The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Full ArchivesKevin Barrett Podcasts
Sterling Harwood on Moon Landing Controversy
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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
List of Bookmarks

Philosophy professor and practicing attorney Sterling Harwood didn’t have time to discuss his take on the moon landing controversy last time he was on the show. So let’s bring him back! Sterling Harwood’s highly recommended book The Greatest Mystery of the Beatles: Critical Thinking on Paul is Dead & the Skeptical Sixties examines several 1960s conspiracy theories and evaluates them using logic and evidence.

From the book: “What is the most unlikely conspiracy theory that still has a surprising amount of evidence for its bizarre claims? It is the theory that no man has ever landed on the Moon. There are at least 29 reasons to question President Richard Nixon’s claim that all six landings of men on the moon in history occurred from July 1969 to December 1972 during the first term of his abbreviated presidency.”

(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
• Category: History • Tags: Conspiracy Theories, Moon Landing Hoax 
Hide 94 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Charles says:

    Phil Plait’s “Bad Astronomy” site gets rid of these types of alleged controversies, which are not controversies at all but simply the various types of ignorance of people. One obvious example: the “faked photos”, i.e., how did they get those pristine photographs? The astronauts took THOUSANDS of photos, but only the best ones were used for publicity – as would be obvious to anyone who thought about it.

  2. dimples says:

    Well as a person who does not believe in the moon hoax theory, I look forward to Mr Harwood’s scholarly tome on the subject.

    • Replies: @dimples
  3. dimples says:

    For example, if Van Allen Belt radiation were as deadly as claimed, there would be no need for any Moon race at all. The Russians in their former life as the Soviet Union would not be able to go to the Moon either. Space race over. Enormous cost saving all round. No need for elaborate disguises such as five thousand ton rockets blasting off and putting fake stuff into orbit. Just send probes into the radiation belt, measure the radiation, discover that it’s deadly and call the whole thing off. Or send chimps into space and check them out when they splash down. If they’re cooked then its all over red rover.

    Can any moon hoax theorist explain the nefarious conspiratorial reason why this was not done thanks!

    • Replies: @Ultrafart the Brave
    , @Rdm
  4. hillaire says:

    you tin-foil hatters with your ‘cults’ and ‘conspiracy theories’….

    wiki leaks released some interesting ‘video’, take a gander when you finish playing with your ‘moon-men’ action figures..

    presumably you wear a mask and had your jabs ?…

  5. GeeBee says:

    wiki leaks released some interesting ‘video’, take a gander when you finish playing with your ‘moon-men’ action figures

    How might we ‘take a gander’ if you don’t offer some sort of a link?

  6. Zimriel says:

    Remember: Muslim. The truth is not in Barrett.

  7. notbe says:

    except the problem then is they had to take thousands of negatives with them and change film rolls in a hard vacuum another basic problem is if the astronauts were taking thousands of pictures they wouldnt have time to do any astronauty work

  8. ruralguy says:

    If you look at things superficially, you’ll likely see paradoxes or conspiracies. I tuned him off, when he started taking about the lack of plume on the ascent of the lunar lander. The science of both rocket propulsion and chemistry is quite amazing. The Aerozine 50 fuel used on the lunar lander for descent and ascent uses a hypergolic combustion with a N2O4 oxidizer. It burns mostly clear and fast, with a sharp impulse. This was used on the Gemini rocket, which was really a Titan II ICBM. The Titan II used the hypergolic fuels, like the lander, because it needed to be stored for long periods while it sat in the missile silos, waiting for launch. Besides storing stable, it also provides a nice sharp impulse for a quick launch. It’s not the safest form of combustion, but is suitable for non-human ICBM launches. If you look at the Gemini launches, you’ll see an almost clear plume column, as it ascends. In a vacuum, this column broadens to nothing, as it does on the moon. The science behind this chemistry is quite amazing and was developed long before the moon missions.

    This guy is not a scientist nor an engineer. The technology is very fascinating as you delve into it. It has a tremendous wow factor. I’d read that, instead of this superficial analysis.

    • Thanks: Jim Christian
  9. Carlo says:

    Another weak point in the Moon hoax hypothesis is: why would the Soviets go along with it? Their intelligence surely would find good evidence that it was all staged. Why would they just admit that they lost the manned space race? Contrary to what most in the West think, people in the USSR and its satellite countries were given the news of the US Apollo missions to the Moon.

    • Replies: @Patrick McNally
  10. Anon[295] • Disclaimer says:

    Hi, Doc.

    I’m concerned about the vaccines, and have a few questions about them. You’re quite informed about this. Rather than ask you elsewhere, I’ll put them here.

    – How does one go about getting an exemption for the vaccine (if they implement mandatory vaccination, or employment starts requiring them)? Are religious exemptions still in play for Covid vaccines? Please provide whatever resources you’re aware of.

    – If one really had to get vaccinated, say as a requirement by the employer, which one might be the safest out of all of them in the U.S.?… Modern, Pfizer, or J&J, etc? Again, any resources you can provide.

    – I don’t quite remember the details, but wasn’t there a law or laws that big pharma had the gov’t pass that made them immune to lawsuits if their vaccines were later found to cause damage? What was the law(s), when was it passed, and any other details? Again, any links you have on it.

    Thank you.

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  11. @dimples

    The Russians in their former life as the Soviet Union would not be able to go to the Moon either.

    Indeed. Ironically, what you describe is the actual case.

    The Soviet Union gave up on their Moon project after they determined that the risks to their Cosmonauts were simply insurmountable.

    As to why they went along with the American charade, who knows? Perhaps go ask them – but good luck with that.

    All the information is out there for anyone with the energy, motivation, honest intellectual curiosity and half a brain to figure it out. Otherwise, for anyone with a preset narrative and confirmation bias, it’s pretty pointless.

    No need for elaborate disguises such as five thousand ton rockets blasting off and putting fake stuff into orbit.

    That’s being a little too simplistic. There’s a big difference between putting satellites and even so-called “Space Stations” into low Earth orbit, where they’re still relatively well protected, and sending something or someone beyond the Van Allen belts into deep space.

    That’s just one reason why Elon Musk’s Martian plans, inspiring as they are, might yet have some serious issues to address before anyone arrives on Mars.

    Please don’t get me wrong, it will all happen someday, maybe even soon, but there are some serious engineering, physics and occupational health and safety issues to be resolved before we see real human interplanetary exploration take off.

    In the realm of speculation, perhaps humans are already in deep space and scouting the territory on Mars. In that case, whoever it may be is not telling us about it. IMO that would not be a surprise.

    • Replies: @Joe Paluka
    , @dimples
    , @Rdm
  12. Iris says:

    Another weak point in the Moon hoax hypothesis is: why would the Soviets go along with it? Their intelligence surely would find good evidence that it was all staged.

    You are correct: being the leaders of space industry, the Soviets well appreciated the technical impossibilities and knew straightaway that the Moon Landings were a hoax. They immediately set out to blackmail the US and benefit from it.

    When Apollo 13 was launched, its empty boilerplate module didn’t even reach outer space and fell off in the North Atlantic. The Soviets calculated its trajectory and picked it up off the Azores Islands aboard a November-class nuclear submarine.

    They then used the empty boilerplate to blackmail the Americans. They made a deal, guaranteed by the presence of Hungarian officials, and handed back the empty capsule to US icebreaker “Southwind” in Murmansk, in Sept 1970.

    In exchange for the empty capsule and for its silence, the USSR negotiated and obtained large economic advantages from the US: loans and funding, grain exports, outsourced factories of truck manufacturing and food production and much more.

    The blackmail succeeded, but as time passed, the Soviet leaders found themselves as trapped by the lie as the Americans. While benefitting from the hoax and secretly cosying to the US, they kept demanding immense sacrifices to the USSR populations in order to confront the purported Cold War foe. After a while, it became impossible to expose the US without exposing themselves.

    The new Russian leadership has however broken up with this cover up policy.
    Two years ago, state-owned Russian channel RT in Arabic language has broadcast a four-part documentary featuring professor Alexander Popov, PhD in Physics and Mathematics, an academic who wrote a book exposing NASA’s faux Moon landing. He exposed the lie, but also why the USSR was complicit with it.

    So it is clear what the Russian position now is regarding the Moon Landing Hoax. They have already started informing the Arabic-speaking public; only the threat of losing their broadcasting licences is stopping them from airing the documentary in European languages.

    Personally, I don’t care so much about the Moon Landing Hoax, which is a benign, even funny fakery, and didn’t really harm anybody except the US taxpayer pocket.

    But I can’t wait for the day when Russian TV channels will expose the truth about the 9/11 false flag and crime against humanity. By doing so, they will expose the Israeli evil masterminds and hopefully trigger a reaction within America, for the country to wake up and recover its sovereignty from the Zionist occupiers.

    • Agree: Rdm
    • Thanks: Mulegino1
  13. anon[221] • Disclaimer says:

    With ’69 technology, US could’ve gone to Disney and back.


    If US did go to Disney, colonizing would’ve happened.
    We don’t go no where and leave it be. It is ours!

