apollo (a different spacecraft design with a different mission).

    • Replies: @Truth Vigilante
  392. @Mustapha Mond

    So you are asking me to take this seriously?

    The sheer amount of water on Earth makes it appear blue, etc.

    The oceans cover about 71 percent of the Earth and are blue, while land makes up the other 29 percent and varies in color, from green to tan to white. This gives the Earth the appearance of a blue marble. If the planet consisted mainly of land masses, it would be appear to be a different color completely.

    That’s laughable. Is water blue? The ocean looks blue under the sky only because it reflects the sky, which is blue only because the atmosphere diffracts the sunlight (Raleigh scattering). Your “simple physics” is a bit too simple for me.

    • Agree: Iris
    • Replies: @utu
    , @Achmed E. Newman
  393. @Laurent Guyénot

    Yes I agree with you about the origins of the flat earth nonsense.

  394. utu says:

    Moon landing with humans on board took place several times but it is possible that Apollo 11 landing on Moon was aborted and thus faked while the astronauts remained on the circumlunar orbit. There was no way Soviets or anybody else could verify what took place there. It is possible that NASA decided to out cheat Soviets after the Soviet hoax during the Zond-5 circumlunar flight of turtles in 1968 when Popovich’s (an 2 other cosmonauts) voices were retransmitted by Zond-5 while Popovich was in Crimea. Soviets were faking human circumlunar flight! It is possible that the risk of landing 0n Moon, launching from Moon and rendezvous on Moon orbit were considered still too high while the Soviet chicanery of faking their Moon landing was considered likely.

    https://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing-a-giant-hoax-for-mankind/?showcomments#comment-3137047

    However from that point Soviets began to suffer series of setbacks and it was Apollo 8 in Dec. 1968 that did the circumlunar mission. Were there astronauts in Apollo 8? Soviets would not challenge the Apollo 8 story because they knew it was feasible. Even though Soviets could not verify what was on Apollo 8 they could not invoke the VAB issue. Their TASS report on the excellent health of tortoises took away this possibility from them. If Russian tortoise could do it so the tough Americans could. Soviets changed the tune and began to dissimulate their interest in a man mission to the Moon from then on.

    There is an interesting site – Russia: The Real Moon Landing Hoax (www.astronautix.com/r/russiathereonlandinghoax.html) based on work of Vick and Pesavento who tried to uncover what actually Soviets were up to. I do not know how good their research is but certainly it is very interesting and it shows that Soviets were fighting to the very end and that they were extremely creative and flexible coming up with different approaches to the missions when having to adapt to new situations created by their failures and American successes. Soviets Moon Landing Hoax was covering up their Moon landing program and intense effort and keeping it hidden. Does the narrative given by Vick and Pesavento serve the validating of NASA and Moon Landing narrative? Yes, maybe, but it does not prove it.

    One problem with Popovich story is that when Zone-5 was flying the Soviets did not know that they lost their race yet so most likely it was not a prank. There are more details and references to the sources in Jarrah White articles at http://www.aulis.com/record.htm which as I said is Moon Landing Hoax site. However the story, if true, regardless of what was the motive for Soviet chicanery or prank at that time would demonstrate that one side could fool the other side as to the presence of astronauts on the circumlunar mission. So I am returning to my original point I made earlier in this thread that if it was believed that landing humans on Moon was too risky and too difficult and being under the pressure of Soviet challenge and very likely Soviet chicanery it was possible that it was decided to out-cheat the Soviets and fake it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zond_5

    The Zond 5 caused a scare in the United States when on 19 September 1968, the voices of cosmonauts Valery Bykovsky, Vitaly Sevastyanov and Pavel Popovich were transmitted from the spacecraft and intercepted by Jodrell Bank Observatory and the CIA. The cosmonauts were apparently reading out telemetry data and computer readings, and even discussing making an attempt to land. At the height of the Cold War, there was a real concern that the Soviets might actually beat NASA to the Moon. Apollo 17 astronaut Eugene Cernan remarked that the incident had “shocked the hell out of us.”

    So it might be possible that Apollo 11 landing was faked to give the death blow to Soviet program and discourage Soviet from pursuing it further. Soviets had no way of proving it was fake. The subsequent Apollo missions did as advertised. There was no more pressure of competing with Soviet Union and its dirty tricks. This may explain why the crew of Apollo 11 was so out off tune with the mood of perceived success in their public appearances.

  395. Hunter says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    Here is a peer-reviewed and published paper that inadvertently demonstrates that the experiments bouncing lasers off laser retroreflectors on the moon do not prove that men placed the reflectors on the moon. Measurement of returned photons allegedly from one of these reflectors has not matched the expected return since 1962. Since then the lasers are likely just bouncing off of a perpendicular surface of the moon itself:

    >This paper provides an overview of the Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) experiments. The measurement results from the Sixties until 2007 are … compared between different LLR stations and with the theoretical forecast. Only one station measured the expected return signal – that was in 1962.

    >The measurements of 4 LLR stations and data of an invited LLR review paper have been compared with the theoretical data. The very first LLR station which measured onto the surface of the Moon in 1962 presented consistent data. The other 3 LLR stations reported about measurements to lunar retroreflectors, but no reproducible amplification of the reflected laser pulse compared to a measurement onto the surface of the Moon could be demonstrated. The only indication of a retroreflector was the signature of the return signal, i.e. its small variance. But a small variance would also appear in a measurement onto a lunar surface which is perpendicular to the measurement direction. If retroreflectors had been hit then the degradation of all of them would have had to be such that just the number of scattered photons had resulted – or even less. One observatory, the one of the Cote d’Azur, showed a forecast for a retroreflector measurement. It well matched the here presented theory. The actual measurement was then 1’600 times smaller (=16/0.01).

    >The invited LLR review paper [7] predicts a loss of 10-21. This is 6’000 times smaller than the lower end as calculated here. Even the return of a measurement onto the surface of the Moon is 30 times higher.

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.05863.pdf

    • Thanks: Laurent Guyénot
  396. Hunter says:
    @Sam J.

    I believe International Space Agencies collude to a degree, outside of nationalism. They have a mysterious affinity for the vector/chevron in their logos. It abstractly refers to the compass and square from the Freemasons logo. All of the original astronauts that allegedly landed on the Moon were Freemasons.

    • Replies: @Sam J.
  397. Iris says:
    @Olivier1973

    For the puppeteers the only way to make “successful” Apollo missions, that is to risk nothing, was to keep the teams on the soil of earth.

    Which is of course exactly what happened. There was no need to have “400,000 NASA employees” in the know of the Moon Landing Hoax, since all of these people genuinely saw Apollo modules being launched and disappearing in the sky; they had no way to know where the NASA spacecraft really ended up (into the Atlantic Ocean).

    There exists a striking and easily understandable evidence that the Apollo 11 Mission never made it to Low Earth Orbit, let alone to the Moon.

    In July 1969, the Apollo 11 spacecraft was launched by NASA, watched by thousands of her employees.
    NASA never provided a continuous (non-interrupted) film of the Apollo 11 ascent, only cuts off from the footage they took.

    But other people did. Philip Frank Pollacia (Phil) was a NASA contractor working on the Apollo project. He was well-educated (two degrees in Mathematics from Louisiana Tech and Auburn University). He worked for IBM at NASA, and later became no less than the IBM Lead Manager for the Apollo, Skylab and Apollo/Soyuz projects.