  14. @Carlo

    Although I’ve never formed any concise opinion on the moon hoax thesis, your argument definitely does have a clear rebuttal. Just before Nixon took office things were coming to a head in 3 different places. The USA was bogged down in Indochina and after the Tet offensive it seemed, despite a formal military victory by US forces, that it wasn’t worth dragging on with. Some rationale needed to be found for Washington to turn down the Cold War, at least temporarily. But as it happens, similar pressures were mounting in Moscow and Beijing at the same time. The programs of crash industrialization enacted in these countries had clearly gone beyond their limits of utility and the governments were looking for a chance to downgrade the Cold War, again at least temporarily. The biggest obstacle was that Cold Warriors in the USA would never have allowed Nixon to do this unless he first scored some prestigious titanic victory on the world stage. Enter the moon landings. In the aftermath of this, the way was opened for detente.

    Does that prove that the moon landing was a hoax? No, of course not. Sometimes people weaving conspiracy scenarios will mockingly use the term “coincidence theorist.” A lot of coincidences do occur in the natural world. Maybe that’s what this was. All of the major powers wanted to at least temporarily shift to detente, but Nixon could only do this after winning a great public victory. Maybe it is just a coincidence that technological breakthroughs enabling the moon landing occurred right when Nixon needed some sign of national success. But either way, there’s no reason to think that Brezhnev and Mao would have been unwilling to play along if the whole thing were a hoax. Rather they would have made the willingness to play along with the hoax conditional on a future detente.

  15. Based on the apparent bewilderment evident still (50 years later!), it must be assumed that the Globalist Deep State CIA did its job quite well. To wit:

    The Viet Nam War and the Faked Moon Landing Hoaxes were designed simply to be “deception and cover” for the CIA to access, recover, analyze and exploit Ultra-Secret World-Balance-of-Power-Changing technical information and war-fighting protocols from the sunken Soviet Submarine K129 under Project Azorian between 1968 – 1980; H-bomb designs, Code Books, target choices, missile guidance, Command and Control structures and the like.

    The stakes were high enough to risk all the wealth and lies it took to accomplish the task they set for themselves: i.e. – the CIA was able to recover enough information to force the Soviet Union into ‘dissolving’ itself peacefully – which it did in December 1991, and to thus, gain unilateral “Technical Mastery of the World”.

    The means the CIA used was to offer sufficient proof to the then-USSR that: “We know enough about how your most secret critical systems work that we can keep your ICBMs from leaving the pad; we can disarm your H-bombs; we can keep your seeds from germinating; we can destroy your currency; we can poison your food and water; we can kill YOU and your progeny for 100’s of generations into the future, and we can turn your country into wasteland for 24,000 years. Die voluntarily – or we will kill you”. Russia was thrown a life-ring and Putin was given a necessary counter-point role.

    The same general message was issued to ALL nations at the same time so the world has been effectively under CIA “control” since 1980 or so. The Stuxnet Operation in 2010 was further proof of CIA technical capability that it could rule the world.

    The Project Azorian stakes were so great that it could end in a “benevolent dictatorship” by the CIA with world domination, or Nuclear Winter and world annihilation; it was large enough in scope to require TWO False Flags a universe apart – in Viet Nam and “on the Moon”; the Manhattan Project was by comparison, probably puny in scope and breadth – but of course, we’ll never know any of that.


    “Under which shell is the pea?” While the world was watching the Viet Nam War and the Moon Hoaxes on TV, the REAL action was taking place elsewhere – out of sight. The fact that Project Azorian has not been mentioned at all in ANY of these thousands of threads proves Mr. Unz’ thesis that we are surely experiencing an “American Pravda”.

    The key point to be made here is that Nuclear Winter has NOT occurred anywhere on the globe, and Nuclear War has not happened on US soil. Those were the CIA goals then, and they seem to have done a reasonable job of accomplishing those goals till now.

    “Simulation and modeling” of the proposed solution-track was the key to the Moon Hoaxes: pose the tough questions; come up with the most reasonable answers; simulate-and-model the proposed solutions; film and record the efforts; revise and repeat until it looks good enough to stand-in for the real thing if needed. Only in this case, the “real thing” never happened and the stand-in is what the world watched on TV.

    The fact that that is how most everything is done in any large corporate or government project management activity means that the number of those who have to be in on the conspiracy can be very small – i.e. ~50 individuals or less in this case. The rest of the hundreds of thousands involved are “just doing their jobs”; “on a training mission”; “solving tough problems”, etc. NO one at NASA would ever think that THEY were involved with Faked Moon Landings – because they weren’t – they were involved with asking the tough questions and providing the best solutions to those tough questions.

    Others, the FEW above them knew at some point that when the CIA had accomplished what it needed to from the Project Azorian activities, the Fake Moon Landing Hoaxes could be shut down and be done and forgotten – as it is. NASA “can’t find old records” because there are none! It was a False Flag of the most optimal kind: created for a specific purpose, run only for as long as it was needed, then shut down with little or no ceremony. Of course, the USSR, China and others were in on it – as needed.

    The Viet Nam War similarly was largely a ‘laboratory’ for the testing of various products designed to be used to blackmail and/or kill other nations as the need be if they did not knuckle under to the CIA after ~1972; – better defoliants, etc. Again, (just another) “deception and cover” for Project Azorian.

    The CIA put Bernays’s Principles to proper use – masterfully so, in fact: – most, 50 years later, are still focused on the Moon Hoax when perhaps the most important event of all of human history was the sinking of K129, its subsequent largely unknown recovery by the Globalist Deep State CIA, the World-Balance-of-Power-Changing-Events and the resultant creation of “Peace in Our Time” since 1991.

    Some may not have much love for the CIA, but in the end, they vowed in 1972 to prevent Nuclear Winter and they have done well at that so far. It may be fair to ask: at what price?

    Some would say that the cost of the deception of the Viet Nam War and the Moon Landing Hoaxes was worth it.

    No one “went to the Moon”; they didn’t need to; they fulfilled their various assigned roles here on Earth; and when that was done they rode quietly off into the Sunset.

  16. Paul2 says:

    I used to be very sceptical of the Moon hoax theory. After seeing Massimu Mazzucco’s film American Moon I got more interested in the topic and now consider it not only possible but likely that the Moon Landings were faked.

    Regarding the Kubrick theory and the theory about his later movie “The Shining”:

    “Room 237” — the room you are not allowed to enter:

    Maybe we have to read it in 1337 5P34K…

    • Replies: @Paul2
    , @endthefed
  17. @Anon

    You must be with those guys from the AMA who keep emailing me at DrKevinBarrett(at)Yahoo inviting me to medical conventions and trying to sell me subscriptions to their newsletter.

    FYI I am not a medical doctor! I am a doctor of African Languages and Literature (Arabic) with an Islamic Studies focus.

    But I can tell you that religious exemptions (for students) are a state by state thing. 45 states allow them, 5 don’t.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Polistra
  18. @Ultrafart the Brave

    “Please don’t get me wrong, it will all happen someday, maybe even soon, but there are some serious engineering, physics and occupational health and safety issues to be resolved before we see real human interplanetary exploration take off.”

    The US sure won’t do it, the US has now become a concrete Congo. A quarter of the inhabitants are swinging from trees, another quarter are throwing bananas at each other. One half of the United States is capable of producing shit but they’re too busy fighting over getting the favors of the ones swinging from trees and throwing bananas at each other.

    The future of space exploration will depend on Russia and China with European help if they ever get their shit together and stop hating Russia as their main occupation and kissing black and muslim butt.

    • Agree: ruralguy, Rdm
  19. @orchardist

    If any of this is true, why is the CIA allowing the US to turn into a concrete Congo? The elites need to eat and breathe and like to live in a nice environment. Life won’t be pleasant for them anywhere if the US is turned into an uninhabitable rat hole. Seeing the mess that the US is in, I don’t think the CIA has that much power. What we’re seeing is a number of groups fighting and while their fighting, the world’s turning to pot.

    • Replies: @TG
  20. Erebus says:

    Excellent comment.

    Though I’m agnostic on what the CIA’s successes with Project Azorian actually amounted to, there’s no doubt that Apollo occurred within a turbulent geo-political context, which was mirrored domestically in the civil disturbances and social movements across the US especially, but also across the west.

    Project Azorian, of course occurred during a time when project Apollo was well advanced, so while Azorian may have cemented a few things in place, Apollo’s purposes had been well established. Primary amongst those were to hide from a recalcitrant public the diversion of vast sums to underpin a future space weapons development program.

    With Apollo’s “success”, I believe the Soviets came to the fundamental understanding that perception was reality. That it was more important to look good than to be good, and that the US looked fabulous*. While they could easily beat the US in space tech development, they had so little expertise in marketing their real successes to the world that a theatrical performance outshone their real world accomplishments.

    Finally, Apollo died where it was born, in the arms race. Détente put the brakes on its most dangerous aspects, the US never “went back” because Apollo succeeded in its real purpose, and the USSR began its remodelling that culminated a decade later in the failures of Gorbachev’s Glasnost & Perestroika programs.

    *h/t to Billy Crystal

    • Replies: @orchardist
  21. Anonymous[240] • Disclaimer says:

    Google is your friend. It’s easy to find current pics of the landing sites, complete with vehicle tracks, equipment and debris. It is also easy to find airplane parts in wtc 9/11 debris images.

    Both hoax claims are disinfo psyops to discredit conspiracy theories in general and the no plane at the Pentagon truth. The deep state is fighting allout psychological warfare against us.

    • Disagree: Voltara
  22. @Charles

    I was lead to be believe that all the photos taken are available to the public on NASA websites. Each photo can be verified by the individual numbers each photo has, and subsequently, any missing photos will be obvious by the disruption in the sequence. All photo rolls were logged as well.
    The only less than perfect composure, exposure etc. are to found in the later missions.
    Yes, there are thousands, but in the early missions, all were perfect.

  23. Anon[156] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    What?… Uh, no. I sincerely don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m being serious about my questions.

    But I apologize. I didn’t notice your disclaimer on FFWN about medical advice.

    However, only my 2nd question was about medical advice. And even then, I really didn’t think it could be classified in that realm. I was only asking your opinion about which was safer than others, not whether or not to take the vaccine. So from your own research, which one has the least complications? Or at least send me links that I can read, if you feel uncomfortable answering that.

    My context: My family is giving me crap about taking the vaccine. I don’t want to take it, but they think I’m ridiculous. And I’m not so sure I can fend off their pressure indefinitely.

    Regarding my 1st question about exemptions, I’m not part of any organized religion. What are my options? Is it still possible to get some sort of religious exemption, or if not, then some other option? Again if you’re uncomfortable with answering, maybe just offer some links about non-religious ones.

    And with the last question (also not a medical question), wasn’t there a law(s) that big pharma had the gov’t pass that made them immune to lawsuits if their vaccines were later found to cause damage? I recall that you’ve talked about this before, unless I’m remembering wrong. What was the name of the law? Again, any links. This is something I can show to my family.

    (I am genuinely not trolling.)

    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
  24. @Iris

    Thank you. Well written.

    • Thanks: Iris
  25. piapisum says:

    How did they get of the moon?

  26. piapisum says:

    If they landed on the moon? How did they get of the moon?

  27. Re Soviets and the moon landing hoax, key background is that the Soviets were already going along with an even bigger hoax, the hoax that there are ‘nuclear weapons’, well-established to have never existed. Kevin Barrett needs to talk about this with his Iranian friends!

    The entire US-Soviet ‘Cold War’ was fake from near the beginning, the Soviets having agreed to be the ‘Best Enemy Money Can Buy’, as Antony Sutton demonstrated more than half a century ago when he discovered all the tech transfers to Moscow, sometimes done via Israel … Soviet elites got benefits and goodies, as rewards for joining in the scam creating trillions in weapons etc profits

    Re the nuke hoax – briefly, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only two more horrible urban napalm fire-bombings, less devastating than what hit Tokyo five months earlier – but packaged with a fake story of a ‘new awesome weapon’. Reader’s Digest in February 1946, even let on that ‘nuclear weapons’ were fake. Smoking gun: The huge fleet that hit Hiroshima was logged as hitting ‘Imabari’ which had already been wiped out. More at link above.

  28. Stephane says:

    You are correct: being the leaders of space industry, the Soviets well appreciated the technical impossibilities and knew straightaway that the Moon Landings were a hoax. They immediately set out to blackmail the US and benefit from it.

    That would probably why they have at the time spend a huge amount of their somewhat strained ressources on the N1 program, building several of those huge rockets, testing them multiple times without success, even destroying the whole launchpad with the most spectacular failure, before finaly scraping the whole affair when they clearly lost the moon race…

    Retroreflectors left on the moon surface are still used for laser ranging today, and now we even have recent pictures of the landing sites showing the descent stages left on the surface, various experiment packages, moon rover tracks and the like…

    You may doubt that the Appolo missions were maned, but denying that at least some hardware was successfully sent up there is really pushing the envelope.

    As for the Van Allen belts problem, that’s exactly why the moon transit trajectories of the Apollo missions were not the easiest, energy-efficient, but longer one calculated to go around the most intense zones and keep radiation exposure at an acceptable level.

    • Replies: @Iris
    , @Sparkon
  29. The moon landing saga has many problems unless one is a firm believer in God and that, with God nothing is impossible.

    Remember too that when God answers prayer or Christian-wishes on earth, his power has to travel through the strong Van Allen radiation belt and through the atmosphere … which often causes miracles on earth to “twinkle” on and off. No such restrictions exist on the moon. The astronauts were much “closer” to God on our moon than we ordinary people on earth could ever imagine.

    So here are a few problems with the moon landings that non-believers tend to accrue …

    The lander(s) came down to the moon’s surface, “cushioned” on a steady stream of hot gas being expelled from the lander thrusters. When the astronauts exited their lander box, they walked around on the moon close to the lander and their boots sank deep into the powdery surface, leaving distinct tight boot prints . (God only knows why the powder was just several inches deep instead of feet?).

    Well anyway, the surface was powder but the lander left NO CRATER or hole underneath itself from its cushioning jet blast! There was absolutely no difference to be seen in the “dirt” level between under the lander belly and just a few feet away where the boots sank deep into the powder. Perhaps God’s hand was under the lander?

    The astronauts were rigged with pressurized suits that made them look a bit like Mr. Lube. They also had pressurized mitts on their hands which made them about us un-dextrous as a catcher’s mitt. They had cameras strapped to their bellies and had to “point” with their bellies and shoot … with what? Their fingers were much too fat to press a shutter button! God probably pressed the buttons for them.

    The cameras held film (back in those days) which could only take about 36 shots maximum. Then the film had to be taken out and replaced with a fresh roll.

    So here’s the problems they faced (unless God did a good part of the work).

    They’d have to push the shutter button and then advance the lever to the next negative position … with huge mitts on and unable to see what they were doing with their fat fumbling fingers. Then they’d have to go into the lander, close the door and pressurize it from 0 to 2-3 ppsi with fresh air from tanks on board … depressurize their suits, take off their mitts and change the film, put the exposed one away … then put their gloves back on and re-pressurize their suits, let all the air out of the lander hiss out into space, open the door and go back outside.

    They’d have to do this EVERY 36 PICTURE SHOTS!! Just how much air gas do you suppose they could afford to waste from the very small lander tanks with every film change?

    The films themselves -going through the Van Allen radiation belt- would have become heavily streaked from being bombarded with radioactive particles … unless they were encased in lead boxes. Well and … even the astronauts themselves should have been inside of lead boxes to protect THEM! Miraculously however … not a ONE of them experienced even a small dose of radiation sickness from traveling through the Van Allen radiation belt. I tell yez … Americans were much better Christians back then!!

    And then there’s the way that God assisted the lift-off from the moon’s surface too. The camera left behind, recorded a few blings of exploding anchor bolts and then that lander just SHOT up into the “sky” … kind of jerking sideways as it went. Normal physics restricts acceleration according to Newton’s laws. Yes, things are 1/6th their weight on the moon but that doesn’t allow for 6 times faster acceleration of a massive object. If I remember correctly, the lander still had a 16 ton mass to accelerate as it left the moon. So the lander leaving the moon should have looked very much like a lander leaving the ground here on earth: slow and smooth ACCELERATION.

    The hot gases leaving the lander’s thruster as it lifted back off the moon … MAY have been invisible to see for color but they would definitely have refracted light from distant stars in a way that would show a gas-gush escaping from the thruster.

    Oh but that’s right too … there WERE NO STARS to be seen anywhere! How weird is that? Later on when the moon buggies were shipped over … everything suddenly looked completely different! The astronauts appeared to be riding around in broad daylight! The first landings seemed to be encased in darkness as tight as an Arizona night in the desert with only spotlights shining. (Is this were Kubrick got the idea of the title for his film, “the shining”?

    Why the difference in lighting when the moon always has the same face to the earth?

    You look at the fuel supply of the landers too and it’s simply miraculous. They carried a couple of propane bottle’s worth of fuel which let them brake in moon orbit enough to come to a full stop from several thousand mph … then cushion the descent … then lift off again and accelerate back up to several thousand mph to achieve moon orbit … and then fiddle around and dock up with the mother pod once again. It’s just unbelievable unless you’re a firm believer!~~

    • Replies: @Stephane
    , @Alfa158
  30. Smith says:

    There’s a very real possibility that the US moon landing is fake, BUT USSR/China space operations are real.

    USA is an actor country, not a real country.

  31. Iris says:

    Retroreflectors left on the moon surface are still used for laser ranging today,

    Yes, the very first retroreflectors put on the Moon by the 1970 Lunokhod 1 Soviet unmanned mission are still there.

    Their presence and location, within a precise range of centimetres, was independently verified, using Laser Ranging Experiment, by an American, then a French observatory in 2010 and 2013 respectively.

    Available technology has long been able to send unmanned missions to the Moon, because such missions don’t require to bring anything back to Earth. The equipment sent there powers itself up with solar and nuclear sources, and remotely communicates with Earth base, until it runs its course and ceases to. It is then abandoned on the the Moon.

    In addition to the puzzling difficulty of safely crossing the Van Allen belts’ radiations, there are many other, even greater impossibilities to the Moon Landing official narrative.
    In the 1970’s, there existed no rocket engine capable of delivering the minimum 2,800 tons payload necessary to bring back the US astronauts to Earth. The “miraculous” Saturn V engine design with tubular cooling system that allegedly powered the Apollo missions was quickly abandoned. All modern rocket engines, without exception, including post-Saturn American engines, use Soviet/Russian technology.

    The engineering impossibilities are actually much more damning than the photographic anomalies.

    Several countries have sent successful unmanned missions to the Moon, but no human being ever went there.

    • Thanks: DCThrowback
  32. Spect3r says:

    Some of the pictures are faked/staged.
    However, that doesnt mean that the moon landings were fake.

  33. Paul2 says:

    For the non-1337-2934|<-savvy:

    that would make room 237 the “set”.

  34. @ Alberta Vince,

    And they did it six times (almost seven) without any very tiny screw-up which would have been necessarily fatal for the crew and as such fatal for the optics of the entire project. By comparison the Shuttle projects which were sub-orbital and had better technology had a relatively dismal success rate.