    On that historic day, an enthusiastic and admirative Phil shot himself the ascent of Apollo 11 on his personal Super 8 camera. The shooting and playback speed were not changed; the Apollo 11 launch footage is one continuous shot without cuts and with no editing.

    One specificity of cloud layers is that they mostly exist around the 8 km altitude mark and go only up to a maximum altitude of 12-13 km above Earth’s surface, not beyond. For instance, below is a photo taken by a NASA spacecraft, positioned at 10 km altitude, and filming the Columbia shuttle as it crosses the last layer of clouds with its engines leaving a hole behind.

    The official NASA flight plan required Apollo 11 to reach an altitude of circa 24 km after about 105 seconds. That is because at 105 seconds, the Apollo craft would have already burnt 60% of its fuel and would not have had enough left to complete its gravity-escape trajectory, let alone a return from the Moon.

    Here is NASA’s official flight plan, where it is recorded that at 105 seconds, the spacecraft was at 23,999 metres (24 km) altitude.

    Now, look at the unaltered and un-faked footage take by Phil Pollacia. At time 107 seconds after its launch, one can see that the spacecraft is leaving a hole behind it, as well as projecting its shadow.
    Both hole and shadow are very visible on the 107s photo to the right.

    The projected size of this shadow can even allow to calculate the speed of the spacecraft as it moved, by simple triangulation:

    Of course, it is impossible to make a hole and project a shadow onto clear transparent air; these traces left by Apollo 11 were made because it was crossing a last layer of clouds.

    But since the upper layer of of clouds exist on average at 26,000 feet/80,000 metres, this footage proves that at 105 seconds, Apollo 11 was only at one third of its official ascent trajectory point (23,999 metres), while it had already burnt 60% of its fuel.

    This evidence is blatantly understandable.
    Apollo 11 was three times behind its stated ascent rate, and it also travelled nine time slower than it should have.

    There is no way Apollo 11 could have made it even to Low Earth Orbit; it ended up in the Atlantic Ocean , although that was not visible to the honest and admiring public who attended its launch.

  398. utu says:
    @Laurent Guyénot

    “ocean looks blue under the sky only” – Not quite. Blue sky (diffuse light) on cloudless day accounts for a part of light that impinges on ocean. The direct white light from sun dominates for high sun elevations. While Fresnel reflectance of water-air boundary is pretty bland spectrally the backscatter of photons that penetrated water has strong preference for shorter wavelengths while longer wavelengths are strongly absorbed. So it is correct to say that water is blue or bluish. The back scatter strongly depends of what is in the water (living micro organisms).

    What you see from space is light reflected by water surface and backscattered by water volume under illumination of diffuse blue sky and white direct sun light. If there was no atmosphere providing that you could prevent water from boiling the ocean would be less blue but still bluish. If you replaced water with cellophane like in Fellini’s movie with infinite space behind it so no photon would return from the bottom the reflected light would be bluish because of diffuse sky light.

    What you observe from space is light reflected and backscattered by ocean. It is blue. It must be blue.

    • Thanks: Mustapha Mond
    • Replies: @Laurent Guyénot
  399. @Truth Vigilante

    However, somehow we’re supposed to believe that men walked on the moon in 1969, and yet we have made NO PROGRESS in the 52 years that have elapsed, only managing missions into low Earth orbit.

    This outcome strains the limits of credulity.

    This is another hilarious example of completely irrational thinking that has been on display so frequently in this thread. You seem to be suggesting that men could not have walked on the moon in 1969 because they have not been there recently – actually it has not been since the end of 1972.

    Guess what? Extravagant space missions require many billions of dollars of public funding. Congress decided instead to throw much more money at escalating a war in Vietnam and on behalf of subsidizing Zionist projects in Israel.

    Anyway, what do you even mean by “NO PROGRESS“? Clearly you are not in a position to judge this, irrespective of whatever you might have had in mind.

    After six manned moon missions, what do you expect the central space mission project planners at NASA should have prepared to do next, and get Congress to agree on? The next grandiose step would be a manned mission to Mars, which would have been much more expensive and even riskier than just flying to the moon.

    Having seen video spacecraft imagery of the earth rising from behind the moon since the end of 1968 during the Apollo 8 mission, many people appreciated seeing our planet in a new way and thought that conducting earth observation missions was a more practical and productive use of limited financial resources. What’s wrong with that?

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  400. @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    ‘Loyalty-to-and-Worship-of-the-Ruling-cabal’ wrote (quoting Kelly Smith):

    Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers or other electronics on Orion.

    If it can harm the guidance systems and onboard computers, imagine the carnage that said radiation would do to flesh and blood astronauts.

    You also wrote:

    Orion flew that test in 2014, shortly after that video was made. It passed the test. The design worked as intended, and AS EXPECTED.

    How do you know Orion passed the test or whether there even was a test flight in 2014 ?
    Have you personally analysed and verified the telemetry for said flight ?

    Oh, of course, you read that in a NASA released bulletin – just like you read a bulletin scripted by the same cabal [who NASA is accountable to] that claimed Oswald was the lone gunman assassin of JFK.

    Well then, I guess that settles it.

    We can all rest easy now.

  401. @utu

    Thanks. That sounds more convincing, at least, than the site recommended by Mustapha.

    • Replies: @Mustapha Mond
  402. Noble47 says:
    @Patrick McNally

    Yes, he does.

    Yet exactly 1 month later he issues a White House statement (on Oct 2, 1963) calling for a 1000 advisor withdrawal, with a target of complete advisor withdrawal by end the of ’65.
    https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/state63.htm
    Robert McNamara and General Taylor had just returned from a 10-day September visit to Vietnam, resulting in that White House statement. NSAM 263 is released days after that, with point 2 in the memorandum mentioning the advisor withdrawal statement of Oct 2. Kennedy was keeping his cards close to his chest.

    Two months later, newly installed President Johnson makes a phone call to McNamara calling his and JFK’s decision to mention advisor withdrawal “foolish”.

    • Thanks: Iris
    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  403. Rich says:
    @Francis Miville

    There are indications that JFK was going to drop LBJ and go with Connelly as his VP in 64, which would have given LBJ good reasons to have him shot in 63. I still think Goldwater would have won, the repubs learned their lesson from Chicago in 60 and were ready to play hardball. LBJ pulled off a perfect coup. with just a little bit of blood and the establishment went along with it.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  404. @Been_there_done_that

    Apollo 8 mission, many people appreciated seeing our planet in a new way and thought that conducting earth observation missions was a more practical and productive use of limited financial resources. What’s wrong with that?

    What’s the harm with a little fakery among friends? It makes people good about themselves and their country. “What’s wrong with that?”

    😉

  405. @Iris

    At time 107 seconds after its launch, one can see that the spacecraft is leaving a hole behind it…

    Before posting this you should have noticed the huge discrepancy: What is claimed to be 107 seconds at the top right of that image (presumably an edited modification) shows up embedded at the bottom right as 1:02.54 = 62.54 seconds, at which time, since its launch, the rocket pierced a cloud layer, or roughly three quarters of a minute prior to the time you claimed was the case.

    If the footage is not faked, as you asserted it wasn’t, there would be no justification to retroactively add a misleading number at the top right, on which your based your claim – that makes no sense. In light of the rapid acceleration of the rocket, facilitated by decreasing fuel weight, it probably would have attained the predicted coordinate values at 107 seconds (1:47.xx), so the video actually tends to confirms that everything was proceeding nicely.