    Added to which NASA ‘accidentally’ re-used something like 50,000 canisters of original film (or purposely to save money according to another account) but instantly found money to digitally re-create the entire project.

    Whatever the real truth, there are some things that just cannot be explained away. Ever since reading Dave McGowan’s non scientific ” Wagging The Moon Doggie” I can’t no way no how get myself to believe that the moon landings took place no matter how well some argue for it.

    But that’s just me…


  35. Stephane says:
    @Alberta Vince

    The Appolo cameras were a special design adapted by Hasselblad from a commercial model. Among the adaptations were enlarged controls (to allow operation with gloves on), motorized film advance, and enlarged film holder…

    The film itself was a special, thinner film. Combined with the larger film holder, this gave them about 200 exposure per B&W film (color was a bit thicker and only about 160 pictures), rather than your puny 36 shots.

    • Replies: @Garliv
  36. dimples says:

    “The Viet Nam War and the Faked Moon Landing Hoaxes were designed simply to be “deception and cover” for the CIA to access, recover, analyze and exploit Ultra-Secret World-Balance-of-Power-Changing technical information and war-fighting protocols from the sunken Soviet Submarine K129 under Project Azorian between 1968 – 1980; H-bomb designs, Code Books, target choices, missile guidance, Command and Control structures and the like.”

    Well I can’t argue against that. An entire war and space program to divert attention away from lifting a sub of the sea floor and garnering the entire secret knowledge of the Soviet Union which it foolishly had stored in the sub’s lockers before it sank. This theory is so intelligent its just too much for me to take in at once. I thought the sub fell off the lifting device on the way up but I realize now that was the cover story.

    • Replies: @orchardist
  37. dimples says:
    @Ultrafart the Brave

    I assume that somebody like Musk would have all the data showing the Van Allen Belt is a deadly barrier to interplanetary travel. This would not be a ‘serious issue’, but a deal breaker according to the moon hoax theory. It’s curious therefore that he is talking about a Mars colony but I assume he is just doing this to raise money from suckers before it flops, or he is going to put on a Mars hoax. After all if NASA can fake it so can he, although this time millions of moon hoax theorists will be watching his every move so he will have to be more careful than NASA was.

    • Replies: @Ultrafart the Brave
  38. endthefed says:

    I was a kid during the landing and a true believer. I’ve become skeptical over the years. The first crack was starting to believe the money photos were probably done in a studio. No view finder, notoriously difficult film and even if the US landed it would make sense to get some good pictures. We spent millions going to the moon and all we got were some crappy pictures! I like the tag line, I wish I could take pictures half as good as Neil Armstrong’s tits. NASA then “loses” most of the original source material, abandons the worlds most powerful, reliable rocket motor and so far not returned to the moon. The latest crack was beginning to disbelieve the US had the battery technology to sustain electronics and environment. Tesla can go a little bit better than 300 miles on a charge. The lander was fighting more or less plus and minus 200 degrees, presumably re-charging space suits I’m interested to see what a new moon/mars mission would look like and then call if I believe the US did it 50 years ago.

  39. Stephane says:

    Oh, they had the battery technology. If I’m not mistaken the zinc-silver battery used on the lander can store more energy for a given weight than even the latest lithium batteries. But they are much, much more expensive, that’s why you don’t see them around except in some specialized application where the extra dollars are justified.

    Keep in mind that the lander was surrounded by a very effective insulator – vacuum – and was often exposed to sunlight, and this reduce the energy budget for heating – and when the crew was inside you had an extra 400W of heating !

    I would not be surprised if they had more problems preventing overheating than excessive cold.

    Today we can find a lot of technical documentations and analysis of the Apollo hardware online.

    • Replies: @Alberta Vince
  40. Mulegino1 says:

    Personally, I don’t care so much about the Moon Landing Hoax, which is a benign, even funny fakery, and didn’t really harm anybody except the US taxpayer pocket.

    I tend to agree, and would add that there is little, if any reason to believe any extraordinary claim made by the US government and its establishment press, without iron clad corroboration.

    They lied about the USS Maine being blown up by “Spanish terrorists” to create a climate of war hysteria.

    They lied about the circumstances surrounding destruction of the HMS Lusitania in order to demonize Germany and rouse the public, again, into war fever.

    They kept the truth hidden with respect to FDR’s illegal and undeclared war on Germany in the Atlantic.

    They covered up the many provocations of Japan and gross failures of intelligence-deliberate or not- which led to the successful attack on Pearl Harbor.

    They lied about the JFK assassination.

    They lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

    They lied (tearfully) about the Kuwaiti babies being ripped from incubators.

    They lied- colossally and egregiously- about the attacks on 9/11 being led by a man in a cave and conducted by his 19 amateur hijackers, and about the man in the cave’s demise nearly ten years later.

    The moon landings did not even look real when supposedly broadcast “live” (from a single NASA feed) and with the authoritative voice of Walter Cronkite to lend credibility to the event.

    The photos could not have been taken on the moon’s surface. Did the cameras have their own cooling systems to protect the film from literally melting?

    But-as you point out- the Apollo missions did not lead to a war. In that sense, they were certainly a benign “noble lie.”

    • Agree: Alberta Vince
    • Thanks: Iris
    • Replies: @Dr. Charles Fhandrich
  41. @Stephane

    Well, congratulations! You latched onto something which ((I)) have never seen mentioned in all the glamorous space travel stories: the INSULATION property of vacuum!!

    Indeed. We can disagree about many things with a smile but this is one which I agree with you completely: the insulation property of space vacuum.

    The ONLY way that heat build-up can be shed in space is via infrared radiation. This is why nuclear energy has never been used in space: it generates W-A-Y too much heat to be lost by radiation alone.

    It’s also what makes the story of Apollo 13 rather humorous because they were returning back to earth with their heat generators turned off to save fuel for later landing maneuvers … shivering uncontrollably. (The vision of Tom Hanks will never leave my brain until I die!~) They were shivering … why? Well because it’s so frightfully COLD in space — of COURSE!

    Heh, heh … yes it’s that cold in space because of a LACK of heat but that’s all. When an object has finished radiating its heat by infrared, it will REACH such a very low temperature. However, if an object is generating heat itself or is receiving heat from the sun … then the balance between received heat and radiated heat will determine its actual temperature. The surrounding vacuum will neither accept or donate any heat because it’s a perfect insulator.

    And when you think about it … what do we do here on earth if we want something to stay hot for a very long time? We put it into a thermos bottle which has two walls of glass separated by vacuum. The walls are made of glass with reflective material to reflect infrared radiation.

    Thus, Apollo 13 -with heat generating human bodies inside, surrounded by shiny tinfoil and being heated by the sun on one side … should actually have had a heating up problem rather than a cooling down problem … right? I mean, they didn’t have the other side of their capsule painted flat black to facilitate better heat loss by radiation -did they?

    • Replies: @Stephane
  42. Christo says:

    China , Russia, India,and Japan have all launched many probes and rockets and have photographed and seen the Apollo landing sites , the footprint trais, tire tracks, flags , lunar rovers, lander bases.

    If a person thinks all those countries are part of some ongoing hoax moon landing conspiracy since 1969, Dawin will probablly fix them eventuallly.

    • LOL: Rdm
  43. anon[176] • Disclaimer says:

    China , Russia, India,and Japan have all launched many probes and rockets and have photographed and seen the Apollo landing sites , the footprint trais, tire tracks, flags , lunar rovers, lander bases.

    Where do we find these pictures by China, Russia, India and Japan?


    • Agree: Alberta Vince
  44. @Christo

    Yes, I suppose it was necessary to do six moon landings to make sure the public was convinced that it happened. LOL.

  45. @Mulegino1

    If the Apollo missions were a lie, the Soviet Union which had thousands of agents in the U.S. and many paid American traitors, would have humiliated the U.S. by exposing it world wide. This was all happening during the cold war.

    • Replies: @Garliv
  46. Alfa158 says:
    @Alberta Vince

    Here you go, it looks “ very much like a lander leaving the ground here on earth: slow and smooth ACCELERATION”

    Oh wait, slow and smooth acceleration would be what you get with a “lander leaving the ground here on earth”, therefore this must have been filmed on earth, and therefore this must be fake.

    • Replies: @Rdm
    , @Alberta Vince
    , @Ererr
  47. Polistra says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    FYI I am not a medical doctor!

    That’s okay. Sterling Harwood isn’t a practicing attorney.

  48. Stephane says:
    @Alberta Vince

    Well, it’s not very easy to answer “overheating” or “freezing”, because there are a lot of parameters in play.

    When traveling in the shade of earth or the moon, without sun exposition, things will probably go toward freezing.

    When exposed to the sun, the orientation of the spacecraft relative to the sun is very important, because it can drastically alter the radiative balance and the equilibrium temperature.

    Perpendicular, and you have roughly the same surface heating (exposed side) and radiating (dark side) – maximum input, minimum output so heating.

    Nose or bottom toward the sun, then it’s minimum in, maximum out so maybe freezing. I don’t have the datas (and the skill) to answer that question myself, but managing the thermal balance to keep the payload within it’s operating temperature range is fundamental to space missions, manned or not, since the beginning so I’d say it’s something the peoples in the space industry have been doing right for quite a time.

    • Replies: @Alberta Vince
  49. Garliv says:
    @Dr. Charles Fhandrich

    There is a sensible reason why Soviets would just ignore Moon Landing fakery. If the Soviets had even tried to dispute moon landing, the American press and global press would have portrayed them as “sore losers.” Indeed given that the whole charade had choreographically presented as competition between US (the holy one) and the USSR (the evil one) no one in the West would have believed Soviets. It is same today; No matter what evidence Russians may produce, anything contrary to US official storyline would be demeaned, ignored and presented as work incompetent Russians trying to upstage good guys. So Soviet silence is understandable. Why bother if US wants to lie to its followers? After all it’s a harmless ego-trip lie and not one leading to war or harming Soviets/Russians. Just as it would not make sense for Russian government agency (or any foreign government agency) to publicly doubt 9/11 US official narrative.

    And especially during Cold War period it would have made no strategic sense to challenge US on moon landing while the two superpowers had a basketful of other important issues to contend with.

    After keenly following moon landing debate, am persuaded it never happened. Nasa lied as they continue to lie on other issues (which reminds that right NOW they flying helicopter in Mars and have clear videos to prove it!) It is also understandable (if lying can be understood) that they had to lie due to geopolitical factors and domestic ones.

  50. Garliv says:

    What’s your source? CNN? You really believe that?

  51. Garliv says:

    About Apollo cameras and photos all those are dealt with in this three-part documentary. Pretty solid presentation and analysis.

  52. @Erebus

    Thank you.

    I offer more historical context in my Comment #13 on the Open Thread #5.

  53. @dimples

    Thank you.

    The stakes were high enough that once on station, maximum effort would be exerted to suck up every morsel and crumb on the ocean floor.

  54. Flat Earth believers who are persuaded on the basis of Bible verses regarding four corners of the Earth and such are stuck in obeisance to authority. The “vaccine hesitant” (more probably those adamantly rejecting vaccines) are dismissive of the “authority” of the billionaires that own the major media and the medical industrial complex.

    * When young people are dying from vaccines who had ZERO risk from covid,
    * and untold numbers of vaccinated are suffering with palsy, paralysis, blood clots, debilitating headaches, etc, and more vaccine injuries can emerge over time with autoimmune ailments, including sterility
    * while the average age of death for those alleged to have died of covid is 80,
    * and those with covid on their death certificates were plagued with degenerative illnesses (94%) – some were already on hospice,
    * and nursing home deaths listed as covid had no autopsies, and neglect is evident
    * and those who were most vulnerable to covid had Vitamin D deficiency (90%), or were obese (80%)
    * and two safe, effective, inexpensive medications, Ivermectin and HCQ + zinc, that serve both as cures for covid and prophylactic against it were blocked from usage by treacherous authorities so as to better market vaccines
    * for a disease with a 99.8% recovery rate (even using the bogus reported numbers dead of covid)

    * and with Bill Gates projecting his profits from vaccines to exceed $200 billion (with aspirations of greater profits from running the database for vaccine passports) after he’s invested in 7 pharaceutical companies’ vaccine development
    * and vaccine promotion (and pressure) by buying into media outlets and universities,
    * and his association with blackmail specialist Jeffrey Epstein,
    the reasons to reject authority and the vaccines they promote is profound.

  55. utu says:

    1968 Soviet Hoax of circumlunar flight.

    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.[35][36] 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.”[37]

    Popovich would later recall: “When we realized we would never make it to the moon, we decided to engage in a little bit of hooliganism. We asked our engineers to link the on-the-probe receiver to the transmitter with a jumper wire. Moon flight missions were then controlled from a command centre in Yevpatoria, in the Crimea. When the probe was on its path round the Moon, I was at the center. So I took the mike and said: “The flight is proceeding according to normal; we’re approaching the surface…” Seconds later my report – as if from outer space – was received on Earth, including [by] the Americans. The U.S. space advisor Frank Borman got a phone call from President Nixon [actually Johnson], who asked: “Why is Popovich reporting from the moon?” My joke caused real turmoil. In about a month’s time. Frank came to the USSR, and I was instructed to meet him at the airport. Hardly had he walked out of his plane when he shook his fist at me and said: “Hey, you, space hooligan!”

    One problem with Popovich story is that when Zone-5 was flying the Soviets did not know that they lost their race yet so perhaps it was not a prank. There are more details and references to the sources in Jarrah White articles at 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.

    I think that VAB radiation issue is a wrong tree to bark at for the hoaxers. Possibly even a red herring (Sunstein’s cognitive infiltration). Doing a circumlunar flight with humans was possible. If the Moon landing was faked it was not done when astronauts on the Earth orbit because it could have been easily verified by Soviets. If the faking was done it must have occurred on the Moon orbit. Nobody could verify by remote means that landing with men did not take place. But the presence of a space vehicle on the Moon orbit was necessary.

    • Agree: Garliv
    • Replies: @Garliv
  56. Rdm says:

    Your comment shows the ignorance of the subject at hand.

    Why do you think the belt was called Van Allen Belt?

    The radiation was measured by 3 separate spacecrafts. Any person who are exposed to tiny dose of radiation develop some kinds of symptoms and they don’t last long. Ask anyone living close by Chernobyl.

    But for 3 stooges, they live upto 90 years old.

    Look at here. The entire speech, no “moon” word at all, but blabbering about. But shows you the middle finger to those who hamstrung him for his entire life.

  57. anon[301] • Disclaimer says:

    Suppose you are a person coming out of a spacecraft sent to the moon.What is the most outstanding object you’ll see? Well,my guess it’s the Sun,relentlessly shining on your head,with no atmosphere to dampen its brightness.So did the astronauts not take even one single photograph of that shiny object?If they did,why does Nasa not show it to us?

    The same question one could ask about the starry firmament visible from the moon at the same time you’d see the very bright sun.Why are there no pictures of the Milky Way,Orion,the Pleiades,or the MagalhaesClouds ,whose view would be so astonishing any photographer would instantly want to take a picture of them?

    • Replies: @Voltara
  58. Rdm says:
    @Ultrafart the Brave

    There are many steps where you can fake it and later salvageable. For moon landing, the audacity to throw all science under the bus was too much to salvage. That’s why it’s been 70 years and nothing happens.

  59. Rdm says:

    There was a crane lifting up the ascent module.

    What’s also funny was how could the camera follow the trajectory of the moving module?

  60. Sparkon says:

    Retroreflectors left on the moon surface are still used for laser ranging today, and now we even have recent pictures of the landing sites showing the descent stages left on the surface, various experiment packages, moon rover tracks and the like…

    Reflectors aren’t necessary to bounce laser beams off the Moon. Scientists from MIT did it in 1962, well before the Apollo program even got off the ground.

    Did you know that a laser beam spreads out to about 4 miles in diameter by the time it gets to the Moon? The reflectors return only 1 photon out of every 1017 that hit the reflector.

    Please seem my previous comment on this matter here:

  61. the real question is, what will the Moon hoax people say when the Mars missions get underway in earnest? i suppose those will be fake too.

    100 years from now there won’t be any Moon hoax people anymore, because they will have all died a while ago, when Mars missions are common, and literally thousands of people have been to Mars and back, let alone a million Moon tourists. then again, the Flat Earthers are still here.

    also do we divide Moon hoax people into separate groups? like the ones who think no spacecraft have ever left Earth and landed on other planets? versus the ones who accept that could happen but they don’t accept humans ever left Earth and landed somewhere else. are those Mars rovers landing on Mars or not? when China starts landing lots of stuff on different planets, is that happening or not? did the Soviets land on the Moon and Venus and Mars or not?

    i wonder if there were “New World deniers” in Europe 400 years ago who refused to believe there were whole other continents over there that weren’t India and China but something completely new.

    • Replies: @Rdm
  62. TG says:
    @Joe Paluka

    Interesting point.

    My take: the elites simply believe that they can live in their private estates and gated palaces and private jets and private jet terminals and private islands etc. and that all this bad stuff just won’t affect them. And perhaps they are correct.

    Mexico has horrible crime problems, in places it is close to being a “failed state,” but thanks to all of that lovely cheap labor (wages now lower than China!), the Mexican economy has created a massive number of billionaires and if you are super-rich in Mexico, life can be very, very good.

    Of course, if it gets corrupt and unstable enough someday it will all come crashing down, but “someday” could yet be a long way off, and meanwhile today if you are a billionaire things are going great. And if it does fall apart, hey, they can just sail away with their loot in their mega-yachts…

  63. Gordian Knot Time again,

    In all sincerity can someone convince people like me how six successful moon landings took place in succession where the slightest human, material or mechanical slip up (let alone mini meteorites) could have in an instant by the tragic loss of the mission/lives negated the total public relations victory because it would have been the final one resulting in the inevitable decade of committees of inquiry etc…

    In plain English, given the times (JFK, RFK, MLK Vietnam, Cold War) we know they needed a huge pro USA zeitgeist but why would the USA repeat highly disaster prone missions for the purpose of golfing or riding dune buggies around unless it was in a fail-safe studio? One fuck-up in an arena of 150 million possible fuck ups isn’t good odds and that is for only one mission.

    In the more recent sphere there were the shuttle missions that I don’t think that anyone denies. They are sub-orbital which to my understanding is 200-400 miles above earth. They took off and flew around and landed. Big Whoop. Oh, and a couple of them blew up and killed everyone aboard.