    I guess you got faked out, but it didn’t fake me out!

    • Replies: @Iris
  406. Iris says:
    @Been_there_done_that

    What is claimed to be 107 seconds at the top right of that image (presumably an edited modification) shows up embedded at the bottom right as 1:02.54 = 62.54 seconds

    What you write is so imbecillic that I am convinced you are just pretending to be stupid to wind up people.

    1:02:54 is ONE hour TWO minutes and FIFTY FOUR seconds.
    Phil Polaccia’s filming started when it started, NOT when the rocket was launched, which is the time milestone at which point the additional seconds countdown was added on top of the video, to assess the ascent. Just WATCH the video I posted, anybody would understand it.

    As for the footage being faked, yes, right, I am sure that Moon Hoaxers have the power to invent or to coerce an Apollo11 senior project manager whose identity can be verified by many means, including a simple Internet search.
    https://planopodcast.com/tag/nasa/

  407. @Laurent Guyénot

    That’s laughable. Is water blue? The ocean looks blue under the sky only because it reflects the sky,

    OK, man, that’s enough.

    I am willing to finish watching the videos Adam Smith sent me because I respect his wisdom and experience very much. I lean totally toward Ron Unz’s take (wow!) on this one though.

    Now we come to kindergarten age stuff: Is the ocean blue – only because the sky is blue? Really, what about on cloudy days? WHY is the ocean blue, why is the sky blue, why is the ocean salty (for that matter)*, those are still decent questions if you’ve never known before, at any age.

    IS the ocean blue? Have you ever been out on the ocean, Laurent? How about on an airplane crossing a part of it? It’s deep blue, darkish blue, blackish blue, sometimes dark green, light green in the shallows down in the island, and then I’ve seen the Gulf Stream stand out as lighter green among the darker green toward the shoreline. In the deep waters it’s a shade of dark blue. That’s what you’d have seen from an Apollo spacecraft, not to mention a view in millions, maybe billions by now, of photos taken by weather and remote sensing satellites.

    This is not even simple physics. This is just being alive, man. Let’s start over and start from there.

    .

    * Why is the ocean salty, is a good one that not many people can answer off the cuff. (Unless their phones are clipped onto their cuffs, that is.)

  408. @Iris

    What no-name Russian site did you copy/paste this text from?

    You don’t even believe any of this Moon Hoax junk.

    It’s just trolls whose little manhood feels humiliated by White Western Men doing things they can’t.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  409. @Achmed E. Newman

    Well, I guess I made a mistake by first responding to a comment with “I suppose you are right”. You will concede I didn’t touch on this point in my article. I don’t always make in-depth research before answering comments, you know. So I stand corrected here too, and appreciate your correction. Thanks, man!

    • Agree: chris
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  410. Anonymous[224] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    LBJ did not have the organization to orchestrate the assassination of the President, only for small time murders here and there. However, the real organizers did have the organization but needed LBJ to complete it and to carry on. They recruited him. He was their tool. And thereafter he was in their pocket.

    • Agree: Iris
    • Replies: @Rich
  411. @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    White Western Men doing things they can’t.

    https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-01/who-got-america-to-the-moon-a-unlikely-collaboration-of-jews-and-former-nazi-engineers

    The “Noble Lie” gang (aka Never A Straight Answer) was “diverse”.

    😉

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @Robjil
  412. @Laurent Guyénot

    It was quick search, I’ll admit, but your position deserved nothing more……as utu amply demonstrated.

    Adios, sucker….

    • Replies: @Iris
  413. Many documentaries have been made debunking the moon landing. And many more debunking the debunkers, including television shows. The moon landing remains a potent controversy. Nearly everyone reading this comment probably doesn’t know that one movie actually proved beyond any doubt that the astronauts never left earth orbit and faked the part of going to the moon. Laurent Guyénot may be particulary interested if he missed this explosive tidbit of information.

    A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon

    They got the unedited footage of Apollo 11

    The movie shows incontrovertible evidence they faked the earth in the distance pics, the astronauts had not left earth orbit, the used photographic trickery to fool the earth audience. These fakers return to earth and are very gloomy:

    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    , @Yukon Jack
  414. @Iris

    It’s heartening, Iris, as well as amusing to observe the moronic level of some of these clowns. Perhaps a rebuke from the Tel Aviv bunker will be forthcoming for crass ineptitude in defending the sacred cows of zionism.
    There does seem to be some faltering recently in the faithful defenders of untruths which are to be believed unquestioningly by the masses …

    Thank You for your outstanding contributions in this and other threads.

    • Agree: Yukon Jack, Daniel Rich
    • Replies: @Iris
  415. @Iris

    What you write is so imbecillic

    1:02:54 is ONE hour TWO minutes and FIFTY FOUR seconds.

    That is not what is shown. There is an obvious difference between one dot (.) and two dots (:).

    When looking at the particular image you referred to, then the embedded time on the bottom does not refer to one hour and nearly three minutes because there is a decimal after the 2, as anyone can confirm, so the number behind that should refer to hundredths of seconds, based on standard time display norms.

    It therefore seems reasonable to infer that the number at the top indicates when the video was started, because why would one shoot a video of a rocket standing stationary at the launch pad for an entire hour when it was the lift-off that people were interested in seeing?

    If the rocket had such poor performance as you claimed, indicating it would not have even reached earth orbit, then the protocols would have called for the process to be aborted through the launch escape, which was possible at that early stage but never necessary. Here is a diagram:

    The following video of the Apollo 11 launch indicates contact with upper clouds after roughly one minute, hence a necessary transition to the subsequent trajectory being filmed from aircraft. Everything appears to be on track, and the launch escape system remains intact.

    In the following video the burst through the cloud you referred to occurs at 55 seconds after launch. Neither of these two videos correspond with the time claims you made.

    Unfortunately there were clouds that day, so the launch could not be pursued from a single point on the ground for very long. There were likely multiple aircraft in the sky filming from different angles.

    Hundreds of millions of people watched all this, but then more than a half century later you blithely assert, utilizing uncorroborated data, that this powerful rocket would not have even reached earth orbit. I remember, last year, you – or whoever was using the “Iris” handle then – adamantly insisted that no aircraft ever hit the World Trade Center towers more than twenty years ago and the landing gears and jet engines that pierced through the building and landed on the ground were simply staged or planted on the sidewalk in broad daylight.

    It is one thing to simply say you doubt certain things, but when you make preposterous counter-claims at odds with video widely seen documentation (pay no attention to what you saw, believe what I tell you many years later) then you have the burden to prove them, which you haven’t. In any case, the conclusion you reached in your recent message is unwarranted.

    • Troll: Twodees Partain
    • Replies: @Iris
  416. Iris says:
    @Arthur MacBride

    Thank you dearest friend; wishing you a wonderful Christmas and New Year.

    Civilisation, justice and beauty will triumph, and this is now showing as ineluctable. Hence the increased and desperate rage, madness and scorched earth policies of the spiritually-wretched. God bless.

    • Thanks: Arthur MacBride
  417. heymrguda says:
    @Ron Unz

    Ron, if you had gone along with “moon hoax” theory I’d really have to question every item you e written on this site.
    One moon landing maybe, but six? And the Russians were blackmailed into supporting it? Wouldn’t the hoaxers be concerned that future space advances would expose the hoax, would they risk that kind of humiliation?
    It sounds like a Bob Newhart comedy routine.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  418. Iris says:
    @Been_there_done_that

    If the rocket had such poor performance as you claimed

    I am not claiming anything and there is nothing to “infer“; this is childishly simple.