    So here is where a hillbilly like me gets confused. The shuttles take off, circle around in the atmosphere and land. Bravo!. Fantastic technology! But, but, but in slide rule technology days they done beat the 200 mile barrier by 240,000+ miles, decoupled, landed, drove around in dune buggies like back home in Cali, took some pics, rode up to the mother ship and went home unscathed. Six times, no failures (except for the dramatic Tom hanks episode which I believe is clever propaganda optics right around the time that ordinary people were saying ‘wait a minute..”

    So, to all the brilliant gas scientists that end up in these discussions is the slide ruler superior to the super computer?


  64. Garliv says:

    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.

    Excellent point.

  65. Rdm says:
    @prime noticer

    There are two factions or two imaginary factions that moon hoax debunkers are trying to create and make the entire legitimate scientific investigation as conspiracy nitwits.

    Just because people don’t believe in moon landing doesn’t mean they don’t believe in low earth orbits, sending probes to moon or Mars. It’s a separate issue. Granted, there are people who just throw everything under the bus and claim Mars rover is also faked. Nope it’s not. Sending probes and sending men to Moon and returning back 6 times successfully at FIRST TRY is, well, as different as the Sun and the Moon.

    If you look at the success of six “moon landing” and nothing happened after 60 years, even given the benefit of the doubt to such a prolonged hiatus due to many probable circumstances, you won’t find it believable that it never happens afterwards.

    I’ll give you one example.

    Homo sapiens species have been exploring every corner of the planet Earth and occupy every inhabitable space. In that instance, Whites in general occupy every land they could muster by colonization.

    You now have the formula to send men to the other planetary body successfully. The formula worked like every single time. You could also manage to squeeze that vehicle at your convenience and explore the planet Moon. After six time, you thought that “Enough, nothing to explore” and completely stopped the moon endeavor but send probes to Mars.

    It’s like you’ve been claiming you fucked Marilyn Monroe physically six times once. But you felt like it’s enough. Now I see you jerking off to Caitlyn Jenner. No amount of logic can convince you that behavior.

    The only explanation is You have NEVER fucked Marilyn Monroe once.

    • LOL: profnasty
  66. @Alfa158

    Yeah, the liftoff in this scene looks somewhat plausible all right. It’s not the same video I was referring to however … but the one I recall seeing is no longer available on Youtube due to “violation of policy” censorships.

    But even this one … doesn’t correctly display the acceleration. If you look at shuttle launches, you’ll see that the exhaust from the engine blows out vociferously whilst the payload is standing nearly still. This goes on for a second or two as the load gradually starts to rise and “speed up” more and more.

    And that’s because acceleration is exponential. The speed doubles every second.

    In the Apollo 17 LEM launch seen in this video, the module leaves immediately and fast enough that we don’t even get to see the background through the exhaust “plume”. Even IF the flame was perfectly clear, the introduction of a foreign substance into the vacuum of space would create refraction of light bending. This is unavoidable. Every substance has its own unique refractive index and this changes with temperature as well. What we SHOULD have seen in this video is a shimmering of the background as it appears through the stream of hot gas being blown out by the LEM engine.

    Then there’s the “jerking” of the object, up and down on the left side near the end of the video. What’s going on to cause that? Can you explain it?

    And finally, if you compare this video with the one for Apollo 16 … why is there a difference in space “light”? A-16 looks as though it were shot on a very misty morning or during a forest fire on the moon! Or MAYBE … it’s accidentally showing the EXHAUST of the module as it’s leaving?!?

    You see the discrepancy there? These two ascents should have looked pretty much the same … but they CHANGED something because they realized that they didn’t get it right the first time.

  67. @Stephane

    You’re quite right … it all “depends” all right!~

    I embarked on a fairly involved experiment about a year ago to “prove” that CO2 in the atmosphere actually causes COOLING (if anything at all). I made a little styrofoam “house” which contained an electronic thermometer sensor hanging from one wall and topped with a sandwich roof of CO2 gas trapped between 2 layers of clear plastic film. I had a second identical house with a single film of saran wrap for its roof and a sensor hung inside … and then I hung a third sensor on the outside of a container, very close to the two styrofoam houses to read the outside temperature.

    I put these all side by side in a sheltered spot on my deck and then -inside of my house- I lined up the 3 sensor monitors in my work room on a table with a jig … which were then monitored 24/7 with a smart phone camera watching the sensors … at a rate of one frame per second or so. From the camera pictures I then created graphs with 3 color lines showing the temps in each container vs. outside … every 1/2 hour or so.

    I sort of proved my hypothesis but at the same time, it wasn’t ALWAYS true that the container with the CO2 roof was consistently cooler at night than the container with just a saran wrap top.

    In the daylight on the other hand, it WAS consistently true that the CO2 roofed container got MUCH warmer inside than the other two containers.

    So I COULD conclude that CO2 essentially attracts heat by day … but I couldn’t get that proof at night because the CO2 topped container should ALWAYS have been colder at night than the other 2. Often this WAS the case but it depended on cloud cover and air humidity too.

    Then my monitors started going weird and tracking the wrong sensors and I finally gave up in frustration since I couldn’t find a clear answer to my queries.

    But one thing I DID discover from my experiment and it still leaves me a bit stunned. That was the “tunnel effect”.

    These boxes weren’t very deep but they faced straight up to the sky. They were 1″ styrofoam walls with a 1″ styrofoam base and a very thin saran wrap membrane on top of one … with the other having a CO2 sandwich roof.

    Believe it or not … the temperature INSIDE of these containers was often several degrees BELOW the ambient temperature outside… just an inch away! That’s at night of course. Often the CO2 topped container would be colder inside than the plain saranwrap topped container … but not ALWAYS however. And this shot down my hypothesis rather badly. I can’t explain why the results weren’t consistent.

    Well anyway, the experiment seemed to prove or confirm that heat is definitely lost by infrared radiation into space and that if you isolate a container from surrounding air and humidity … it will lose heat faster by IR than it’s surroundings.

    You can actually experience this in nature as well … in the autumn, if/when riding a bicycle through hollows in the late afternoon/evening when it’s extremely calm without wind. The hollows will be several degrees colder as you descend into them. They’re losing heat directly into space by IR radiation and not being influenced by descending wind currents.

    But all of the above is just an “introduction” to my main dilemma or puzzle and that is …

    Just how FAST does heat leave an object by IR radiation? What kind of equation do we have to calculate it?

    In electricity, gas and liquid flows for instance, we have the expression of: flow quantity equals the pressure exerted on the medium … divided by the resistance or restriction through which the flow must go .

    There is always a starting pressure and a finishing pressure. With a car battery for example, you have a difference of 12 volts between the two posts. Electricity is pushed from the negative post through restrictions and arrives at the positive post with “0″ volts of push left.

    How does one calculate the pressure difference between space and earth? Is it absolute 0 degrees Kelvin plus 273 degrees K plus whatever it happens to be in Celsius degrees on earth?

    Ok, then what is the resistance factor? And … if heat is being transported to space, how can it STAY at absolute 0 and never warm up any?!~

    Why doesn’t the earth lose all of its heat IMMEDIATELY as soon as the sun goes down? What’s the mitigating factor?

    Does heat -like other fluids or gases- start from an energized source and then flow to a lower and lower state until it finally arrives back at the opposite side of the original generator with 0 potential left?

    If so, then we could look at greenhouse gases as CONDUCTORS of heat … (sort of like aluminum and copper are good conductors of electricity). And if that happens to be true, then greenhouse gases actually cause cooling because they draw heat FROM the earth in order to warm themselves … right?

    • Thanks: profnasty
  68. @Garliv

    Alright, even if one stretches the imagination and believes Russian spies were not an issue, there are all kinds of satellite images taken of the Apollo landings, including the first, Apollo 11, by several nations satellites years later. Some of the clearest coming from Japan. The evidence is overwhelming and much of the doubt was due to the brilliant director Stanley Kubrick’s cooperation on propagandizing the landings with clearer pictures than could be taken at the time on the moon..

    • Replies: @Rdm
    , @Rdm
  69. @Charles

    There were indeed 5771 photographs taken during the course of the 6 Apollo landings on the moon.
    Total time spent on the lunar surface over these 6 missions was 4834 minutes.
    All astronauts therefore took a photo every 50.3 seconds, in addition to all other activities.
    Make of that what you will.

  70. Rdm says:
    @Dr. Charles Fhandrich

    You are wrong. Japan sent the orbiter (or probe that they used to call at the time) but their resolution was still poor to detect the Apollo landing. LEM itself measures 7 x 5 x 10 (m^3). Their SELENE probe resolution is 30 m/pixel. All they could share was a potential landing site of Apollo 11. Another probe that could even lower to 100km above the lunar surface and would capture the higher resolution images at 10m/pixel is LUNAR-A probe. The project was postponed several times until JAXA finally terminated the project in 2009.

    • Replies: @Dr. Charles Fhandrich
  71. Rdm says:
    @Dr. Charles Fhandrich

    Setting aside the Kubrick’s films, we can study all the evidence available to us from a scientific point of view. Before we get to the probe images, I’d like to first get into the LEM images available to us.

    1. There have been many hoaxers and debunkers exchanging their theories on LEM plume and lack thereof. Since the only available images on the moon surface at the time was from NASA, we used the earthly logics, i.e., gravity and thruster force. After moon rovers sent by China, there’s hardly been any hoaxers or debunkers dig into the aspect. Since we now have evidence from two separate entities, we can at least compare.

    2. Apollo 11 LEM weighs 15,000 kg (descent and ascent modules) and has one engine that can generate 45 kN reverse thrust during descent. We’re often bombarded with this image: clean lander legs, no crater underneath and no dust. Aside from all the theories, we have nothing to compare to. Come in China lunar rovers, we now have at least something to dig into. China has already sent two lunar rovers, Yutu (or Yutu-1) and Yutu-2 from Chang’e 3 (CE3) and Chang’e 4 (CE4) respectively.

    3. CE3 weighs only 3800 kg (lander and rover) compared to 15,000 kg of LEM Eagle. It makes sense considering there’s no ascent module to return back to Earth. CE3 lander has 8 thrusters, two on each side with variable thrust. Each thruster can generate 130 N, making it the total reverse thrust of ~ 1200 N, compared to 45 kN of Eagle.


    As we can see here, two of the CE3 legs were deep into the lunar surface although CE3 weight was 4 fold lower than the Eagle’s. The other two legs were in the dark. Whether or not there should be a crater, judge yourself with the 45 kN and 1 kN thrusters. CE3 reverse thrust was very weak compared to Eagle. So this theory is still up to explore.

    CE4 images taken by its rover also shows the deep dent by the lander leg on lunar surface.

    Whether or not there should be dust on the lander legs, since there’s no comparable images from CE3 and CE4, we are left to wonder. Since yutu rovers navigate a bit far from their landers, it’s difficult to check dust on those legs. However, since China recently sent their CE5 whose mission is to collect lunar rocks, we can check the theory again.

    This CE5 panorama image by itself shows that the lander leg was deep pocketed into the surface. The further the leg dug into the surface, the more mess on top of the leg. This is the Apollo 14 lander legs, clean, no dent, no mess on top. Anyway, this is the best available comparison we can make at this point.

    You can claim that the landing sites where Apollo and CE3 and CE4 landed would be different. The geological compositions of different landing sites would make the lunar surface dust into a serious question. Yes, they are indeed different. This would be in another thread.

  72. Rdm says:

    Apollo landed on the nearest side of the Moon and CE3 and 4 landed on the far side, which requires an extra relay station at L2 (Lagrange point) to communicate with those landers for China’s mission. The relay station was launched in CE2 mission.

    Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter [LRO] and Apollo

    The only lunar probe that could give the highest resolution so far has been LRO. In 2011, NASA released the Apollo landing sites captured by LRO. They even showed the moon buggy tracks left on the moon surface and all the bootprints clearly seen in the images here. Also observe that there are many tiny specks with bright spot here and there.

    Let’s forget all the hoaxers here for a moment. Just a genuine curiosity, let’s check here.

    LRO is 31 miles (48 km) above the Moon. Its resolution can range from 1m/pixel to 75m/pixel depending on the angle and cameras used. Since the resolution is still poor, most of the time, they rely on the shadows of the object. Once the shadow extends beyond the height of the LEM (5.5m), they hope that the LRO will pick up the shadow more than one pixel.

    LRO images clearly show that there is a lander, moon buggy tracks and boot prints stretching so far up to 200 m on lunar surface. This is the lunar surface that we have never seen the Apollo LEM with average weight of ~ 15,000 kg and 45 kN thrust never making a dent and crater on surface. However we now have the privilege of seeing the 25 lb [160 lb / 6 = ~ 25 lb] astronaut boot prints and moon buggy [460 lb /6 = ~ 77 lb] from 48 km orbit above.

    LRO and Yutu rover

    Here is the image of yutu-2 rover by LRO. Scroll down a bit and you’d see gif where LRO tracked every movement of the rover up to 400m. Yutu-2 rover weighs 310 lb and would be ~ 50 lb on the moon, more than any of the astronauts’, but barely make the track prints. Besides, we have seen from CE3 and CE4 images that even with their low weights and reverse thrust, their landers legs were deep into the lunar surface.

    Apollo = heavy weights, powerful thrust, no dent, no crater by lander legs, but visible foot prints from 48 km above.
    CE3, 4 = relative weight, weak thrust, deep dent, but no visible rover track from the same 48 km above.

    This is all we can gather from moon landers. Now let’s turn our head to whether or not 0.25 m width of astronaut boot prints (left and right leg gap), 2m width of a moon buggy will be visible from any camera from 48 km above.

    This is 48 km above the planet earth, looking at the 6m width of the Great Wall of China. in Google Earth.

    Can you see the Great Wall?

    If not, go around the globe, Sahara desert, and zoom into 48km and check if you can see any visible tracks by human foot prints.

    As time passes, we’d see more and more clarity on this.

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
  73. @Rdm

    Not true. There are crystal clear high resolution pictures of several landing sites that have been taken by several nations now since technology has improved. Furthermore, the Director of the Saturn Five rocket technology and thus the founder of NASA, Dr. Werner Von Braun, has all of his notes and writings posted now on the internet, showing what companies through the years, beginning from 1960 and right through 1969 he made contracts with for the necessary equipment the mission required. These notes are detailed and all show the progress being made. The evidence for the moon landings is overwhelming.

    • Replies: @Rdm
    , @Voltara
  74. Rdm says:
    @Dr. Charles Fhandrich

    I’m sure you are a strong proponent of the moon landing. Even if I suggest some strong evidence or provide a book that thoroughly studied moon landing from entirely scientific point of view, you would still think it’s all the hoaxers wet dreaming.

    Judge by your reply, it’s almost like a lazy reply without providing enough critique. There’s no international probes that show the higher resolution of Apollo landing sites except LRO. I’d repeat, there is NO international probe that shows 1m/pixel of Apollo landing sites except NASA LRO.

    Still don’t get it? Let me repeat that. There’s no International Probes that go to Apollo Landing sites and capture the images at 48 km above the lunar surface. It’s only NASA LRO.

    All third party evidence have been sonar detection, lunar surface cartography, and all without high resolution images. This shows you that you are a lazy proponent of the subject without providing strong science.

    Anyway, I’m done.

  75. Voltara says:

    Dave McGowan wrote the most entertaining and informative analysis of the moon landings.

    But if you are a believer, beware. It could open the floodgates of doubt and disbelief

    • Thanks: Alberta Vince
    • Replies: @Rdm
  76. Voltara says:


    The other strange omission is none of the twelve men who are alleged to have walked on the moon ever attempted to see how high they could jump. Calculations are that even with all the gear they carried a human male of normal strength could have jumped 8-10 feet high.

    Isn’t this the first thing the little boy in every man would attempt? “Low gravity, cool…. let’s see how high I can jump.”

    But it never happened. Not once.

    Instead if you speed up the video of the alleged moon walks the astronauts look exactly like they are hopping about in earth gravity hanging from a wire.

  77. Voltara says:
    @Dr. Charles Fhandrich

    Sorry, but what you claim is untrue. There is not one single “crystal clear” image of the alleged landing sites. The images which purport to show the landing sites could show anything. If you could post a link to these “crystal clear” images I would be grateful.

    Von Braun’s original plan for a moon landing required 2 x rockets, each approximately the size of the empire state building. Most of his team were shocked when the final plans for Apollo technology were unveiled.

    I will admit that I have not read Von Braun’s notes. I’m not sure that they would prove anything, in any case. However NASA themselves have apparently “lost” almost every video tape, blueprint and piece of telemetry data from Mankind’s alleged greatest achievement.

    It’s been over 50 years now since the alleged moon landings. In 1969 they had not invented the pocket calculator. Yet no modern technology has been able to duplicate a fraction of what was alleged to be achieved by Apollo. At last count there have been four “back to the moon” programs, all of which have been quietly shelved having gone nowhere after being launched with great fanfare.

    • Replies: @Iris
  78. Rdm says:

    I thoroughly enjoyed Dave’s take on the subject. I would say that Dave is the first one that simply take me on to this journey of science on moon a couple of years back. If he found something contradictory to his theory and his didn’t hold up, he took it back and came forward clean. He didn’t dive too much into science but just with simple logics.

    After he passed away, his daughter took care of his writings and we are privileged to read up such a brilliant observation to this day. Sadly he couldn’t write up on China’s moon rovers and provide another argument.

    Among all the truth, this is by far the best out there. No emotion, no melodrama, just straight facts and science. It also provides tons of images, inconsistency, von Braun’s impossible mission, NASA training LEM blowing up constantly with Neil pressing eject seat in the training.

  79. Iris says:

    I will admit that I have not read Von Braun’s notes. I’m not sure that they would prove anything, in any case

    The two articles in the link below re a good and convincing refutation that the Apollo Saturn V launcher could neither have achieved the required velocity, nor carried the required payload to ensure successful missions to the Moon and back.

    It is a serious thing to have an equipment design/technology being challenged by sound engineering arguments. NASA choses to ignore these questions, or to state that the blueprints for the Saturn engine were lost !!!!

    Why and how could a space agency abandon a rocket design that allegedly outperformed any competitor’s?

    • Replies: @Erebus
  80. Erebus says:

    It is a serious thing to have an equipment design/technology being challenged by sound engineering arguments.

    Every single aspect and flight stage of Apollo’s missions, from blast-off to re-entry and even splashdown are easily challenged by sound engineering arguments. No engineering-intensive program would survive even 1% of the challenges that could be brought against Apollo, so the notion that it survived 100% of them and successfully achieved its nominal goals is simply soft-headed.

    Apollo required that hosts of “deal-breaker” science and engineering problems be solved, but no satisfactory scientific or engineering solutions to any of them have been made available.

    It being impossible to argue positively that the moon landings were real, the most interesting questions around Apollo now revolve not about the “What?” & “How?” of scientific/engineering accomplishment, but about “Why?” & “How?” such elaborate hoaxes are perpetrated and maintained in the face of science and common sense.