    A real video taken by a real NASA contractor was timed with a countdown starting at the exact time the Apollo 11 rocket lifted off.

    At 105 seconds, the rocket is clearly seen crossing a cloud layer, so it would have been at 8,000 metres altitude, and not at the 23,999 metres altitude that NASA pretended in its fake ascent record.

    Having by then already used 60% of its fuel to make not even a third of its gravity-escape ascent, the rocket could never have even made it to Low Earth Orbit, let alone reached the Moon.
    So it just went straight into the ocean.

    Any average person can count the seconds, understand fractions and percentages and grasp basic logics. I am afraid I can’t help you more.

    • Replies: @Been_there_done_that
  419. holy crap, now this is an absolute gem from Mr. LG. (my grandpa worked in NASA space during the 50s and 60s)

    check out “Operation Texas” before they keep scrubbing it off the internet (this wiki has been scrubbed hard) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Texas – it’s sooooo LBJ and gross and hick and texan. i am sure you will find some more clues and uhhhh, coincidences. he was up to that long into the 60s and 70s.

    yeeeehaawwww kill our President and fake space races! USA USA USA.

  420. Mulegino1 says:
    @Yukon Jack

    The movie shows incontrovertible evidence they faked the earth in the distance pics, the astronauts had not left earth orbit, the used photographic trickery to fool the earth audience.

    Indeed.

    They were filming from inside the command module but at a distance from the window. With the cabin lights off, they tried to pass off the portion of the earth as seen through the window as the entire earth as it would appear halfway to the moon. But the footage itself shows part of the inside of the cabin and even the astronaut’s hand passing across the lens. What is really seen is only a small part of the earth’s surface as filmed from lower earth orbit.

    Why the need for such deception?

    • Replies: @Von Rho
  421. @heymrguda

    “…Wouldn’t the hoaxers be concerned that future space advances would expose the hoax, would they risk that kind of humiliation?…”

    Criminals seldom think that far ahead. And even if they did, how could they possibly imagine what exactly would those future technical advances be and take preventive measures? “Perfect crimes” don’t exist in real life.

  422. @Iris

    At 105 seconds, the rocket is clearly seen crossing a cloud layer…

    As I already pointed out, there exists no continuous video from a single point exceeding more than a minute on that particular launch date, nor could there have been due to the clouds. There may even have been more than one cloud layer, but you are making an uncorroborated presumption about the altitude of that particular layer. The video you refer to must be an edited compilation. It is not consistent with the two videos I linked to nor to what would be expected to have occurred. From these discrepancies you cannot legitimately conclude that Apollo 11 never even reached earth orbit.

    • LOL: Iris, Mehen
  423. Iris says:
    @Mustapha Mond

    Why would LR waste his time researching this “ocean colour” topic which has no bearing on the discussion? It only sounds like a diversion technique from a side losing the argument.

    On the matter of colours, there is a much more interesting point where NASA, again, shot themselves in the foot and inadvertently revealed the Hoax.

    Due to the way we see it from Earth, influenced by centuries of visual observation, space scientists always broadly assumed that the Moon soil was overall, grey. Well, it is not, it is actually brown, but NASA did not know it when they stage the Hoax.

    Brown colour of the Moon was first established by Soviet scientists in the 50-s using spectroscopic method. However, for decades, even most Soviet astronomers still considered the Moon to be grey. In 1969, the USSR sent the “Zond-7” probe to photograph the Moon from space, at close range and on colour film. The photographic film returned to Earth for development confirmed the brown colour of the Moon, but these photos were kept secret and not published until the 1980’s.

    American astronomers were a quarter of a century behind their Soviet colleagues.
    The automatic American lunar satellites “Lunar Orbiter” (1966–1967) transmitted only black-and-white images, and only in 1976-1979 were American astronomers finally able to see for themselves, on their own instruments base, that the Moon was brown.

    But by this time, the Moon Landing Hoaxes had all been already completed (Apollo 17, 1972).
    So NASA went on to fake its photographic record by wrongly attributing a grey colour to all its “photos of the Moon soil”:

    – A photo of a Grey Moon offered to LBJ and allegedly taken by the Apollo 8 crew hovering over the Moon; it remained in Nixon’s office.
    – The Grey Moon soil allegedly photographed by the Apollo 11 crew :
    – Armstrong allegedly walking on the Grey Moon:
    – The Apollo 12 (Left) and Apollo 14 (Right) astronauts allegedly walking on the Grey Moon:
    – And up to the end, the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 astronauts enjoying their spot of Grey Moon:
    So what happened, did NASA by extraordinary chance, randomly land in rare spots of the Moon that happened to be grey, unlike the rest of its overall brown soil?

    These are the spots where the Apollo mission landed, marked up on a photo of the Moon taken by a modern telescope. They all seem regularly brown, like the rest of the Moon surface.
    NASA having finally understood its blunder, historic Moon photos are increasingly turning brown nowadays. This is the same photo, from the same NASA source, before and after brown “make-up” was applied:
    And this is how a “Moon soil” photo published on illustrated magazine America in 1969 has evolved over time:
    Finally, this is how the real Moon soil looks from close range, recently photographed by the Chang’e-4 Chinese probe:
    How does it look to you colour-expert eyes?

  424. utu says:
    @Iris

    Iris you are like Wally. But Wally always provided links to CODOH which was the source of his “wisdom”. You otoh pretend to take credit for what you are pushing. Here you push Aulis.com. Iris you are worse than Wally.

    Phil Pollacia film is played at a slower speed. Whoever digitized his footage and who added timestamps was a fraud – not uncommon among the Truthers of any kind. The mistake or fraud when done once can’t be debunked among the Truthers because Truthers unlike normal people have zero capacity for skeptical evaluation of their own stuff. Truther epistemology is that of pseudo-science where only data that confirm the Truthers’ beliefs are collected and kept forever. Truthers do not have working hypotheses – they have firm beliefs into one version of reality that was arrived at long before seeing any data. In that pseudo-science epistemology any argument and or data pointing to what they believe is kept for ever because the belief that what they believe is Truth in their universe. This belief is fixed and not mutable and unlike in real science it can’t be amended and thus it can’t evolve. To the end of times Truthers will be citing Phil Pollacia footage as one of their supplementary evidence while the footage they show was fraudulently manipulated.

    Iris, you are a Truther. Your are a Truther of JFK assassination, Truther of 9/11 and Truther of Moon landing. You have a passion for disseminating disinformation concocted by Truthers.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Truth Vigilante
  425. mike99588 says:
    @Erebus

    50+ years ago 22 yr old engineers could get handed serious challenges. I also doubt any prototype was expected to be a production model first try and that mgmt probably had a plan B with the suppliers or contractors.

    Maybe not your average, but one classmate by 22 had completed his bachelors and masters in ChE and BSEE in a most selective place. Another BSEE was selling actual human biomedical devices his junior year and “conversing” with a Japanese megacorp over patent infringement pre-Gould.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  426. @Anonymous

    No, NASA did send probes and rovers to the Moon and to other planets and that remains an admirable success. We question only one single aspect they were ordered, for political reasons outside of their control, to simulate rather than to implement since the scientific knowledge to implement it didn’t exist and still doesn’t exist : making these expeditions manned. But making these expeditions manned, even if they had known how, wouldn’t have enable them to get one single piece of scientific data more : it is a job better done by electronics and remote controlled machinery. The only point they didn’t win was not a scientific one but an athletic one, not to say a dick length contest. As scientists their duty was not to risk human lives (in that case send to a certain death) for something far surer done by robots. If I assert that Bin Laden was not very instrumental in bringing down the twin towers, am I expressing jealousy, am I a loser that never tried such an operation as a jihadi? If I rather accuse Silverstein to have played a far more important role, am I expressing any typically antisemitic jealousy regarding his shrewdness as a businessman?

  427. Rich says:
    @Anonymous

    He was a senator and a congressman for over 20 years and a masterful politician. I wouldn’t say it was impossible for him to have orchestrated it. At the least, he had to be somehow involved. Of course, we’ll never know the actual truth, will we? That secret is as important as covering up the lunacy of Martin King Jr.

  428. @Ron Unz

    “After all, future missions would surely provide much better photos.”

    Yes, we’ve been hearing this for 50 years. But somehow all we ever get is fuzzy photos with unrecognizable light spots. I thought, these Chinese photos are new technology, they might show something. So I clicked through. Nope, same old bright dots.

    Funny, huh?

    • Replies: @Been_there_done_that
  429. @Loyalty Over IQ Worship

    Here’s the thing. Physicists are pretty smart guys. And there are tens of thousands of them worldwide. If these crackpot musings had any validity, they would have said something long ago.

    LOL. Actually, the fact that they keep their mouths shut about this is further proof that physicists are, indeed, pretty smart guys!

    • Agree: Erebus
  430. Iris says:
    @utu

    You otoh pretend to take credit for what you are pushing. Here you push Aulis.com. Iris you are worse than Wally.

    I have posted my sources several times, on this thread included.

    They are mostly from Russian scientists, who sign under their name, and Russia happens to be the leading country in space research. So if you want to retain any credibility, please try to address Russian scientist’s objections by scientific counter-arguments instead of insulting me gratuitously.

    On a more personal level, you disgust me, because you are a hateful, deranged covert Israeli. I understand why you hate so much people like me, and do not wish to exchange insults with you.

    • Replies: @utu
  431. @Justvisiting

    The moon buggy oil leak – same axle leak on 3 missions (left rear wheel):

    Apollo 15 AS15-88-11901 (left)—–Apollo 16 AS16-107-17445 (cent)—Apollo17 AS17-146-22296 (right)

    more here: https://www.aulis.com/photo_studies.htm

    ————————-

    Moon buggy set, no wheel track but astronaut moon boot tracks:

    This one hit me hard. When I was a wee lad I believed in the moon landing, but this picture is worth a thousand words and is proof of a studio set. The LRV is a prop, it did not drive to the photo location, yet you can see the moon boot prints very clearly (proving there is enough dust to leave wheel tracks). I grew up hunting and spent countless hours tracking animals in the snow, and animal tracks tell a story, the do not lie, and in my mind the photo is totally damning evidence.
    ————————-

    Moon buggy unpack:

    http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum29/HTML/000731.html

    • Thanks: Iris
    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Olivier1973
    , @Yukon Jack
  432. @Sepp

    you know it. masons love hoaxes. it tickles their pickles. it’s why they exist.

    the president of the university of arizona at the time, a freemason “astronomer” named AE Douglass, was involved in one of these scams. check out the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucson_artifacts. they basically hid a bunch of cheaply fabricated “roman” artifacts on…you guessed it….masonic property….to be discovered. what a coincidence! SCIENCE!

    this prominent scientist was just a masonic creep and hoaxer. the president and top scientist at the university of arizona was pushing a masonic hoax, because you know, he was a scientist! such a good scientist, errrrr, hoaxer, they went on to name building at the school after him. just so brilliant.

    and now you know why the university of arizona, even though they have a big telescope now, is still absolute garbage. it never was a serious university. SCIENCE!

    • Thanks: Sepp
    • Replies: @Sepp
  433. @follyofwar

    That doesn’t make any sense to me. If a government agency tells one lie, it doesn’t follow that 6 lies on the same subject would have any more credibility.

  434. @Noble47

    Your own chosen reference leads off with:

    “We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet-Nam to deny this country to communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet-Nam.”

    Only later does the document mention that McNamara and Taylor have judged that success will be attained by 1965. This is obviously not a call for unconditional withdrawal. It is simply an effort to assure the public in the face of worries that the war might grow. But it never implies that to keep the war from growing a revolutionary defeat of Saigon will be accepted.

    • Replies: @Noble47
  435. Iris says:
    @Yukon Jack

    Thank you. Very simple but very powerful argument.

  436. @anonymouseperson

    Actually that war could have been won for much cheaper. Saigon together with the neat, modernized, thicketless rice paddy countryside about 100 or 200 km around could have been secured as a fortress with advanced electronics to prevent the presence of any Viet-Cong : a kind of Singapour-like garden city. This city should have been made international, never to be relinquished to a purely South Vietnamese administration but rather to a separate municipal power. There could have been a Vietnamese zone, an American zone, a French zone, and a Taiwanese (many Vietnamese are ethnic Chinese) zone, like in the city of West Berlin : this city would have been an international peace haven for anybody opting for anything but communism. This city would have been protected like West-Berlin and equipped with nuclear missiles even in case of severe military defeat. This city would have been resolutely modernistic and managed like Singapore. Then each village just outside that perimeter would have been given the option to be under that administration or to be part of the ongoing battlefield. In 1975 South Vietnam would have fallen due to the local government’s ineptitude and corruption but the greater part of the Middle and South Vietnamese population would have taken refuge in Saigon, an über-rich city about to turn into a dragon. When USSR had started to crumble for real many regions of Vietnam would have started to reclaim their independence from Hanoi and as the wall of Berlin crumbled the whole of Vietnam would have joined Saigon.

    • Troll: Mulga Mumblebrain
    • Replies: @Mulga Mumblebrain
  437. Olivier1973 says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    Too bad, you failed to present any evidence. An ocean of lies, deceptions and fake photographs and videos.

    And again because you have no argument, you hope to make a point by ad personam fallacies.

    Obviously you did not even read my reply to Ron and my quote from Schopenhauer.

    You lost.

  438. Olivier1973 says: • Website
    @Yukon Jack

    Yep, this one is too funny! They use the same buggy for three alleged missions. There is also the case of the broken mud barrier (well, dust barrier). Now I wonder if it was also the same landing vehicle.

    What is really interesting is that people who believe that the moon landings really happened will never dare to read the aulis.com articles or/and view the Mazzucco film. Not even Ron of course, so as to continue to pretend that all scientific people are on his side.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  439. Sepp says:
    @Fray Juan Crespi

    The masonic fingerprints are all over the moon hoax, even more so than when the “black hand” assassinated Archduke Ferdinand. There were numerous Masonic ceremonies involved in the moon hoax, and with out a doubt masonry was also a key reason the Soviet Freemasons did not expose their American brothers for the moon hoax.

    The fact is that Armstrong performed a secret ceremony somewhere else but on the moon. The exact purpose is not clear, but most of what Kabbalists do is not clear to the profane.

    A Strange Ritual and Secret Ceremony
    True, a small replica of our proud U.S. flag was dutifully carted off the Eagle lander and posted for all to see. But, then, a strange ritual of an entirely different sort, of a dark and ominous character, took place at Tranquillity Base on the moon. It was not beamed to the earth via television, for this ritual was carefully crafted beforehand as a secret ceremony, to be hidden and seen only by the eyes of the adepts of the Illuminati and its Masonic fraternity.

    Astronaut Neil Armstrong carefully took out his Masonic apron and held it up for the cameras over his space suit as if to cover his genitals area-the power center, or dynamo, of Luciferian energy in Masonic ritual. Today, a photograph of Armstrong holding his occultic apron hangs on a wall at the House of the Temple, the sanctuary of the Scottish Rite, in Washington, D.C.

    • Agree: 9/11 inside job
  440. @The Anti-Gnostic

    You’ve got it wrong! It is as long as alpha humans will claim that there was a time in their history they impose to the Betas and Gammas, a mythical time when they reached the Moon and trod upon it like a gleeful rape gang, that the whole of alpha civilization will devolve the way you predict, as the technically perfect big lie transforms with generation passing into a grosser and grosser Tolkein-like story with other episodes such as the Holocaust and the great war on Islamic Terror, while material civilization regresses to feudalism 2.0 with technological knowledge gradually retreating into secrecy except that of mind-control. Three generations after the fake moonlanding the Z generation is now getting enthusiastic about a vaccine against antisemitism and complaining about the boomers stil attached to remnants of old superstitions such as the first amendment : many are already refusing to board jet planes because it damages the planet and far more because it is a White invention that has to be phased out. Three generations more nobody drives cars any longer nor takes planes but UFO’s are still used for mass surveillance : personal computers are a thing of the past except for the 1%, and people are taught that only Jews can work properly them since they have the right occult powers to use them : the society has turned into a Jewish-led (called Brahmins in India since Hinduism and Judaism have merged) religious dictatorship that claims that good people live by faith into Jewry never by inquiry and reasoning. People don’t read and rather go to hear gurus and seers. They believe that at some ancient date a few courageous and virtuous goys went to conquer the Moon on Israel’s command to defeat the empire of communism but that people are now too disobedient and degenerate to repeat the feat. Nuclear physics is banned since it is secret knowledge belonging to Jews and that should be strictly used to threaten the world with destruction of all life if ever the wicked take back power. Most ordinary antisemites – there are and there need be as all established religions need heretics – think that nuclear physics never existed nor that any voyage to Moon was ever made since the earth is flat and Moon is a luminary, not a globe. Three or four generations later the Jews who mostly live in mysterious caves and forts are feared as all-powerful magicians that control the sun and the moon and can even send persons there while the greater plebs is busy chasing rabbits and avoiding wrong negative thoughts : those who are caught having wrong thoughts are enslaved and put to forced labour in camps they generally never come back from, often overseas, aboard galleys. only those who obey their sorcerers and don’t think too much are allowed a free life in the nude in the savannah. Three generations later, their country is conquered by Mongols and Inuits for whom Judeo-Christian superstitions are a thing of early antiquity remaining only on the Northern American continent, the most primeval of all. They are told that were not always primitive but that at some point of their history they fell for too many lies when they started preferring the virtual reality shown by their toys to the real one around them. They started believing in science-fiction rather than in science and thought they could conquer the galaxy by space-travel.

  441. @Ron Unz

    I’m no expert on interpreting photos, but I tend to doubt that the Chinese would have made that claim unless they were pretty sure it was correct. After all, future missions would surely provide much better photos.

    Did the Chinese really claim those photos show the modules of the various Apollo lunar landing missions? I see nothing in the photos; they are piss poor quality photos and create a credibility problem immediately.

    According to Aswad Unaid, the author of the article:

    The pictures were posted on the scientific data portal of the Chinese program for the study of the Moon in 2018, but were widely available only in May 2020 in Vitaly Yegorov’s book “People on the Moon. The main answers. ”

    In a Court of Law his statement amounts to hearsay– and second-hand hearsay at that; not convincing nor admissible as evidence.

    I would need to know the actual name of the Chinese scientist and see his original statement in Chinese in order to determine what was actually said and the context in which it was said. Without those details or even a link to the actual and official Chinese website, Aswad Unaid has ZERO credibility.

    On a general note, the article cited is badly written (by a bot?) and loses all credibility in paragraph 4 by calling it the “Apollon” rather than the “Apollo” program. Was this a Freudian slip?

    Apollyon is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew term Abaddon (אֲבַדּוֹן Avaddon, meaning “destruction”, “doom”) and is often personified in Christian art as the Devil with bat wings…. which brings us back to COVID-19 and the original and preposterous theory that it originated from Chinese “bat-soup.” LOL

    Are the two hoaxes related or maybe it’s simply because they are using the same archetypes and ritual numbers on a zodiacal time loop?

    There are quite a lot of these Apollyon Devils in the original MOON HOAX of 1835. Wikipedia calls it the “Great Moon Hoax.

    Here’s the actual photo published in the original moon hoax in the Sun Newspaper in New York in the year 1835:

    • Replies: @Maowasayali
  442. Olivier1973 says: • Website
    @Ron Unz

    Please, provide a Chinese link displaying all these photos. Resolution is very, very bad, when satellite photos of our planet can easily show a lamp post and its shade like on Dealy Plaza, Texas.

    By the way with your link a got a message that the site is malignant. I did not expect that from you.

  443. Olivier1973 says: • Website
    @Iris

    I would like to find the origin of this photo:

    Which “mission”? For it looks completely fake. Only have a look at the shadows.

    • Replies: @Franklin Ryckaert
  444. @Francis Miville

    What a lunatic Rightist you are. All those Vietnamese, just yearning to be (second-class) pseudo-Whites, safe from ‘communism’. If they don’t like it, carpet-bombing, napalm, Operation Phoenix and Agent Orange for them. Long Live Western Civilization!!!!!

    • Replies: @anon
  445. @obwandiyag

    Regardless, it is simple fact that the United States cut off support for the South Vietnamese, and that lead to their collapse and demise. Define “winnable”… how hard was it to shut down the harbours and major airfields in N. Vietnam?

  446. anon[218] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulga Mumblebrain

    there is no point arguing with gweilo. China (and other Asians) need to learn to set clear boundaries and punish harshly when outsiders attempt to fuck with them, to whatever extent is necessary, fuck all limitations.

  447. @Sparkylyle92

    …fuzzy photos with unrecognizable light spots.

    Were you expecting to get the type of precision clarity images, taken from a great distance, that would enable the viewer to discern the stars on the US flag that the astronauts had planted into the ground? Maybe you were conditioned to assume too much from Chinese technology.

    The relevant point is that the light spots were pattern anomalies on the lunar surface, and the sizes of these spots plus their angles and distances to another corresponded perfectly with a much clearer image from the US lunar satellite, which also showed the parked lunar vehicle.

    Do you think that the relatively large vehicle simply assembled itself from a stored and folded state automatically, through some sophisticated spring action release mechanism?

  448. @Olivier1973

    I have linked to many Aulis articles and avoided this one because it is one of the most “geeky”.

    But–there is yet another major flaw to the Apollo program–the on board computers were not capable of completing many of the tasks that they were “assigned”:

    https://www.aulis.com/pascal.htm

    Some computer old timers may find this article interesting.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  449. @Olivier1973

    “…For it looks completely fake. Only have a look at the shadows…”

    Yep, with the sun at a practically infinite distance, the shadows should be parallel, and not converging. That could only be explained by multiple sources of light, i.e. lamps in a studio. This whole scam is full of such blunders.

    • Replies: @utu
    , @Sparkon
  450. Olivier1973 says: • Website

    A site worth visiting:

    https://photo-vlad.livejournal.com/33746.html

    This page is listing a series of articles with evidence/explanations how the moon landings were faked.

    For instance:

    https://photo-vlad.livejournal.com/171612.html

  451. @Justvisiting

    A 2019 update (Part 2) of the geek-fest which demonstrates that neither the ROM or RAM of the on-board computer of Apollo could have worked:

    https://www.aulis.com/pascal2.htm

    Part 1 explains the purpose of the on-board computer and why it was mission critical to get to the Moon and return but would not have been needed for a mission stuck in Earth orbit.

    It looks like the engineers that created these specifications were whistle-blowers. They created a large group of obviously intentional errors–the computer was a prop anyway (all show) and it probably was just as much effort to create the unworkable circuitry as a workable version.

  452. Anonymous[407] • Disclaimer says:
    @Francis Miville

    JFK hated the classical Anglo-Saxons (for an understandable reason given his ethnic history) together with most other like Whites (French, German…) with a passion,

    There’s no evidence for that. I’m not a fanboy of JFK but he and his family wrote approvingly of the Germans. He also like to associate with New England Whites.

    And there’s no evidence that Henry Kissinger calls the shots on a global basis. This has been a wild claim because he had that accent and fit the role for conspiracy theorists.

  453. @Erebus

    You’re taking it all way too literally when everyone knows it’s supposed to be understood mythically. How do you know what anybody “means” when they express ideas or communicate narratives?

    This whole sideshow of “debunking” stories and tropes is retarded and infantile. It would be more useful to apply this kind of scrutiny to something practical, instead of virtual. The words mean whatever anyone wants to say it means, when there are no boundaries.

    Too much morbid obsession and stunning meltdown when everything thought to be “true” was wrong. Who got fooled then, me or you?

  454. Anonymous[163] • Disclaimer says:
    @Justvisiting

    The Soviets also used Jewish and German scientists in their space programs.

    It was said that how well the USA and the USSR did after WWII was determined by who got the better German scientists!

    America got the better ones and they got to the moon. Sorry buddy, those are the breaks.

  455. @Maowasayali

    PS

    In 2011 Congress passed a law that included an add-on known as the Wolf Amendment named after its mastermind, then representative Frank Wolf of Virginia. The Wolf Amendment prohibits NASA from using federal funds to engage in direct, bilateral cooperation with the Chinese government, inclusive of China’s space program, of course. 

    Gee, I wonder why? 

    Wikipedia describes Frank Wolf as a champion of (((human rights))) and cites the 1995 incident when he “called for the Most Favored Nation status of China to be revoked, repeating the blood libel that human fetuses were considered a delicacy in China.” 

    Hmm… sounds as crazy as the CIA-concoted Chinese bat-soup origins of COVID-19… doesn’t it?

    Disclaimer:

    I have not looked into China’s space program and do not know how real or fake it is, but the Chinese are not stupid and if their space program is real, they would see through the fake math and science of NASA. Pronto!

  456. @Laurent Guyénot

    I just now read the origin of this ocean color sub-thread, Mr. Guyenot. Sure, I don’t blame you for not keeping up with every detail in all comments. No, you didn’t touch on this point in the article.

    What I think is that, if you are completely reliant on others for the basic technical knowledge, and there is a whole lot of varied areas if you talk about the entire Apollo project and the science that goes along with it, it’s gotta to be hard to judge who’s right. You can be convinced pretty easily by those who are full of it, just as well as those who are not.

    Now, I ask you if you remember that long-ago article about JFK, Jr. and his plane crash into the water. Your discussion of all the political motivations for foul play were well above and beyond what I know and have thought about. However, regarding the aviation aspect, I think there was lots of guesswork on your part and reliance on people who were full of shit. That included a number of commenters under your article.

    Thanks for the reply, and sorry about sounding like a 1960’s hippie, man .

  457. @Sam J.

    Saying the moon landing is fake is just one big anti-White attack because the moon landing was the Whitest thing ever. Without Whites it could never have been done.

    This is actually true, it comes down to the buffoonery and incompetence of most white people. The whole “mid century America” trope and the pirating of resources and work from all over the world.

    The moonlanding was the Whitest thing ever, and your whole identity depends on it too. One giant delusional fantasy with your pants pulled up to the chest, bloviating and pontificating. Thus ends the last 500 years of gibberish and farce.

    • Replies: @Sam J.
  458. @Sepp

    Exactly 33 minutes after the alleged landing Buzz aldrin, a 33 degreee Scottish Rite Freemason, was performing a ceremony with Neil Armstrong,ancient-code.com

    • Replies: @Maowasayali
  459. @Iris

    I really got sucked into this (and no, I am sorry I have not read all the comments, but maybe 100). Why in the heck would someone re-work that image of the departing lunar module – or was it the ascent stage returning – by changing the colors consistently? See, that gold foil became brown foil. That seems a bit too amateur for even a hoaxer, wouldn’t you say?

    There’s a lot involved with photography that you and shadow* man (in another photo essay comment) don’t know about.

    Now, I’ll be the “colors of the worlds” guy again, purely by coincidence, but when I used to observe the moon at 250x on a 6″ reflector, it was closer to bright yellow. That’s because a 6″ mirror gathers a lot of light! I’d have only about 1/3 of the diameter in my field of view, and it blindingly bright if I’d been looking at deep space objects before hand (if the damn thing wasn’t too full that night as to ruin the former).

    You go check out the moon again in a week and a half, when it’s at first quarter. Report back on what color it is**. There’s a lot to color and color photography.

    .

    * Seriously, has the guy heard of focal points and perspective? Of course the shadows should be parallel. The camera is not at infinity though and must be at an angle to some of the features.

    ** Check in with me on Steve Sailer’s blog – any post that doesn’t involve some TV or sports dude dying or college admissions…

  460. @Anonymous

    the better ones

    We got the best liars and propagandists and disinformation experts in the world.

    The Russians and Chinese were outclassed for sure.

  461. @Anonymous

    The Soviets also used Jewish and German scientists in their space programs.

    The “German” part I believe, but surely you are joking with “Jewish scientists”?

    And why did you leave out the Blacks? Are you rayciss? lol

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
  462. @Maowasayali

    “Hidden Figures” is a fraud within a fraud–dark humor for sure!

  463. utu says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Yep, with the sun at a practically infinite distance, the shadows should be parallel

    No. The convergence of shadows when sun is behind you and divergence of shadows when sun is in front of you is the effect of perspective in camera image.

    All the yapping about shadows in images by Moon landing hoaxers is one of the most egregious example of their obdurate ignorance. The issue has been brought up and debunked many times many years ago and yet the ignoramuses keep returning to their false eureka moment that they have discovered incontrovertible proof of fake images from NASA.

    https://www.123rf.com/photo_32575928_group-of-trees-in-backlit-with-divergent-shadows-in-sunny-autumn-day.html

    https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-converging-shadows-and-sunbeams-on-the-beach-at-polis-cyprus-131333185.html

    • Replies: @Olivier1973
  464. Sparkon says:
    @Franklin Ryckaert

    Yes and no.

    As you note, the distant Sun casts shadows that for all practical purposes appear to be parallel on Earth.

    Visually, all parallel lines converge toward a vanishing point.

    By contrast, any single light source on Earth casts shadows (from separate objects) that diverge (point away) from each other.

    Drawing a line through each shadow and the object making it points back to the origin of the light.

    Using multiple lights on a set creates multiple shadows from each object unless the lights are powerful enough and close enough so that each object is being illuminated by, and casting shadows from, a single light which is strong enough to blow out shadows from any other lights on the set.

    However, positioning a single powerful light source light like a spotlight at some distance from miniature objects that are close together on a set can produce shadows from those miniatures and/or mannequins that can appear to be parallel.

  465. Erebus says:
    @mike99588

    50+ years ago 22 yr old engineers could get handed serious challenges.

    Sure, but nationally important, multi-bizillion dollar, mission critical challenges? Doubtless he was brilliant, but the Apollo story is replete with altogether too many such MacGuyvered solutions to hitherto intractable problems to be taken at face value. At some point one has to say “I bought A, B & C, but now you’re telling me I have to buy everything down to X, Y, & Z as well. This ain’t adding up for me.”

    At any rate, taken alone this is hardly a gating item. In 1965 the Soviets were ahead of the US in all aspects of space exploration by at least one generation and in most aspects more than 1. Yet, they concluded that their technology was inadequate and the risks were too high while Apollo asks us to believe the US managed it with generation(s) more primitive technology and by ignoring the risks.

    How many other complex, high risk endeavours have you seen work out 6/7 times under that sort of rubric? Any? If you haven’t, you must bring doubt and a jaundiced eye to the table.

  466. ivan says:

    Real scientists and engineers on the other hand made the onboard computer work. I really don’t understand why you and your confreres spread such blatant lies.

    http://www.righto.com/search?updated-max=2021-08-18T10:02:00-07:00&max-results=7&start=3&by-date=false&m=1

    http://www.righto.com/2020/03/the-core-memory-inside-saturn-v-rockets.html?m=1

    and other such articles in the same blog

  467. Erebus says:
    @Sepp

    In 2016 me and the boys (boomers) went on a motorcycle tour on a Royal Enfield Bullet from Kathmandu to Lhasa via the Everest base camp at 5400m

    Well, that brings back a memory…

    I borrowed an RE 500 thumper intending to go Mumbai to Kerala but had to give it up about half way. Nursed it back to Goa and then Mumbai after a few days in Goa. Easily repaired, but at altitude in the Himalayas, I suspect buying fuel would’ve been the least of my problems with the one I had.

    Your wording suggests it had a sidecar. Was it a 500 or the 350? Nostalgia almost got the best of me, but I talked myself out of buying a new 500 at the time. Around \$2500 as I recall. Iconic beasts both.

    • Replies: @Sepp
  468. @Reverend Goody

    Apollo 8 earth rise photo from the moon:

    Imagine you are on the moon or in the orbiter, you have cameras, would you not adjust the camera’s controls and bring the stars into view. You would have the only photos of the heavens from another heavenly body. Those photos would be priceless, and the engineers and astronauts would know all of this long before they went there.

    They could of even brought a special camera to film the sky. The rationalization that the brightly lit moon washed out the stars is nonsense, just aim the camera lens toward the black sky, since there is no atmosphere scattering light like on earth, the stars should be completely visible.

    Many cameras were taken to the moon:
    https://digitalrev.com/2016/07/21/the-cameras-that-recorded-the-moon-landing/

    Now imagine you are an Apollo astronaut standing on the moon, you can see no stars, space is pitch black and you look up, what do you see? Absolutely gorgeous blue earth as big as day staring you right in the face. And we only have one picture of earth from the moon surface during all of the Apollo missions. How likely is that? Zero

    And if you study the Apollo missions, they never ever take a picture looking up. Why? Because they are in a studio. You do not have any pictures of earth from overhead. How can this be? The earth is overhead like the sun. It would be irresistible to any human not to look up and see home.

    American Moon, 2017



    Video Link

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
  469. @Yukon Jack

    2 photographs of different parts of the Moon have identical backgrounds

    Movie maker confronts astronaut and asks him to swear on the Bible that he walked on the moon, he starts out talking about how they faked being half way to the moon:

    VIDEO PROOF – THEY NEVER WENT TO THE MOON – APOLLO 12 ASTRONAUT JOHN YOUNG RUNS FROM REPORTER



    Video Link

  470. mike99588 says:
    @Erebus

    NASA did have extensive protocols for flight qualifications especially after the Apollo 1 fire.

    The Soviets were often unimpressive in actual technology and QA, kind of brute force and copycat. Just because they got a few boosters up doesn’t mean they were ahead in all aspects of infrastructure. When you say they were 1 or more generations ahead in space, I would suggest the generations might be 3 – 15 months for gross functional features, like walk in space, not the underlying electronics, high tech hardware or advanced materials.

    When I made several work trips to Russia in the late 90s, I saw major industrial stuff my grandfather would have been more familiar with, in the 1920s, having died several years earlier at 100+.

    And yes, some people can bat 1000 for substantial intervals under maximum pressure and dire circumstances.

    • Replies: @Erebus
  471. Noble47 says:
    @Patrick McNally

    I’m well aware what all the references I’ve given you have said.

    JFK’s interview with Cronkite, posted above, shows a pessimistic JFK who insists the US will not withdraw, yet also believes the Saigon government cannot win if they continue doing what they’re doing (their heavy-handed actions against the Buddhists is alienating the population at large). He implies that the US will not do the fighting in this war, but states plainly that the US will provide equipment and supplies for the South Vietnamese – BUT it is the Vietnamese that must win or lose it – in other words, they are the ones that must do the fighting! When was the last time you heard a POTUS say something like that about a country fighting an active communist insurgency that threatens to overthrow the government? I’d say never.

    A month later, JFK announces the 1000 advisor withdrawal, with the goal being the rest to be withdrawn by the end of ’65. So, “Not withdrawing” a month ago, has now become “withdrawing 1000 advisors with a goal of all of them leaving by the end of ’65”. Does that sound like JFK plans unconditional support against the communists? Frankly, no it doesn’t. They’ll provide equipment and supplies, but that’s it. LBJ strongly opposed this policy, but kept his mouth shut at the time.

    Have you watched the documentary “Fog of War” yet? In it, McNamara is adamant that this was JFK’s way out of Vietnam – and who would know more about this subject than Robert McNamara? He certainly knew more about it than either you or I.

    Read between the lines. JFK can’t come out and say “I’m getting out of Vietnam because it’s hopeless”. If he does, he gives the Republicans a juicy issue to use against him in the upcoming ’64 election. Instead, he starts withdrawal at the end of ’63 (when the war isn’t going well), and floats the idea of complete removal of advisors by the end of ’65.

    Exactly one month after the White House announcement of the 1000 advisor withdrawal, the President of South Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem, and his brother are assassinated. McNamara states that he was with Kennedy when news of the assassination reached him.

    McNamara from “Fog of War”:

    I’ve never seen him more upset. He totally blanched. President Kennedy and I had tremendous problems with Diem, but my God, he was the authority, he was the head of state. And he was overthrown by a military coup. And Kennedy knew and I knew, that to some degree, the U.S. government was responsible for that.

    Twenty days later JFK was assassinated.

    • Agree: Laurent Guyénot
    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  472. Sandy Hook kids all growed up

    just like Challenger astronauts who are still alive

    CHALLENGER EXPLOSION AND MOON LANDING ALL A HOAX TO FOOL THE PUBLIC – CREW STILL ALIVE – VIDEO PROOF



    Video Link

    • Agree: Sepp
    • Thanks: Arthur MacBride
    •