    The answers to those questions lie in the era’s political history, of which we know only what we’ve been allowed to know. Unfortunately, all we know about that is that it maps rather poorly against what really happened.

  81. @dimples

    I assume that somebody like Musk would have all the data showing the Van Allen Belt is a deadly barrier to interplanetary travel.

    One should assume that Elon Musk and / or his engineers would have all the relevant information at their fingertips, including whatever is known about the Van Allen radiation belt.

    However, the Van Allen belt is probably not the pivotal issue constraining the prospect of interplanetary travel. The risk associated with the Van Allen belt is inversely related to the time required to transit it. Rather, the deep space radiation pervading the interplanetary void, from both the Sun and the cosmic background, is likely to be more of a problem.

    Given sufficient time and resources, all these challenges can be overcome. Perhaps Elon Musk’s teams have already developed effective and viable radiation shielding technology for a space-borne human habitat.

    Time will tell.

    • Replies: @profnasty
  82. @Charles

    One Oxford physics professor who claimed was a believer and later changed his mind when he noticed that the Kodak camera the astronauts were using was the same camera he had; he put the camera in the void and noticed that the film just exploded. Well, if that is true then we have a smoking gun.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  83. profnasty says:

    Critically speaking; at Peenemunde, under Werner VonBraun, most of the workers who died were hillbillies.

  84. profnasty says:
    @Ultrafart the Brave

    I’m 150 miles from Canaveral. When the shuttles returned, the sound barrier shock sounded as if a bowling ball was dropped on the roof. Every time.//Wouldn’t it be easier to get to the moon from Earth orbit? Radiation? I worked hospital construction. The X-ray room walls had 1/16″ lead lining. All you’d need is enough to protect the ‘nauts.
    Damifino why NASA hasn’t gone there for sure.
    Maybe there’s no good reason to go?

    • Replies: @Erebus
    , @Alberta Vince
  85. Erebus says:

    The X-ray room walls had 1/16″ lead lining. All you’d need is enough to protect the ‘nauts.

    Having sent probes all the way to the moon and so actually having the data, the Soviets calculated that they’d need >1m of lead lining to protect their cosmonauts thru & beyond the van Allen belts. That or invent a way to create an artificial “van Allen belt” around the spacecraft.

    The Americans, not having sent anything anywhere weren’t hampered by such complexities and didn’t give it a 2nd thought if they thought of it at all. They got lucky 9 times in a row, so maybe they were onto something.

    Damifino why NASA hasn’t gone there for sure.

    Simple. Giants walked the earth in those days and today’s multi-culti, multi-gender ‘nauts and engineers lack the can-do American spirit that drove their predecessors to accomplish the physically impossible as a matter of daily routine.

    • Agree: Ultrafart the Brave
  86. @orchardist

    – the CIA was able to recover enough information to force the Soviet Union into ‘dissolving’ itself peacefully – which it did in December 1991

    And the CIA was the last to know when the USSR collapsed. That doesn’t really fit with your theory.

  87. @profnasty

    When the shuttles returned, the sound barrier shock sounded as if a bowling ball was dropped on the roof. Every time.

    I know “whereof you speak”!~

    By 1958, Canada had developed the world’s fastest interceptor plane -the AVRO ARROW- and was about ready to go into full production. The Avro corporation had already sucked billions of dollars from taxpayers’ pockets through the auspices of a long Liberal government ‘dynasty’ but then in 1957 the Conservative party won a minority government … which fell in 1958 and a new election swept the Conservatives in with a high majority margin of victory.

    The new Prime Minister -the right disgraceful John Diefenbaker- almost immediately axed the Avro Arrow project and not only the project but … had all the existing planes cut into bits as well … and sent out for scrap. Not even a facsimile of this magnificent airplane remains to be seen by posterity today.

    It was a dark day for all the Avro Arrow employees as they were instantly put out of work and many of them left Canada and went over to England to develop the Anglo-French supersonic passenger plane, known as the Concord. Many of the rest went to the U.S. and joined NASA to build the eventual space shuttle.

    Canada then BOUGHT new interceptor planes from the McDonnell corporation -the F101 “voodoo” (known as CF101 in Canada) to replace the anticipated Avro Arrow … go figger.

    Well, I guess that flying supersonic was probably pretty exciting to the air force pilots at the time and they tried to do it whenever they could get away with it?

    Anyway, my family lived in north central Saskatchewan … which may have seemed “remote” enough for these pilots to deem us as being ‘not really there’ … and they began to fly over us from Moose Jaw to Cold Lake base in Northern Alberta … at supersonic speed!

    The first time I experienced it was when I was working a field with a John Deere D and suddenly I heard this horrible explosion and thought the engine had suddenly destroyed itself. It’s bad enough when you KNOW it’s going to come but when it comes right out of the blue with absolutely no warning, it’s almost enough to scare the s**t out of you! My cousin had traded tractors with his neighbor because he was doing some light duty raking and the neighbor was doing some heavier field work. The small tractor was a Case VA and the bigger one was a John Deere 60. Both of them panicked when they couldn’t find their clutches! (Case had a foot clutch and John Deere had a hand clutch.)

    After the first time we all kept an eye out to the sky. Often you’d see them as 2 shiny dots in the distance … fast growing in size. They had a strange attitude of high nose, low tail. They made no sound whatsoever until they passed directly overhead and then WHAMMM … the shock wave would hit the ground. After the first time, the shock value was gone and it only brought a smile to my face thereafter.

    Wouldn’t it be easier to get to the moon from Earth orbit?

    I think a lot of people have the misconception that when astronauts start floating around in their cabins, the space vehicle has “escaped from the earth’s gravity”.

    This is entirely untrue. Even when spacecraft manage to get to the moon … they’re still within the earth’s gravitational field because, after all, the moon ITSELF is a satellite of the earth … held to its own orbit by the earth’s gravity!

    The point at which passengers go weightless is when the “centrifugal force” of the craft’s orbital velocity acting against the earth’s gravity … becomes the SAME as gravity at that distance and speed.

    It has been explained in this manner for simplicity.

    You know that when you shoot a gun, the bullet FALLS from the barrel to the ground at the same speed as if you simply dropped it from your fingers at the same height. But, we know that the earth is a round ball and that if we could accelerate that bullet to a high enough velocity, coming out of the barrel, the rate of dropping could become the same as the distance the round earth drops out from under the bullet too!

    This is what happens when a projectile is accelerated to a high enough speed that its falling to earth is matched by the roundness of the earth falling away below the projectile. This is when an orbital velocity is achieved and the projectile with everything in it becomes essentially “weightless”. The two forces simply cancel each other but by no means has a real escape from gravity been achieved.

    In order to get to the moon (or into deep space) then … a whole lot MORE energy is needed to increase the projectile velocity so that it keeps going farther and farther away from the earth while still staying in an orbital loop. The further away from earth the orbital loop is, the faster it must travel in order to maintain the same angular velocity.

    The bottom line then is that TODAY we’re only able to sustain life and living conditions in the space station which is about 250 miles above the surface of the earth.

    The distance from earth’s center to the surface is 3950 miles. Add 250 miles to that and you get 4200 miles. That’s almost no difference in distance and very little in gravitational pull difference.

    So the tiny advantage of less weight in space is grossly offset by the logistics required to transport materials to the space station to assemble that and then blast off from there.

    The moon would be a better bet … providing it were possible to land people there and build a colony etc. because then stuff could be stock piled and assembled much more like we now do it on earth.

  88. @Rdm

    Great analysis. Genuine detective work.

    Thank you.

    • Thanks: Rdm
  89. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @Joe Levantine

    It was a Hasselblad

  90. Ererr says:

    Shouldn’t the simplest question be…. “Who’s recording that footage as they’re leaving?”

    What a joke.

  91. @Anon

    As I said in the previous comment:

    “…religious exemptions (for students) are a state by state thing. 45 states allow them, 5 don’t.

    I have no special expertise on which vaccines are better/worse than others. I have avoided vaccines citing religious exemptions for several decades. Here is a religious ruling that might help you:

  92. @Rdm

    Added to which, if I recall correctly Dave used lots information/tells gleaned from NASA’s own website to support his arguments. That shut down many a gas scientist’s argumentation right there.

    Speaking of tells, I kind of remember Bonzo Bush making a rah rah speech about returning to the Moon, going to Mars and perhaps setting up a launching type set up on the Moon to facilitate a subsequent trip to Mars.

    Now that probably sounds good to him and probably most Americans but to anyone capable of even the slightest critical thinking that would mean going to a site 245,000 miles away multiple times (and coming back) to place a project into inconceivably difficult physical circumstances to make it easier to go a further 33 million miles.

    And I believe that NASA also made a statement after that on MSM in response to a query about a possible timeline on returning to the Moon by saying that it would take them 15 years to be able to design and manufacture a safe space-suit.

    Read up on Mencken and his take on the American public. It seems that it was always thus.


    • Agree: Rdm
  93. Voltara says:

    Phil Plait’s “Bad Astronomy” site coverage of the alleged moon landings is largely disinformation, and not very good disinformation at that. NASA leaves it to people like him to defend their claims rather than sink deeper into the quicksand by telling more lies to defend themselves.

    And yes, the Astronauts are alleged to have taken thousands of photos, however NASA has also released what they claim are complete “rolls” of shots, so your implication that there are thousands of rejected pics which were poorly framed, focussed and exposed is completely untrue.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply -

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS